Tag Archives: exclusive

Online Video

Exclusive Snookie “Boob Grab” from Set of MTV’s “Jersey Shore” (July 2011)

2 Comments
snooki in july 2011

So we’re visiting the shore yesterday. And I used to refer to the Jersey Shore as the beach covered with needles, based on a news story from years ago.

But yesterday I couldn’t help mistake many girls at Point Pleasant, NJ, as “Snookie.” In fact I kept half-jokingly telling my wife I spotted Snookie, when anyone robust and tan passed me. Little did I suspect that while fetching hotdogs for the kids, I’d overhear someone saying “Snookie’s in there.” I resisted the temptation to walk into the bar, but later felt obliged to determine if it was real or not. It was real. Snookie was in the house.

Indeed I stumbled upon a taping of MTV’s “Jersey Shore” and was able to capture some highlights. A couple times, because the cast moves about the bar, I’d end up in the right/wrong place and have to quickly move. I first shot about a minute of some other cast member (dancing on the bar) I mistook for Snookie.

Only after shooting and editing the footage did I realize (while looking for a thumbnail image) that I had footage of Snookie grabbing some blonde girl’s boobs. So, yeah. That’s a fourth of July video for you.

Anyone recognize the other people? Who’s the guy who shoed me away?

 

Online Video

America’s Funniest Videos Versus YouTube

5 Comments
  • Why has America’s Funniest Videos (AFV) not died in 20 years even despite the age of “instant gratification via YouTube”?
  • How does AFV manage the logistics of culling through massive amounts of user-generated clips?
  • How many clips does AFV producer Vin Di Bona own?
  • Why has no other show or format “cracked the code” of televising web clips until, perhaps, Tosh 2.0?

Wired Magazine solved many of these age-old nagging questions in “Painfully Funny: Why America’s Funniest Home Videos Won’t Die” a recent issue by Brian Raftery. Note Raftery’s choice of “won’t” versus “hasn’t” or “can’t.”

Some quick AFV-facts (below) were fascinating news to me, and I’ve watched the show since 1989 with the love-hate relationship you perhaps share. Sure, I dig the poodle in a congo line and giggling quadruplet babies, but my spoof (now at 12 million views) tells you how I see the show. All that’s missing is Sagat’s painful impersonations — the chalkboard scratch of the 1990s.

Fun Facts:

  • Di Bona is like the porn king of user-generated videos, and is sitting on an exclusive library of 104,000 plus digitized clips, all carefully tagged with words like “cat (4K plus), parrot, baby, snot (265), itchy, zipline, sea turtles and lick.
Bergeron is gold. But someone may want to update this photo. When's the last time you held a VHS tape or burned a DVD?
  • Why, despite Sagat’s horrible humor, sound effects and voiceovers, did the show survive? Because in the 90s it was impossible to share clips and nobody was culling them. Luckily Tom Bergeron and a smart writing/editing staff have fine-tuned the model. Bergeron is like Ryan Seacrest. Each sound, facial expression and body movement exudes confidence, is inflected with precision, and yet is approachable. I watch them like you may watch professional ice skaters (I tend to prefer the latter only when they spill).
  • Did you miss a key word of my first bullet? Exclusive rights, which is extremely rare in today’s digital economy. That’s why David DeVore, a Florida real-estate agent, made a smart decision to turn down “exclusive,” in a move that’s given him far more than even AFV’s top $100,000 prize (and since the clip involves a minor under the influence of a drug, it might well have never left AFV’s faults, points out Raftery’s Wired piece). I just found DeVore’s note to me: in the weeks after “David After Dentist” exploded: “Do you have any advice on what to pursue? Maybe its nothing, I dont know. Is youtube partners a good option? Are there other things to look into?” I rushed to bring this to YouTube’s attention, although it certainly would have happened without me. It takes a lot of home commissions to reach what he’s earned from that clip in advertising-revenue sharing, and he owns it… not Di Bona.
  • The show’s secret formula is that it stayed away from video “stories” (beginning, middle and end) in lieu of micro clips that have global appeal… I’d see FailBlog as today’s version, yet many of its clips are ripped and certainly not capable of monetization. I sent my 1980s videos to Di Bona when I saw a “call for entries” that preceded the original broadcast (I can’t remember signing a release, but I’m sure I’d have signed away my life at that time). I was tickled to see some of my videos on the early promotions of the show, although I don’t believe they’ve ever been in the show. For two decades people have asked me why I don’t send videos to AFV, and I now have two simple answers: my videos aren’t AFV gold (with a few exceptions like Charlie and the Santa claus) and I don’t like exclusivity. No AFV grand prize could offset what YouTube’s done for me.
  • Charlie and Santa, having surpassed ever slightly the “50K views or lower” AFV requirement, would not make it eligible for AFV. They’re smartly avoiding online memes and popular clips. That’s a distinct advantage over shows that recycle clips most of us have already beat to death. To be considered for AFV, of course, I’d have to take down the video and cede any upside that might come otherwise (the clip has been on television but no exclusivity was required).
  • The AFV videos are recycled less often than you’d think. In periods Di Bona received 1,000 videos a day, sometimes barely any, and other times 2,000 per week. If he relaxes his exclusivity clause and invites easy web submissions he’ll get far more entries even if worse in aggregate (that would lower the bar for home-video creators, making it less effort to submit, and perhaps overwhelm his staff reviewing loads of nonsense). Relaxing the exclusivity requirement would also change the business model since by air time we might already be sick of the Sneezing Panda.
  • The most interesting fact about the Wired article? No mention of Cute, Win, Fail... which I think is a brilliant adaptation of AFV for YouTube… with potentially a higher potential revenue source long term.

Bottom line: should people submit to AFV or YouTube? That depends on the power of your clip, and whether you think you’re a “one-hit wonder” or someone who wants to make this your passion. Most likely your clip isn’t going to go “David After Dentist,” but get lost in a sea of sameness. But I’d certainly test it on YouTube, and see how quick it gets views. If it caps at a few thousand and doesn’t appear to be moving, odds are it won’t (though it’s possible). Then you’ve got higher upside on AFV, although you may never see it on television or make a dime. For me, the odds of winning the coveted $100K prize just seem too low… and my videos are usually pranks or mini-stories, so they’re not an AFV fit. So when I hear the word “exclusive,” I hear “if this thing starts making loads of money, you won’t see a dime.”

advertising, book, Viral Video, YouTube

Viral Video Villain Got $1 Million as 750 Industries

20 Comments

Michael Ackerman Greenberg Viral Video CompanyThe Viral Video Villain (www.viralvideovillain.com) just got a $1 million investment. Dan Ackerman Greenberg, who caused quite a stir with his “Secret Strategies Behind Viral Videos,” is now 750 Industries. Or as TechCrunch put it, “The Viral Video Guy Gets $1 Million.”

Greenberg explained 750 Industries to TechCrunch’s Michael Arington as, “a startup providing viral media distribution solutions that gives content owners and advertisers quick and effective access to millions of consumers.” And they say the company is already “very profitable.”

Then, with David Blaine agility, Greenberg took Arington’s watch off and pocked it. But not before hypnotizing him to write another promotional post for him. But if you don’t believe he’s profitable than click this thumbnail for a hot naked woman.

While I may not agree with Greenberg’s boasting of manipulative approaches to get video views, you have to give him three props:

  1. Greenberg has a killer logo. It’s modern, but very James Bond. It makes me want a martini.
  2. He snagged a million dollars. My guess is he’s already half way to Mexico with that money. And investor Ron Conway (Maples Investments and Baseline Ventures) is going to soon find some moldy boxes packed with counterfitted bail bonds in the empty office that was formerly Yelp’s. But he did it.
  3. He’s a pioneer in a burgeoning industry that could be likened to the early days of search-engine optimization. Just like firms approach Google placement with paid ads and organic strategies to rank high, companies will promote videos with a “paid” and “earned” approach. Eventually the market will transform from black hat to white hat tactics (or dare I say “from Wicked Witch to Glenda‘), and will be as reputable as the industry that focus on organic website optimization.

The original search-engine marketing (SEM) firms would promise top placements and use link farms and mirror sites to trick Google. But now many of them work ethically and responsibly to ensure that websites are built so Google search spiders can index the site appropriately, and that titles, metatags, copy and image tags are carefully chosen for relevance. The companies that try to trick Google and web searchers (like illegitimate online pharmacies and porn sites) are eventually pushed down on rankings or eliminated from Google’s results.

That’s where online video is going. Google’s technology and the wisdom of crowds will eventually render tricks (like fake headlines and autobots commenting) ineffective. And that’s when it gets interesting.

But want to know a little secret? The first companies to figure this out for clients won’t be the advertising agencies, and probably won’t even be digital agencies. It will be nimble firms that have an understanding of online video, technology and marketing. So while 750’s exit strategy may be selling to a digital agency, Greenberg does have a first-mover advantage.