Tag Archives: stars

Online Video

They’re Afraid of Your Slush

7 Comments

This WSJ post claims it’s the death of the “slush pile.” It seems publishers like Random House once reviewed unsolicited books for consideration. Not anymore.

“Getting plucked from the slush pile was always a long shot—in large part, editors and Hollywood development executives say, because most unsolicited material has gone unsolicited for good reason.”

Now there’s a new fear. “Film and television producers won’t read anything not certified by an agent because producers are afraid of being accused of stealing ideas and material. Most book publishers have stopped accepting book proposals that are not submitted by agents.”

“The Web was supposed to be a great democratizer of media,” writes Katherine Rosman. “Anyone with a Flip and Final Cut Pro could be a filmmaker; anyone with a blog a memoirist. But rather than empowering unknown artists, the Web is often considered by talent-seeking executives to be an unnavigable morass.”

Rosman suggests you find an agent or enter contests. I’d argue that the web is still a vibrant place for talent to find an audience, and would look no farther than the top YouTubers. Are they moving to television and films? No. Are they gaining audiences and making money? Yes. Dozens and hundreds.

So maybe being at the top of the slush pile is better than being “plucked” from it?

advertising, Making Money, marketing, poopie head, popular videos, Viral Video, YouTube

Exclusive: How Much Money YouTube Partners Make

62 Comments

{Update from 2013 reveals YouTube stars making $4 million plus per year}

How much do YouTube stars make each year? Oh for goodness sakes. Just like my same 5 YouTube videos (see right column of channel page here) represent the majority of my online views… It seems that most of WillVideoForFood’s blog traffic comes from people searching for how much YouTubers make. If you’re curious, read on. If you want to make big bucks, buy my book first. You’ll still be facing tough odds, but at least you’ll wander into the jungle equipped with some survival tools.


We YouTube “Partners” (or “stars” as I hate saying) are all contractually forbidden to share our revenue. But I’ve given hints and clues over time. For those of you who Googled your way here, I’m both a marketer/advertiser and a creator/YouTuber, so that gives me two lenses into this Da Vinci-Code like mystery. Davinci made me think of “Da Bears.”

I’d estimate there are have at least a few dozen YouTube Partners earning $100K per year. That’s great money if you’re in your 20s or 30s and have minimal costs in production or overhead (like 4 kids and a horrific mortgage). But it’s a rounding error for a professional content creator or network.

To calculate a particular Parner’s income, here are some tips:

  • You basically take the Partner’s total views for the month, multiply it by a fraction of a penny, and you have a rough idea. TubeMogul‘s Marketplace shows some of the most-viewed people (and their monthly views). But remember: the most-subscribed are not necessarily most-viewed and vice versa. YouTube doesn’t give a hoot how many subscribers you have (although that certainly helps drive views, but increasingly it seems less powerful than being a “related video”). In general, the commercial content is getting more daily views but the amateurs have a lock on subscribers.
  • Most ads are placed by advertisers based on total 1K views, but some is on a per-click basis (CPC text ads placed by Google Adwords/Adsense). Google/YouTube is usually paid by an agency or media buyer a CPM (cost per thousand, say between $5 and $25 dollars per thousand views), then shares some of that with the creator. This can be highly misleading, because:
    • Some views earn nothing (if they’re embedded and no ad follows it).
    • And increasingly advertisers are paying a high premium for specific content they commission, target, or hand select. Sometimes this might average a few bucks and others it might be much higher… $25 CMP was the published rate of InVideo ads and I know of specific integrated campaigns that command a higher premium from YouTube. Yey!
  • Another confounding variable: potty-mouthed creator turns away advertisers. So watch the ads on your Partner for a while. Are they premium InVideo ads with accompanying display (square) ads? Or are they garbage Adwords/Adsense ads?
  • The text ads may SOMETIMES be paid on a per-click basis, which can make them fruitless or profitable depending on people clicking and buying the advertiser’s product (the latter must occur, or a savvy advertiser will quickly stop the campaign that’s raping them of click dollars and not generating business). I was telling my YouTube buds to turn these off because they’re ugly and don’t make much money, but a few of them gave me a stern stare like they knew otherwise. So whatever… maybe they make money and maybe they don’t. I don’t get a breakdown on them, and they’re still ugly.
  • Then you have to factor in “sponsored videos,” where a YouTuber promotes a product or service for a flat fee (or variable based on views) via Hitviews or related companies. That can easily be more than YouTube shells out per month for ad sharing. The going rate here is incredibly wide: from $1K to $20K and higher per video.

So in conclusion:

  1. Do your own math using monthly views on TubeMogul and assuming some CPM (cost per thousand), but recognize YouTube takes a cut and some of the advertising inventory isn’t sold or is driven by keyword Google adsense text thingies. Maybe the creator/partner gets a few bucks per thousand views and maybe more or less.
  2. Use some of the assumptions above to calibrate your estimate if you’re trying to peak into the W-9s of your favorite “Stars” like Fred. There are now dozens of popular YouTube people that make a full-time living on YouTube revenue, and I’d guess a lot of $50K-$100K per year people. I am not among the full-timers. With a family of 6, I gotta have a day job too. But Shaycarl, Sxephil, Charles Trippy, Michael Buckley and many more… they’re full-time at this. If I was making the bucks I’m making via YouTube after college, I’d probably go full-time too. Fred? Let’s just say he’s got college covered, or a nice nest-egg.
  3. Before you get excited (or jealous), it’s a long haul to cashville. And if you start with the hope of making money, you’re doomed. You need to LOVE it, and be extremely patient as the road to loads of views is tougher to climb, and requires an ass-load of persistence. Start as a hobby and “just keep swimming.”
  4. Finally, there are two forces at odds that impact the sustainability of this revenue for YouTube amateurs. First, we’ll probably see continued competition from more professionally-produced content that fetches higher ad dollars because it feels safer to squeamish media buyers (see, I’m not calling them all dense anymore… only the ones that don’t read this vlog). But the good news is that dollars are projected to grow dramatically. Currently, as a marketer, I’d argue that YouTube is selling itself short.

How’s that? About as specific I can be without breaking my contract or confidence from my friends.

I know some of you peeps know more than I do, so feel free to comment below anonymously or not. Da bears.

Online Video

Real Comedians React to Unknown YouTube Stars

18 Comments

Per my UncleNalts vlog…. check out a great satire on YouTube “stardom” by Jessica Kirsin, a “Last Comic Standing” comedian who has appeared on Leno, created the hysterical “Snack Time,” and has a reality show in the works (see trailer).

In something I cherished and never seen before, this video shows Jessica interviewing well-known comedians at the Comedy Celler in NYC (Tom Papa, Colin Quinn, William Stephenson, Amy Schumer, Anthony Jeselnik, Ted Alexandro).

But she’s asking about YouTube “stars” like Rhett & Link (the ugly one), Shaycarl, Kassemg, Fred, Winekone, LisaNova. The answers are a great reminder that despite the wild views people get on YouTube, they are not widely known beyond (When I ask conferences if they’ve heard of Fred I get a few hands at best).

Her questions reveal a deep knowledge of the most-viewed YouTubers… and it’s wonderful to see how that’s lost on the famous comedians who have heard of nobody except LisaNova and “Charlie Bit My Finger.”

Stay with this video, and you’ll get some hysterical questions and uninformed but funny and awkward answers:

book, Online Video

Online-Video Junkies on Twitter

3 Comments

It’s amazing how quickly Twitter has turned from an early-adopter groupies party (mostly YouTube peeps) to a viable tool to facilitate dialogue related to industry verticals and special interests.

TweepML allows you to share a group of people you follow. And in a nice example of TweepPM’s utility, Steve Garfield (a trend setter who was vlogging before your mama heard of YouTube) created an instant “follow top online video peeps” tool.

I’m now following some people I’ve tracked in other forums (video, RSS), but never thought to stalk on Twitter. For example, the Scobleizer (Robert Scoble), who needed the plug given his paltry 100K followers.

Not sure how I landed on the top of a list that includes Ryan Seacrest, but I’m flattered nonetheless. Who’s gonna tell Steve that he missed Daisy Whitney?

Steve Garfield's online-video club

Online Video

Most Popular YouTube Stars: Rankings, Stats and Trends

13 Comments

My last post about TheStation made me revisit the most-subscribed YouTube “stars” and channels to see what’s changed.

Who are the most-viewed, most-subscribed and most popular people on YouTube? Here are some trends, stats and sources for additional information.

First some trends:

  • We’re still seeing YouTube’s “most subscribed” list (more important than “most viewed” because it eliminates one-hit wonders) largely dominated not by professionals but individuals. In the top ten list are only 3 “professional” channels (machinima, Jonas Brothers and Universal). The rest are people like Fred, Nigahiga, ShaneDawsonTV, KevJumba, WhatTheBuckShow and VenetianPrincess. These are amateurs with recurring audiences, but only some have agents.
  • The packaged content (CollegeHumor) is not as popular as individual creators because people continue to become active on YouTube from a social context… picking their favorites as “virtual friends” as opposed to gravitating to the best content (TheOnion). I did not think this would continue to be the case in 2009, as online-video viewing moves mainstream.
  • The channels that move rapidly up this “most subscribed” list are typically spawned from already-popular channels. TheStation almost immediately reached the top 20 because the collective “web stars” promoted it. Likewise, when a popular YouTuber like ShaneDawson creates a second account (ShaneDawsonTV2) it rises quickly up the ranks. The easiest way to get noticed on YouTube quickly is by appearing in a popular creator’s video, as the top creators rarely voluntarily “shout out” (advertise) someone else’s channel.
  • As a result of the above trend, some widely known creators like Chocolate Rain singer TayZonday are falling off the top 100 list even as his views and subscribers continues to grow. Others slip because they lose touch with their fan base, or create videos less frequently. As an example, I’m happy to get about 250,000 views per day (as Nalts)… but not happy I’m always teetering at the bottom of the top 100 list.
  • The mix of most-popular is primarily “vloggers” (individuals talking to the camera), followed by musicians and comedians. Broadly speaking, your chances are higher of being a most-subscribed YouTuber if you’re Asian, sexy, funny, or gay. Toss in a few curse words and some raucous content and you’re golden.

Some resources for tracking trends and stats:

Anyone have any other sites I should add? Frankly I’m surprised there aren’t easier-to-find websites that collect and share data (WillofDC uses a website to report winners and losers, but I don’t know what it is.

Online Video

Top YouTube Stars Convene “The Station”: A Modern Brat Pack & YouTube YouTopia?

23 Comments

The Station

It’s the hottest thing on YouTube since Susan Boyle did the “Evolution of Dance.” But you won’t find it covered on television, there’s no press release, and virtually no online or print articles written about it.

A collection of YouTube “stars” have joined forces on a single channel (thestation), and it was almost instantly propelled it to one of YouTube’s most-subscribed channels… even before it had a single video posted. TheStation, now one of the 25 most-subscribed channels, was  parked in June, 2006. But the activity began in mid July 2009 (see TheStation’s Twitter account), when the individual stars began to promote the TheStation on their own channels.

TheStation’s debut video was posted July 21, 2009 (a zombie teaser). Here’s the Zombie debut (see on YouTube), and above (see video box) is a cleaner version with synched audio). Zombie’s sell, of course….

That tells us TheStation isn’t just a creative consortium but a potential online-video marketing machine. In fact, TheStation is shaping up to be an online-video version of the “brat pack.”

“Stars” include Shane Dawson (ShaneDawsonTV), PhillyD (sxephil), and DaveDays — three of the most-subscribed YouTubers. ShayCarl, one of the fastest-rising YouTube creators, moved his family to Venice Beach, California earlier in 2009… living just blocks from Donovan.

LisaNova (Lisa Donovan) and “Danny Diamond” (thediamondfactory, aka “Dan Zappin”) are the hubs at the center of the spokes (see “Zappin Productions“). The long-time duo are romantic partners or business colleagues depending on your source (although LisaNova is to DaveDays as Demi Moore to Ashton Kutcher).

Girls2Watch reports that the business behind TheStation is “Maker Studios,” with a goal to make “create quality consistent programming with their core talent which will attract both a huge online audience as well as advertisers who want to get into the Youtube space.” (via BuckNews). No sign of a Maker Studios, LLC., but Donovan’s listed as the agent for Zappin (California Secretary of State).

TheStation YouTube StarsDonovan and Diamond have loaned their apartments to various online-video weblerities, assembling what I like to call a “YouTube YouTopia” in Venice Beach. Davedays moved from Pennsylvania to California (despite my parental-like caution), and has been offering his musical talent to the motley crew. DaveDays is best known for his Barbie video, and collection of Miley Cyrus homages). Sxephil, also known as Philip DeFranco, moved from Atlanta this summer to join the gang in Venice Beach (with help from friend ShayCarl).

The channel has been getting positive reactions to its first 9 videos, and maintains a better view-per-subscriber ratio than the stars themselves. This ratio (recent view-counts divided by total subscribers to the channel) is a YouTube sign of health. Of course there’s a recency bias, where new channels have healthier rankings because its subscribers are active or new… as opposed to those subscribers from abandoned accounts. TubeMogul reports that the group surpassed Michael Jackson’s collection. Initial videos were designed to appeal to existing fans of the individuals (see NewTeeVee article), packed with inside jokes. iJustine’s death is a rofler… click this link to watch her get eaten by Zombies.

Where’s this going? Now we’re in speculation mode. For starters, it’s clearly a smart creative and professional move for the individuals… especially the lesser known stars who now win by association. The “combo-pack” performance model has proven to work in comedy, music and film (Oceans 11)… so why not web?

I asked Diamond/Zappin his vision for TheStation while visiting Venice Beach this summer, and he was somewhat vague or abstract. Initially, it’s about pooling creative talent and gaing efficiencies from production… a web studio approach (ala Next New Network or Revision3) but with already popular stars and shows. We’ll see TheStation lure brands (hungry for its eyeballs) to finance the operations (Diamond has helped LisaNova and others secure marketing sponsorships), which means it’s more than a creative collaboration.

The station, however, will face four non-trivial challenges:

  1. Collective YouTube channels are difficult to maintain. Shane Dawson is reportedly already backing off. When the initial honeymoon period passes,  collective efforts (from 5awesomegirls, guys and gays to 7awesomekids) struggle to keep the channels vibrant. The geographic proximity of TheStation will help, but many of its stars owe their success to being a “one-man band,” and may have difficulty adapting to an ensemble. Bambamkaboosh, a collaboration between Sxephil and Shaycarl, rocketed to most-subscribed, but has languished. Donovan lasted just four weeks on MadTV. (thought I thought she was pretty darn funny in this Ellen Degeneres MadTv skit).
  2. Some YouTube “stars” lack acting chops. Some are successful at “vlogging” to their audiences, some can sing, but not all YouTube stars can act in a sketch comedy. Sxephil had mixed reviews on his performance on HBOLab’s “Hooking Up,” but certainly carried his weight in “Porn Star.”  We’ll let you be the judge of who can act in this TheStation debut video. I’ll just say it ranges from awesome funny to awkward. Likewise, LisaNova is probably one of the best sketch comedians on YouTube (this is one of my all-time favorite video here with her as “Ashley Moorehouse” in Orange County — co-stared by Jenna Elfman, of “Accidentally on Purpose”)… but Donovan didn’t last long as a vlogger. They’re different art forms, if you don’t mind me calling them that. Check out this chair-fall by YouTube’s Daxflame (once a most-subscribed channel, but somewhat dormant of late).
  3. Money introduces conflict. As the YouTube advertising revenue and other marketing sponsorships draw potential profit to TheStation, the individuals will struggle to ensure revenue is shared appropriately (which is arbitrary at best). The bigger stars may have difficulty balancing the full-time job of maintaining their own channels (with some enjoying 6-figure incomes) and the time they contribute to TheStation, which will provide them with less direct financial return for their time. What the group lacks in business-management experience, however, it makes up for in creative talent, new-marketing prowess and energy.
  4. Holier than tho? The stars run the risk of being perceived by the community as “elitist” (see this whining vlog as example). Although to be fair, members of this team have a history of brilliantly satirizing elitist behavior on YouTube (see this satire of AsOne, where Diamond spoof Sxephil’s appearance in an SMPFilms promotion of Philadelphia “AsOne” event that never occurred). And hey- it’s all “water under the bridge,” because TheStation folks all hit SMPFilm’s wedding last week. Congratulations, Cory. This post counts as my wedding gift.

Cautions aside, the people involved with TheStation have rare knowledge on how to grow and keep an online audience. They’ll benefit by sharing each other’s audiences, and from the creative chemistry that may develop in their YouTube YouTopia. And it’s a guilty pleasure, but I’ll admit I really like some of the writing and acting in this debut video. And check out this funny DaveDays music-video with a cameo by CharlesTrippy. Good stuff. Even better: the out takes and behind the scenes… available on TheStation2.

Even with some inevitable creative and financial feuding ahead, The Station ensemble is proving that the whole is indeed bigger than the sum of (most of) its parts.

No seriously. Click here to watch iJustine get killed again. How can you not crack up at that. Hey- no bashing from iJustine fans. I’m among you.

book, Online Video

Big Brands Tap Online-Video Stars

13 Comments

Caitlin Hill (thehill88) on ABC newsI’ve written before about Hitviews, and I’ve been working with the company on sponsored videos. This report (see video) by ABC’s NYC affiliate (channel 7), the most-watched local network in the US. It’s the story of how Hitviews co-founder Caitlin Hill (theHill88) and veteran network executives are turning online-video stars into promotional vehicles for large brands. 

As the recession hits marketers, I’ve seen no sign of a slow-down in this sector. Online-video continues to grow, and advertising dollars are shifting to sites like YouTube. What I find fascinating about Hitviews model is that it has nothing to do with display or overlay advertising. Rather than rely exclusively on “paid” advertising, some progressive brands are sponsoring well-known creators. For example, even though my videos are viewed more than 100,000 a day, there are dozens of independent creators that are far more “subscribed” and viewed. 

These amateurs, some with 300-500,000 views a day, offer advertisers a higher impact model to reach an engaged audience that eagerly await the next video of their favorite online-video stars. The audience trusts the star, and comment and reply. Meanwhile the stars are often 20-something kids who have a low cost of living, and are open to sponsorships and product placements that can be more profitable than, say, YouTube ad sharing. As a Product Director, I find a video about my brand exponentially more valuable than ads alone. As a traditional-media analog, consider the difference between a 30-second ad on American Idol and Coke cups on the judges table. The latter is an implied endorsement by the judges (and you may hate two of them, but probably not all four).

There are a few challenges, of course. And they’re non trivial, which is why few companies have cracked this nut…

  1. Most brands and even their agencies can’t establish relationships with these online-video stars on their own. Even if they do, the learning isn’t scalable. 
  2. The bigger stars are primarily focused on their audience, and not branding or even “business.” That means agencies may be surprised that the video creators aren’t cow-towing to them like a subcontractor. 
  3. Agencies and brands still don’t understand that sponsored videos are becoming both common and appropriate in social media (as long as the sponsor is disclosed), and partially controllable. The star won’t read from a script, of course, but the brand sponsor reviews all videos before they go live. 
  4. The creative challenge is to entertain first, and promote second. That requires sponsors to give the stars some creative freedom and trust their instinct.
  5. Online-video stars sometimes have agents, but often are “one-act shows.” That means that some are professional, and others are child-like. What made them popular with viewers — edgy, autonomous– can undermine them when it’s time to face such things as deadlines and review processes.
  6. Finding stars take significant knowledge of the online-video community. Some are easy to work with, and others are a nightmare. Some get top views, but have images and videos that are not right for some brands. Some work for cheap, and others demand top dollars.

I’m biased because I like Hitviews model, but I honestly can’t think of how brands & agencies can tap these video creators without an intermediary. Trust me because I’ve been on both sides. As a video creator I’ve dealt with agencies that think of me as a subcontractor and want a bloody advertisement instead of an entertaining video that promotes. I’ve not yet seen a company that bridges this gap like Hitviews. There are talent agencies that represent individual stars, and companies like Poptent that help brands find amateur talent. But no clearinghouse for brands/agencies wanting to do sponsored videos with video stars. In online-video’s infancy (2006-2008) it wasn’t uncommon for a popular YouTuber to work directly with a brands (like I did with Mentos).

But for this new-media play to scale, there needs to be a larger entities that can help broker the relationship so the key constituents (at least three) can all get what they need:

  1. First, audiences must like the videos. Failing that, nothing else matters.
  2. Second, the “star” must feel comfortable with the brand, and feel compensated appropriately. The videos take time, but more importantly an excess of them will harm their relationship with the audience.
  3. Finally the advertiser (a brand team or its steward) must feel like their money is well spent, and see the sponsored video as worth more than a preroll, overlay or banner. I’ve only seen about two interactive agencies that understand this, and I know that will change this year. As long as agencies see this as a “media buy” it’s doomed.
book, Online Video

Marketers Tap Online-Video “Stars”

20 Comments

As you regular readers know, this WillVideoForFood blog is designed for three audiences:

  1. online-video creators who aspire to generate income from their work,
  2. marketers, public relations firms and advertisers looking to access the most visceral form of social media: online video (in a way that’s neither a “viral video gamble” or as uncontrollable as “consumer generated advertising),
  3. and, of course, you loyal WVFF tribe members that are the most vocal in comments.

I’m excited to announce a new company that can connect the first two groups, but let me first acknowledge that I’m not an objective journalist when I write about Hitviews. I’m also a “Hitviews Star” (shut up, I like the title) and I’m consulting with the NYC company. Here’s the release that announces the official launch of Hitviews. If you find any typos, you can blame me.

Caitlin Hill (aka TheHill88 on Hitviews) was tapped last year by broadcast veteran Walter Sabo to build a bridge between marketers and online-video stars (who aspire to actually, God forbid, make money from their creative talents and don’t aspire to become actors). Caitlin has been quietly recruiting a number of prominent online-video “stars” who, in effect, are like mini TV networks. They have large, recurring audiences that rival many prime-time television shows. You know who some of these “stars” are (a few are on YouTube’s “most subscribed” list), but their anonymity is being respected. Not everyone is as brave as Uncle Nalts to admit they want to monetize their work, and this is still oddly stigmatized in the inner circles of YouTube and other social networks. Due to my complete lack of talent, I was not on Hill’s radar until fairly recently… but I was aware that she had flown some top video creators to NYC from around the globe, and was sufficiently jealous.

As Sabo likes to say, “every new medium creates new stars.” Lucille Ball was a b-list actor until television. Nathan Lane can sellout broadway shows, but has a list of several failed sitcoms. Some super stars translate from television and film, but the evolution of media (from silent films to online-video) has proven that each era opens doors to new talent. Sabo and his investors are betting that marketing dollars will flow toward these new online-video stars, many of whom lack agents (or if they do have have agents they’re scrambling for acting gigs in traditional media, where most online-stars will go to die).

Until now, these “star” video creators have derived income from ad-sharing invented by Revver, then Metacafe, and now exists via YouTube as the “partners program.” While we online-video creators can disclose our Revver and Metacafe earnings (which are virtually nothing for me anymore), YouTube Partners are prohibited by contract from disclosing YouTube earnings. But it’s no secret that only a select number of amateur video creators have been able to quit their day jobs yet (sxephil, mrsafety and whatthebuck being notable exceptions). Yet many of my friends are making more via YouTube than I made in my first job after business school.

Meanwhile, brands have had only two options for promoting via online video (and I recognize that I’m over simplifying this):

  1. They can buy display ads surrounding videos (these are extremely cost efficient, but aren’t extremely profitable to YouTube or creators for that very reason). Studies have and will prove that these ads drive awareness and attributes at a decent price, but smart advertisers will want to go beyond pre-rolls, InVideo and display ads.
  2. Alternatively, brands like Mentos and other clients I’ve sponsored have done one-off deals with individual creators (sometimes directly, and often via an internet agency). This is where Uncle Nalts makes the majority of his video money, but certainly not enough to quit the day job. Naturally these indivudualized deals provide brands with higher impact, but are not easy to execute. A notable example is TayZonday doing “Cherry Chocolate Rain” for Diet Dr. Pepper Cherry Chocolate (as a Diet Dr. Pepper fan, I must confess the first 12-pack I bought was also my last). Other sponsored online-video deals are less transparent, and I don’t care for that as a creator or a viewer. I’ve never taken money from a sponsor who wasn’t thanked and acknowledged. And I don’t like the looming question about whether LisaNova was paid or not for the video I watched. Is she entertaining or persuading me? Again- most people don’t care that my Reader’s Digest dog and cat costume video was sponsored as long as the video is satisfying, but as a marketer, creator and avid viewer… I like when it’s clear.

A few startups have attempted to broker the complex relationship between hungry advertisers and hungry video creators. And while no model is perfect, Hitviews’ model is the best I’ve seen. It’s quite different from Xlntads (now Poptent) because it’s not about finding amateurs and video directors who can produce online-video content for use on television or online.

The Hitviews model is to introduce advertisers into the context of already popular video “shows,” videos or “channels.” This takes the form of sponsored videos, product placement or other offerings. The offline analogy I like to use is Oprah…. I can’t remember the last advertiser I saw drop a 30-second spot during Oprah, but won’t soon forget when she gave away Pontiacs to her viewing audience. And whether she’s paid or not, she can create a best selling book by simply mentioning it. In the same way, a popular online-video star can give brands access to their loyal and often sizable audiences. The web stars don’t yet have Oprah-sized audiences, but the top YouTube creators, as an example, have as many daily viewers as a prime-time show. And because they interact with their audiences, they’re as influential or more.

When I began writing about this space almost 3 years ago, I would have predicted there would be several Hitviews-like companies by now. But it’s a tricky market, and hard to enter even when it’s not your sole focus; brands have to be convinced that their audiences are moving online and that they don’t need to create their own content to engage them (do we need a Vlastic Pickle video portal?).

Brands will always buy ads, of course, but we’ll see a shift in 2009 away from $250K “viral videos” projects that fail to deliver view counts to justify them. They’ll give way to more creative programs leveraging popular video creators that a) already have recurring audiences, b) know how to promote with transparency but not perceived as “selling out,” c) can create videos that are promotional but more importantly entertaining, and c) are comfortable with providing advertisers with a final approval of their work (that latter criteria is not trivial).

It’s an important service that requires a delicately balancing four stakeholders: The “stars,” the sponsors, the audiences, and the investors. But the financial potential is promising for the simple reason that a brand’s investment and risk is relatively low, and the impact is far higher than a preroll, InVideo ad or banner. And the “stars” have booming audiences but lack the costs and complexities of traditional broadcasting.

book, Online Video

Why Web Stars Can’t Act, and Why It Doesn’t Matter

13 Comments

A recent HBOLabs series titled “Hooking Up” has surprised people in two ways: those who expected TV/film-like acting performances from web stars have been disappointed. Those who expected another web series to be ignored were wrong.The show has had nearly 50K subscribers, and hundreds of thousands of views per episode (less for the vlogs).

So this proved that a web series that accesses the fame of known creators in 2008 and 2009 will draw larger audiences than with trained actors. Indeed by TV/film standards, web stars shouldn’t even be called actors.

Each medium creates its own stars… and some survive the transition from stage to radio to television to film and now internet video. But Hooking Up is a reminder of two indisputable facts about web stars:

  1. We are not the world’s finest script actors.
  2. We can (even me sometimes) attract sizable audiences (especially by web video standards).

The series would have floundered like many others had it not tapped into the vibrant audiences of its top stars. Kids that would watch Ishtar 2 as longs as KevJumba and LonelyGirl15 were in it.

Let this be a reminder that to be a popular video creator, there are a number of skillsets required that are far more diverse than acting. If a video creator is brilliant at a few, but lacks a balance, than he/she has far less odds of success than the one with decent skills across the board.

  1. Ability to connect with the audience as if each viewer is a friend.
  2. A unique and interesting approach to videos.
  3. Good looks (I make up in other areas).
  4. The commitment to interact with the audience in comments and e-mails.
  5. Editing skills. I have the power to turn horrendous acting into B-movie acting via this alone.
  6. Street smarts on what audiences want. This means watching a lot of video.
  7. Low costs. Big productions bleed.
  8. Acting.
  9. Self promotion and networking (among creators and industry folks).
  10. Most importantly, unwavering persistence,  thick skin, and the ability to reenvent.

I’ll bet on a web personality that has most of these, and can’t act before a brilliant actor that’s too shy to interact with other creators or audiences.

Here’s what’s interesting, though. I believe these requirements will change as larger players enter the arena. Remember 2 years ago you just had to be an interesting vlogger that caught the attention of a popular vlogger. So the rules are changing.

2009 will still require all of these skills, but in years ahead we may well see that larger productions will find these skills in a few people, allowing the “best in breed” instead of the “full service personality.”

Confidentially (which is why I’m only telling the 19 of you that read this blog) I didn’t care much for my own acting on Hooking Up, but I have two things that saved me. My appearance on The Retarded Policeman (which is Emmy-Award winning) and the fact that some of the Hooking Up acting was so bad I’m Shakespearean by contrast.

book, Online Video

YouTube Documentary: “I Want My Three Minutes Back”

32 Comments

youtube film by chuck potterNewTeeVee teased us last month about first-time director Chuck Potter (thirdcareerfilms) and his new YouTube documentary, “I Want My Three Minutes Back.” Now the film has a website with a blog, the trailer and some more information about Potter’s efforts to get the new film into film festivals.

While it’s true there’s only a niche of people that even know what a YouTube weblebrity is (I’ve only been recognized once at LAX), the story is deeper. It’s about the struggles of amateurs who have “overnight success,” and their years of effort to turn online-videos into a passion-filled career.

I missed the debut this month in California, but I’m looking forward to seeing how Chuck tells this story.