Comments on: Big media not so big on YouTube

By: invitedmedia

invitedmedia — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:45:31 +0000

have they even named that enterprise yet?

named any mgmt?

how about thevaporchannel?

By: invitedmedia

invitedmedia — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:40:47 +0000

let’s say their methodology was off by a factor of 5!!!

that still only makes for 30% of the overall views leaving 70% viewing the pejorative sneezing panda.

no wonder viacom is putting on their lawsuit.

By: Rocker

Rocker — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:36:01 +0000

Yes, YouTube is about the long tail, and ultimately will probably be relegated to that role, and thrive there. That’s also why the people who see the Newscorp/NBC venture as being a direct challenge to YouTube are off-base…they’re in different niches. One satisfies the need to communicate and participate….the other satisfies the desire to lean back and enjoy professionally-produced content…information and entertainment. There is some overlap, and they don’t exist in entirely separate universes, but I think that to the extent either tries to over-reach into the other’s domain, they’ll find it problematic. To those who think long tail content ultimately supplants Star Wars, Lost, American Idol, Titanic, National Geographic, Hemingway, etc.; I’d suggest you’re getting carried away. A few years ago, there was a tendency to view e-mail and IM as “media” just because they’re electronic, but they’re not really media….in sociological terms, it’s another form of conversation and social interaction. So is YouTube. This, btw, is why the total amount of time spent watching traditional TV content (broadcast & cable) stubbornly refuses to go down despite all the “new media’ that have supposedly been eating our lunch for the last 10 years.

*Contrary to digital media group think, the problem in Hollywood for years has been not enough writing talent…not a lack of outlets for great writers. Emancipating the denizens of the long tail will undoubtedly make it easier to surface some new talent…but let’s not kid ourselves that there are millions of Quentin Tarentinos or David E. Kelleys out there. So, yes, content really is king. Sorry to burst any bubbles.

By: GB

GB — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:21:56 +0000

David, it’s laughable that only 9% of the most popular videos on YouTube are unauthorized copyrighted content. I don’t doubt that the number of user-generated videos on YouTube far outweighs the number of copyrighted videos. But this report focuses on the “most watched” videos and draws conclusions about them (misleading, in my opinion).

My point is that I believe YouTube’s popularity is primarily due to copyrighted content, much of it unauthorized. This study fails to disprove that theory.

By: invitedmedia

invitedmedia — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:58:05 +0000

nielsen has made quite a living off of taking a small sample and extrapolating it across the masses.

of course their methodology is far less flawed.

right.

By: David Johnson

David Johnson — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:25:41 +0000

GB, i don’t get the joke. why is that laughable?

i don’t have hard data, but i expect there are far more people have the ability to capture from their own video cameras via onboard usb or firewire ports than those that have tv tuner cards that can rip from broadcast. also note that most tv tuner cards in the marketplace are analog, and digital is fast outpacing the analog footprint. anyone who can supply some numbers to confirm or refute, please contribute.

By: GB

GB — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:03:52 +0000

Cory, the report doesn’t prove that YouTube isn’t popular because of copyrighted content. It proves that YouTube isn’t popular because of unauthorized copyrighted content that has been found and removed by the copyright owner.

I question why Vidmeter only counted videos removed due to copyright violations as being unauthorized. Wouldn’t it have been a lot more meaningful to look at those 6,725 and judge whether they were user-generated vs. copyrighted content (authorized or unauthorized)? That would prove how much YouTube relies on copyrighted content.

The report goes into detail about the 9% unauthorized copyright content. Where is the detail on the other 91%? Are we really supposed to assume that the other 91% is entirely made up of user-generated and authorized copyright content? That’s laughable.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:06:49 +0000

YouTube definitely provides a great service. Not only does it allow amateur videographers / proud pet owners the opportunity to quickly jump in the market, it also lets them experiment with showing video on their own site through the embed function without having to figure a whole lot out. Of course once you get comfortable with that you want better quality and more control so you may move to other players (I strongly recommend going open source as there are many good options).

By: invitedmedia

invitedmedia — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:26:52 +0000

who do you think coined the phrase “content is king”???

certainly not a viewser.

By: Cory

Cory — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:13:30 +0000

Exactly, this is what we’ve been saying all along.

YouTube is popular because of its technology, not copyrighted content. It makes it easy and free for anyone to host, share and embed players with their own video. There are millions of people out their with video cameras, but they don’t know how to convert their video to Flash, host their video on a streaming server, build a Flash player, etc. YouTube takes care of all of this with a couple clicks. Brilliant.

Six months ago, YouTube said it was receiving 60,000 video uploads A DAY. I imagine it’s much more than that now. The preponderance of the traffic is not from the most-viewed clips, but the gazillions of clips that are viewed 5, 10 and 15 times each. The long tail.

This is so frustrating to me that big media doesn’t get this. In this case, TECHNOLOGY TRUMPS CONTENT. Yes, content isn’t always king, folks.