You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Online Video' tag.
A local Circuit City employee introduced me to TV-Links.co.uk . I don’t understand how this site is legal, but I did notice a significant decline in the number of watchable videos over the last several weeks.
The most interesting thing about TV-Links was that it linked to Stage6.com which is a website devoted to showcasing the DIVX In-Browser player. It is very impressive. While Joost and Veoh want to remove bandwidth issues associated with video, their technology isn’t nearly as usable or user-friendly as the DIVX player.
DIVX In-Browser Player delivers a more enjoyable user experience with easier installation, quicker downloads and fullscreen HD quality
Need you ask for more? You could ask for legal content. But it isn’t too long before another company (I’d put my bet on an existing media company) decides to build a web-based platform with DIVX running the user experience. I’d put my money in that direction.
Good read: 33 Ways to Watch Free TV Online - Although they must have missed the DIVX HD fullscreen content when they said “…not if you have one of those 47” plasma ones, but…you know what we mean.”
Google responded to the Viacom Suit today. I have already written about the disregard for copyright and how Google sees no value in content. My wise, attorney father posted a comment regarding the Viacom/YouTube suit. He explains:
The resolution of this suit will likely be a voluntary change in YouTube’s upload practices that will engage it in more vigilant policing of uploaded content. In particular, its policy of awaiting copyright owners’ demands before removing pirated material will predictably evolve into a more proactive undertaking to remove infringing material - at least that which is relatively obvious; TV programming, movie trailers, etc. However, it it is not an exact analogue of the Napster case in which Napster executives opined that its users were “…exchanging pirated music.”! YouTube was well aware of the Napster and Grokster fiascos before it, and apparently has given some thought to the potential for this kind of action - its copyright policy is, at least, well written, and if implemented in a more aggressive fashion would likely insulate it from the kind of direct and indirect liability alledged in the Viacom complaint. Its exposure lies in part in the very technology that enables the uploading, and exchange of video content because it also permits it to police the content more vigorously, and hence it will be forced to do so or suffer the fate of Napster and Grokster before it.
Perhaps Google’s new “policing tools” will solve this problem, but who knows. I haven’t found any intelligent commentary, but Google’s response does warrant a few words. It explains:
By seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for Internet communications, Viacom’s complaint threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression.
The funny thing is technology can be used for illegal AND legal things. Maybe the “entitled generation” doesn’t believe this, but I honestly believe copyrighted works should be protected. The companies that create technologies which enable the easy sharing of content should be responsible for monitoring the use of that technology. Additionally, I firmly believe it is unethical to use technology to facilitate the sharing of copyrighted works to build a “destination site” like YouTube.
ZDNet has a good analysis of the rebuttals. Other bloggers are adding small bits of information.
So, I read the VidMeter Report that everyone is using to claim that the YouTube/Viacom lawsuit is baloney (see 1, 2, 3,4). This is some of the worst misappropriation of non-scientific findings I have seen in a while.
VidMeter Report is the Real Baloney
There are so many things wrong with the methodology; I can’t even believe people actually use this to justify their opinions. Here is what’s wrong with the report:
- Non-Scientific Approach: VidMeter only used “top videos” from YouTube views, instead of a random sample or population. Additionally, it is not clear how time is incorporated into this study.
- Copyrighted Content Not Actually Measured: E.g. VidMeter lists “hips don’t lie” as the second largest copyrighted piece of content on YouTube servers. Anyone with half a brain would go search “hips don’t lie” on YouTube and see the first hit is a video with 1.7 million views. VidMeter is only reporting 94 million views of copyrighted content (page 4). So, with one small example, VidMeter has missed 2% of copyrighted video views and underreported its “Percentage of All Views” by 0.06% (there are some time issues that aren’t clear). The point is: if you look you will easily find a lot more copyrighted content that was excluded from this study.
Blogger Interpretation is Dead Wrong
The methodology was flawed, but the conclusion surprisingly didn’t overanalyze the data. The report concludes:
we have concluded that unauthorized copyright videos make up a relatively small portion of YouTube’s most popular videos and an even smaller portion of views to YouTube’s most popular videos.
My favorite misappropriation was found on Internet Outsider:
The Vidmeter analysis supports the following theses: Traditional media videos make up only a small percentage of YouTube views…
I find this comment absurd. VidMeter only measured top videos, it did not look at a random sample or an entire population. Additionally, VidMeter had no way of measuring non-removed content as copyrighted or non-copyrighted. In the future, I hope the blogging community does some more analysis before they jump to conclusions that are founded on flawed data.
Finally, I’d like to say that this doesn’t change the underlying principals of the Viacom/YouTube suit I’ve mentioned earlier.
Update1: Viacom has a small response - basically, Google doesn’t have any clue what is/isn’t copyrighted content.
Online Video Ads are at least TWICE as likely to be clicked
According to a recent study by DoubleClick, the CTR (Click-Through-Rates) for video ads is twice as high as standard images. Specifically:
Online video ads experience click-through rates ranging from 0.4 percent to 0.74 percent depending on the online video format. By comparison, the click-through rate for plain GIF or JPG image ads ranges between 0.1 and 0.2 percent, based on DoubleClick data.
Behavioral Targeting (BT) already demonstrates 2X CTRs vs Non-BT
Studies have shown that BT more than doubles CTRs when compared with non-behavioral targeted content.
As advertisers fill inventory with video ads, and companies use BT to better target those ads, an increasing percentage of ads will be BT Video Ads. Additionally, the number of ads could decrease. Pretty straightforward, but still important for newspapers as they make the transition online.
Update1: MillwardBrown Study saying the exact same thing.
Stay tuned for an online revenue model for newspapers…
I’ve argued for the value of content in newspapers. I’ve argued newspapers need to band together to create proprietary technology solutions. This announcement reinforces my thinking.
NBC/News Corp YouTube-Killer Eliminates Unwanted Technology
The NYT highlights, “this was about getting it right.” The venture eliminates non-authorized distribution partners, mainly YouTube and others who take the majority share of revenue from video distribution. The new technology will only give technology partners 10% of the revenue and also distribute content to 96% of internet users. These facts reveal that unwanted technology is the technology that freely distributes content. Goodbye free distribution, hello rights managed solution.
The Venture Demonstrates the Value of Content
According to the NYT article, Google “is considering licensing the new venture’s fare just as other big Internet players have.” Content providers will squeeze out technology solutions that don’t protect IP.
NBC and News Corp have a very large execution risk. The idea is solid, but will they be able to deliver this product to market so that consumers use it?
Update 1: Murdoch did KO Google.
Update 2: Looks like CBS structured a 90/10 (in their favor) revenue sharing deal with various distribution partners. *YouTube participation still to be determined.
Cory Bergman wrote an interesting post about the online video explosion. As you know, I am a big proponent of the “Long Tail” and have discussed how New Media needs to be understood as a rapid segmentation of content.
As more niche online video makes its way on the web, it will draw large Long Tail audiences who are excited to find video programming that fits their unique interests . . . The sheer volume of online video will push down ad rates, ultimately leading to consolidation and the creation of vast video ad networks.
The key question is: who will have a competitive advantage and create these “vast video ad networks?” Unless technology companies demonstrate interest in buying content companies (or buying exclusive rights to content) their video networks will be be missing popular shows that create large economies of scale. Media companies will smarten up, develop technologies and control the distribution of their content.
Maybe it won’t be consoldiation, but a lot of failures? Are we facing an online video world where technology will face off against content? What do you think?
The fill-in-the-blank headline of 2007: [Insert Technology Company] powers [Insert Content Owner] video syndication
Today, I learned Microsoft and the AP combined forces to syndicate videos to local stations. Not surprisingly, the AP offers content and a newspaper/broadcaster network while Microsoft offers the technology. In the video portion of the post, Jim Kathman spoke to Beet.TV explaining the AP was concerned about the technology and went to Microsoft to reduce their concerns. But in regards to monetizing, Kathman said:
If [the local properties] were able to drive traffic to their site, how do they monetize it? We’ve taken care of that by partnering with MSN; and MSN does a great job selling national brand advertising
Yesterday I learned Borrell Associates had released a report that explained:
The local video advertising market is still small – just $161 million in 2006, growing to $371 million this year . . . In five years, local online video advertising will surpass $5 billion, representing more than one-third of all local online advertising
Local properties of all kinds, blogs, newspapers, broadcast, etc have advertising value because of their niche
As the video technology and hosting technology becomes more commoditized, technology solutions must appeal to the increasingly segmented world. New Media companies must have solutions that appeal to the rapid segmentation of content markets.
To capitalize on a $5 billion local video advertising market, New Media companies must develop solutions that enable niche advertisers to better target niche segments
MSN has created a system which shares national brand revenues with the AP, MSN & the local newspaper/broadcaster. But, how do niche properties insert local or targeted advertising into their online video content? As the local online video advertising market grows, is this partnership really the best way to monetize traffic? Shouldn’t the focus be on local/niche advertisers?
Recent Comments