more heterogeneous the community of an online chat channel, the more chances the channel has to survive over time. This has been concluded in a new joint study carried out by researchers of the University of Haifa and the New Jersey Institute of Technology. “This study has shown that an essentially social characteristic significantly influences the survival chances of an online community,” says Dr. Daphne Raban of the University of Haifa who took part in the study.

The study, headed by Dr. Quentin Jones of the New Jersey Institute of Technology with Dr. Mihai Moldovan of NJIT and Dr. Raban, aimed to examine what factors could best predict the chances of an online community to survive over time. Researchers have previously claimed that there are too many variables influencing the survival or demise of such channels and that there is therefore no way of testing it, and earlier studies have primarily focused on group size and activity.

The current study included an analysis of social characteristics, such as the group’s homogeneity and heterogeneity. A group is considered homogeneous when its member turnover is small – namely, when the members who established the group are still the main members after some time. A group is considered heterogeneous when it has turnover and new members are continuously joining it.

A sample 282 chat channels all “born” on the same month was used for survival analysis which explored the relationship between the overall user activity in each channel at its inception and the channel’s life expectancy. The researchers carried out the survival analysis over the course of six months after “birth”. A chat channel was considered “born” when at least three members had exchanged at least four messages in 20 minutes. It was considered “dead” when it had zero activity for four weeks.

The researchers observed the influences of variables at four points of time: two hours after “birth”; on the channel’s first day of activity; over its first week of activity; and over its first two weeks of activity.

Results show that the variable that best predicts the chances of a community to survive is its level of heterogeneity: the greater the member turnover, the higher the chances that the group will sustain itself over time.

On the other hand, the number of members and the number of actual message posters do not predict the chances of survival.

According to the current study, another reliable predictor is the number of messages that are posted between members of an online community. This number does not have much significance over the first two hours of the group’s existence, but the higher the number of messages between members over the following three time phases, the higher the chances of the community’s survival over time.

The study also revealed that if the ratio between the number of messages and the number of members in a group remains the same after two weeks of the community’s activity, the chances of “death” are higher, while an irregular ratio predicts survival. It should be noted that neither an increasing ratio of messages between members nor a decreasing ratio were found to influence the chances of survival.

“The present study shows that prediction of an online community’s survival chances cannot be based on quantitative data relating to the size of the group or even to its growth rate alone. A social predictor, on the other hand, can much better predict its chances,” concludes Dr. Raban.

Waste of Money – Study Fail

Facebook nor Twitter have a focus on chatting abilities. In fact, I do not use the Facebook or the Twitter 3rd party chatting software.

AOL, MySpace. PlanetOut and other dying or dead services have had chatting as a major element of their branding.  By the results of this study AOL should be on top.  AOL was all about chatting, it was the mother of all chatting.

This just shows you that technical studies are completely worthless.  Technology is ever changing and slowly users are moving towards simplicity, anonymous and productivity as their focus in tech uses.

Most users will be moving towards a cloud environment which will allow for social interactions, but on an more lineal level.  Collaboration, business and real family/friends connections are going to be more important than shared interests.

Chat rooms had served their purpose.  The most chat room users are:

• Sub Culture
• Health Specific Support
• Technical

The sub cultures, especially the gay/lesbian community have made chatting and online communities second to the geeks.  Before the 1990′s if you were gay/lesbian you had to move to the big city meccas to find love, friendship and support. If you didn’t move you turned online for a connection, sex and finding love – all behind a white keyboard.  As the global mankind moves towards a more intellectual understanding and acceptance gay meccas have died (read more . . .).

People can live anywhere in the world (except Vatican City, small sections of the Caribbean and Africa) including small town USA openly and honestly.  Which means that those chat rooms have served their purpose and now it is about building a local community.  It is about being part of a community, not specifically limited to a sexual preference. Barbecues are no longer limited heterosexuals– now neighborhoods are slowly filling with the rich diversity and strengthening the economic and social moral fibers.

The geeks still have a strong claim on chat rooms, but the focus has changed.  It still is about sharing information, but that has moved into dynamic information via forums and groups.  Chat rooms have been slowly converting into media commentary.   Television programs, Live podcast and radio now have simultaneously chat room commenting (good, bad and riffs) throughout the program.  Most of the chat rooms continue conversation long after the program is over.  But these are enhancing chat rooms.  These are there to further the entertainment factor whether is be a healthy debate or more information, NOT to develop a social network.

The internet has opened up a whole new meaning to medical support.  Those with any medical concern or issue can find a group online.  Although, I wonder if it is helpful and positive as we think?  I find that when I faced a serious medical issue – I turned to the online support groups.  I actually found them downers.  For every positive message there was an overwhelming responses in negative.  It became a venting session rather than a support group.  I decided to not ever turn to a medical support group online ever again.   I needed a human hug and information — not other people’s baggage. Seriously, medical issue chat rooms bad!

But through all my chatting software, updates and social networking . . . nothing beats a real-life interaction. Nothing.

The novelty of chat rooms will slowly wean away and leave users who have no desire to join the human race. The pale skin users will to continue to hide behind a keyboard and partake in virtual hugs, sex and companionship.

Please don’t let it be you.  If you have to have an online chat, do it as your local coffee shop and every once in awhile — buy someone a cup. It might be me.Similar Posts:

• Frugal Tip: NBC and NFL Will Offer Live Streaming of Super Bowl
• 02-10-2012 :: 10 Things in Tech You Need To Know
• Pandora Launches Live Concert Video Series
• European Outpace United States in Use of Technology
• BBC iPlayer Plans Charging for Archive Access

The report is titled, â’Conceptualizing and Measuring the Monetary Value of Brand Extensions: The Case of Motion Pictures.â’ It is written by Dr. Mark B. Houston of the M.J. Neeley School of Business at Texas Christian University, and Dr. Thorsten Hennig-Thurau and doctoral student Torsten Heitjans, both of Bauhaus University of Weimar in Germany. The paper will appear in a special â’Marketing Strategy Meets Wall Streetâ’ issue of the Journal of Marketing later this year.

â’We found that sequels have two advantages over original movies that are not sequels: They have higher average box office returns and are less financially risky,â’ says Dr. Houston, a professor of marketing. â’We can predict outcomes with more certainty because of the known value of the parent brand. The venture is less risky because of more precision in predicting the outcomes.â’

The new valuation technique reveals, however, that success or failure lies in the details. They examined variables such as the perceived quality of the parent movie; public awareness of the parent movie; distribution intensity; star power; continuity of the star, director, genre, and rating; and money.

The Study View

The study looked only at the first sequels of parent movies, and not at subsequent sequels. Data were gathered for all 101 first sequels released during 1998-2006 in North America. These data were compared with that from 303 non-sequels released during the same time frame that were closely matched in characteristics with the sequels.

â’We found that the new product complements the parent brand because a sequel stimulates significant new sales for the DVD of the parent film both at the theatrical release of the sequel and when the sequel is released on DVD,â’ says Dr. Houston.

He points out that the valuation model isnâ’t just about movies, it is about money. After all the study was done by marketing professionals, not involved in the creative arts.  This study will also carry over into future studies, study sequels, not limited to just motion pictures.

Four Factors

• Whether the public is aware of the parent movie
• Number of theater screens expected for opening weekend
• If the first movie was widely considered good or not
• Whether the sequel has the same star as the first film

Data Sources

• Theater revenues and numbers of screens as reported by Variety;
• Home video retail data from Nielsen VideoScan;
• Home video rental data from Adams Media Research/Home Media Retailing;
• Metacritic;
• Internet Movie Database (IMDb) Comments and Starmeter;
• Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Members;
• The Numbers

Study Fail

What the study doesn’t talk about . . .

Shirley Temple Syndrome (STS)

STS was a national infliction from the 1930 through the mid-1940′s. During the STS there was the 30′s  “The Great Depression” and the 40′s were dominated by World War II, so people did what they could to make their lives happy — they went to the movies.   Movies used to be cheap.  People didn’t want to see sickness, war movies or depressed dramas.  They wanted lively fun and enthusiastic movies.  STS wasn’t so much about content, they wanted to come out of the movies with a smile and skip in their shoeless steps.

STS is alive and well in the United States. War in Iraq, money tight, war in Afghanistan, ever changing gas prices, unemployment rate growing, and disenfranchised families. The toe tapping and giggles of Temple have been replaced with special unrealistic effects, story lines and superheros.  The majority of movie goers are not adults, senior citizens . . . it is gullible, over commercialized over stimulated kids.  They see the commercials of flying rockets, exploding trucks, the ever quest to loose virginity or an actor in a suit that can do un-human acts (like flying).

Why do sequels do so well?  They are just STS, eye candy. Day to life is terrible, nothing beats fantasy. Which is why Toy Story and Shrek do so well.

One Word : Fan

If you make another Star Trek, Star Wars, Firefly/Serenity, Spiderman, Superman, Batman, Ironman, etc . . . movies will make money.  Probably not as much money as they would like, but they would make money in the long run.  Fans are loyal.  We go just because.

Spiderman 3 was the worst movie ever! But it made un-honorable amounts of money.  Yes, we have the DVD (with the RiffTrax). Yes, we will be seeing Spiderman 4. Personally, I think Spiderman 4 will be just as terrible, but us fans are a loyal bunch of freaks.

Look how stupid we are as fans, when Star Wars IV was put back into theaters almost a generation later . . . who crowded the streets for days for tickets? It was law abiding, taking off work adults.  They were not getting tickets for their children, internet friends or virtual girlfriends . . . they were buying for themselves.  To get good seats to see a movie that can easily be seen at home in their Ja-Ja Binks hating boxer shorts, drinking Mountain Dew (Red) while typing alternative commentary into his/her tech forum/blog.

Read It, Watch It

This is not a “chicken or egg” question, we know what came first . . . the literary accomplishment.  The Harry Potter movies became popular because the readers were already loyal, not the other way around.  Spiderman, Ironman, Superman, Batman . . . and so on are movies that took advantage of the literary loyalists.  It doesn’t take creativity or writing ability if the story is already written. Heck, in comic book form story boarding is 50% complete.

Anti Fan

No where does this study count in any 3rd party influence.  For example; The Golden Compass. It was abosolutely wonderful — it had it all (Acting, Storyline, special effect, Literary Loyalists and wonderful special effects).  Why did it fail, in the box office and ceased to produce the planned sequels?  Catholic League went up against it with a full on media frenzy that nobody expected against a children’s book.

They didn’t have a problem with Harry Potter or at least didn’t scream or rant like it in their brochure “The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked“. In fact, there isn’t anything more than one line about Harry Potter’s movies on their media website. With all this influence, profits in the US were weak, even though other countries did well, very well . . . it did gain both an Academy Award and a BAFTA for visual effects. It was also nominated for two Critics’ Choice Awards in 2007, five Satellite Awards, and the Hugo Award.

This film was a potential “last straw” in Time Warner’s decision to merge New Line Cinema into Warner Bros Pictures.

So, where is the Golden Compass trilogy?  Sitting still.

Bottom Line

It is standard for Hollywood to contract actors for one (1) film and “on hold” for possible two (2) sequels based on profits.  That is one wimpy way of running a company.  Make the three movies all at once.  Dare you. Didn’t Peter Jackson’s LOTR planned sequels do anything to decision making by decision makers?

Have the motion picture industry learned anything from the Peter Jackson, Joss Whedon or Matt Groening? Anything?  Let me help all you motion picture gurus and their marketing people make some sense of movies and sequels:

• Shoot the parent and entire storyline together (even if it take 2 years).
  • Your actors will age properly
    • This will save millions on make-up and extra editing.
  • Your actors will not have re-negotiate for each sequel.
  • Props will not have be created or stored between years
  • The story line will flow
  • The plot will make sense
  • The costumes will be the same
  • You can drag it out every two years
• It is profitable going straight to DVD.  Your fan will buy, rent and download the heck out of it.  Especially if you market it just like a ‘Happy Meal’ or ‘Cracker Jacks’ – we all love toy surprises.  Also, your fans love commentary, can’t get enough commentary.
  • Make more money with four (4) DVD versions (which we will gladly buy):
    • Director’s Cut
    • Extended Edition
    • Deluxe Edition – stick a camera guy to walk everywhere you walk (minus the wc).  Let the curses and ranting begin.  The fans will appreciate the candor, the creative process and appreciate the final product more.
    • RiffTrax Edition – I would be willing to pay $20 per new movie DVD that includes RiffTrax.
• It is profitable making the sequel into comic book/graphic novel format. Long after the cans are stored the series goes on — Just ask Buffy or Firefly fans.  Hint to Joss — more Firefly please.
• Put it online.  Josh Whedon’s Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog made money, not just a little either. It has also profited quite well when it comes to the comic books Captain Hammer character.
  • All proceeds from iTunes and DVD sales will go toward paying the cast and crew of Dr. Horrible, who were not compensated at the time.
  • On November 29, 2008, Joss Whedon blogged about Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog and stated that, “We’ve been able to pay our crew and all our bills“.

It is time for the movie theaters to be filled with real content.  The meager attempts to fill the theater seats just because the “parent” movie was a great profit is no longer a legit reason.  It is not about success sequels, it is about fan base.  Why do you think Rocky Balboa failed after a successful Rocky I-V series?  Because, STS — we hate to see depressing movies (STS).  Rocky was old  and it smelled old hack from the first commercial. It was not about uplifting, but someone trying to squeeze one more nickel out of your pocket just for the sake of a movie.

So don’t listen to these guys who wrote the study.  They failed — only because it was a marketing stand point and no where do they compare profits of the LOTR series, Harry Potter to the ranked Spiderman.  It is not about numbers, it is about content . . . which is why I will be seeing Spiderman 4.

I am not saying sequels will or will not succeed in huge profits. The new rule for sequels – If you can’t make it good, make it so bad that we can laugh . . . which is why I will be seeing Spiderman 4.

â’This research suggests that young, unmarried women are confronted with a number of social, financial and health-related factors that can make it difficult for them to act according to religious values when deciding whether to keep or abort a pregnancy,â’ said the studyâ’s author, sociologist Amy Adamczyk, an assistant professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Center, City University of New York.

While previous research has investigated the link between religion and abortion attitudes, fewer studies have explored religionâ’s impact on abortion behavior. To fill this research gap, Adamczyk examined how personal religious involvement, schoolmate religious involvement and school type influenced the pregnancy decisions of a sample of 1,504 unmarried and never-divorced women age 26 and younger from 125 different schools. The women ranged in age from 14 to 26 at the time they discovered they were pregnant. Twenty-five percent of women in the sample reported having an abortion, a likely underestimate, according to Adamczyk.

Unwed pregnant teens and twenty-somethings who attend or have graduated from private religious schools are more likely to obtain abortions.

Results revealed no significant link between a young womanâ’s reported decision to have an abortion and her personal religiosity, as defined by her religious involvement, frequency of prayer and perception of religionâ’s importance. Adamczyk said that this may be partially explained by the evidence that personal religiosity delays the timing of first sex, thereby shortening the period of time in which religious women are sexually active outside of marriage.

Despite the absence of a link between personal religious devotion and abortion, religious affiliation did have some important influence. Adamczyk found that conservative Protestants were the least likely to report having an abortion, less likely than mainline Protestants, Catholics and women with non-Christian religious affiliations.

Regarding the impact of the religious involvement of a womanâ’s peers, Adamczyk found no significant influence. However, Adamczyk did find that women who attended school with conservative Protestants were more likely to decide to have an extramarital baby in their 20s than in their teenage years.

women who attended school with conservative Protestants were more likely to decide to have an extramarital baby

â’The values of conservative Protestant classmates seem to have an abortion limiting effect on women in their 20s, but not in their teens, presumably because the educational and economic costs of motherhood are reduced as young women grow older,â’ Adamczyk said.

Despite Adamczykâ’s finding that rates of reported abortions were higher for young women educated at private religious schools, the type of religious school was not a factor: Catholic schools had similar rates as other religious schools.

â’Religious school attendance is not necessarily indicative of conservative religious beliefs because students attend these schools for a variety of reasons,â’ Adamczyk said. â’These schools tend to generate high levels of commitment and strong social ties among their students and families, so abortion rates could be higher due to the potential for increased feelings of shame related to an extramarital birth.â’

Data for this study came from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), a three-wave school-based study of the health-related behaviors of students in grades 7 to 12 at the time of the first wave. Adamczyk analyzed data from the first and third waves of Add Health, the first wave taking place from 1994 to 1995 and the third wave being completed between 2001 and 2002.

The article, â’Understanding the Effects of Personal and School Religiosity on the Decision to Abort a Premarital Pregnancy,â’ is available to members of the media in advance of publication on an embargoed basis. Reporters may contact Jackie Cooper, media relations officer at TheAmerican Sociological Association, at pubinfo@asanet.org or (202) 247-9871, to request the article or author interviews.

Personal Note

It is time to stop the madness!  Religion has become more dangerous for their youth than any other time in history.  The further Religion embeds into Politics the less personal and humane is the doctrine.  We see time and time again harmful closeted actions of those who are either children, family or themselves demanding “theocratic morality”.

It has been proven that the funding of sex education funded by politics has failed.  The money should have been routed back into the arts, social groups, women’s sports and extra curriculum activities.  It is the responsibility of the parents to talk about sex and protection.  The school is to teach biology, which includes reproduction, and just the facts. Science and biology is not just about dissecting frogs, understanding population growth, and/or environment. . .  it is about learning. It seems that the religous schools forgot about that . . . and just taught “abstinence only”.  They should have talked about the three options about controlling population growth . . . 

• If you do want to go to the “sock-hop”, dress appropriately and prepare
• If you don’t want to go to the “sock-hop”, don’t
• If you don’t want to go to the “sock-hop”, don’t try to sneak in the back door — it is a mess and just leads towards more issues

It is time to stop focusing funds on what comes from Capital Hill concerning social issues and focus on what is demanded in all religious literature — poor, hungry, orphans and sick.  Not one mention in any religious document, literature or icon does politics, government or any entity should be the focus or mission of religious focus.

It should be the end of “faith based initiatives” and put the money into the “faith based initiatives”.  There should be a focus on food banks, community centers, focus on main street, job creation, low interest micro loans for businesses, and technology centers.  

It is time for the politics and church, especially in the United States, to end the relationship that the forefathers never intended.  The ‘New World’ was founded on the freedom from ‘Bloody Mary‘ and ‘Church of England‘ and its political dictation.   The US was never intended to be a religious nation (theocracy), but a nation for religious freedom.

When someone says or does something extremely stupid that causes them to look like a huge newb, usually results in self inflicted pain and humiliation.

I am great fan of Fail Blog.  Here is a sample.

Crazy World!!