The web video amateur hour may be ending
David Johnson November 20th, 2007
An interesting article in BusinessWeek points out that as more professionally produced content comes online, user-generated video is becoming less interesting to viewers, and accordingly, advertisers. Way back when Viacom sued YouTube to protect what was thought to be widespread infringement on their copyrighted material, YouTube’s self assessment indicated that the majority of their content was not pirated. Now that more professional producers are getting into the act, online video and social sites such as Bebo who recently opened up their pages to big media companies, are raising the bar to lure and engage viewers longer as the big media companies themselves are launching their own sites to feature their productions.
“People would rather watch content that has production value than watch their neighbors in the garage,” says Matt Sanchez, co-founder and chief executive of VideoEgg. ManiaTV recently canceled its user generated channels altogether, saying the 3,000 channels didn’t pull in enough viewers and that 80 percent of the users were going to professional content that featured celebrities. Maybe Amanda and ZeFrank retired at the right time.
15 Comments Add your own
1. Cory | November 20th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Sites like VideoEgg and Brightcove are getting out of the user-gen business because thats not their business, not because user-gen content is failing.
Again, the point that many people miss is that YouTube is an empowering technology: not a media showcase of user-gen content. The predominate reason people upload video is not in a hope it hits the home page or goes viral, but the technology allows them to share it with their friends. Easy upload, invisible transcoding, free hosting and easy sharing. YouTube was (and is) a technology solution for user-gen content.
Other sites that tried to duplicate that are having mixed success because 1) theyre a little late to that game and 2) YouTube is very easy to use.
Theres also a big business for professional amateur video — its just different. Both will succeed with different models and in different combinations. Media people like to think the amateur hour is ending, but its just beginning.
2. Glen | November 20th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Totally agree, Cory. YouTube’s appeal is ease of use and the fact that it has become you-biquitous (sorry) as a household name. Upstarts don’t have the panache. Why would Joe Blow user try to figure out another site when YouTube works fine?
3. discreet_chaos | November 20th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
I remember a post somewhere back in the archives, when some of us got into a multi-comment long-tail versus short-tail discussion.
I took the position that I rarely watch any non-professional video on YouTube or elsewhere and I have to say that in the months since that discussion, the number of amateur videos that I watch has further decreased.
Of course, I do count Ze Frank, LonelyGirl and a few others as being among the new professionals, but if you exclude these new media creations and that which originates from old media, I don’t know when the last time was that I watched anything purely amateur and completely unscripted online.
(My kid watches “America’s Funniest Home Videos”, so I’ve probably seen more minutes of it over the past year, than I’ve watched anything I’ve like it online)
4. discreet_chaos | November 20th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
PS) I do count Ze Frank, LonelyGirl and the like among the new professionals and I also have to say for clarification that I’ll occasionally watch user-generated “reports” similar to an old campaign video the Navajos did against a coal-fired plant, whose link was easy to find, so that I could link it from my name as an example.
What I’m not watching are teenagers dancing around their bedrooms, or some strangers birthday party and that’s my definition of the illusionary “long-tail”.
5. Simon Young | November 20th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
>What I’m not watching are teenagers dancing around their bedrooms, or some strangers birthday party and that’s my definition of the illusionary “long-tail”.
And that’s a wrong definition. The Long Tail is precisely what you want it to be, that’s why it’s the long tail.
If it were some discretely identifiable content, it wouldn’t be Long Tail. The reason it’s long tail is because a small audience will watch it - like friends of said teenagers and strangers (although they wouldn’t be strangers to them).
For you, the long tail could be music or TV shows you were into back in the day, that never get repeated on TV, but find a new life and distribution channel on the internet. Or DVD. Eventually these two channels will be the same anyway.
6. mike jones | November 20th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
spot on, Cory. You Tube is all about technology — search and embedding, not content.
The reason the big media companies were beaten so bad by it is because they’re so reluctant to let the user have what they want.
7. discreet_chaos | November 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Perhaps my generalization of the “long-tail” wasn’t the precise meaning, but I still hold that if you add-up all of the content from the “new” professionals, the uploaded clips from CBS or the studios and the pirated things like the musical performance from an old “Smothers Brothers” episode which I’m linking from my name, the viewership is several times that of all the amateur videos, combined.
Maybe YouTube can find a business model which profits from these clips, but they obviously haven’t done it yet and as Cory said in the first comment to this thread, there isn’t a lot of room for other companies in the tent. This is not to say that a news website wouldn’t be served by asking viewers to upload their own “reports”, but they would obviously have to be vetted, with semi-professional production values and the market for this content would mostly be very local in nature.
8. tdc | November 20th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
anyone want to show tdc a tv station that is using youtube for anything more than a dumping ground for their “made for tv” content?
9. joe | November 21st, 2007 at 8:59 am
youtube.com/kplrtv
10. Terry Heaton | November 21st, 2007 at 10:03 am
As Gordon Borrell so beautifully states it, “The deer now have guns.”
What do you do when the deer have guns?
“Get into the ammunition business.”
This is YouTube, and those who misinterpret or misuse its purpose in validating their own illusions are deceived. Of course people like professional content. This is no bulletin.
But to all who produce professional content, whose would YOU rather view and share, yours or somebody else’s?
11. Niamh Kiernan | November 21st, 2007 at 11:58 am
Is it possible that the user gen person might upskill over time and produce better content? I think the production companies are quite happy to label stuff as user gen even when produced by highly trained people. They are looking for something for free.
12. tdc | November 21st, 2007 at 12:02 pm
joe#9,
thanks for the link to the exception that proves the tdc rule.
13. tdc | November 21st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
drink and drive gets you jailed… even in hawaii.
but drink and canoe and you’ll get hailed!!!
check out molokaitimes(dot)com and themolokaidispatch(dot)com ’s “mastah blastah” storyand pix for a good laugh over the holiday weekend.
have a great t’giving!
14. J Cobb | November 21st, 2007 at 10:56 pm
I just got to view the first 11 minute episode of two unknown Oregon film makers following a music engineer/musician around for several years and I put this up against any primetime weeknight. The first 11 minutes was fantastic. This is why NBC just bought Quarterlife and I would assume someone will acquire this programming as well. It is not the quality, because they were aiming for a video blog on multi-channels like YouTube, but at the event where i was, there were five or six major entertainment figures. one wore shades and fronts one of the biggest bands in the world. So, content created by Chris Crocker may not have longevity, but with decent writing or a storyline will gain serious interest and viewers with no problem. Especially with a voting system. I linked there myspace site.
15. peter | November 26th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Viewers/advertisers don’t favor video produced by professionals over video produced by amateurs.
They favor quality video over schlok.
This isn’t bad news for amateurs - by definition they are not trying to monetize their clips - it is bad news for organizations that thought they could climb on to the video gravytrain without any investment in training or equipment.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed