Category Archives: Making Videos

YouTube Viral Video Broker!

youtubeviralbroker.jpg

  • Advertiser looking for reach?
  • Viral-video creator looking for income?
  • Video website looking for revenue?

It’s the YouTube Viral Video Broker. He’s got the answers.

Tags: Laipply, Numa Numa, Emmilina, Brookers, Smosh, YouTube, Coke, Coca Cola, YouTube, McDonalds, Subaru, Verizon, Singular, Wireless, Advertising, Online,

Marquisdejolie Reviews Pay-For-Content Sites

One of the highest productivity video creators is also the most experimental with various sites and blogs to promote his work. Here’s his comment about some of the pay-for-content sites. To see his blog, click on the link on the right (I have a perpetually link to his video blog.

Revver is king. I’ve made a couple of thousand dollars from it even though it did make me do all the promoting.

Panjea’s damned Flash rips my QuickTime files to shreds. I’m really starting to hate Flash sites.

LuLu wants me to PAY $15 a month to upload on the off chance that I make make $10? That’s Hillbilly math.

eefoof has no embeddable code. How can you have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat? I mean, how am I supposed to promote my videos if I can’t shop them around? And again, WTF is this with the “Does Not Claim Ownership” category?

Most Popular Online Video Sites (Nielsen/NetRatings)

online-video-sites.jpgHere’s a beefy Mercury News article about online video, with an emphasis on YouTube and its long journey toward profitability. It confirms that the YouTube folks are indeed thinking it would be good to make money, but are (in my opinion) way too paranoid about losing their cult-like appeal. Read my letter to YouTube’s founders to get more rants on this.

See the chart to the right for the latest visitor counts of the big video sites (which has YouTube’s unique visits higher than the combined share of the second two players- MySpace and MSN).

I don’t really count MySpace since it’s a zillion little sites, and MSN because we’re talking mostly about news. So the battle for viral videos really is between YouTube, Google, AOL and Yahoo. Second-tier sites (Break.com, Heavy.com, MetaCafe, iFilm and Atom) look small here, but 3-million unique visitors in a month is significant.

The smaller sites that pay video creators aren’t included in this Nielsen report, but to read about those, see this post.

Interesting quote from the Mercury News article: Tony Perkins, editor of the Always-On Network and founder of Red Herring magazine, believes YouTube critics are missing a massive behavioral shift:

“There is a new reality out there,” he said. “Consumers are voting very loudly that they enjoy content that is produced by amateurs and people they know.”

Do Online Review of Video Game, and Win Prizes

Expo TV (http://www.expotv.com), a site hosting user-generated video product reviews, and IDG Entertainment (IDGE), publisher of GamePro, announced the launch of a user-generated video contest for reviews of currently available video games. Five winning videos will be selected as the “Best Gamer Videopinions” through online voting and by a panel of experts from GamePro.com.

Winners will receive a home entertainment system, including a 32-inch Flat Screen HDTV and a surround-sound speaker system, and have their videos aired on Expo TV’s nationally distributed video-on-demand television network, and showcased online at GamePro.com and expotv.com. For more see the ExpoTV site.

Making Money on Your Amateur Videos: Comparing Revenue-Sharing Websites

Now that we’re seeing several online video sites that share revenue with video creators, it’s time for a comparison grid! For now I’m starting with Revver vs. Panjea vs. Eefoof, since they’re the only prominent sites that share revenue. I’ve also included YouTube and Google Video since they’re popular and give us a comparative base on some non-revenue attributes. If I’ve missed a site (and I know I have because there’s one called something like Jeukrurueuz, and I can’t find it) please let me know.

Sorry about the JPEG chart below, but I haven’t figured out how to create a chart using WordPress. I’ll be updating this post (it’s current as of July 8, 2006) so you might want to bookmark it. If you RSS www.WillVideoforFood.com, you’ll know when it gets a major update.

The initial criteria I have included are the following:

  1. Best and worst attributes (example- lots of traffic but won’t accept .mov files)
  2. Revvenue sharing model (per view, per click, etc.). I will soon track how/when they pay.
  3. Ad types (banners, text ads, video ads)
  4. Traffic (this isn’t scientific, but I’ll use Alexa or public Hitwise data later)
  5. Format: Flash or Quicktime (I’ll soon explore video quality more deeply)
  6. Upload-to-live time: (how quickly it’s live after you upload it- very important)

Posts welcome if I’ve missed any good sites that pay content creators, or if you think I haven’t been fair in the ratings.

Note- I’ve excluded sites that are preparing to share revenue but haven’t announced it publicly. If you’re ready (and you know who you are) please let me know.

The Chart:
(to read it on MS Word, click here: Online Video Sites Compared)

videositescompared.jpg

The Personal Sacrifice of Making Videos (Hunting Series)

People often ask how I have time to make so many short videos. The truth is, it typically takes about 1-2 hours per edited minute of a video. This depends, of course, on how packaged a video is (and packaging doesn’t always equate with the “viralness” of the piece. This time includes conceiving, scripting, shooting, editing, scoring and uploading. I usually skip “story boarding” because I have a mental idea and kinda let the footage dictate where the video goes.

In the case of this 3-part “how to hunt” series, however, the sacrifice wasn’t just time. Here’s the set up (and the output CLEARLY wasn’t worth the turmoil):

  1. We were on our last of a 4-day “vacation” in a hunting camp in Alabama. I was getting freaked out by the stuffed dead animals collected by my cousins who enjoy shooting things — especially if they’re alive and furry.
  2. I had to beg my brother, a priest in the Vatican, to help me on the intros. He agreed on the condition that a) it took less than 5 minutes, b) he didn’t speak c) he wasn’t doing anything beyond the intros, and most importantly d) wasn’t identified by name. Thanks, Chris.
  3. My wife very reluctantly agreed to stop her manic packing and cleaning, so she could shoot the cougar capture. She was pretty livid because she couldn’t find her shoes and she kept stepping on pine cones. Then I ripped my finger on the wire frame of the stuffed cougar.
  4. The babysitter took our four kids for what was supposed to be a 15-minute golf-cart ride. She got lost in the woods, and we called 911 when they didn’t return an hour and a half later. I finally took our rental van into the woods with the GPS and found them. They didn’t seem bothered as my wife and I who were terrified.

So here are the clips. Way cornier than I hoped, but let’s hope they garner at least $25 each.

Part 1: How to Hunt Cougars. I don’t think I spelled couger right, but more importantly I don’t think it’s a cougor anyway.

Part 2: How to Hunt Turkey

Part 3: How to Hunt Deer

Final: The Outtakes

Video Contest: Promotion for “The Office”

So here are the details from YouTube on “The Office” promotion. I feel like I’ve blogged about this before, but it was probably one of my many posts that gets lost by WordPress when I select “Publish.”

Here is the website about the contest.

office.jpgNow I love that NBC is finally playing nice with the online video space. And The Office is absolutely my favorite television show that’s on the air currently. I TiVo every episode, and I have bought every DVD of both the American and UK original version. If you’ve ever worked in an office and enjoy low-key, laugh-track free humor, this is the show for you.

But… I’m perplexed at how paranoid NBC is about its content:

  1. When YouTube contacted NBC to let them know people had uploaded the SNL Muffin rap, they responded by demanding YouTube remove all of their content.
  2. They never responded to my multiple e-mails to request permission for this clip of my son watching The Office (he likes it too).
  3. The contest requires you to use ONLY select footage from the show. Nothing else.
  4. When you submit your entry, you must mark it “private” and let them know the URL.
  5. I’ll probably get a letter from NBC attorneys for using this image.

It’s a great idea to have a contest for “consumer created commercials,” but implemented with all of the paranoia of a network viewing online video as a threat. And by the way, there are about 4000 videos on YouTube that are searchable by the phrase “The Office.” Go get ’em.

Two New Video Sites Pay for Content!

Revver has remained the prevailing platform by which people with video content can share their material (like YouTube) but also get paid based on the quantity of people that view it. The funds are generated through advertising dollars, and split 50/50 between Revver and the owner of the content.

Now Revver has two new potential competitors. Here are some highlights from CNET articles sourced below.
1) Eefoof.com is in beta mode, and will offer revenue via Paypal when an account reaches $25.

  • Some other highlights from this CNet article:
  • A new video-sharing site is offering videographers a share of the advertising dollars that their movies generate, at a time when most video-sharing sites are just trying to eke out a profit.
  • “The authors of Internet content should be paid for their work and not have it exploited for others’ gain,” said a note posted Monday at eefoof.com, a site that is still in test mode. “We will send you a percentage of our site revenue via an electronic transfer each month, depending on how well your content has performed.”
  • More than 150 such companies are trying to figure out how to make money by hosting homemade movies on the Web. (Do you suppose they count my CubeBreak.com in that figure? Cuz I aint figuring it out).
  • The offer goes like this: Once a month the company tallies the number of page views for each submission. The company then looks at overall traffic and calculates what percentage of the page views was generated by each submission. Ad revenue is divided accordingly.

2) Panjea: This site offers content owners to both benefit from ad revenue and sell content (audio and video) according to this recent CNET Blog Web 2.0 article. In an interesting move, Panjea also offers viewers “points” for simply browsing.

  • CEO of Panjea, Seth Alsbury, told CNet Author Rafe Needleman that his company offers a more robust content economy than the other services. Panjea pays its users for content in two ways: First, it operates an online store where content creators can sell downloads of the audio and video files (and eventually, tickets to events). Second, Panjea gives users a cut of advertising revenues. And not just from ads in the videos, like most other video sharing sites; Panjea also cuts its content-creating users in on ad revenues from their static Web content (like their profile pages).
  • To keep users on the site, Panjea also awards “points” for just browsing. These points can be used like money on Panjea to purchase content from other members.
  • From a business perspective, for Panjea itself as well as the artists on the site, it all depends on winning over the advertisers. Panjea is running Google AdWords on its member pages, which is a good way for the company to kickstart the advertising revenues. The video and audio advertising strategy has yet to reveal itself.
  • But Needleman still think artists should take a portfolio approach to community sites, and put their content on a bunch of them (YouTube, MySpace, iMeem, etc). You never know where the fans are going to end up.

Bottom line: It’s worth experimenting with the various models since most don’t yet require exclusivity of content. But don’t forget the non-paying sites are currently more popular, so they’re a good forum for “teasing” and “promoting” people to your Revver, Panjea, Eefoof or other pay-for-content site.

Now that there are several of these sites, I will conduct some experiments with some of my content and report back asap.

First Interesting Article on Online Video (in a While)

I’m getting so tired of the hype articles, or the latest story about an instant viral video classic. Finally, here’s an interesting piece.

Source: The Ultimate Middle East Business Resource. Go figure.
On YouTube:

“But this bandwidth is expensive. It’s estimated that bandwidth costs YouTube US$1 million per month. But the investment – YouTube has raised US$11 million in venture capital – is money more than well-spent. YouTube estimates that it could already earn US$10 million a month by putting ads at the start of every video. So far, it hasn’t, because it doesn’t want to alienate viewers. Instead it’s looking for new and creative ways to get advertisers on board.?

On Advertising:

“For advertisers, the beauty of video sharing sites is being able to target highly niche audiences. All videos are tagged with different keywords, from the general “music” “sport” “comedy” to specifics such as “Britney” “golf” “kittens”. Nearly a third of YouTube’s visitors are aged 18-24, a key youth market that is getting harder for marketers to reach.”

Three Lessons:

  • There’s a lot to learn from YouTube. The first lesson is that internet users are desperate for compelling, quirky and entertaining multimedia content. And they are happy to get it in small bites. They may not want to pay for it, but they’ll probably put up with a short TVC or banner ad for the privilege of watching.
  • The second is universality. Anyone, anywhere, on any system – even mobile devices –middle-east.gif download, you don’t need a particular browser or the latest version of Windows. This is going to be a harsh lesson for video sites that try to force users to specific (usually Windows-only) formats. Accessibility is the only way.
  • The third – as NBC has learnt (WVFF editor’s note- poor writer CLEARLY can’t spell), but the RIAA still shuts its eyes to – is not to fear and resist the New Media Revolution, but to embrace it. The internet is here to stay and here to grow. It’s impossible to try and control the machinations of millions of hungry bright minds. If people want to see a video, they’ll find a way to rip it, copy it, encode it. Forget proprietary formats, forget copyright protection – the hackers and crackers will always be ten steps ahead.