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,

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.

Read Net Sense on MarketWatch

Comments

[Aimes2]

I don’t know how you could write this article and not mention bittorrent downloading. Because that is a huge chunk of online video consumption… and pretty much where all the copyright stuff is being seen.

I just watched the whole season 6 of Sopranos like this, and watch too many shows/movies to count from BT (Download .mpg or .avi files; encode and burn to DVD; sit back on couch and enjoy on TV in perfect quality) - So do all my friends.

It’s the poor student’s/young professional’s/teenager’s full service cable subscription and Tivo rolled into one.

[Aimes2]

Don't narc me out either...

[Matthew Cook]

I concur with Ms. Francisco regarding the problem the major studios are having with getting their product “front and center” on sites like Google. It’s driving them crazy.

I’ve had several conversations with the online marketing and PR people at the Studios. They want more control of where it is placed. There is no or little concern about copyright issues when dealing with movie Trailers. It’s a free promotional tool. They want high traffic and impressions, they want you to see the Trailer and pass it around. But, if you type in a movie’s name on a video search site you can get all kinds of links. If someone puts up a video spoof of the movie Trailer – you see the problem. Of course, they could pay more than they are for “locked in” placement. I think the major video search sites are going to have to a better job of creating an ad and placement synergy for the major studios and networks to help the consumer break through the clutter.

Regarding the question “why don’t we see more professional network content on the Internet”? Besides Ms. Francisco’s correct observations I also think that watching on your computer screen is a bad medium to watch a TV show. We are back to the 3 ft. vs. 10 ft. viewer experience. Once we can legally and easily “place shift” our video content to our big screen -- high end content will start to flow. Well, provided that the Studios see a revenue model that works.

Also, to add to the copyright problems… the next time the Writers Guild, SAG and AFTRA contracts expire we are going to see some real problems rise up. The Hollywood Guilds and Unions are already making noise about getting their fair share of the Internet royalties.

Matthew Cook

[Fredrick Marckini, CEO, search marketing firm iProspect]

Bambi -- Your article today was right on! You nailed it!

Most interesting perhaps is that the video clip you highlight of "girl caught cheating" which I thought was illustrative of your theory of our (collectively) "transparent lives." How incredible that for the rest of this poor girl's life, this video will be available to millions (we don't know, of course if she is even over 18 or if this is real or staged). Her life now will be defined, to some extent, by that one poor choice that tragically for her, was memorialized on video tape for the world to watch on YouTube.

The Wall Street Journal wrote recently that due to Google (and I would argue myriad sites beyond Google) we have reached a moment in time that marks the end of the "youthful indiscretion." Nothing you get caught doing will ever be private again. Court records will become unsealed, and ultimately they will be available to people searching the Web.

Thank you so much for your coverage of the emerging online video space. It is, in my humble opinion, the most exciting thing happening online.

[Bob Jacobson, Bluefire Consulting, Santa Monica]

Dear Bambi,

Thanks for your column on "One-Off Moments in Time." It raised a lot of good points about the current dilemma faced by big media as it confronts the appealing but to it, still terra incognita online environment.

There are many reasons why amateur video appeals to online users, including those that you mention in your newsletter article, Bambi. However, they sound like a lot of sour grapes from the "big media" folks. Their fare has declined in popularity on the broadcasting medium, too, so it's not just the quick and easy nature of YouTube shorts that's burying CBS. It's because people aren't and never were enamored of prepackaged "news" and "entertainment" in the big-media format. They were a captive audience, trapped in front of the big screen, the radio, and the TV set, forced to partake of whatever NY and Hollywood poured into the firehose.

In the late 60s and early 70s, I worked with the LA Public Access Project, headquartered in Santa Monica, CA. It was at the inception of the public access movement, before the public-access video medium was turned by cable operators into a political token and by the networks into stupid dog tricks. We trained local people to use Portapaks and VTRs, equipped them, and sent them out to show the world whatever was important to them. I can say without reservation that the more authentic an amateur video production was, the more in demand it was -- in stand-alone showplaces and theaters as well as on cable. Among all of the videos I produced, mostly biographies of average folk, no one -- no one -- ever requested an edit of anything they said or did. Nor did audiences react adversely, even if a shot was rough cut, the sound slightly garbled, or the diction irregular.

Maybe Nixon would have liked changes in the real-time documentary I made about life in San Clemente, day before the 1972 election. He never got a chance 'cause he was reclusive and never saw it. The tape played at the Pasadena Art Museum and was a bit hit. Especially the shoe repairman who grinned that the Secret Service agents always came to him to get zippers installed in their boots; and the flower shop owner who complained that Nixon, on the rare occasions that he came to town, never said boo. "A very introverted man," she lamented. (Sure, he was about to be busted.)

I think big media is brain-dead, uncreative, and doomed to become a smaller media. The appeal of amateur fare isn't that it's somehow less demanding than big media and therefore easier to view and download, to take away (as in fast food). The appeal is that it's authentic and about people. There's nothing more interesting to real people (not Hollywood producers) than authentic stories told about other real people. The reality shows, for all their crassness and unreality, shed some much-needed light on this phenomenon.

To really test my claims, our society in one way or another would have to flow more money to amateur producers (the future IFCs) and enlarge the public-broadcasting frequency window to permit more grassroots radio stations. You'd see a renaissance in media, all right, though it wouldn't be big media. It'd be folks media.

I hope beyond hope that we don't kill online in the same way we've denuded broadcast TV and radio, and film, by "professionalizing" it. After nearly a century of experience with film and electronic media, you'd think we'd have learned that lesson.

Thanks again for a great column (as usual). -- Bob
______________________________________________________________

[Bruce J.]

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)

[Robb]

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

[Parker]

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?

[BF]

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.

[ISI]

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

[BF]

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.

[Steve Rosenbaum]

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/