From Bambi Fransisco - (http://bambi.blogs.com)

One-off moments in time

Compared with whimsical one-off moments in time captured on video, big media productions just don't seem to matter online. Take a quick scan at the top 100 most popular clips viewed on Google Video, and you'll note that a large majority are far from professionally produced. The No. 1 video, at this juncture, is a 13-second clip, titled "Girl caught cheating." Of all video sharing sites out there, one would think that Google's would be a place where branded productions could get attention. Yet without promotion on Google, CBS content apparently is getting lost in a sea of colorful photo thumbnails, seemingly far more popular if only because they ask little of our time. Consider another example. The most recent Apple data shows that 30 million videos -- music videos as well as episodes of popular shows, like Desperate Housewives -- have been sold since October 2005, when Apple's store began to offer video. YouTube, the fast-growing video phenomenon, claims that 50 million videos are viewed each day on its site. Put another way, more than 2 million videos are viewed per hour on YouTube vs. 5,000 videos purchased per hour on iTunes, arguably the most successful distribution platform for digital content.
To be sure, statistics barely exist for video streaming and downloading. We rely on companies, like YouTube, to give us their internal numbers without really knowing what they're counting exactly. So, for now, we have to settle for video viewing stats that are decent at best, or entirely inaccurate at worst. The result: misguided conclusions. For instance, MSN Video was the No. 1 video site ranked by unique visitors, followed by Video@AOL, YouTube and then Google Video. According to comScore, MSN Video had 14.9 million unique visitors in January 2006, or 5 times more than YouTube, with 2.7 million visitors. Yet over at Nielsen//NetRatings,

More of this article and my response to comments:

continued...
YouTube's audience figures were nearly twice as high, and MSN Video was doing worse. YouTube had 4.9 million unique visitors in January while MSN Video had 9.6 million, according to Nielsen//NetRatings. For those watching traffic data over the decade-long commercial life of the Internet, it's not a surprise that the numbers vary since the methodology at the research companies is different.The point remains that the imperfect data likely misstates the real activity of these self-produced, non-copyrighted videos.

While it's hard to be sure, I'd say there is a lot of overstating of true demand going on. That's because at least some of the activity at these video-sharing services can be attributed to spying (hundreds of rivals trying to find out just how video services are working), experimenting, pirating and double counting (the same video sent around and viewed on multiple sites or platforms). This is not the kind of activity one should extrapolate from; the Internet bust taught me that.

============================================================

Bambi,

I read your marketwatch artlce "Your Video vs. Big Media Video. I'm sorry to point this out, but the example you used at the top, "Girl Caught Cheating" is, in fact, a professionally produced video designed to look like amateur webcam video. I believe it is a British television commercial with the tagline cut off. When you think about it, the timing and the sound quality is a little too perfect, isn't it?
(Sorry I posted this under the wrong article before)

Posted by: Bruce J. | June 16, 2006 at 05:20 AM

Bambi,
This is the ultimate of the video meets the web. An online reality show live 24/7 broadcast on the Internet. ourprisoner.com

Posted by: Robb | June 16, 2006 at 06:10 AM

Bambi,

I am the founder of a citizen media company. We use content sent in by the community to help traditional mainstream media enhance their local coverage.

What do you think about flickr, youtube and others trying to get into this area?

Posted by: Parker | June 19, 2006 at 05:57 PM

Matt:
You make some great points. I think it'll always be tough to get any preferential treatment for a period of time. The Web is constantly changing. So, the content must reflect that.

And, you're right. The studios are using the video-sharing services to drum up some viral marketing. It's a smart move. According to AdWeek, Dimension Films' Scary Movie trailer was among the top viewed sites on YouTube. It was viewed 2.5 million times.

Bob:
I liked your the correlation you made between authenticity and popularity. I do believe the more genuine anything is - be it films, books, people -- it will resonate far more with others than something that's fabricated and contrived.

Posted by: BF | June 20, 2006 at 08:31 PM

Advertisements On Demand? Will they work?

Hello,

My company has created a service known as MyPrivaSee(tm), a web based advertising service to use while watching Internet Television(ITV). It enables the viewer to select and watch their own ITV channel and features opt-in advertisements to watch based on personal shopping interests. These advertisements can be shown at any time and are independent of ITV content. Opt-in advertisements feature a discount coupon towards product purchase. MyPrivaSee(tm) also provides access to personal email, VOIP, Instant Messaging, while watching ITV.

I would be interested in your opinion of such a web based service?

Thank you.

Michael

Posted by: ISI | June 20, 2006 at 08:47 PM

Opt-in advertisements give users the control. I think they like that. Plus I think in general, discounts are probably a farily good incentive for anyone, depending on the product. It's hard for me to comment about such a service without very little information to go on.

Posted by: BF | June 20, 2006 at 09:56 PM

Bambi,

Great article. You've quite accurately pegged the moment in time where video upload has 'arrived' and everyone has agreed to postpone sorting and filtering until the video 2.0. We are in the "Gathering" phase.

If you accept the fact that video upload and storage is settling in at a price point of 'free', then its fun to think for a moment about what the future looks like in terms of where consumers will get value from video.

A few thoughts on how to make the big pile of video 'stuff' a bit more defined. To begin with - not all video is created equal. And not all video seekers are looking for the same thing. When defining quality, community=context.

There's a temptation to think of video in terms of what it has been in the past - TELEVISION. Primarily an entertainment medium, with just a bit of information thrown in at 6 and 11pm. But if you accept the prospect that all web sites will incorporate video in their core offerings in the next two to five years... then a whole new image of what used to be called 'television' emerges.

If you can imagine video becoming as ubiquitous as text, than you can imagine a future in which the sources and uses of video are just as diverse. What makes the Yahoo site interesting isn't what they've done, but what they could do. Clearly the home run for Yahoo is to incorporate video in the same way they've used Flickr to incorporate pictures. This means video needs to become an integral part of a wide range of services from auctions, to stores, to groups, to Yahoo mail and more.

Happily for us - they're not alone.

There are a bunch really new of use cases for video, each of which is likely to evolve over the next few years.

1. Social Networking Video (video about me, shared with my friends)
Linked in, MySpace, Facebook, Match.com, Grouper

2. Entertainment Video (mini movies, performance, American Idol meets Warhol).
YouTube, iFilm, Heavy

3. Knowledge Video (how to's, shared knowledge, video education).
HGTV, Google Video, About.com, Meetup.com

4. News & Opinion (both 'breaking' news video and 'op ed' style vblogs).
Engaget, CBS, Tech Crunch, Gawker CNN, personal Vblogs.

5. Documentary. Long-form issues, ideas, and investigative reporting
TreeHugger, GNN, Discovery, NY Times, Documentary.org

6. Profession Content (off-network shows, clips, music videos, newscasts, sporting events).
ABC, HBO, Fox, A&E, Revver, Prevention Magazine, Men's Health

What makes this interesting is that each of the above use cases has its own set of needs and requirements. So - for example - DRM is hugely important for ABC, but not nearly as important for Grouper. The ability to have content contributions from cell phones are critical for both Match.com and CNN - but with very different needs for filter and review.

Here at Magnify - we've been working for more than a year in a space that is just coming into view. A filter and review layer that creates contextual review and ratings around video submitted to, and discovered by communities.

For example: http://nyhamsterhouse.magnifynetworks.com/

or - in a slightly more serious vein: http://mediavillage.magnifynetworks.com/
Keep your eye on the UGV space - lot's of exciting things in the works.

s.

web: www.MagnifyNetworks.com
blog: http://blogs.indiewire.com/steve.rosenbaum/

Posted by: Steve Rosenbaum | June 22, 2006 at 02:24 PM