what, does nielsen have a lock on that?

Then, a little argument…
Once again, post-purge, I know that I was responsible for extra traffic on YouTube, when I was seeing what did and did not work. And, who knows, but there may have been a couple of popular virals during the timeframe and maybe even a candidate or two announcing for the presidency.

As to methodology…
For some reason they “counted” all traffic going to YouTube, but excluded purposeful traffic headed toward individual show sites? And, while I’m at it, but what happens when you mix the actual Nielsen ratings into the mix? After all, the television networks are multi-platform, while YouTube is stuck on the ‘net.

And, finally…
Why on earth would anyone advocate further media consolidation? The ‘net is free and open, why wouldn’t we want people going to a variety of sites to get a variety of viewpoints and where everybody might get a taste of the profit? Why would it be a good thing that a higher “approximation of traffic” goes under the Google umbrella?

I mean, this may or may not be the place to argue against Google owning all internet traffic, or to point out how they routinely ignore everyone else in pursuit of their own gain and apparently, how they’re archiving all information in their ever-growing cache; But personally, I don’t have a problem with the copyright holder retaining ownership of their product and profiting from their labors. After all, that’s how it should be.

on the other hand, although the graph does not offer us a longer term view, it looks like the blue line has made a double top which means quite the opposite of the red line.