Posts for 'YouTube'

  • Showtime Finding Broadband Marketing Groove

    The premium cable channel Showtime is coming up with some solid examples of how to creatively use broadband video to promote its programs.

    To support Dexter's episode last night, Showtime is developing a parallel story line around the "Dark Defender" with a series of short animated webisodes. Episode 1 is now up at MySpace and Sho.com. Ken Tod, Showtime's VP of Content/Digital Media explained that creating this kind of ancillary content allows the company to target specific audiences more directly. So for example, Dexter has a following among comic/sci-fi fans and Dark Defender has specific appeal to them.



    And for Brotherhood, a program set in Providence, Rhode Island, they landed a cardstacker to create the state's capitol building out of 22,000 cards. Posted on YouTube 3 weeks ago, it's generated 350,000+ views.

    For Showtime, and for any other premium content providers, broadband's ability to expose potential viewers to their shows is huge. Doing so with novel approaches like the ones above continue to demonstrate how broadband opens up a whole new creative palette for marketing and programming teams. More evidence that traditional marketing equations are changing.

     
  • Dailyshow.com: Third-Party Distribution Isn't an Either/Or Decision

    First things first, congrats to the folks at MTVN, Comedy Central and The Daily Show. The newly unveiled Dailyshow.com is fabulous. It is the best TV program-centric web site I have yet seen. As a long-time Jon Stewart fan, being able to see all the old clips is nirvana, and will no doubt send fans over the moon.

    However, a bigger picture question that Dailyshow.com's launch raises is how these direct-to-consumer initiatives work vis-a-vis third-party distribution deals. With media companies newly empowered to engage directly with their audiences using the Internet and broadband, many analysts have predicted the result will be diminishing relevance of third-party aggregators, including everyone from Comcast to Yahoo to Joost to you name 'em.

    It's pretty apparent that MTVN/Comedy Central is coming down on the side of heavily emphasizing direct-to-consumer as its broadband video strategy when you combine Viacom's ongoing lawsuit against Google/YouTube, MTVN EVP Erik Flannigan's comment ("People should be reacting to 'The Daily Show' on its own site...God bless them for doing it everywhere else, but this should be the epicenter of it") and a company spokesman's comment ("that a few selected clips could become available on sites through syndication deals").

    Count me among those who think this is both the wrong approach and one that will ultimately under-optimize the value of the Daily Show and other franchises in the broadband era. Quite simply, building out a strong direct-to-consumer presence like Dailyshow.com is NOT an either/or decision relative to also developing strong third-party distribution relationships.

    In fact, the reality is that strong third-party distribution is essential in the Internet era, because Internet usage is both highly distributed among millions of web sites and also concentrated at a few large portals. Media companies' goal should be to proliferate their content (under the right deals of course) into all the nooks and crannies of the Internet while also striking deals with big portals to maximize exposure, usage and ad revenue.

    But don't think distributors get a free ride in the Internet era. They need to prove they can leverage their audience devotion and traffic to drive value for content providers. Those that do will succeed. Proof of this is already emerging. One senior broadband executive recently told me that over 80% of his traffic comes from YouTube and other distribution partners, with his own site's traffic in the minority.

    Not aggressively pursuing third-party distribution, as it appears is MTVN's plan, in essence requires that users reorient their behavior to come solely to one uber destination site like Dailyshow.com. To me this smacks of classic traditional media thinking where consumer convenience or preference gets short shrift in the name of what's supposedly "best" for the brand. My guess is if you asked Jon Stewart off the record what his preference is, he'd likely say, "make my stuff available everywhere!"

    So kudos to the folks behind Dailyshow.com. But don't let your good works end now. Go out and find the best third-party distributors you can and let them help you extend the Daily Show franchise even further.

     
  • YouTube Gets Serious About Copyright Protection with New Video ID Service

    At long last YouTube has launched "Video Identification" in beta, its answer to copyright owners who feel YouTube has built its business on the back of their copyrighted content.

    Having not seen the system in actual use, it's impossible for me to judge how well it works. But having read how YouTube describes its approach in developing the system, considering how it allocates responsibilities for copyright protection with the rights-holders themselves and thinking about the bigger picture challenges all media companies face in the broadband era, my initial reaction is that Video ID is a pretty good first step.

    YouTube's approach - As the Video ID page says, YouTube was guided by 3 motivations in creating the system: accurate identification, choice for copyright holders and a great user experience. While there will be plenty of debate about how much emphasis each of these should have received relative to the others, my guess is that the DMCA's requirements and the health of YouTube's business drove the final balance. While YouTube has an image problem with major media which it would like to improve, nobody can expect that the company's SOLE motivation in developing a copyright protection scheme should be the concerns of copyright holders. Whenever I read a copyright holder complaining about YouTube or other piracy issues, I wonder, would these people only be happy if we returned to the pre-Internet age? Since that's not going to happen, less complaining and more adjusting is what's required of media companies now.

    Allocating responsibilities - The most controversial part of Video ID will likely be the requirement that copyright holders provide their videos so YouTube can build its database against which to judge alleged pirated copies. The predictable reactions will be "it's too much work", "we don't trust that YouTube won't misuse it and "why should we?". There will be much second guessing whether other technical approaches not requiring submitting full video files would have been as effective. Of course nobody knows for certain, so at the end of the day either you trust that Google, with its pantheon of computer science experts, vetted the options well and selected the best choice, or you don't. It's ludicrous for lawyers and media executives who have never written a line of code in their life to suggest that Alternative A or Alternative B would have been better. I suggest that for now media companies give YouTube the benefit of the doubt. It is incumbent on YouTube to show it will be responsible with these video files and that having them really does make the Video ID system work well.

    Bigger picture challenges - YouTube isn't going away, nor are the other video sharing sites. Broadband isn't going away either. And lastly, consumer behavior isn't going to change back what it was in the pre-Internet era. Media companies need to accept that the world is what it is, and learn to adapt themselves to it to succeed. My sense is that Video ID gives media companies all the options they should desire or expect: having the offending content removed, having it continue to run as promotional fodder, or making money off it through a revenue split (though these percentages are TBD). These tools, if they actually work, will give media companies lots of new flexibility to exploit their content with by far the largest audience of broadband video users. If media companies choose not to participate, shame on them for sticking their heads in the sand and wishing the world would return to a simpler time. YouTube has demonstrated for all of us what I believe and have said many times: that broadband is the single most disruptive influence on the traditional video industry. Companies that don't recognize this and don't work with the YouTubes of the world to adapt themselves will ultimately be rendered irrelevant or worse.

     
  • Google's "Video Units": Turbocharging Video Syndication

    Google/YouTube's formal announcement of its "Video Units" content syndication this morning is a welcome development following previous moves in this direction that did not seem to materialize (there was a test with MTV and also comments about doing same with partners Sony BMG and Warner Music Group). What Google'sAdSense has already done in distributing ads to the "Long Tail" of publishers, Google is now going to try replicating with video. It's a very smart move.

    As I have written repeatedly, robust syndication is a crucial piece of the broadband video economy. That's because advertising is going to be the main business model for a long time to come. And the only way to make the ad business work is through massive traffic increases, and of course improved ad monetization methods.

    There's no better way to scale up traffic than through turnkey syndication. Google's ability to harness AdSense as a combination video syndication engine and monetization platform for content providers (by eventually marrying video units to AdWords) is unmatchable by anyone else.

    As Google expands this initiative, it will be simultaneously alluring and threatening to others. Trying to capture the same benefits without the same underlying technology infrastructure and far-reaching distribution network is going to be very challenging to replicate.

    Take for example, Hulu, the News Corp/NBCU JV, meant to regain control over their broadcast TV programs. Hulu has been striking its own distribution deals and will no doubt monetize its traffic with a "feet-on-the-street" ad sales approach. While there are benefits to this approach to aggregate the biggest sites as partners, Google's one-stop syndication/monetization capability provides the turnkey, hands-off approach needed to gather up the all the rest of the market (i.e. the Long Tail).

    Depending how Google chooses to split the revenues between AdSense partners and content providers, Google/YouTube could well become a dominant part of the broadband-centric video value chain that is now taking shape.

     
  • Music Videos are Another Example of Broadband's Ability to Create Unforeseen Revenues

    On my flight home last night I was thumbing through my hotel-provided USA Today and happened on this interesting piece about how record labels are transforming their music videos from promotional tool to a bona fide new revenue source. Chalk up another unforeseen win for broadband's ability to enable new business models.

    Rio Caraeff, EVP of eLabs, Universal Music Group's digital division says that licensing its music videos to the likes of Yahoo, AOL, YouTube and others now generates over $20M/year and is growing briskly. Supporting a forecast of solid growth ahead, Ian Rogers, Yahoo Music's GM believes that viewership of music videos will expand by "10 to 100 times over the next one to two years."

    According to comScore, Yahoo is the web's #1 music destination, pulling in 23.4M uniques in August. Caraeff also noted that streaming accounts for the lion's share of the revenue, with paid downloads of music videos still miniscule. He cites the best-selling download of all-time, a Justin Timberlake single as generating only 58K buys, which, at $1.99 apiece, adds up to less than $120K.

    None of this is to say that music videos won't continue to be used as promotional fodder. But these nascent, growing licensing and ad-sharing revenues show broadband's power to mine content value that was previously inaccessible. Sports leagues, particularly MLB.com, have been masterful at this as well, driving successful broadband-only subscription businesses. I expect others to sprout up as well.

     
  • MGM's "Lions for Lambs" Google/YouTube Promotion Continues Studios' UGC Efforts

    MGM is the latest studio to reach out to fans to help promote one of its films, the upcoming "Lions for Lambs". In a deal with Google/YouTube, the studio is sponsoring a contest in which users can submit a 90 second video on a topic they're passionate about. Entries are being accepted until Oct. 17th and the winner, who will have $25,000 donated to a charity of his/her choice, will be selected on Nov 9th.

    This promotion follows the mashup competition Metacafe and Universal conducted this past summer around the studio's "Bourne Ultimatum" release. At the time, I noted that broadband is introducing a whole new element into the film marketing equation, opening up huge opportunities for creativity and fan involvement. As the tools continue to improve I expect we're going to see a lot more of these "UGC-assisted" campaigns.

    Studios (and others) are going to continue to experiment with just how much fans are willing to be a part of the marketing machinery. Of course nobody knows, but my guess is that if the incentives are right, the promotions are fun and the stars are compelling, it's going to be a pretty rich vein for film marketers to tap into.

     
  • Check Out Meth Minute 39's "Internet People"

    Herb Scannell, who was on my CTAM panel yesterday pointed me to "Internet People" part of his firm's Channel Federator "Meth Minute 39" series (side note, it's actually quite clunky to try to adapt traditional TV lingo to describe broadband video properties...). If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend. It's like a stroll down the Internet's memory lane. All the famous and infamous characters over the years.

    What's impressive about Internet People how it shows how fluid creative development and partnerships around broadband video (especially animation) is. Herb said that his partner at NNN was exposed to Dan Meth's "Hebrew Crunk" animation and that spurred them to work together. They had a similar philosophy and were able to figure out a relationship quickly. Also, I asked Herb how long he estimated it took to create Internet People..he thought less than 100 hours probably. And NNN coordinated to premier Internet People on YouTube, helping drive 800K views in the first week.

    Pretty impressive, see for yourself.

     
  • Likely YouTube Spoofs Should Power New Playtex Bra Campaign to Success

    playtex.jpg

    I think Playtex is going to score big time with its humorous new ad campaign entitled "Girl Talk."

    The essence of the campaign is summed up below:

    "We uncovered that women of all shapes and sizes talk about their bras and breasts in funny, witty and candid ways," said Vicki Seawright, marketing director for Playtex intimate apparel, which is part of Winston-Salem-based Hanesbrands Inc.

    The ads will showcase women having funny, honest chats about their breasts, including using nicknames for their breasts intended only for the privacy of their own conversations. (You now see the voyeuristic aspect of the campaign)

    Playtex intends to use conventional TV and magazine buys, but supplement or "support" as the company said, with YouTube video and American Greetings e-cards.

    Here's my bet: this campaign is going to launch some uproariously funny video spoofs on YouTube. And you know what: Playtex is going to love them all. In the age of viral video-enhanced brand marketing campaigns, Playtex is taking a smart approach. By having fun with their marketing and opening the door for others to do so as well, they dramatically enhance the chances of breaking this campaign out of the clutter and getting big time buzz. In short, this campaign seems well-positioned to be an advertising triumph. Let's see.

     
  • DailyMotion Raises $34 Million, Is Category Over-Funded?

    dailymotion.jpg

    WSJ reported today that DailyMotion, the French video sharing site, has raised $34 million in a round led by Advent Venture Partners LLP of London and AGF Private Equity. This financing adds to a wave of capital that has poured into the overall ad-supported video sharing/video aggregator platform space in the last few months.

    Companies that I think fit in this group that have recently raised big money are Joost ($45 million), Veoh ($26 million), Metacafe ($30 million) and blip.tv ($10 million). Hulu, the NBC-News Corp JV which raised $100 million could even be considered in this category. And thinking a little more broadly you could include sites like Heavy.com, Break, Vuguru, Next New Networks, DaveTV, Babelgum, BitTorrent and others which are creating and/or aggregating broadband programming.

    To be fair, each of these companies has a slightly different approach to their content strategy (pure aggregation vs. original development vs. hybrids), market positioning and technology capabilities. However, as best I can tell, they're all trying to offer distinctive video content into broadband-only delivery networks and to one extent or another, surround this programming with interactive tools. The intended result is unique viewing experiences.

    In the aggregator roles they play, they're muscling themselves into the market owned by traditional video distributors like cable and satellite operators, and more recently telcos. These new companies are all very interesting to watch because ultimately they must do at least 3 things to generate traffic and revenue: (1) differentiate themselves from each other, (2) add value to content providers/producers relative to CPs/producers relying solely on a direct-to-consumer approach and (3) shift viewing time from the traditional distributors' programming to their own.

    Any one of these would be a pretty high hurdle to get over. Doing all three will be even tougher. Yet a lot of smart money keeps backing these companies, further demonstrating how hot this overall category is -- and how quickly it could become overfunded. But I don't expect things to cool down any time soon. We can expect further funding in this space as investors clamor to get a piece of the action in broadband video.

     
  • YouTube + Apple TV = A New Consumer Experience

    youtube-apple1.jpg
    Some pretty big news today from Steve Jobs that YouTube video will be embedded in directly AppleTV.
     
    Back in December '06, in my "7 Broadband Video Trends for 2007" e-newsletter, my #1 trend was that Apple's "iTV' box (as it was code-named then) would succeed - but only if Apple nuked its walled garden, iTunes/paid-only content strategy, in favor of allowing easy browsing of free online video. Though it would represent a big departure for Apple, I suggested the killer deal would be to make YouTube videos available to Apple TV users. (read the full entry below and here) True to its roots, Apple did launch Apple TV only with iTunes.
     
    And as it has floundered, I've taken plenty of flack from readers reminding me that these 3rd party, standalone boxes don't have a prayer. And that's why today's YouTube deal is a huge step in the right direction for Apple TV. YouTube is the big guerilla of all online video sites. But as big as it is, its use has mainly been constrained to computer screens. So by enabling easy viewership on TVs, Apple has created a whole new consumer experience, which I believe will prompt new buyers of Apple TV.
     
    And as Apple embeds more video sites (hey wouldn't it be easier if they just put a browser in Apple TV?), the proposition for box keeps getting stronger. This "over-the-top" or "cable bypass" approach should be another wake up call for cable and satellite operators. There is so much energy being invested in these alternative approaches (e.g. Xbox, TiVo, Sony, Netgear, etc.) that eventually some segment of consumers is just going to drop their traditional subscriptions and go a la carte. My original entry is below from December 20, 2006.
     
    All the 7 Trends for 2007 can be read here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Apple's iTV box will likely succeed (but only if more than just iTunes video is easily accessible). This is clearly my most controversial prediction and the one I will devote the most ink to. Let me stipulate upfront - standalone appliances like these are indeed the "third rail" of consumer electronics. I understand all the reasons why they don't succeed. And the list of failures is long and undistinguished. However, my bet is that is that if ever a company stood a chance of succeeding and a box potentially met a clear consumer need, it is Apple and iTV. (by the way, "iTV" is just a code name, expect a new name prior to launch). Apple's user-centric design, functionality and coolness quotient are its key differentiators.
     
    First, for those of you who missed it, back in September Steve Jobs pre-announced the company's "iTV" box (see it here). Product pre-announcements are very rare for Apple. iTV's suggests that Jobs wanted to both lay some pre-launch buzz groundwork and also simply couldn't contain his enthusiasm for this product's market opportunity. To understand iTV's market opportunity, it is necessary to understand current broadband-delivered video viewership.
     
    As I see it, the amazing ramp up in broadband video consumption this year is surpassed by an even more amazing fact - that virtually all of this viewership has occurred on users' computers. Think about it - virtually all those clips, full-length programs and movies are consumed on the PC, not the TV! Nobody could have predicted that. But of course the TV is still the preferred viewing device for just about everyone. So logic suggests that if someone could make an affordable, easy-to-install box that unshackled users from their computers, allowing them to easily bridge the PC/broadband world with the TV, there would be a market for such a product. And that this could be far more than a niche opportunity, given that it could potentially disrupt cable and satellite operators' set-top box/walled garden stronghold.
     
    iTV's success turns on one key factor: Apple's content strategy for the product. And the hitch in iTV's potential is that to date Apple's content model has been to aggregate paid-only media in iTunes, its digital download store. The company has gotten off to a decently strong start selling TV programs and the like on an a la carte basis for $1.99 or more. But carrying over this paid approach is not a strong enough content strategy to support iTV.
     
    In fact, in the music world, a recent Ipsos study showed that only 25% of MP3 owners use fee-based download services. That's been OK for iPod sales because many people still have large CD collections (or share theirs with friends), which can be easily "ripped" to iPods. But what would the equivalent source of video content be to support iTV? Possibly DVDs, though converting them for iPod use is far from a mainstream activity (plus, why bother anyway?). How about the free video podcasts from a Byzantine array of providers also available through iTunes? Doubtful. Quite simply, if Apple extends its iTunes paid approach to iTV it would be forcing iTV buyers to pay for each and every incremental piece of video content to get value out of their iTV purchase. The number of people willing shell out $299 for an iTV box without readily available free content is tiny.
     
    Therefore, the alternative - providing easy TV-based viewing of free, ad-supported broadband video - should be iTV's core value proposition. Cracking this nut allows Apple to break open the video distribution value chain, with consumers finally getting TV-based access to the content they love. And it positions iTV as the key building block in making "long tail" video content accessible on TVs, potentially setting up Apple as a longer-term competitor for all video services (i.e. a possible competitor to cable and satellite).
     
    Exactly what content should be easily available through ITV is less clear to me. Certainly a key selection criterion is video that is either NOT currently available through cable or satellite. Many video content providers still dreaming of becoming a digital cable channel would salivate at the opportunity to be accessible on consumers' TVs. Plus broadcast and cable TV networks would love a way to get their broadband-only webisodes and other "broadband channels" all the way to the TV.
     
    But the most tantalizing content deal would be one with Google/YouTube. Consider how many YouTube devotees would love to get convenient access to this content right on their TVs. Since Apple has no in-house advertising skills and assets, and Google is the reigning advertising king, a partnership would be mutually beneficial. With Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, now on Apple's board of directors, the personal relationship between he and Jobs would help clear the way for a deal.
     
    Packaging and offering easy access to ad-supported video would be a big content strategy departure for Apple, but a necessary one for iTV to fully flourish. Remember, selling hardware is what Apple's really all about. Given Apple's famous appetite for secrecy, I expect we'll only find out how Steve Jobs has decided to play his hand upon iTV's official launch. If it's to be iTunes-only paid video, I'll downgrade iTV's likelihood of big-time success considerably. "
     
  • The TV Industry’s New Call Letters: Y-A-H-O-O, M-S-N, A-O-L and M-Y-S-P-A-C-E?

    Today’s announcement from NBC and News Corp, that they have set up a venture to distribute full length programs plus promotional clips through 4 major distributors (with more to come) heralds a potentially new, and radically different era, for the broadcast, and possibly the cable TV industries.

    In one fell swoop, 2 of the major broadcast networks have granted distribution rights to four of the Internet’s most-trafficked sites. If one assumes that it is inevitable that the broadband/PC world will be linked up with consumers’ living room TVs (whether through AppleTVs, Xboxes, Slingcatchers, etc.), then it sure seems to me as though we are on the brink of seeing a full-scale digital replica of the analog broadcast TV affiliate model being born. If that’s the case, what does that mean for existing players, most notably local broadcast TV stations? And how about cable TV and satellite operators, who have long relied on retransmitting high-quality feeds local broadcast feeds of network programming as a staple of their value proposition?

    I’ve been writing about how the video distribution value chain is being impacted by broadband video for a while now. My March 2006 newsletter, “How Broadband is Changing Video Distribution” recapped my firm’s Q1 2006 report, “How Broadband is Creating a New Generation of Video Distributors: The Market Opportunity for Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL, Apple and Others”. In this report we identified these companies as a so-called ‘Group of 5” which were best-positioned to benefit as new broadband-centric distributors and explained our reasons for this conclusion.

    Flash forward one year. Today’s announcement cements the distribution heft of 3 of the 5 (Yahoo, MSN and AOL). Meanwhile, Google’s acquisition of YouTube has strengthened its distribution prowess. If it can build on initial partnerships with the many content providers with which it works, its power will only grow. And of course, Apple now boasts almost 60 TV networks and content producers providing programming to iTunes. Its launch of AppleTV strengthens its hand as the hardware provider-of-choice in linking up the broadband and TV worlds.

    We’re exploring all of this in a report we’re (quite coincidentally) working on right now, which examines broadband’s impact on the video distribution value chain. It both updates the Q1 2006 report, and also expands it to include the roles of emerging players such as Joost, BitTorrent, Wal-Mart and others. We’ve been very fortunate to have access to many of the players in the space to gain unparalleled insights into their plans. The report is due out soon. I’ll keep you posted on its progress.

     
  • The Only Topic Anyone I Talked to This Week Cared About

    Was of course Viacom's $1 billion suit against Google. I must say, all eyes are riveted on this one. My take is that it's hard to believe there isn't a business deal to be made between these two companies that wouldn't be better for both than having the lawyers slugging it out.

    Sure YouTube traffic is up since pulling down many of the Viacom clips, but really what does that prove except that YouTube's rapid growth rate can compensate for these kinds of hiccups? For YouTube to maintain its position as the ultimate video destination, it can't afford to have gaps in its clips springing up here and there. So it should be motivated to make a deal, not just with Viacom, but with all big media companies.

    As for Viacom, it's inconceivable to me that they are better off not being a part of YouTube. Exhibit A is the free promotion and exposure The Daily Show has received over the last year from YouTube. Viacom's going to have to lock a muzzle on Jon Stewart to prevent him from lambasting his corporate parent's decision.

    None of us knows how courts will interpret the DMCA in this case. The legal scholars' comments I've followed this week certainly don't form a consensus. So I continue to believe, as I wrote about last November ("Big Media's Most Vexing Challenge"), that big media companies' traditional copyright control mentalities are causing them to underoptimize their broadband opportunities. The sooner they loosen their traditional copyright approaches, the sooner they'll be able to fully exploit broadband's potential.

     
  • Oscar’s Bellyflop

    Lots of scorn flying around the net this week criticizing Oscar's takedown notices to YouTube combined with their miserly video offering at their own site. I'm just going to pile on here. What's happening is totally consistent with the findings of our Q4 '06 report on the broadcast industry and broadband video. A key conclusion of that report was that today networks look at broadband as essentially a new distribution path for existing shows. The 2 options are consumer paid downloads (dominated by iTunes) and free streaming episodes.

    What they haven't done yet is create robust clip areas complete with interactivity. This area has been dominated by YouTube and others. As I said in Variety, as a result of networks' inactivity, a vacuum has been created which YouTube is filling. Consumers want clips and they want to interact. The networks should be creating these offerings on their own sites. And they should be working with YouTube. But to do neither is ostrich-like. Their inactions suggest they just wish this whole broadband/community thing would just pass already.

     
  • Dvorak and I in Agreement on Copyright Control

    John Dvorak has a good post at MarketWatch regarding Viacom's take down notice to YouTube. Although he's harsher than I've been in the past ("The company is just clueless about new media"), his general point that this is a control issue is similar to what I said back in November in "Big Media's Most Vexing Challenge".
     
    Big media companies need to adjust their copyright control mindsets if they're going to exploit the power of new broadband distribution models. Distinguishing between use of their content that drives new promotion and awareness vs. use of their content that undermines their business models is the key. Just lumping everything into the latter category shows both paranoia and lack of understanding of how the market is shifting.
     
  • Viacom-YouTube. The Gloves are Coming Off

    Well not quite yet, as the lawsuits are not yet flying. But we're getting there. After some flip-flopping on this last fall, today Viacom officially told YouTube to take down its clips, reputed to number over 100,000. Obviously you'd need to be involved in these negotiations to know the details of what the offers and counter-offers have been, but it's a disappointment for both parties not to be able to work things out.

    As I wrote back in November, "Big Media's Most Vexing Challenge (and How to Overcome It)", companies like Viacom are going through a painful adjustment process to the new broadband-dominated world. This flare-up with YouTube is yet another example.

     
  • UGC Revenue Sharing Ramps Up?

    Chicago Tribune article suggests that user generated content producers being paid for their works will soon be ubiquitous. Of course Revver and others have been doing this for a while now. Steven Starr from Revver raises the “recognition vs. reward” question that undoubtedly passes through any UGC producer’s mind.

    I’ve said for a while that if someone had laid the YouTube business plan next to the Revver business plan back in 2005, logic would have suggested that Revver would have better prospects given its willingness to share revenues with producers (thereby creating more incentive to post there).

    However, what would have been missing from that logic would be the 2 things that I believe made YouTube an early (and big) winner – namely its willingness to push the envelope in allowing copyrighted material to be posted on its site and its superior user experience. Having won the first battle, YouTube appears poised to overlay the financial incentive long missing for content producers. If well-executed, this should make the landscape even tougher for all the others to succeed.

     
Previous | Next