When I finally relented, six months ago, to years of pressure from my tweenage son and took out a subscription to Sky TV, my main concern was that he and I would end up watching too much football.

But after his recent admission to being an occasional viewer of Ocean Finance TV, the prospect of the two of us overdosing on Jeff Stelling & Co. suddenly seems the least of my worries.

You only need to glance at Sky’s channel list to see that the advance of branded television channels is gathering pace even faster than long-standing web TV evangelists like me had imagined. Ocean Finance, was, in fact, one of the pioneers – it launched in 2008. Since then a whole host of brands have followed suit – and are starting to reap the dividends.

M&S, for instance, says one in 10 viewers of M&S TV click through to the product pages; they also spend longer on the site and view three times as many products as other customers.

Viewers of Debenhams TV spend 12% more on average than non-viewers. And Pink TV, run by the clothing chain Thomas Pink, is averaging around 1000 viewers a week, boosting dwell time on the company’s website by 40%.

With broadband speeds improving, Google TV due later this year, and the extraordinary rise of YouTube showing no sign of abating, we can expect to see an explosion of these kinds of channels in the years ahead.

So where does this leave the rest of us, who can’t afford the hundreds of hours of original content these dedicated channels require? Certainly few of our clients have that sort of budget.

Well, our advice is threefold. First, go for quality – however many videos you’re looking for. To stand out from the millions of other videos out there requires effort, skill and creativity, so letting an intern loose with a camcorder and Windows MovieMaker is probably a waste of time.

Secondly, whatever your budget, at least get started. Having just one video on your website has been shown to make a significant difference to your ranking with the search engines and the amount of time people spend on your site.

Thirdly, continue to invest sensibly in video marketing as and when you can afford it. Five or six videos, and you’re ready for your own YouTube Channel. And when, eventually, you do want your own web TV service, you’ll already have suitable content for it.

Who knows? It might be your TV channel I’ll be dragging my son away from in a couple of years’ time.

Robin Powell is Chairman of Ember Regis

Just a few months ago, the BBC spent £12,000 in legal advice to keep the salaries of presenters from public knowledge. In revealing the salaries of the highest paid, are we crossing a confidentiality boundary between private information and public information?

Rather than restore public faith, will the knowledge of certain salaries spark public uproar in which the individuals affected will be the victims of circumstance?

As debates continue on whether the BBC’s top stars and their salaries should be revealed, Equity, the actors and presenters’ union, are already prepared to go to court to keep salaries a secret.

It seems that the circumstances of working at the BBC means that those working at the corporation are not afforded the luxury of keeping earnings a private matter any longer.

There are no set ‘rules’ for viral videos but there are certain ways to encourage people to view certain videos. Videos which are topical, such as the World Cup can help to increase interest in videos of the same subject matter. We recently produced a video for Staffordshire Police which was released prior to the start of the World Cup and optimised the publicity surrounding the World Cup. As a result of this, our video has generated over 6,000 views (and counting) through its current relevance.

Along with topical issues, another factor to viral videos is the power of dissemination. On YouTube, videos are able to be shared easily through a one click button on the video page, allowing users to share content via email, Facebook, Bebo, Orkut, Twitter, Myspace, Live Spaces, Blogger, Buzz, Stumble Upon and Digg. A key tip in making sure your video is seen is to adopt a multi-platform approach. In addition to the use of email and social networking sites, our video was further publicised through national press stories from the BBC and Sky News highlighting the issue of violence.

There are a wide range of reasons of how and why videos become viral sensations, varying from being funny, shocking, random, embarrassing to just downright inexplicable.
Along with viral videos containing humorous content, viral videos also have the capacity to highlight social issues and draw attention to serious topics. These type of viral videos can help deliver important messages to a wide demographic and can create a social impact.

Personally, I have felt really rewarded at the response to the viral film we recently made for Staffordshire Police. The message about domestic violence during the World Cup helped play a significant role in emphasising this serious issue in the media. Since our video was put on YouTube, we have seen a rise in other videos highlighting the same issue and heard discussions taking place. These examples in itself show how powerful viral videos can be and how they can act as a catalyst for social change.

There is no exact science in creating a viral video, the only thing in common for the top ten viral videos ever would be the fact that millions have viewed them.

Harding further defends the paywall plan and suggests that the internet could be detrimental to the paper. Whilst the fees itself are by no means excessive, the question remains is whether people will be willing to pay for online content when the majority of content is free to access? How will it demonstrate that it is worth paying for?

Last week The Times and Sunday Times unveiled new look websites for their future paid for online content, which has been criticised by some for looking like a traditional newsprint. What can the sites offer that other newspapers and free online media can’t? Well, according to The Times executive editor Danny Finkelstein, the aim is to make the experience of a newspaper better. Better… how though? Will the “exclusive” content really justify a charge for? Finkelstein thinks so, and confidently predicts that people will pay for The Times online content as they already do for print copies.

In the internet era, content is frequently linked from mainstream media and reposted in a variety of ways such as through blogs. Will the same thing happen to the “exclusive” content offered by The Times and Sunday Times, in spite of the paywall plan? Another consequence of the paywall plan is that content will not be indexed by search engines and will therefore significantly reduce traffic to the news site.

With the iPad now on sale, The Times is hoping to piggyback on its anticipated success by having its own iPad app available for monthly subscription. Will the £1 per day charge or £2 for one week access be worth it? If it is successful, are we to see paywall plans being standard for online media news content in the future? Only time will tell.

Consumers can already watch programmes and view clips on a whole range of media, from internet players like the BBC iPlayer, 4OD and YouTube, to mobile phones. It would seem that Google’s internet TV service would be the next logical step.

As well as watching television, consumers can also surf the internet all in the comfort of their living room. The convergence of television and the internet actively encourages interaction between the two, but will audiences really want to surf the net and watch TV on the same screen?

Rishi Chandra of Google highlighted the potential of its service to turn televisions into a games console, a photo viewer or a music player. Google has positioned itself as a major player in changing the face of television and has had a promising start to its venture, partnering with Sony, Logitech and Intel. Intel CEO Paul Otellini confidently predicts it will be “the biggest improvement to television since colour”.

The face of television is indeed changing, with the introduction of 3D television sets and now Google’s attempt to bridge the gap between television and web content. But is television the future game changer as to how we experience media? Will we want the convenience of a single device? Only time will tell whether Google can become synonymous with television as it has with search engines.

On the Facebook homepage, the company says its aim is to help the user “connect and share with the people in your life”. But it looks like that aim is changing to connecting and sharing with everyone. Facebook has been heavily criticised over its position regarding users’ privacy and the way user data may be handled, such as through third party advertising.

Facebook’s policy on privacy currently stands at 5 830 words long – even longer than the US constitution! The policy reveals there are no fewer 50 different settings and 170 options regarding privacy.

Some changes made to Facebook have led to personal information being made public by default and information such as where you live and your hobbies and interests no longer being limited to just your friends. One of the features of Facebook is the “Like” feature which is described as “a way to give positive feedback or connect with things you care about on Facebook”. But wouldn’t it be fair to give users the chance to “dislike” aspects of the service as well?

A website called Openbook highlights such privacy issues surrounding Facebook and how easy it is to obtain information about users, allowing anyone to view status updates.

A staff meeting was held last Friday (14th May) but the details of discussion have remained tight-lipped. In a meeting about privacy, it looks like Facebook can keep things private, so why can’t it do the same for its users?

This, we were told, would be the first YouTube election. The major parties, apparently, had learned from the Barack Obama campaign, which relied heavily on video and social networking. Facebook’s Director of Policy Richard Allan called it a “transformative moment for democracy in Britain”.

And yet the parties – and individual candidates – have generally been reluctant to seize the opportunities afforded by digital media.

We’ve made a promotional film for one candidate – and he was thrilled with the result. After all, no candidate has the time to knock on every door in the constituency, and if you can’t look every single voter in the eye, addressing them in a video is surely the next best thing?

With Britain heading for one of the tightest and most intriguing election results in living memory, something tells us our politicians are missing a trick.

For too long the rich and powerful have benefited from a system that puts authors and journalists at an unfair disadvantage.

The Tories say they’ll review and reform the law “to protect freedom of speech, reduce costs and discourage libel tourism”.

Labour have gone further, explicitly promising to “bring forward new legislation on libel”.

And full marks to the Lib Dems. They’re proposing to put the controversial Reynolds defence onto a statutory footing. Reynolds provides a public interest defence for journalists who conduct their investigation responsibly but are unable to later prove the story was true.

Whatever the make-up of the next Government, let’s hope they keep their word and consign our outdated libel system to the history books.