The kid who stole Mark Bao’s laptop made two mistakes beyond “Mac-larceny.” He recorded himself dancing on the stolen laptop’s webcam, and failed to realize that the victim, Mark, had installed recovery software on the machine.
So Mark, an 18-year-old student at the University of Massachusetts, connected remotely to his Macbook Air laptop, retrieved this video, and shared it with the word via YouTube. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, about 85% of readers think he should leave the clip online. A perpetual sentence of the crook’s poor judgement. We agree.
The thief returned the laptop to university security and apologized. But we think he should dance, dance, dance in shame for eternity.
Then there’s the burning question. Is this a viral stunt by a software-security service? One can’t discount that theory in the “age of viral.”
Says CBS News: “He had taken the precaution of installing online backup software (called BackBlaze) on the computer and that now allowed him to gain entry into the purloined machine’s browser history as well as to view its hard drive where he could track any updates.”
If I was Ray William Johnson or Sxephil, I might keep this coveted “fountain of delicious video” to myself… featuring them on my own videos, with perhaps a brief credit to the creator but not the source. Alas, I lack the good sense of my big brothers on YouTube, having been cursed by an impulse to share, even when it is against my better interests.
Meet one of the best-kept secrets in non-viral video curation: Reddit’s videos. Thanks to Mark and Tim from Poptent for turning me on to Reddit.. perhaps we’ll call it the Digg for underdogs.
That tiny, unassuming Reddit icon sits on my Chrome browser shortcut panel, smiling upon me. My little alien friend patiently beckons me (sometimes two or three times a day)m promising to fulfill my insatiable appetite for rare and wonderful video gems. Not the most popular or most current, but a collection of clips that are insanely aligned with my eclectic taste… as if the folks giving it an “up” arrow are telepathically tuned to my preferences. Here’s me on Reddit. I have no friends.
What’s lovely about this “crowd sourced” collection is that it’s not only unique and interesting videos. It’s almost always called out with a unique headline that provides an additive level of humor (it would be lazy to use the real video’s title, right?). I was recently taunted by a headline, “I don’t know what it is, but I want one.” The video featured an obscurely named video of a freaky bird/rat pygmy that falls off a scale (it inspired my recent video montage titled “epic battle of the cutest and weirdest pets“).
The Reddit picks are not always fresh, hot, trending February 2011 picks, but does that really matter? Sure if we cluster around the “most recent” and currently popular videos we build a common and uniting vocabulary. My children, for instance, surf iTunes most-popular knowing that they’ll hear it discussed at school and on the radio. That’s a social/cultural bond not known to the Insulated iPod Playlist Generation. Still, just as the dusty shelves of remaining Blockbusters hide some classic films in the “not new releases” isles… there are mounds of classic, vintage online videos from 2007-2010 that deserve a second chance. For example, remember Marcel the Shell With Shoes from Vimeo (I wrote about it on October 7 last year). It was posted on YouTube a week later, and now has 6 million views (worth maybe 3-4K to its creators, and growing). While I imagine the artistic Vimeo crowd will no longer invite Dean Fleischer-Camp and Jenny Slate to their wine tastings, the duo deserved more recognition for a meme that Daneboe might have turned into a $500,000 franchise.
I don’t know much about this mysterious army of Reddit curators, but they have a knack for finding often obscure and unseen videos (several hundred views) that deserve the honors otherwise left only to “dramatic chipmunk” or “Star Wars Kids.”
The Reddit Video collection is, I’m convinced, unviral in our world, but viral videos from a parallel dimension. That makes them even more special.
Yes, it’s a motley collection with one unique and common thread: I’m glad I watched at least 72.4% of the top videos, which is more than I can say from any other aggregated source.
Bet you didn’t know there are a mess of YouTube accounts by YouTube. Click to see “On the Rise,” designed to spawn more creators with 100K subscribers, and see “other YouTube channels” (on left) for an assortment of channels created by YouTube employees.
Who is Ray William Johnson, and why might YouTube need to change its name to RayWilliamJohnsonTube.com? How is YouTube, perhaps, moving the wrong way along the longtail, providing typical viewers (grazers not bingers) with an increasingly homogeneous experience?
Ray William Johnson dominates YouTube via his large and fervent fan base
If you’re not familiar with the term “longtail,” it was popularized by Chris Anderson (Wired) in 2004. Anderson used the term to refer to the success of Amazon and Netflix selling “less of more.” While mainstream retailers would only keep select merchandise in inventory (the 20% of products that would represent 80% of sales), the online stores could appeal to the rest of us.
YouTube’s early success (2005-2009) was serving the masses by offering the “long tail” of video content. However in the past year, the site’s homepage and “related/spotlight” videos have reverted to a more traditional commerce and entertainment model. Now a very, very small sample of creators (fewer than 10%) represent far more than 80% of the website’s views. As the site moves toward a more customized homepage, that means that “grazers” like GigaOm’s Liz Shannon Miller, are less likely to find relevant content… at least by browsing.
For evidence of this observation, look no further than the increasingly YouTube’s “most viewed” page, which once represented a more diverse collection of amateur and professional creators (even though “web stars” have dominated it during their increasingly compressed life cycles). Today it’s almost exclusively dominated by professional musicians, and about 5-10 amateur creators: specifically, ShaneDawsonTV, Sxephil, Shaytards, RayWilliamJohnson.
These are talented creators, and great marketers by my definition. They know their viewing audience, they satisfy them to their benefit, and they activate them to reach a broader crowd. But for the typical YouTube visitor (an intermittent visitor), YouTube has become a “sea of sameness.” The “webstar” lifecycle is becoming increasingly short as competition increases. This paradigm bothered me less, of course, when I was enjoying my 15 minutes. While I still get 5-6 million views a month, I’m rarely among the spotlighted videos… presumably because my videos are less frequent and engaging the audience less. That said, even when I was a predictable face on YouTube’s most-popular videos of the day, I knew that there was far better content that deserved this honor.
Of the most-viewed videos of the month, Johnson owns 7 of the top 20
Ray William Johnson is perhaps the “poster child” of what “hard core YouTubers” want. The NYC amateur entertainer creates daily video blogs (vlogs) that are funny, irreverent and usually celebrate funny Internet videos he curates (many that were or became “memes”). He works hard, and his formula is precise — from the rapid-fire “show” format to the neon, circle-toon thumbnails and ALL CAP titles! It’s not an accident that William’s short videos are rewarded with more than a million views a day. That could mean as much as $800-$1,000 of income daily (see MyU2B stats), amounting to perhaps $500-$700,000 per year (although this is educated speculation). If history can help us predict the future, we can assume he will eventually lose his “most popular” throne to someone else, even if his videos remain regular and strong, and his monthly reviews holds or grows.
Johnson is not the first or last amateur creator to “crack the code” for getting serious views on YouTube, and growing his fan base via a virtual cycle. It’s easier to explain than to imitate: His strong fan base of YouTube “bingers” (those who view and engage frequently) regularly propels him to a wider audience of “grazers” (those people who visit sporadically and can’t help but notice the mesmerizing thumbnails, ala the photos here). He encourages viewers to watch, comment, favorite and rate (thumbs up), which is what drives YouTube’s algorithm for “spotlighted” videos. This accelerates the virtuous cycle, as long as his videos continue to convert “grazers” to “bingers.” And that’s good for him and YouTube, which depends on regular creators to attract and retain audiences to support its advertising model.
So should YouTube change anything, or is it a natural and healthy phenomenon? That’s debatable, and perhaps a moot point considering the limited interest by Google. YouTube may be the largest video sharing site, but its revenue is maybe 1% of Google’s revenue. That’s a rounding error to Google, who won’t soon let “the tail wag the dog.” As advertising revenue flows to online-video and consumption grows significantly, Google’s approach to YouTube may change.
YouTube’s fundamental challenge is this: absent the influence of human editors, the site “crowd sources” the curating/programming role to the portion of YouTube viewers who are active. That works nicely, but it does create a self-fulfilling prophecy that has strangled the growth of other online properties.
The new viewer has three viewing options:
Search for preferred content (a vital but “non sticky” model),
“teach” YouTube its preferences (a useful but rare approach for most people),
or more commonly, default to the “crowd sourced” favorites.
So we have a virtuous cycle for creators, and perhaps a vicious cycle if YouTube hopes to expand its audience, something that will become more vital to advertisers and the economics of the online-video industry. Let’s say (not so hypothetically) that 1,000 to 10,000 people (ages 13-19 year old), take the active role of “crowd sourcing” by rating, favoriting and commenting. Their “taste” defines the “spotlighted” videos that YouTube promotes to new visitors. This can attract similar viewers, but alienates those who don’t share in the hardcore viewers’ tastes. Thus it may force them to resort to using YouTube as a search engine only, put effort into customizing the site to meet their needs, or send them elsewhere.
Paradoxically, YouTube’s increasingly homogenous content resembles the homogenous staffing model of its parent, Google (where high GPAs tend to be weighted more than other attributes). It’s a smart way to grow initially, but can also thwart diversity and evolution.
But perhaps I’m looking at this longtail shift the wrong way. It’s not a bad thing if you happen to share the taste of Ray William Johnson, or if you’re him. This phenomenon is also typical of most entertainment experiences, where the “star” pyramid is tall and sharp. In Hollywood, fame begets fame. Should it be different in this emerging media?
Regardless on your take, you might agree this phenomenon opens a large window for someone who (or something that) can “program” an experience that is more broadly appealing or that serves a more attractive advertising demographic… using YouTube’s platform or another. There are loads of ways to remedy this virtuous/vicious cycle using technology and human programmers, but it requires a different approach than the one to date. And it’s quite different from Google’s core DNA of creating great search and free technology products that rival many paid ones.
Here’s a top “viral” video that is indeed viral, and indeed an ad (2nd Generation Intel® Core™ i5 processor).
While it hasn’t met the strict definition I use (4 million within 24-48 characteristic of that Golden Voice homeless man), the Intel “Chase Scene” is past 813,000 views, and I believe it will continue to grow. Why? No blatant pitch; just great creative.
It’s got the pace of a John Woo film, depicts Matrox-like transformations from various web experiences. Our protagonist female spy darts from Facebook to video games, and even across mundane experiences like desktops and Microsoft business applications. Most importantly, the “short film” features kick ass music and a brunette on the run from a bunch of dangerous but outwitted thugs. Whether she’s diving from a building, racing in a car, or “deleting” them…. she’s got that Angeline Jolie Salt mojo, with a dash of MysteryGuitarMan imagination.
In one of the rapid-fire getaway moments, our hero dashes from a video player into a nearby getaway car... in an adjacent banner ad.
The good news, advertisers… if your “viral” clips are this good, you don’t have to buy their way to our attention via “spots” and “prerolls” (though that “one-two punch” didn’t hurt Old Spice). The bad news… Jackie Chan makes stunts look easy, but you might be too old for his moves. Even he might be too old for his moves.
The "coalition of the willing" of online video has been assembled
It took hours, but I’ve compiled the definitive Twitter list of those hungry for web-tv and online video. In once click, you can follow reporters, CEOs, new-media gurus, events, groups, authors, techies, potentially some annoying vendors, select creators, speakers, experts… and, well, even me.
It is, dear reader and confident, “The Coalition of the Willing” of online video.
They Cambridge “Who’s Who” of the video revolution is talking about and shaping things like time-shifted DVRs, hidebound MSOs, PayTV’s adapting, Sandy Bridge, Honeycombs (yeah), clouds, BestBuy, video portals, more clouds, video search (SEO), Slings, Netflix, Roku, iTV, Jinni, Clicker, Boxee, YouTube, video trends, user adoption, mobile video, web-TV, Videoscope, Xoom, CES, TV Everywhere, viral video, 2011 predictions, and other exciting dynamics of the unique time we’re in.
There are 350 million web-enabled TV devices projected to be sold by 2015 (source). That’s a whole lot of puddin’.
You may chose to follow the online-video coalition of the willing. Or you may wish to ignore this list, swing your head away from the accident, and wait to be surprised. But it’s going to happen whether you’re watching or not. It is happening. Toss your Blueray DVDs in a garage-sale bin, and buckle up for a ride.
Some of these hand-picked, platinum-covered cyber-humans are twitter-thorities sitting in their basements and offices 24-7, thinking about and building a future where video… Where video, damnit, dances majestically from laptop to smart phone to HDTVs. Where it’s not free, but it roams freely. Where crap and great live together in perfect harmony.
And some of these moving-picture “future builders” remain so dedicated to the cause they’re immune to nearly anything that spews from the archaic “television machines” you caveman use. Like AskANinja co-founder Kent Nichols, who just tweeted: “First time I’ve listened to the news live in a while. Amazing what a bubble that the web and DVR is.”
Oh it’s a bubble, alright, Mr. Nichols. And when it bursts, your brain’s going to explode right out of your f’ing skull.
Our friends at ReelSEO revealed the Pew data showing viewer’s surprising willingness to pay for online-video content. Until recently, I’ve been nervous about the notion of any subscription or pay-per-view model because it’s likely a “deal killer” for most viewers watching amateur creators. Sure I’ll pay to license/buy The Guild or Dr. Horrible, but less so for vloggers and amateurs (love ya, Charles Trippy, but “Internet Killed Television” is working quite well as free).
I’ve long maintained that the marketplace depended on advertising revenue since YouTube viewers are accustomed to free content. I believe the vast majority would protest a fee-based model — whether a token “pay-per-view” or modest subscription charge. Still, some would pay to avoid ads and access “extras.” But let’s try to avoid the dreaded but inevitable “one-two-punch” models ($7.99 Hulu plus– where the “plus” stands for ads) that subject viewers to both a subscription and advertisements. I’m still sometimes perplexed why I pay for CableTV and get subjected to advertisements. Then again, it worked with magazine subscriptions.
Note: this post is me sculpting fog, and is subject to errors in logic. I hope you’ll comment so we viewers (and advertisers) can “crowd source” a solution.
Paywall of Doom (click for source)
A solution to the free vs. paid debate can be simple to the viewer, but certainly has nuances. The trick is that the model can’t be black or white, or binary. We need to provide viewers with options based on the proven success of “freemium” in software. “Freemium” refers to a trial version with limited functionality that is free, coupled with a paid premium offering (usually offering more stuff we value) that sustains the provider’s economic needs. This differs from the loathed “paywall” model that suddenly restricts content access to paying subscribers, a model that would certainly flop in the democratic and entitlement era of YouTube. Here’s what I propose:
FREE CONTINUES: Maintain free content for everyone with pre-rolls, Invids, banners, and Ding-Dong Fat Mamas (I made that last one up, but it’s not far from real terms like “takeovers” and “Fat Boys“).
PAY MODEST FEE TO ENJOY “AD-FREE” VIEWING: If the ads become intrusive, the viewer could chose to “opt out” 0f ads by paying a token fee (but volatile and difficult to preemptively set). A small fee today could easily offset the majority of paltry per-view payments that YouTube and the Partners receive from advertisers. The ad prices are now artificially low since the medium is new, and the media market hasn’t yet realized video’s impact. The problem, of course, is that fee is based on the advertisers perceived value of the particular audience. But common… if CableTV figured it out, so too should Google.
VIEWERS SUBSCRIBE BY VOLUME?: It would be difficult to offer a “subscription” fee at a channel-by-channel level. So this might better work as a comprehensive volume-based subscription. I imagine few Partners would have much luck creating an individual channel paywall. I’m one of a growing number of viewers, however, who would rather pay a few pennies for preroll-free videos and temporary “advertising immunity”… Those repetitive, unstoppable prerolls are what I find especially intrusive. In a great act of hypocrisy, I reluctantly subject my viewers to them because they’re far more profitable than InVid ads or penny-auction surrounding banners. To keep the solution fair, the user might purchase a bulk number of ad-free views in a beta (sufficient for a month’s worth of views, for instance) and continue if they wish.
PAYWALL WITH EXTRAS: Another model, albiet more complex, would offer subscribers additional “value adds” such as higher quality content, earlier release dates, or “extras.” This undertaking would depend on the percentage of the audience that would be willing to pay, and that segment that would certainly be small at first (thus decreasing creator motivation to produce extras). While I can’t envision more than 5 percent of YouTube viewers currently opting to pay, it might qualify them as “super viewers,” and I’d expect most YouTube Partners and YouTube to find ways to reward them fairly as VIPs.
The reason YouTube and other platforms ought to experiment with these models is that this: The noble attempt to earn money to encourage more creators and generate site profitability is, I believe, beginning to create “audience fatigue.” These ads are, currently, generating only a fraction of what preroll ads are likely worth. They’re also diminishing in value to brands if the frequency gets excessive per viewer. So I encourage YouTube or a smaller site to conduct a trial with viewers — giving them a choice, and ensuring that the “holdouts” don’t feel unfairly deprived (for instance by having their video quality diminished from what they’ve grown accustomed).
A few tips, since this hasn’t been with success in web video yet (for some valid reasons):
This would have to be done carefully. As I mentioned, it would also be difficult for a viewer to select what “channels” to which they’d pay to subscribe sans ads– due to the varying individual tastes of viewers and the volatile quality/style/frequency of YouTube Partners. Unlike the relationship between network shows and fans, these relationships are less predictable. We also don’t want to create an awkward hierarchy among Partners (especially in a community forged with democracy and sharing). Again, if only one group (TheStation) created a perceived or real paywall, it would go over like a fart in church. Viewers resented when the comedic duo, Smosh, started moving viewers to Live Universe (alive?).
The most practical and turnkey approach would involve a website (YouTube) allowing viewers a generous monthly number of ad-free views to those who paid a very modest flat fee. I acknowledge that the “devil is in the details.” The worth of an ad-free view varies tremendously based on the perceived value of the Partner’s audience to an advertiser. Due to advertiser’s particular desire for certain demographics (not content, or your perceived quality of it), a view of ShaneDawson or Annoying Orange might command a radically lower CPM or CPC than, say, Mediocrefilms or Blame Society. So a pricing model would be difficult to set based on the viewer. I may be stretching here, but there’s a potential “self healing” solution: presumably wealthier, affluent individuals are worth more to advertisers (and perhaps more prone to paying). Teenagers can sometimes be worth less at a CPM, so they’d pay less or just suffer the ads. Yes I realize we’d all change our YouTube profile age to “born 1989” to “game the system,” but Google owns Doubleclick, kids. Don’t think it doesn’t know what you had for breakfast.
Finally, it would have to be as easy as buying a show via AppleTV or iTunes. If I’ve got to remember my Paypal and input a credit card, my price sensitivity changes drastically.
Thoughts? How much would you pay to skip a pre-roll or avoid them completely? Or have you grown immune to their presence? What if suddenly advertisers wanted to pay more than you would to avoid them? How would you propose YouTube and other platforms adjust to balance the needs of two important constituents: we viewers and the brands seeking our hearts and wallets?
There are loads of social media events, and many YouTube “community gatherings,” meetups and online video events. But the “South By Southwest” of online-video and YouTube is indisputably VidCon. Organized by Hank and John Green (vlogbrothers), the event in 2010 drew hundreds of community members, top “YouTube Stars,” and Nerdfighters (the active people who rally to reduce the world of “suck”). It also included lots of on-stage entertainment that was shared widely online. VidCon 2011 is planned for July 28-30 in San Francisco, California. Early bird discount if you book before Jan. 10, and the hotel is Hyatt Regency Central Plaza.
Here are some highlights of 2010’s VidCon to give you a flavor. It’s focused on viewers and creators, but does attract industry folks and marketers (and has a special industry track). Unlike some popular YouTube love-festivals where “big YouTubers” are VIP, this one is quite egalitarian.
“YouTube’s future is being held back is the typical innovator’s dilemma, or rather, billionaire’s dilemma,” writesAshkan Karbasfrooshan is CEO of WatchMojo.com. I included some of Karbashfrooshan’s pieces in Beyond Viral, and he’s one of the authoritative writers about the online-video industry and media monetization.
Google's Mansion and its YouTube Slave House
Indeed YouTube is but a toy kiosk in the Google “Mall of Americas.” Before I provide my 2 cents, here are some important highlights of his recent piece (with my comments in italics). His article was spawned, in part, by a “Video Forecast 2011” piece by AlphaBird’s Alex Rowland.
Google is generating way too much money from its “traditional” search business ($30 billion) to care about radically owning the new video space (which is a small portion of the $2.5 billion Google counts as “display”).
While YouTube commands 45% of the video streams in the U.S., it is unlikely that it will generate $600 million from video ads in 2010 (or 40% x $1.5 billion). (Hulu, he says, did $240 million… and with a tiny percentage of streams).
YouTube correctly identified ad agencies and Fortune 500 marketers as those who would turn YouTube into a billion-dollar business. However, since Google had little experience in selling to ad agencies before it acquired YouTube, growing video revenues took a lot of time to scale.
But instead of allowing content partners set prices based on actual market dynamics (demand and supply), YouTube implemented a set of obstacles and requirements that have made selling one’s YouTube channel all but impossible. YouTube did this, I believe, in an attempt to thwart content producers from owning the relationships with media planners and buyers. After all, if YouTube opened up its site, it would lose contact with advertisers and become a mere dumb pipe. (Indeed Google has been known to dismiss the role of the media buyer as somewhat useless intermediary… however the “dumb pipe” of Google’s paid-search network isn’t so dumb).
Some would argue that if leading YouTube content provider Next New Networks’ indeed sold to YouTube (a rumor that spread in recent weeks, such as with this LA Times piece), it would be more of a capitulation than coup, for NNN relies so much on YouTube that it cannot possibly remain a going concern if it was not part of YouTube.
Now the WatchMojo CEO is a YouTube content provider, and has reduced the percentage of his company’s own inventory via YouTube from 45% to 15% in just the last past few months (by expanding his distribution beyond YouTube, since his YouTube audience has not contracted). He says YouTube is creating an “opening for others to win the bigger ad dollars,” and names DailyMotion, Metacafe and Facebook as potentials.
Now my thoughts: this isn’t a lone voice. I’ve heard this or similar perspective from content creators, advertising agencies, industry watch dogs and even some variations from YouTube/Google employees.
I would contend that Karbasfrooshan is more correct than controversial, and that Google is perhaps even “strategically ignoring” online-video’s near-term growth potential because it has far more critical business “levers.”
Google has a cash cow in search-engine advertising, and is broadening into other mediums especially mobile. I expect YouTube’s growth to continue (it’s usually the case with the market leader), but its share of online-video display dollars will decline dramatically.
Still, YouTube will continue to flourish via the middle market, lower maintenance, and “self serve” portion of the marketplace. This is almost certain without a significant “course correction” that does not appear imminent or within Google’s DNA.
If Facebook begins to display video and share advertising revenue with content creators, I would imagine most — from Discovery to Annoying Orange — would start posting on Facebook quickly, migrating their audience, and even staggering/delaying content to YouTube (the way some providers like The Onion and College Humor do… first posting on their own sites, then weeks later posting on YouTube).
Just as I don’t think my own content cannot survive and flourish outside YouTube (at least alone, hence my signing with Next New Networks), I do not believe Google is poised to grow or even maintain YouTube’s share of the online-video advertising budgets even remotely in relationship to its percent of video streams.
The exception will be small companies and middle markets, or advertisers who are prone to buying via Adwords. Currently the vast majority of YouTube advertising dollars (with the exception of individual campaigns and homepage takeovers) are almost entirely driven by Adsense Adwords. You heard me correctly, and that’s a sad statement about Google/YouTube’s ability to sell direct to brands and/or via partners and agencies.
Large content creators and brands will and should want a strong platform partner which puts the audience needs and preferences first, but theirs at a close second.
So the answer to this post’s title is “yes… Google is squandering YouTube’s potential right now.” It is almost inarguable truth that YouTube is not leveraging the strength of Google and its global salesforce, and not winning the hearts and minds of Madison Avenue. It follows, therefore, that the stewards of large digital media budgets are now seeking — and will continue to pursue — alternative online-video advertising options for innovative programs beyond prerolls.
I’d expect to see AOL and Yahoo, if not Facebook, knipping away at Google’s online-video Achilles heal. Google, after all, is not a media property at heart… it’s a sleuth of engineers producing innovative change. Given that identity, Google can’t be underestimated as a bold market force that will continue to shake the online-video industry in ways far more interesting than hundred-million-dollar media buys, which are akin to vending-machine revenue at a casino.
In the meantime, content creators should:
Ask YouTube to facilitate and encourage them to prevent agency buyers from feeling YouTube’s thorns. Likewise they need to aggregate to achieve sufficient strength to command the interest of digital buyers unless their niche is remarkable.
Maintain good relationships with YouTube people, recognizing that many of YouTube’s shortcomings are out of their control.
Diversify their distribution to include some of the smaller properties… especially those that grow. YouTube’s incentive to innovate for advertisers depends on market competition.
Derive income directly via sponsorships… which is no longer discouraged by YouTube, a video platform.
Pay close attention to what Google is doing with online video that has far greater potential than YouTube or any individual media property alone.
