Stickam is dead. Another casualty of the online-video sharing market. Said the company via e-mail:

After seven wonderful years we are incredibly sad to have to say goodbye. We did everything we could to keep this dream alive, but unfortunately you are reading this message.

When Stickam launched in 2005 we were the very first website devoted to live streaming, user generated video and chat. There was no blueprint, no roadmap to follow. We didn’t know where you would take us.

Users have until Feb. 28, 2013 to save their media. Meanwhile, here are 10 sites like Stickam. Which will survive?

An odd survey by the Interactive Advertising Bureau shows that 92% of us share video via mobile, but in ways you wouldn’t expect. 56% of us post it on Facebook. 44% show it on the phone the old fashioned way… in person. The next two most-common methods are text and e-mail. Only then do we see YouTube sharing… apparently YouTube has failed to become a mobile tool.

The article referenced is by eMarketer, which points out the latest player in the short-video mobile sharing space… Vine by Twitter. It’s getting crowded, folks, and history has taught

us that there can only be one survivor.

Who will lead mobile-video sharing? Facebook? SocialCam? Viddy? See this post for an overview of the mobile-video apps.

Prank your bro, friends. The folks from College Humor are issuing a prank challenge. Check out the video for details. And don’t forget these are the folks that brought you the amazingly funny basketball half-court prank (check it out if you haven’t seen it). 

Here’s some historical highlights (2005-2013) of YouTube, and some stats on current 2013 activity — like 800 million monthly users. From the folks at ShortyMedia…

A YouTube

A new YouTube documentary, “Please Subscribe” debuts in February, and another titled “I’m Vlogging Here” is fundraising for its coming production.

• Dani Dobi’s “Please Subscribe” features YouTube vlogger Wheezy Waiter, Joe Penna (MysteryGuitarMan) and dozens more. See the “Please Subscribe” trailer here. 

• 

  YouTube weblebrity ShayCarl (Shay Butler) is joining Corey Vidal in “I’m Vlogging Here,” documentary that is going into production. ShayCarl recently invited viewers to submit 2-minute videos about how YouTube changed their lives and dozens have already responded (see videos). Butler and Vidal announced the documentary days ago in a live broadcast of “What’s Trending.” They established a fundraising site, and here’s there response to my humble donation.

• And don’t forget the classic “I Want My Three Minutes Back,” which chronicled my evolution in 2007-2008.

Are you gonna watch?

It’s an embarrassing statement about marketers in 2012. I’d like to apologize on behalf of them all. According to Kantar media, 77% of brands aren’t using online video; they’re exclusively national TV. Says Clickz:

• A new study from Kantar Media has found that 77 percent of brands are using national TV advertising exclusively.
• According to the study, only 23 percent of the brands surveyed were using online video.
• About 12 percent of brands reported that they were using both online video and national TV advertising.
• While another 11 percent said they were using online video advertising only.

So what’s the poop? And could this mean that online-video advertising spending will see even larger jumps as marketers come to the realization that the medium actually works?

Hitler doesn’t like the new YouTube design because it doesn’t look good on his large monitor, it recommends his own videos, and causes him to miss videos from those to which he subscribes… like Stalin. See video below or here.

What do you non-sociopaths think? Or heck. Comment even if you are a sociopath.

So this blog has been more quiet than it’s been in YEARS. Call it writer’s block. In the meantime, check out “Online Video Poop,” a lil curated piece of amateur journalism.

Should you join a YouTube network (or what I call Online Video Studios)? It’s a question I get often. And my simple answer, of late, is this:

NO– unless you desperately need one, have realistic expectations of what you get back, and have an attorney read the fine print.

Many young artists are signing with studios/networks in an act of desperation. They believe they’ll obtain stardom like some of the top artists who have signed with a particular network. It’s a pipe dream that could lead to some regret downstream.

In ReadWriteWeb, FRUZSINA EÖRDÖGH wrote a recent article titled “YouTube Networks: An Inside Look At Their Unsavory Business Practices.” Here are some highlights:

• YouTube networks have earned a nasty rep for screwing their talent out of money and other unsavory business practices.
• Young talent is scooped up, and more often than not, taken advantage of because they don’t know enough to read the fine print or hire a lawyer.
• Networks take anywhere from 30% to 50% of revenue generated by the video content. If that cut seems high to you, you’re not alone.
• …the “perpetuity clauses” in contracts teen YouTubers signed without realizing that “perpetuity” means “for life.”

Let’s be clear: some of the networks are founded by good people and with solid intentions. I’m not saying they’re evil. Since YouTube is not good at dealing directly with individuals, the network can help a creator solve issues and problems. They do offer value to the creator… it’s just not what most YouTubers expect.

I worry about the benefits to creators… they often make unrealistic claims. The “pros” of joining a network are often limited to creators who already have traction, or those who believe they can’t become a YouTube Partner directly (which really isn’t that complex). The typical “pitch” says the network will help the creator market and gain views, increase average revenue per view, and assist the creator get YouTube’s attention. Young artists imagine a team of network specialists supporting them, and collaborating with other artists in the network… dreams that don’t come true. The risks generally outweigh the benefit of these promises even if they come true. you’re giving away a percent of your income for a long period, and the network may not provide the creator value in return. If you believe you’re “on your way up,” it would be a shame to lose a chunk of your income (or cap it), right?

Still feeling brave? NewMediaRockstars’ Benny Luo collected a more comprehensive list of the options here.

Alloy Digital
Big Frame
Blip Studios
The Collective 
Creator X
FullScreen
Machinima
Maker Studios
PMC Studios
Revision3
Social Blade
TYT Network

Why is YouTube’s most subscribed creator, Ray William Johnson, planning to separate from the largest online-video studios (OVC definition)? In perhaps the most interesting online-video news of 2012, the YouTube personality announced this week that he would be splitting from Maker Studios. See news stories by Variety, The Wrap,  LA Biz, and NewMediaRockstars.

Johnson started creating his “=3” show from his NYC apartment in May 2008, and has more YouTube subscribers than Justin Bieber and Katie Perry combined. The 31-year-old Oklahoma City native created and owns YouTube’s most-subscribed channel with nearly 6 million subscribers and has videos seen more than 2 billion times (source). Maker is one of the largest independent OVCs — initially surpassed only by Machinima — until September ComScore data placed it as #3 after Vevo and Warner.

Here are some “factual highlights”of the separation, followed by my “informed speculation” about what caused the split.

• “In the near future =3 will no longer be part of the Maker Studios network, so I’m going to film here for a while,” Johnson said in his most recent video.
• Maker’s only response: “Ray is still a part of the Maker Network. With the recent decline in viewership on ‘=3’ it made sense for him to go back to producing the show himself.” Maker claims that it provided a full production staff of 12 people including a team of writers, and that was “no longer a viable option” for the show.
• YouTuber Michael Buckley called the “decline” statement, “a little bitchy” and I agree (why mention the decline?).
• See NewMediaRockstars’ Tweets for more information as founder Benny Luo says he’s soon interviewing Maker founder “Danny Diamond.”
• In fairness to Maker, the decline is accurate. See NewMediaRockstars/Channel Meter’s report on the slowing rate of views and subscribers of the #1 YouTuber. This drop is consistent with the overall decline of independent creators — as YouTube (and OVCs) have turned their attention to professional content.
• Writes Variety, Williams is “embroiled in a public dispute with the company where he is under contract… a source suggested that Johnson represented a dwindling portion of Maker’s traffic, currently totaling no more than 2%.
• The break, writes Wrap, “is jarring because it presents itself as the most artist-friendly YouTube-driven production company, founded by popular YouTubers like Lisa Nova (Lisa Donovan) and KassemG (Gharaibeh). That being said, YouTubers like the Fine Bros. and Shane Dawson have also left the company in the past.”

So What Caused The Split?

Here’s where I’ll speculate, since the terms of the agreement (and looming split) are obviously confidential. Ultimately the agreement served neither Johnson nor Maker, and that’s likely why other top creators (who had a following prior to Maker) have pulled away from networks.

• Maker approached RWJ about two years ago, and the contract did not appear to require Johnson to give up a percentage of his YouTube revenue. To reinforce that point, consider RWJ’s “tweet” to journalist Benny Luo of New Media Rockstars: said Johnson, “Maker suddenly insisted on owning part of =3 IP (his show’s intellectual property). He continued, “When I told them no, they stopped production of the YFM album. He’s referring to Your Favorite Martian channel, a channel that likely was jointly owned and monetized by RWJ and Maker. That channel will likely die or fatigue like Maker’s “The Station.”
• Years ago Maker was new, and needed the numbers and credibility of a top YouTuber to impress investors, advertisers, and creators. It’s common that a YouTube star with a proven fan base to be courted by OVCs without imposing a revenue split on existing channels. But with new creators or jointly developed channels, the creator and OVC often split YouTube ad revenue 50/50%. This is one of few ways that an OVC stays financially solvent today. That will change as OVCs begin to create their own content, receive content-development investments from YouTube, or work “upstream” content distribution deals beyond YouTube.
• Even though we know that all independent creators have seen decline in views/audiences, this surely created tension by Maker and Johnson. Each party likely attributed the decline to the other, when in truth the decline is mostly due to YouTube’s changes in emphasis… with pro content on board, YouTube is less reliant on the independent creators… and wants to become web television (as I’ve written before).
• Maker likely financed RWJ’s show (the “12 staffers”) to improve the show, increase views and keep Johnson happy. Johnson’s channel earns him more than $1,000,000 dollars annually. He can afford to support a staff, but Maker wasn’t getting a piece of that action. That’s not very sustainable.
• Eventually Johnson, accustomed to sole control, probably felt like his show was over managed… did he really need Maker? 
• Meanwhile Maker had a declining need for RWJ as it attracted dollars and grew to thousands of Partners. As stated above, RWJ became a smaller and smaller portion of Maker’s total and ongoing views. So Maker probably fatigued of investing in the show, and sought to monetize RWJ in new ways.  They’d perhaps co-create additional content (channels or show) that the two could jointly own. (When Next New Networks approached me years ago, that was the deal. I didn’t have to give up a percent of my YouTube Adsense money, but I agreed that new opportunities (like sponsored videos) would be a 50/50% split. Of course Next New was acquired before that ever happened).
• Bottom line: the relationship lost its foundation. Maker didn’t need RWJ so it probably reduced its coddling of the star. Meanwhile Ray realized that he wasn’t necessarily thriving under Maker… did his show really need a fancy set and a collection of writers and famous guests? Did he need Maker to keep and grow his audience?
• The split, by the way, is not unique to this medium. There’s a long history of the entertainment industry that involves financial disputes and friction based on ownership — both financial and creative.

So there we go. Thoughts? Speculation? Feelings? Bring ’em, folks.