Category Archives: metacafe

Finding the Right Online Video Site for Your Needs

I wrote this article for The Daily Reel about finding the right online video site — whether you’re after fame, fortune or friends.

Contrary to popular belief, YouTube isn’t the definitive video-sharing site for everyone. Knowing what you want is the first step in figuring out where to share. When it comes to sharing videos online, there are literally hundreds of sites to choose from. Knowing which one is right for you begins with knowing your style, your audience and — most importantly — your biggest goal. (click here to read more)

Target Persona of Each Popular Video Site

The real test of a video site’s audience is what videos are featured or highly rated. This analysis by Steve Bryant of ReelPopBlog shows the top video of each site.

Partially fueled by this research and partially from my own vast experience of getting lost in these sites, here is…

Nalts‘ analysis on the “persona” of your representative user of the important video sites.

nerd.jpgYouTube: 19-year-old male. Lives with parents in San Diego. Has part-time job and recently broke up with girlfriend. His high-school classmates called him Booger and he can light his own farts (and rarely misses an occasion to demonstrate this).

Metacafe: Born in Europe, he lives in NYC with an alcoholic roommate. He’s 27 years old and works in the PR department of a music production company. He surfs porn at lunch, but purges his own cache.

iFilm: Female. Lives alone with cats. Still one project away from completing film school. Interns at Cleveland-based television station where her boss flirts with her.

Revver: Democrat. Was unpopular in college but didn’t care. Was smart enough to get A’s without studying, and smoked weed to escape the absurdity. Went to school in Northeast but has settled in LA where she’s working for a software firm and writing a novel she’ll not likely publish.
cathy.gif

Google Video: Housewife. Hoping people doesn’t notice she’s 40. Likes Cathy comic strip. Doesn’t realize there are other places besides Google to find online videos.

MySpace: Goth. Unknown gender. Smokes. Once got caught with his neighbor throwing lit matches at his dog.

What’s the Difference Between Google Video and YouTube?

mask.jpgWhy would Google want to own two video sites? Oh, silly. They’re not two video sites. Their differences are becoming apparent:

Google Video

  • Objective: create a video site with no discernible character or features. Keep it as an entirely different entity, and let it stagnate as the market changes. Don’t promote the video site on Google homepage until emerging player has surfaced.
  • What it Could Have Been: The one-stop shop for all videos (just as it is for content and images). A great search tool for any video on any site. The king of linking video content to relevant ads. A way for small creators to distribute content and get paid a portion of the ad revenue. Turns out, however, TechCrunch is reporting Google Video will hoard ad revenue unless you’re the media elite.  I’m really disappointed about that… those of us with less than 1,000 hours of video content will have to look elsewhere.
  • cigar.jpgTarget Content: Stuff you can find on cable, television, video on demand or your local Blockbusters… brought to you by fat guys with cigars.

YouTube

  • Objective: Invent an easy way to share videos, which evolves organically into an incredibly popular community of viral content…  mostly stolen from television and posted in direct violation to copyright laws. If you get objections, blame the submitters, and provide their home phone numbers when lawyers call.  
  • What it Could Have Been: A new distribution channel for video creators that have great imaginations but low budgets. A method by which “big media” could promote and discover new talent. A bridge between “lean forward” and “lean back” television– connecting with networks and bandwidth providers to change television.
  • stoner.jpgTarget Content: Anything ripped from any source. Until the attorneys come. Then it will be mostly videos of stoned skateboarders, babbling teenagers and commercials masquerading as “viral videos.”

It’s a great day to be a smaller online video site with lower costs, greater revenue sharing and content you’re allowed to post. Watch the Revvers, Metacafes and Brightcoves. They’re meeting unmet needs and will be spending money on ad representatives instead of attorneys. They’ll also forge partnerships with surprising companies that will change our view of the landscape.

As YouTube is cleansed and commercialized the small creators will follow the money, and the eyeballs will follow the creators.

The Definitive Guide to Turning Video to Cash

CinemaTech Editor Scott Kirsner has prepared the definitive chart for video producers interested in making money via online video. In his article, Getting Paid: Sites that Help Video Producers Make Money, you’ll find everything you need to turn your videos into cash. This is the most comprehensive list of its kind online. Thanks to WVFF Reader Graham Walker for identifying it.

Metacafe As Acquisition Target

logo_metacafe.gifNow that Google gulped YouTube, the obvious next acquisition target is Metacafe. It’s the highest independent site on the top 10 lists, and I would predict it’s purchased by a paranoid media player by the end of the year, but certainly no later than end of Q1 2007.

ReelPopBlog has a nice review of Metacafe, including some compelling stats. What he neglects to mention is that Metacafe is the ONLY top ranking online video destination to share revenue. Revver splits revenue more generously for views, but it’s not a destination site- rather an enabler. A Visa that is only effective if there’s a Walmart that accepts it.

I’ve been making good money on Metacafe lately. It’s feast or famine however…. a video either explodes or festers under the scrutiny of the lucky preview volunteers. In fact I have a collection of them that haven’t escaped review in days.

But where else can you make $1,000 for showing your butt crack without getting arrested?

I Can’t Stop Watching Jorg

jorg.jpgThe true sign of a viral video star is when viewers simply can’t wait for the next episode. I’ve been watching Jorg’s two clips (the original, the E Holywood Story, and the dance contest) over and over and over. I want more. Jorg’s creator is BrettNovak.com.

His first video got more than 300K views on YouTube. Had that happened on Metacafe he’d have $1,500.00 and he has no idea. Then again, he’s a thumb. His expenses are probably pretty low.

It really bums me out to discover great talent on YouTube making videos as volunteers as the founders make a mint. Yes- YouTube helped them get famous. But YouTube road their backs. Sure a few have moved to Revver. But the rest have never made a dime, and they don’t know they can!

Comparing and Rating Video Search Engines

videosearchsites.jpgWhile Google/YouTube may change the dynamic of video search, it’s still hopelessly frustrating to find a video online. Wall Street Journal writer Jessica Vascellaro wrote a nice article on video search today. I liked it not just because it was the first time I’ve been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal. The article shows that companies have made significant efforts to address search. Ironically I can’t find the article online. But it’s titled “Finding Tom Cruise (Not Cruise Missiles). Have a go.

Inspired by the piece, I did my own comparisons of the online video search websites she referenced (and one she didn’t- Videoronk.com). My methodology was simple. I searched on my username (Nalts) which I also use to tag every video I upload to any video site. If nothing showed up, I can assume that the engine is crawling neither the username nor the tags, which means it’s not effective. If that failed, I tried a few of the unique titles I have for my videos.

In general all of the sites were poor at finding my videos. Results were incomplete, and they are based purely on the metadata (titles, tags, etc.) which I provide when I upload them. Eventually sites will convert speech to text and that will help. But it will be a long while before these operate with the success of search engines looking for text.

The ratings are in the image above. The winner by a mile is Videoronk. While it only indexes a small portion of my videos (and other people that have tried it), it’s still outperforming the other search tools). Purevideo was in second place because it also has links to each online-video site’s top videos. Pixsy was marginal, and Blinkx.com has actually gotten worse since the last time I used it.

Honorable mentions go to AOL Video and Yahoo Video — both video sites index videos beyond those on their site. Ironically, Yahoo Video ranked my Blip.tv videos higher than those that I uploaded on Yahoo Video. Revver seemed to be the online-video site that was most searchable by these engines. All but Blinkx.com found my Revver videos (which is ironic because Blinkx.com established a partnership with Revver earlier this year).

I didn’t include Metacafe in this test because it’s a destination site, but it’s planning some advanced search features like language translation in search. We can only hope that Google will start to do a better job of indexing YouTube videos and videos on other sites.

For now the easiest way to find a video is to start with YouTube, and then hit Videoronk if you don’t find it. 

Best and Worst Site for Getting Your Videos Seen Fast

In my unscientific study I have identified the best and worst site for getting videos viewed quickly. This is based on my own experiments as well as feedback from some of you that have found this to be true as well.

Best site for getting views quickly: AOL Uncut (the consumer-generated portion of AOL). Example- something I uploaded 2 hours ago has more than 100 views. The exception to this would be when Metacafe, Yahoo, or Google feature you. Then your views rock.

Worst site for getting views: Eefoof (a company that shares ad revenue). Example- videos I uploaded a month ago have accumulated fewer than 10-20 views each.

Is this consistent with your findings? The winners for most-viewed appear to be (according to my videos):

  1. Metacafe (if your video is featured). I’m still making very decent money when they feature my videos. Dig the new logo.
  2. Google Video (slow and steady increases over time… a video never seems to die there)
  3. Yahoo Video (better than YouTube, and if they feature you your video can skyrocket- but that’s only happened to me twice)
  4. YouTube (really hard to get traffic there… 50-500 views seems about the average. Too much competition). I’ve had 250K views total at YouTube, but I’ve done much better on Google (million) and Yahoo (nearly million).
  5. Revver traffic is modest, but that’s because it’s up to the creators and affiates to get the video seen. Significant views don’t happen at Revver.com because it’s an infrequented website. All those EepyBird Mentos-Coke views occured on EepyBird via Revver. Not at Revver.com.

Remember that only four sites are paying (Revver, Metacafe, Eefoof, Blip and Lulu). I’ve had no luck with Eefoof and Lulu, but Blip should be “one to watch” if they embrace paying content creators.

Now we can only hope that our videos on Revver and Metacafe get as much traffic as the more trafficked sites.

8 Tips for Filmmakers Plunging Into Online Video

Last week I attended the Independent Feature Project (IFP)’s event in NYC, and was intrigued by some of the questions independent film makers were asking about online video. So here are some thoughts for aspiring film makers who are asking themselves the question, “how can I take advantage of the emerging online video space?” Ken McCarthy (SystemVideoBlog) also addressed this subject late last week.

  1. Consider online video sites a nice opportunity to promote your film. Put a trailor or short scene up and then invite people to a simple URL (that you own) to see or buy the entire film.
  2. If you hope people will view the entire film online, break it into 5-10 minute chunks maximum. This is important because the online video folks are “generation ADHD” (I coined that just now, okay?). Shorter is even better.
  3. Use online video sites to power the film on your site. No reason to pay for hosting and streaming fees when video sites will do that for you, and you can simply embed the video onto your own site.
  4. film1.gifGet used to telling your story in shorter chunks. There will always be an appetite for feature-length movies, but today’s viral work is typically 2 minutes max. As McCarthy said, “The reality I’ve taken from what is now a twenty-plus year study of media is twofold: 1) media forms come and go and 2) most practitioners take years to adjust themselves to the new realities and in the process miss out on tremendous opportunities of the low-hanging fruit variety.
  5. If you want to be viral, your work should be shocking, funny, or stupid. That must be frustrating for an artist to hear, but that’s the current phase of the online-video evolution. People want lip synching, fights, extreme video and prank calls… not intellectual or emotional stimulation. They’re looking to escape scripted drama and see real reality TV.
  6. Use all sites to promote your movie, but consider exclusively using a site that pays you for your work. Some videographers, for instance, are exclusively using Revver or Metacafe so they can benefit from the ad revenue of the site. YouTube, while being popular, doesn’t pay creators.
  7. Tag your video carefully so it can be found by the niche you’re serving. And be sure to market the video. Here are some tips from a post earlier today.
  8. Create short videos as a way to increase your visibility, and then do the feature films as well. For instance, Dawn Westlake makes serious films. But she also posts silly videos for fun. She even spoofs the contrast in this video called “Indie Film vs. Viral Video.”

Finally, don’t be discouraged by the temporary appetite for meaningless videos right now. When the web first started, porn was the most frequently sought information. Now it’s… oh, never mind.

DRM Lite- Proceed With Caution

Techcrunch announces that Warner Music Group will allow its music to be used in YouTube videos, but retain the right to yank it if it chooses.

…the caveat that Warner will have effective veto power over videos using their music is particularly interesting. In effect it’s just a technological realization of the long standing policy reality – YouTube has willingly pulled copyrighted content on request for some time. While DRM has been understood as a prerequisite for online distribution of major label content, this announcement seems to indicate a switch in responsibilities. Instead of the distributor locking down the content by default, use is open by default and can be closed at the rights holder’s discretion. It’s a very real recognition of the promotional power of copyrighted content being reused in original art.

This is progress, but I wouldn’t advise you to use the tunes in your next video. There are two issues. First, I doubt many pay-for-content sites (Revver, Metacafe) will have the same arrangement with Warner Music Group (click to see labels it represents). I hope I’m wrong. Second- this will limit the videos syndication beyond YouTube because you’re not effectively the owner of the content when Warner Brothers has a “veto” clause.