Wowza. I thought I was on top of online video. I’m hanging my head in humility. Check out this post featuring a timeline of online video by Steve Bryant in his new blog, “ReelPopBlog.”
Included is this dreamy graphic. Click to see it up close.
Category Archives: metacafe
Psychology of Online-Video Commenters
I’ve been studying online-video comments for a few months, and I’d like to share my unscientific but well-documented conclusions. Online-video commenters come in three segments:
- Angry cynics (66%)
- Supportive fans (23%)
- Self promoters (11%)
For some of my videos it would take more time to read the comments than it did to shoot, edit and submit the video. But I’ve scanned almost all of them, and here are some typical responses:
- I’m a bad dad for encouraging my kids to do x, y and z (few consider we’re acting and the kids understand this)
- I’m a good dad for spending time with my kids
- I’m a f**k p**s moron idiot (I get a lot of that)
In general the people that slam are also the ones that don’t have any of their own videos posted. So they’re kinda the mini version of Ebert except angrier. I don’t remember seeing any of Ebert’s films. Now here’s the interesting thing. The commenters are more or less acidic depending on the online-video site.
- Revver: Always positive. Because they don’t allow comments.
- Yahoo: Downright encouraging and kind- with an occasional exception.
- YouTube: Mixed angry and not. Usually dissappointed with the humor level.
- Metacafe: Extremely supressed and disturbed, with some exceptions.
- Live Digital: Satanic. Not posting there anymore.
Context is the biggest factor in the commenter’s response. If they’ve found my video while searching for silly kid videos then they’re clearly positive. However if it shows up randomly (like the homepage of Yahoo) then they mostly don’t understand that it’s a viral video and intended for humor. Most of all, if it’s featured in the middle of extreme, risque or irreverent videos, mine usually get a lot of “gay” and “wtf” responses. I once posted a spoof with my kids on a rap contest on Live Digital. I had to pull it down because the reactions were demonic.
How do I respond? Mostly with intrigue. The only thing I don’t like to see is “yawn” or “you’ve done better.” I’d rather a reaction- positive or negative. My favorite is when people analyze a video far beyond what I’d ever imagined. There was once a debate as to whether I was representing George Bush in a video. It reminded me of 9th grade English when we’d look for meaning in a Hemingway book that Hemingway never probably even considered.
Would welcome further diagnosis of “commentitis.” Maybe someone should launch an “angry online video site” just for repressed folks who don’t make videos but like to critique. I’d submit.
Most importantly, I’d encourage people to develop thick comment skin. It comes easier with time. Tuning into them will discourage you and make your videos worse.
Mandatory Reading for Journalists Covering “Online Video”
Dear regular WillVideoForFood readers: permit me to speak directly to the media in this post. Read this if you wish, but most of it’s not new to you.
My friends in media. You’re under deadline. You want to do a story about online video. Your instincts tell you to package another human interest story about the popularity of YouTube. But you know better. The story isn’t just broken it’s shattered.
Now you want a new angle. While some people are happy being popular online, others are looking to make money. And they are- little folks that have day jobs but talent that once never left their living rooms. You’ve read about the EepyBird folks that made the Diet Coke Mentos fountain, and earned probably $50K by now via Revver. So how does this new “consumer generated video” turn to profit?
The most important thing I hope you’ll take from this post is that all online video sites are not the same. Are eBay, Monster and Amazon the same company because they all sell via the Internet?
There are 4 distinct classes of online video.
Please don’t confuse them, because you know the folks at the other network will. Which is probably why you left that network (in addition to the fact that the psycho who ran the booking department was totally hitting on you). Four classes:
- Popular Stand Alone (YouTube is ahead by miles according to Hitwise, Comscore, Alexa, etc.). Probably 30-40 percent of online videos are served from this San Mateo company based in a loft over the pizza store (be sure to add that to your YouTube story because only 4% of stories about YouTube neglect to mention that. Don’t forget to enter our YouTube “bubble burst” pool while you’re here, because it’s not yet a viable business.
- Top Online Sites with small but growing online video status (Google, Yahoo, AOL)
- Revenue-Sharing (aka pay-for-content) sites (Revver, Metacafe, Eefoof). These folks sell advertisements around the video and give the video content owners (mostly amateurs) a piece of the action.
- “Destined for Bankruptcy” sites… like my own CubeBreak and Chapter11TV.com.
Now you know that you can’t really compare “revenue-sharing” sites with YouTube. And I know your EP is asking for a story outline in 15 minutes, but let’s make sure you know the difference between the three “revenue-sharing” sites. I’m going to save you the trouble of taking boring calls from PR people (while you daydream about hte moron that just got promoted to EP because he sucked up to your bosses’ boss).
Revver: The first site to split ad proceeds, Revver debuted in beta mode late in 2005. In the next few weeks it will officially launch, and it is unique in that it’s not a destination site. Think of it as the Visa for online video. It facilitates people sharing their content without digital-rights management. When someone clicks the ad at the end of the Revver video, I get 50% of the advertisers payment to Revver. I’ve made about $2000 on my 200 plus videos since January. Note that you have to market your videos to get clicks because Revver’s monthly traffic doesn’t touch YouTube’s daily traffic. For press inquiries contact Revver’s Queen of Content Relationships, Micki Krimmel, via the Revver Blog because she’s nicer than the PR person. Ask them to let you interview Steven Starr – the co-founder who has really big muscles. Revver’s new site is a technical dream (flash, advanced sharing, etc.) and the company is partnering closely with major media players for advertising and content partnerships.
Metacafe: A new entrant to the “revenue-sharing” space, Metacafe launched last week a Producer Rewards program in which it provides video owners with $5 for every 1,000 views a video gets. This amounts to somewhat less per view than Revver but Metacafe has lots of traffic. It’s in the top 10-15 most popular video sites depending on source and when you check. Within the past several weeks I’ve made more than $2000 on the 4 videos they’ve accepted and featured. For press inquiries contact Dan Sevitt (and I’ll insert his PR agency’s contact later today). They’re in Israel so they can you can call them at 3:00 EST as you’re eating old Chinese Food and wondering if you should change professions because your boss is such an egotistical jerk.
Eefoof: Eefoof is a small startup that’s in a beta mode now. Eefoof allows creators to submit photos, audio and video. At the end of the month, Eefoof takes its piece of the advertising revenue and then spreads the rest out to creators based on views. I just started using Eefoof but my videos haven’t received much traffic. I know others that have experimented with Eefoof and made about $7 in a month. Contact CEO Kevin Flynn (here’s his appearance on CNBC). Contact here.
Note: Google’s new contract/terms suggest it will soon share Adsense and Google Video revenue with content creators, although it hasn’t officially launched yet.
So now you’re ready for the story. All I ask is that you consider using some of my videos in your b-roll. Oh- and feed your cameramen and PAs beause they’ll be your boss one day.
Online Video Sites: Upload Scores (and Pet Peeves)
Those of us that upload videos frequently have certainly developed a preference based on speed, convenience and “instant gratification” (ability of a site to show video soon after uploading it). Let’s review the common online video sites based on how well they facilitate uploading/posting of videos:
- YouTube: Used to be faster. The past few weeks I seem to get a delay whereby my video doesn’t show thumbnail for a while even if the video is there. Search terms don’t appear to be indexed quickly either. B-
- Metacafe: UPDATE: Now takes .mov files (as of 9/11). Also allows you to tag and add descriptions while the upload occurs (the only site so intuitively designed). Still has minor bugs but went from F to B- in the past week.
- Revver: Often slow, but improving. Terms are searchable as soon as it’s live, but upload-to-live time can take hours or even most of a day. C-
- Google: Used to be the worst- required multiple phases with horrendous delays. Now it’s almost instant. A- (from an F just weeks ago)
- Yahoo: Seems pretty good. Don’t think I’ve encountered problems, even if there is sometimes a minor delay. B+
- Eefoof: Tried a dozen of my videos over the weekend- quite easy. Would be an A but for the annoying requirement that the file name not have spaces. B-
- BlipTV and iFilm: I can’t remember. Anyone?
Note to video sites. We have some UPLOAD PET PEEVES.
- Let us identify the video on our hard drive (assign name/location) before we clasify it. It’s logical, and YouTube goes backwards. If I upload several videos I like to do them by date so I don’t miss one or upload twice, and that requires starting with file search so I can check the “saved on” date of the file.
- If you’re not going to make it live immediately, tell us where it stands. Otherwise we’ll upload it again and get error messages… I did that three times on YouTube this weekend.
- Don’t force a naming convention that’s “off the beaten track.” I won’t mention any names. Eefoof.
- For goodness sakes settle on a tag convention. Commas or spaces, people? We don’t care, but you’re making us think too hard by having different rules. And if you give us a limit please don’t make it fewer than 10-12 words.
- If we need to clasify it by genre, give us more choices (some sites only offer 6-8 options). And allow us to give it multiple genres. This will be very important as people want to refine searches.
- Would someone PLEASE develop a software that automates submissions to multiple sites?
Metacafe: Will Show Butt Crack for Food
I made $800 in a few days by simply showing the world my butt crack. Now I’ll share the secret on how you can make a decent coin for your amateur online videos (man that sounded like an infomercial introduction).
Metacafe is paying $5 per 1,000 views. That’s not the best “return on view,” in the industry (Revver, for instance, does roughly between $5 and $10 per 1,000 views- but it’s a “pay per click” model). But here’s the big difference. If Metacafe likes your stuff, they feature it. And so far I’ve been blown away with how much traffic my videos get. Big fish small pond. Check out the Metacafe Producer Rewards program.
Here’s the story- more than 300K people have viewed “Google Earth: Has it Gone Too Far” on Google Video, and a strange 4K have downloaded it. But revenue to date has been zero (Google Video doesn’t share ad revenue). But Metacafe features it for a few days and I suddenly made enough to buy a new camcorder. Yipee.
Note that Metacafe is It certainly gets more traffic than any other site that shares ad revenue (Comscore and Hitwise).
So my Butt Crack video (click to see it on Metacafe) has made more than $800 in the week or so it’s been live. Most of that in the first few days.
My mama always warned me about selling crack for a living.
I’m still loyally submitting to Revver (and getting excited about its version 1.0 launch). I also started experimenting with Eefoof yesterday. But as long as I can create material that warrants Metacafe featuring, it might be the best near-term payoff. At least when I meet the needs of the risque group of viewers on Metacafe.
You Won’t Get Discovered on YouTube
I’d like to take a moment to dispel the biggest myth of online video. Since a few “cross over” stars have been discovered on YouTube, people have begun to think that they can too.
Folks, it’s like playing the lotto. You have the same chance winning whether you play or not.
You won’t get discovered on YouTube. You’ll be a waitress in Hollywood taking a lunch break for your 177th audition. It’s not that you’re unworthy. You have talent. You’re even quite funny!
Here’s the problem: While it’s true that YouTube dominates online-video share, it’s wayyyyyyy easier to get yourself seen on a 2nd-tier or 3rd-tier site. Sure the BoobTube gets 10 zillion viewers a day. But there are eleventy gazillion videoscompleting for mindshare, and the viewers only look at the really popular stuff. So you won’t get popular because you’re not yet popular. I’m sorry to let you down. There’s just too much crap seeking the same eyeballs.
Try submitting to the 2nd-tier sites (Google Video, Yahoo Video and AOL Video) and you’ll be surprised how much more traffic you get. Even better, get on Metacafe, Blip or Revver. The deeper you go the bigger fish you’ll be in a smaller pond.
Let me close with this little story… My friend Tony Braithwaite went to LA to become a movie star. He tried for a year, and then got wise. He came back to Philadelphia to do stage theater. He’s now a living stage legend in Philly. That’s you on a 2nd tier site, friend.
Another Ranking of Top 10 Video Sites
Here’s another ranking of top video sites (by LightReading.com). I’m reminded that it’s probably time for me to update my ranking of the top revenue-sharings sites.
I admire LightReading’s thorough review, but I’m surprised that it overlooked the fundamental differences in business models between these sites. I suppose LightReading is an infrastructure site that is looking at it from that angle, but it does get down to comparing user experience and functionality.
However how can you review online video sites and not talk about the advertising models and whether you can make money by submitting… or not?
- Here’s the “cheat sheet.”
- Here’s a deeper dive on criteria for the cheat sheet.
- Here are the specific reviews for LightReading’s favorites.
Blip.tv
VideoEgg
Dailymotion
YouTube
Veoh
Google Video
Grouper
Jumpcut
AOL
Eyespot
A More Efficient Way to Waste Time?
I constantly hear about the hours people spend on YouTube. I have a more efficient way of wasting time.
I’ve been able to waste an hour each morning in less than 20 minutes by browsing Metacafe!
The user interface is set up well so you can dive right to the most popular or most recent videos. The content is much better overall because they screen videos for quality (like Break.com) instead of taking just anything.
YouTube’s flaw is that it accepts anything anyone submits so it’s a big ol’ bloated longtail video soup with meaty chunks of copyright infringement.
This is mitigated by the fact that the popular content gets the best ratings and most viewed. But it’s still a needle in a haystack. I have to find something nice to say about YouTube. I’m coming across as bitter. I really like their director logo and user homepage structure and style. Here’s mine. Isn’t it pretty? Thanks for not kicking me off, YouTube, like you did to the crazy cat lady from Philly.