Usertainment Watch

Online Video's Hyper-growth Phase Appears Over

ComScore Video Metrix reported Friday that online video viewership declined in January compared to the previous month, a finding that suggests online video's hyper-growth phase has ended.

ComScore Video Metrix reported 9.8 billion videos viewed online in January, compared to 10.1 billion in December 2007.

YouTube accounted for one-third of views. Fox Interactive Media was a distant second, with a 6% share.

No doubt there will be great interest in February figures as analysts try to determine whether January represented but a temporary pause in growth. Regardless, a decline after the rapid run-up of the past two or three years would appear to indicate that the big growth numbers are behind us.

Wrong About Keeping YouTube Clips Short?

General wisdom dictates that in order to increase one's chances of creating a YouTube "hit," clips should be kept to three minutes or less.

But does the evidence bear this out?

Many highly popular videos are indeed less than three minutes in length. But there are glaring exceptions to this rule -- enough, in fact, to call into question how critical it is to come in at less than three minutes.

For example, of the eight most-viewed YouTube videos of all time, only two are less than three minutes long. The top-viewed video, "Evolution of Dance," comes in at six minutes. The third-most-viewed, "Lo que tu Queiras oir," is 10 minutes, 15 seconds long.

Enough to give one pause about "shorter is better."

GoogTube Ad Service Points to an "Uber Network"

Much hullabaloo greeted word today of Google's new ad syndication service for video.

The new product, coupled with YouTube, might at last result in the consummation of the long-delayed marriage between online video and a workable advertising model. Then again, as with previous faltering attempts, it might not.

Either way, it's safe to say that GoogTube will get it right -- eventually. When it does, one big question is whether a new kind of online TV network will arise -- one that figures out how to parlay the right combo of GoogTube-supplied content and contextual video advertising into a viable business model.

What, then, will the landscape look like 5 years out? Will the web's video distribution be split between two major factions, one being the big media companies bent on retaining control over all of their ad dollars (largely turning their backs on Google ads, as many media giants do today), and the other being composed of thousands of highly focused niche networks totally reliant on GoogTube for both content and advertising?

No, wait, there's a third player: GoogTube itself -- indeed, the uber network.

Qoof.com Sees "YouTube for Ads" as Brilliant

That certainly didn't take long!

My previous post noted that I wouldn't be surprised to see someone post a comment pointing out that a site whose main function is to display user-generated ads already exists.

Hardly had the post appeared than Richard Kligman commented that Qoof.com already has appeared in that niche. "We allow users to post Usermercials (TM), and connect the video to another website or to put in your affiliate link," he writes, adding that DrugStore.com and Ice.com have signed on already, with more to follow.

Richard is Qoof.com's founder and CEO.

A visit to Qoof.com indicates that it's actually a bit different from a pure "YouTube for ads." Professional videos also are part of the mix, as is a commerce dimension.

Oh, and maybe Richard can shed some light on what's behind the name? Qoof -- hmm. Better than "UsermercialTube," I suppose!

YouTube for Ads: Brilliant, or Dumb?

Who in their right mind would go to a website whose sole function is displaying video commercials? Who in their right mind would go there if all those ads were user-generated?

The former (websites that show only commercials) already exist -- most prominently, TBS's veryfunnyads. And a new such initiative, Didja, is to be launched next year by NBC. OK, that would seem to answer the first question -- apparently, people will in fact go to sites showing only ads.

As to the second question, as far as I know a YouTube clone based purely on usertising (user-generated advertising) doesn't yet exist. That, despite the many video ad contests mounted by various marketers. The closest to such an animal could be XLNTAds -- but still, not quite.

So -- would an ad-based YouTube, populated purely with user-generated spots, be brilliant? Or just dumb?

I'm tempted to say it's just a matter of time until someone launches it and we find out. Thing is, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone post a comment pointing out that such a site already exists.

Why You Should Change Your YouTube Thumbnails

I don't have scientific proof, but it just stands to reason that video thumbnails can have a powerful impact on view numbers.

For ancedotal evidence, consider the thumbnail and view numbers for the video "Hey Clip" (see accompanying image). How many guys would click on this video, based on the suggestive thumbnail alone? Well, so far it's racked up nearly 16 million views.

Although what makes a good video is largely subjective, for my money the best thing about "Hey Clip" is the provocative thumbnail image.

If you agree that thumbnail images matter, YouTube now offers the ability to choose one of three options for your video thumbnail. Here's how YouTube describes the procedure.

Or you can watch this video, aptly named "How to Change Your YouTube Thumbnail," by ilnaras.

Could One Man Kill YouTube?

That's the question Esquire magazine asks in an interesting article by Matthew Belloni about Bob Tur, a little-known photojournalist who, Esquire says, was the first person to sue YouTube for copyright infringement.

Tur comes off in the article as something of a legal bull terrier -- the type that, if he manages to sink his teeth into your flesh, likely will be tugging and ripping away at you for awhile.

As interesting as the article's description of Tur's legal campaign is, the series of events that drew Tur into the battle is equally compelling. If you're old enough to remember the acquittal of the four white L.A. police officers who beat Rodney King, you'll probably remember the video of the horrific attacks on a couple of luckless truckers that took place in L.A.'s South Central during the riots that followed the verdict.

It was Tur who got the video (the shooting of which, as Esquire explains, was no fluke) -- and he was displeased when it showed up on YouTube.   

Give the article a read. Who knows, the case it describes could have a major impact on the future direction of YouTube.

Can Sony Move You Beyond "Amateur?"

Sony just introduced Crackle (formerly the video-sharing site Grouper, acquired last year for $65 million), which "promises to make talented online video creators famous."

That, in a nutshell, is Crackle's hook. According to Sony's PR, "Crackle editors, helped by its current 25-million-strong user base and 'fame partners,' will reward the best video creators with funding, development deals and widespread exposure across multiple media channels."

An interesting concept, though I wonder if its apparent span and complexity will be a match for YouTube's simplicity.

Another thing I wonder about is how much real talent (defined as a usertainer who has developed a sizable audience base at YouTube), is going to gravitate from YouTube to Crackle.

Crackle's parents at Sony probably would be happy as clams if the site can simply attract dual postings of the best content appearing on YouTube -- but they'll likely have to settle for something less.

Malibu Rum Contest Fiasco Will Spur Sponsored Videos

What's bad for video contests will be good for sponsored videos. That's the conclusion I would draw from the mess Malibu Caribbean Rum encountered with its just-completed user-generated video contest.

Although some of the problems Malibu ran into have become familiar to contest organizers (low entry turnout and logistical mixups, for example), it was negative publicity and contestant ill-will rather than the problems themselves that will have other sponsors thinking twice about video competitions.

The New York Times published an article by Louise Story, headlined "Outcome of Ad Contest Starts an Uproar on YouTube," devoted largely to the fallout. As the headline suggests, some YouTubers took issue with how the contest was conducted, resulting in "rumbling on YouTube message boards that the contest had been rigged." Malibu denied this -- but still, ouch!

My take: Online video is too powerful for sponsors to turn their backs on, but contests may not be the best way to harness it. Straight sponsorships (whereby marketers pay popular usertainers to feature their brands or mention them in post-rolls) are much easier to execute, and probably more effective in the long run. Hence, sponsored videos are poised to supplant contests as the online-video marketing vehicle of choice for advertisers.

Usertising Contests, Response Videos Spotlighted

Usertainment has been getting quite a workout at the New York Times the past couple of days.

On Saturday, in an article by Louise Story, "The High Price of Creating Free Ads," the Times offered a look at the extensive challenges marketers face in conducting video usertising contests. The current Heinz contest was featured, as were the efforts of usertainer Dan Burke in videoing odd uses of ketchup. Ironically, the Times publicity no doubt will end up making the high price Heinz is paying for its free ads more than worth it.

In today's edition, the emergence of YouTube communities around the posting of video responses is in the spotlight. The Times published "The Many Tribes of YouTube," by Virginia Heffernan. Geriatric1927, time-lapse painting, parkour and Christopher Walken impersonators (my favorite) are a few examples cited.