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.
Nope, we don't need your stinkin' technology, Google is paying $1.65 billion (with a "b") or 1.3% of Google's current value, for a media property. Plain and simple. But what does that even mean?
Interestingly, today "social" features like YouTube's ratings and opinions have been more helpful in video search than algorithmic approaches like Google's, which rely on metatags. if Google doesn't make sure the media comapnies make money from all of the
YouTube is a hopelessly inefficient way for consumers to steal copyrighted video content off the web. It's well suited to the negligible-attention-span clips that its users post up there, to music videos and to teasers and excerpts from longer (copyrighte
Google has to amplify (and protect) it's key revenue stream - ppc. Video ppc is a higher value domain, and a hugely untapped one. Google wants assets at the edges of the value chain which can exert market power against 1.0 publishers - just like it's doin
YouTube is winning the hearts of the audience because video search simply doesn’t work. You have to instead rely on the opinions, ratings, and playlist compilations of others to discover good video.
User Distributed Content, where all kind of recycled material – old TV, news-clips, sports, movies, politics etc. - that somebody for whatever reasons have decided to cut and upload on YT. UGC 51%, UDC 41% Commercial 8%
I think the real winners long-term will be platforms that enable a new generation of content producers to break free from the old media content hierarchy and make money from their creativity. As Umair reminds us, it’s all about enabling creativity.
Surprisingly low viewership for videos of ‘06/’08 candidates on YouTube. They are obviously not being sought out and blogs are apparently not doing much linking to political clips.
