Category Archives: Web 2.0

Eefoof Compared to YouTube… Like Revver Doesn’t Exist

Interesting that Eefoof — a relatively new site that pays creators for content — is getting billed as a “YouTube competitor.” Check out this CNBC story and this Digg.com post, which raises the question as to whether it will be a YouTube killer. Mashable challenges the business model and calls the site ugly.

I give Eefoof credit for putting together a decent site, and surviving beta mode the best you can. The site has pulled together a forum and is using it to inform content guidelines and advertising approaches. The site has been challenged because the registrations skyrocket after the recent publicity (there were 10K registrants when they did the CNBC story and the forums indicate that 4K registered as a result of this media attention… that’s a significant jump).

I’m a Revver loyalist, but Revver has something to learn from Eefoof’s media attention… Revver is still suffering from one of the worst PR and marketing efforts in the online video space. I won’t name the PR agency, but you know who you are… time for a new account team before you lose the account.

To Revver’s PR Agency: Riding EepyBird’s story and not creating your own news, it’s just lazy PR!

How can Revver be in beta for more than 6 months, and then an upstart like Eefoof can gain media attention, a flood of visitors and a flurry of registrations?

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.”

Blah Blah Blog

This video is kinda mean, but I’ve never laughed so hard while editing a video. Here’s the setup. Adriana Cronin-Lukas is one of the more influential and interesting bloggers that I know. She’s advising my employer on an appropriate approach to engaging in blogs and other forms of consumer-generated media.

Yesterday I had lunch with her, and brough along my boss. While Adriana was waiting in the lobby, I convinced my boss to fake like she was falling asleep and had her videotape me doing the same. Then we got Adriana speaking, and I edited it so it makes no sense and inserted our reactions.

It’s a commentary on how boring bloggers are, but to be fair Adriana is far from boring.

Will Advertisers Shift from TV to Web?

tv.jpgAdvertisers will likely start investing more of their media budgets online when they see the results of a new Nielsen study.

Nielsen Media Research, the firm that calculates national television ratings, will investigate how many people actually watch TV commercials (source: Today’s Wall Street Journal). In November, Nielsen will begin for the first time to provide formal ratings for commercial breaks. According to the WSJ, both TV networks and advertisers expect the new Nielsen ratings will show that viewership declines noticeably when a program breaks for commercials. (Commercials? Are those the things wizzing by when I click my TiVo remote?).

A particularly big drop, according to WSJ writers Brian Steinberg and Brooks Barnes, could fuel advertisers’ push for changes in how ads are incorporated into shows.

It could also accelerate the flow of advertising dollars out of television to the Internet and new digital media.

A Private Letter to YouTube Founders (Skip This Post)

This is a private letter to Brad Hurley and Steven Chen. The YouTube founders don’t really respond to e-mails or prank calls, so I’ve decided to blog ’em a private letter. It has ideas that will save their company, so please don’t read this if you’re not them. Especially if you’re a competitor.
Are the regular readers gone yet? Are the venture capitalists reading another post now?

youtube-founders.jpgOkay- here’s the deal, Brad and Steve. Can I call you buy your first names? I have a love/hate relationship with you. Click “more” below if you want to hear the story.

Now it’s starting to sink in. You don’t have revenue to share, do you? You pay an estimated $1 million per month to host & serve your zillions of videos. But your revenue stream is friggin’ Google Adsense. That’s a joke! I run Google Adsense on my CubeBreak.com, and I make pennies per visitor. I don’t have a fraction of your traffic, but I also spend about $20 a month maintaining the site.So here’s my free strategic plan (and worth every penny). Mind you, I don’t know much. But I’m as immersed in the online video market as one can be without being employed fulltime in it. I make videos, I watch online videos, I manage a little video website, and I read about the industry and blog about it daily. I also, among other things, buy online media for a living. And I happen to have an MBA from the #1 rated school in America for entrepreneurial studies (I really hate people that brag about an MBA but I’m hoping to establish credibility here, so hear me out).

1) STOP Adsense. Sell your inventory to a clearinghouse or ad network. It won’t be much more profitable but it’s a better interim solution. I’ll bet Adsense doesn’t pay for the receptionist’s salary.

2) Find an advertising partner, or build your own ad group. Sign NO long-term contracts. Right now you just want to capitalize on the amazing amount of visitors you garner. Their eyeballs are worth something to you, and you’re currently picking up silver coins while Alladin’s lamp is in front of you.

3) Get with Revver and work out a deal so you can tag a single-ad frame at the end of each video. It’s not intrusive and you’ll get affiliate fees worth more than Adsense. Trust me. I make 5x on Revver affiliate fees on CubeBreak than Adsense.

4) Experiment with the “elasticity point of ads“… you’re assuming we won’t tolerate them, and you’re wrong. The better the content (JibJab) the more we’ll ingest ads without hating you or leaving the site. Here’s the key: Create a control group and 3 test groups that receive varying degrees of ads (banners, preroll, postroll, and even pop-ups). Watch to see what group starts visiting less frequently and staying for shorter periods. Now you’ll KNOW what we’ll tolerate for good content.

5) The more viral and popular, the more obstrusive you can be with ads. And you’ll be able to sell the popular content for a premium because it’s popular and because advertisers can pre-screen them since… they’re probably popular for a while. What would BudLight have paid for a post-roll at the end of “The Evolution of Dance.” Guys- it’s been seen 28 million times. 25 cents per view would be worth $7 MILLION DOLLARS. One video.

6) Show the market that you can garner your own revenue, and then enter into a strategic alliance with someone that can do this for you better. I get the sense you guys are in it for the good of the people. So were Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and they’re billionaires. And remember that Google entered the search market when NOBODY thought someone new could crack it. Get moving fast or you’re AltaVista waiting for a Google.

7) Share ad revenue with your creators- even if it’s just points for free merchandise. If you don’t do this proactively, someone else will (mark my words) steal your share… overnight. You won’t know what hit you. The content creators are why you have traffic, and the traffic is the reason you should be drawing significant ad revenue.

8) Get rid of the stuff that’s not owned by the uploader. I know this is tough. But if you start making money on copyrighted content, you’re going to need more attorneys than technical folks. And the disclaimers aren’t going to do it. This is Napster all over again.

9) Hold on, at all cost, to a decent piece of the equity of what you’ve discovered and either plan to ride it for 5-10 years or sell now. If I were a venture capitalist I’d be irate that you have had such high traffic and not created a decent revenue stream… even if I knew you were planning something big. We all know people are trying to buy you. If you’re not going to create a revenue model this summer, sell now. You’re white hot and you have tons of traffic. You’ll never be worth more than today until you generate income.

10) If you learn just one thing for this, all I ask is for one of the following: a) send an e-mail saying thanks, b) ship me a few YouTube t-shirts, c) feature one of my videos (username: Nalts) or d) give me 5% of the company.

Continue reading A Private Letter to YouTube Founders (Skip This Post)

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

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.

Creating the Perfect Online Video Site (Frankenstein Style)

I’m planning on doing a thorough review of the major online video sites, but here’s my first attempt at creating the perfect online video site:perfect-ovs-copy.jpg

  1. It would have the traffic and community of YouTube.
  2. It would have Revver’s advertising-sharing model
  3. It would have Metacafe’s ability to sift the best content
  4. It would have that cute little logo from EyeSpot
  5. It would have amazing indexed search that I haven’t found anywhere

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.