Online Video
Flickr Adds Video
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | April 10, 2008 | Share This
|
|
Photo sharing site Flickr this week added the ability for its paid users to upload short videos, or what it’s calling “long photos.” Like video site Vimeo, Flickr wants users to upload original content. But video length is capped at 90 seconds, which will help it distinguish itself from YouTube, et al. Flickr’s Heather Champ explains:
While this might seem like an arbitrary limit, we thought long and hard about how video would complement the flickrverse. If you’ve memorized the Community Guidelines, you know that Flickr is all about sharing photos that you yourself have taken. Video will be no different and so what quickly bubbled up was the idea of “long photos,” of capturing slices of life to share.
Gizmodo’s given it thumbs-up:
A quick test finds that the service is no more difficult than uploading photos, and it’s pretty quick to boot. Also, advanced embedding functions allow for users to choose their preferred width or height for the video and the service will calculate the dimensions and update the code accordingly. That sounds like a small touch. It is, but it’s also a pretty good one lacking in just about all video on the web.
Flickr’s strategy of keeping videos short is good, though users are up in arms over the addition of video.
YouTube Adds More Analytics
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | March 27, 2008 | Share This
|
|
YouTube today finally added a few analytics that go beyond number of video views and backlinks. Called YouTube Insight, the new metrics show the geographic locations of video viewers and a video’s popularity relative to other videos on the site. Search Engine Watch notes that the map looks just like that of Google Analytics and wonders if it will be integrated into that dashboard (our vote is yes). Here’s a look at the YouTube Insight dashboard (click to enlarge):
Here’s how the YouTube Blog envisions its users will use the new data:
Well, using these metrics, you can increase your videos’ view counts and improve your popularity on the site. For instance, you might learn that your videos are most popular on Wednesdays, that you have a huge following in Spain, or that new videos that play off previous content become more popular more quickly. With this information, you can concentrate on creating compelling new content that appeals to your target audiences, and post these videos on days you know these viewers are on the site. (Maybe even post your next video in Spanish?)
Still missing from the analytics is keyword data - I’d be particularly interested in seeing what keywords on Google and other engines lead to certain videos, and to get a view of internal YouTube searches that lead to particular videos.
YouTube, Google News Censored in China
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | March 17, 2008 | Share This
|
|
The Chinese government has blocked YouTube and Google News in the wake of pro-Tibet protests. China’s the most recent in a long string of countries that have blocked YouTube, but TechCrunch’s Erick Schonfeld notes that Google is in a tough spot when it comes to doing business in China. If the company removes the videos that China doesn’t want seen, it becomes complicit in the country’s censorship. If it doesn’t, Google loses its business in China. Schonfeld writes:
I am speculating here—there is no indication that Google has been asked to remove information about Tibet or that it would do so. But if it were to do so, then it would become complicit in China’s censorship. That might have to be the price it has to pay to give the Chinese access to all the other information on YouTube and Google News. The alternative might be a permanent ban.
Which option is the lesser evil for a company that has pledged itself to do none whatsoever?
Schonfeld brings up a really good point, one that Google CEO Eric Schmidt has spoken to in the past, which is the role of Google when it comes to government. In fact, Schmidt has said Google made a compromises with organic search in China, leaving out censored results but telling users it has done so. At the Personal Democracy Forum last year, Schmidt spoke about Google’s role in China. From our post:
Schmidt said that the company [Google] deals with issues of government pressure on a case-by-case basis. The cost of censorship, he said, is often an even bigger problem for governments than the censored issue itself. In Bahrain, for example, the government blocked Google Earth because Bahrainis could see how much land was held by the royal family. But in doing so, the Bahraini Government undermined their authority on the national land issue.
On the topic of censorship, Schmit discussed Google’s experiences with the “great firewall” of China. Google’s compromise on censorship is to omit censored search results, but tell the user that there are results being censored. Schmidt argued that this transparency prompts the user to find the information via alternative means (namely, getting around that firewall).
It seems that, at least technologically speaking, Google could very well do the same thing with YouTube, blocking content in China that doesn’t suit the government and telling people it’s blocking it. But it is certainly a slippery slope for the company, and it is not in keeping with their “Don’t Be Evil” mantra.
YouTube Becomes More Like White-Label Video Service
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | March 12, 2008 | Share This
|
|
YouTube has just released a new set of APIs that will allow site owners to utilize the video sharing site as a white-label video service. Users will be able to upload content and do everything else they could do on YouTube, like post comments, but from their own sites. This will undoubtedly help YouTube keep its spot as the Internet’s top video site and will challenge existing video companies with white-label services that aren’t free, like Brightcove. From the Google Code blog, here’s a simple explanation of what the APIs will allow people to do:
That means that if, for example, you run a site just for iguana enthusiasts, your users can upload videos of JubJub to their YouTube accounts, post comments, create iguana playlists, and more, all without leaving your site. And with the new player APIs and the new chromeless player, you can completely customize and skin the YouTube embedded player to match the look and feel of your site (a green theme, buttons that look like scales?).
Mashable reports that visitors to a site will also be able to upload their own videos to their own YouTube accounts without ever leaving that site.
More:
- Google’s case studies of companies that are already using YouTube’s APIs include EA and UC Berkeley.
- Update: TechCrunch’s post has a comment from the YouTube product manager, who says the service is not white-label (it’s still You-Tube branded) and notes the ability to monetize is very limited… but I think it’s close enough to white-label - hey, free hosting! - that it should make the white-label companies, like Brightcove, nervous.
Last.fm Launches Free Streaming Music Service, New Biz Model
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | January 23, 2008 | Share This
|
|
CBS-owned social music service Last.fm today announced a switch from playing song snippets to providing free streaming music, a move backed by an ad-supported business model. All four major record companies have signed on, as have 150,000 independent labels, making Last.fm’s inventory of songs larger than that of iTunes. From the CBS press release:
Martin Stiksel, Last.fm co-founder, said: “We’re giving the listener free access to what is basically the best jukebox in the world. The ability to dip into such a uniquely broad catalogue from your laptop, home or office computer, and listen to whatever you want for free represents a new way of consuming music that in turn might change the way you listen to music. In that respect, nobody else can currently offer what Last.fm is offering right now.”
There are some drawbacks to the new model: no downloads, and users will only be able to play a single song up to three times. Then they’ll be prompted to join the company’s subscription service, details of which are still forthcoming. Also, the site will not require users to register but will likely utilize cookies to track user behavior and target banner ads, though the company remains mum about exactly how they’ll track.
The new model is being compared to social network Imeem, which only offers user-uploaded tracks, and SpiralFrog, which is supported by audio ads as opposed to Last.fm’s banners [according to a quote in the BBC, but see update below for correction]. It more directly challenges Rhapsody and Napster, two subscription-based streaming models that, as Mathew Ingram rightfully writes, should be scared. But what’s most interesting about Last.fm, and what makes it a potential challenger to MySpace, as Mashable notes, is that it also offers a perk to unsigned artists who can upload their songs and receive royalties every time a song is played.
What’s curious about this is that it sets up a very attractive distribution model for new artists that will undermine all labels in the long haul. Then again, the incentive to sign on with a record label in the first place was fast-fading thanks to MySpace, which has become a really successful self-promotional tool for artists. Last.fm sweetens the pot with money, though it’s important to note we don’t know how much artists will make for each stream. The labels need Last.fm in order to monetize now, but Last.fm is probably the real beginning of the end for the music industry as it exists now.
And video is next: PaidContent.org writes that the company owns last.tv and execs say video is in the works, which may have big ramifications for strike-embroiled Hollywood and its writers.
Update: SpiralFrog’s PR agency wrote to let us know that SpiralFrog does not use audio ads, just banners (and SpiralFrog’s FAQ only mentions “ads on our pages,” implying banners). We got the information about audio ads from a quote in this BBC article, which reads “Last year saw the launch of Spiral Frog, another free service supported by advertising. Unlike Last.fm, it offers free downloads but has failed to make a major impact. Mr Jones from Last.fm said that may be because users are forced to listen to an advert with each track, whereas his service will be supported by banner advertising.” We should have stated that SpiralFrog allows downloads and requires registration, whereas Last.fm does not. We regret the error.
Time Warner Cable and HBO: Same Company, Conflicting Biz Models
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | January 22, 2008 | Share This
|
|
As the lines between TV and online video continue to blur, today HBO will make its 600 shows and movies available online for free download to its TV subscribers, via a new site called HBO Broadband. There are some catches: Initially the service is only available to Windows-using HBO subscribers in Wisconsin that are also signed up for Time Warner Road Runner high speed Internet. Gizmodo also reports there are DRM restrictions - no burning or transferring content to your iPod, and your downloads are yours for no longer than three months.
Still, the NY Times praises its “innovative features,” like separate profiles for each member of a household, parental controls, and the live TV version of the channel, so there’s no need to wait for the episode to go online after it’s aired on the tube first, a common network-TV practice. And DSLreports.com shows this is a big step for previously broadband-resistant HBO.
But The Hollywood Reporter notes that because HBO is actually owned by Time Warner - the broadband provider that wants to switch its model from a monthly flat fee to one that chargers people for how much bandwidth they use - this sets up an interesting conundrum in which free HBO content could get quite expensive, discouraging users from using a service like HBO Broadband. From The Hollywood Reporter:
Last week, Time Warner Cable disclosed its intent to experiment with a billing plan for high-speed data that charges customers based on how much bandwidth they consume. If such a model catches on in the U.S., it could have big implications for content companies trying to find traction online — like HBO.
There is no conflict in the short term; only HBO subscribers in Green Bay and Milwaukee, Wis., will be able to access HBO on Broadband when it is deployed there Tuesday on TWC systems. Meanwhile, the cable operator has selected Beaumont, Texas, as the test market for metered billing.
But in success, the dueling Internet initiatives could conceivably cross paths — and purposes — in other markets. Time Warner would find its cable-operator arm discouraging the very behavior HBO is allowing.
An easy solution for Time Warner would be not charging users for overages due to downloading Time Warner content. But Techdirt notes that this strategy will get the company in trouble with net neutrality advocates:
The Hollywood Reporter story mentions the possibility that Time Warner would create a special “exception” to the bandwidth rule if that bandwidth was for watching Time Warner-only videos. That, of course, is exactly the sort of thing that will be sure to get network neutrality advocates up in arms, though it’s a subtle shift from traditional network neutrality claims. This time it won’t be about “better quality,” but about which content counts towards a bandwidth cap.
Of course, the answer that makes the most sense is the one Time Warner doesn’t want to acknowledge: a metered pricing model for Internet access should not exist. The caps are just too low, they will stifle innovation, and because of a lack of competition in the broadband market, the whole thing reeks of price-gouging.
(via DVD Dossier Blog, from Techmeme)
ISP Censoring in America: Coming Soon?
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | January 15, 2008 | Share This
|
|
At the very end of last year, Australia passed legislation to implement nationwide, opt-out censorship of online porn and violence, requiring so-called “clean feeds” of its Internet service providers to protect the country’s children.
Until recently, the role of ISPs in the United States has been to provide unfiltered Internet access to users. But as of last week, there’s buzz that American ISPs may also start to engage in censorship (and some argue they already have) - though not by government order and definitely not under the guise of protecting anyone’s children.
Rather, AT&T said at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) last week that it may begin monitoring content on its networks to block downloads that violate copyright. According to ISP-Planet, as of Q3 2007, AT&T was the biggest ISP in the U.S., with just over 18% market share. So what AT&T does would have a significant impact on many Internet users in this country and would likely cause AT&T’s competitors to take note and possibly buckle to pressure from groups that are fighting tooth-and-nail to enforce copyright law. The music industry, which gave up on DRM just last week, is now toying with the idea of “digital watermarks,” which will track the movement of a file across P2P sites and ostensibly be used to make ISPs filter such content. From the New York Times’ Bits blog:
Mr. Cicconi [SVP, external & legal affairs for AT&T] said that AT&T has been talking to technology companies, and members of the M.P.A.A. and R.I.A.A., for the last six months about carrying out digital fingerprinting techniques on the network level.
“We are very interested in a technology based solution and we think a network-based solution is the optimal way to approach this,” he said. “We recognize we are not there yet but there are a lot of promising technologies. But we are having an open discussion with a number of content companies, including NBC Universal, to try to explore various technologies that are out there.”
It’s a bit strange that AT&T would be in such close cahoots with the RIAA and MPAA; unlike its competitor, Time Warner, which has a hand in the ISP world but also owns plenty of media companies that would surely be thrilled if it decided to block illegal downloads, AT&T’s core business is communications - i.e., they don’t make any media (read: music or movies) the average consumer wants to steal. Granted, it’s a legal issue, but why enforce this instead of going after something more egregiously wrong? Isn’t, say, visiting a child pornography site, which the Australian government railed against, just a titch more reprehensible than illegally downloading music?
Also strange is that just prior to Ciccone’s comments, the FCC had announced that it will investigate America’s second-biggest ISP, Comcast, in follow-up to November 2007 claims from users that say it limited their access to P2P sharing sites. Comcast may face fines up to $1.77 trillion if found guilty, but denies any wrongdoing.
Note that while ISPs are poising themselves to become Internet cops, in which direct benefit to them is unclear, their monitoring isn’t just wrapped up in altruism for the RIAA. They are also looking for ways into the online ad revenue game: Less than two weeks ago, ClickZ reported that ISPs have begun to collect user data for behavioral ad targeting purposes, which seems now like it will be rife with privacy issues.
Searchviews: Week in Review
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | January 11, 2008 | Share This
|
|
This week, we’re launching Searchviews: Week in Review, a digest of sorts in which we’ll highlight the past week’s Searchviews posts, along with noting other top stories in search, social media, and Internet news. Look for it every Friday. Happy weekend-reading:
- This week’s theme was “open,” and it’s shaping up to be the theme of the year. First, Sony BMG let go of DRM, but they came up with a dumb scheme to sell redeemable giftcards. (Thankfully, they got smart and struck a deal with Amazon yesterday).
- In other “open” news, Google and Facebook joined the Data Portability Workgroup, which wants to let Internet users take their social data from site to site. Not to be outdone, LinkedIn, SixApart, and Flickr jumped on board, as well. Many of these sites don’t actually want users to be able to do this because it hurts their pageviews, so we’ll see what happens.
- And final point in “open”: Bebo now invites everyone to design applications for its network.
- Wikia Search finally launched, but to some pretty harsh criticism. Lesson to entrepreneurs: less hype, more private alpha. Incidentally, another “human-powered” search engine, Mahalo, is growing like gangbusters despite initial blogosphere scoffing.
- Ask.com lost a CEO, but kept it in the family with their replacement. Barry Diller really wants you to try his search engine, people, and 2008 is the year he wants to see you migrate over en masse.
- Microsoft kicked off what’s sure to be a year of many M&As with its acquisition of Norwegian enterprise search company FAST.
- Surely our favorite story this week, though we didn’t spill any digital ink on it ourselves, is the Facebook hoax pulled by one young Frenchman, Arash Derambarsh, who got himself “elected” Facebook president via an app… and managed to convince the entire French press that it actually means something. Apparently lack of understanding of social networking is even more pronounced in the European mainstream media (as in, they don’t get it at all) than it is stateside (where journalists and bloggers represent the bulk of users over 30).
- And finally, a bunch of stats released this week affirmed something we’ve been feeling in our gut for a while: online video will overtake television, probably. I mean, would you rather watch those annoying judges from Dancing with the Stars on their own spin-off, dance-off show that is already painfully hyped and will probably make you want to pluck your eyes out… or would you watch this compact but totally genius interpretation of our American past, Drunk History? Not that we’re biased or anything, but we’ll say more about this particular topic soon.
TV on Internet Beats TV on TV, Study Says
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | December 27, 2007 | Share This
|
|
New data reported this week shows viewers are more engaged when watching TV content and advertising online than when they watch it on a TV set. In a year-long study, researchers surveyed nearly 75,000 participants to determine that online TV beats traditional TV by 47% when it comes to viewers’ engagement with advertising, and by 25% when it comes to engagement with content. MediaPost explains how engagement was measured:
The study defines “engagement” according to six characteristics that respondents identify with media: “inspirational,” “trustworthy,” “life-enhancing,” “social interaction,” “personal time-out” and ad receptivity.
Survey participants were asked, for instance, to rate TV shows, magazines and Web sites based on how “inspiring” they were or how much they provided fodder for conversation. Ad “receptivity” was gauged on how willing people were to view or read advertising in a given medium because of its relevance.
The efficacy of online TV advertising is good news for networks, even though they’re in the midst of a strike by writers over the issue of payment for online content. This study also appears to give a boost to the writers’ argument that they should get of the online ad dollars networks generate, but at least it proves that online ads work for TV.
Networks have been working hard to figure out how to maximize online revenues, favoring ad-supported, free access to content via sites they control, like hulu, a News Corp./NBC Universal joint venture currently in private beta, or network websites like abc.com, which offers most of ABC’s prime time shows in the form of streaming video. NBC stopped offering downloads via iTunes this year, and the network is also experimenting with “quarterlife,” a show that debuted on MySpace and YouTube with mixed results but will air on NBC in February.
Why is online TV engagement so much higher than engagement via TV set, especially for ads? Coverage of the study doesn’t really say, but it probably has to do with the more limited nature of that advertising, the inherent interactivity of the web, and the fact that most of the online ads are just better. Most hour-long ABC shows, for instance, feature four or five 15-second clips, usually from the same advertiser, many of which include games or other interactive elements that give the viewer something to click or do while watching. The relative infrequency and shortness of those ads makes them less intrusive than traditional TV advertising, which typically bombards viewers.
One very fascinating part of this study also found that print and magazine content online is also more engaging than its dead-tree counterparts, though the numbers are not as dramatic as those for online vs offline TV (perhaps because reading online isn’t as fun as watching online?). But overall, print is more engaging than both online or TV, though its audience is declining.
See more of the study on MediaPost.
Search and Social Media: 2007 in Review
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | December 20, 2007 | Share This
|
|
The year’s almost over, which means it’s time to look back on search and social media in 2007 and take stock of what happened and what it all means. It was a big year in search and a pretty big year for us at Reprise Media, too: OMMA deemed us Best Search Agency for 2006, we turned four years old, we joined IPG, and we started giving back.
Way back in January 2007, Searchviews predicted quite a few things that came to fruition, among them that Google would keep growing (okay, that was an easy one) and that Panama would be good for Yahoo. The key theme this year was media convergence, with an emphasis on acquisitions and blurring the lines between search and social media. You’ll have to come back tomorrow for our 2008 predictions, but to refresh your memory, here are the big developments of 2007 that we’ll keep close to our hearts… until next year’s big stories overshadow them.
Yahoo
It was a tough year to be #2, especially for the ever-beleaguered Yahoo, which kicked off 2007 with some bad press courtesy of Wired. The magazine skewered the company’s spotty strategy and its then-CEO Terry Semel. No big surprise, first quarter earnings were disappointing, and Semel was replaced with Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang over the summer. Yahoo released some interesting 2.0 tools and bought some others, but this year it mostly floundered when it came time to pull together a cohesive social network strategy that would truly leverage its existing gajillion or so users.
On the search front, Yahoo had a slightly better year: its introduction of Panama was a great move (here’s our full report), America said it loved Yahoo the most, and improvements to its search engine were a step in the right direction. Now Yahoo’s signing up publishers to serve contextual ads in PDFs, and the company also bought Right Media and BlueLithium to expand its ad network. Here’s to putting the ! back into Yahoo! in 2008 - in a good way.
Google
Every year we ask Google, is it possible to be so successful? Really? If it wasn’t for everyone’s favorite upstart-in-shower-slides, Mark Zuckerberg, and all the press and industry upheaval Facebook inspired, I’d say this was Google’s year.
Unlike in 2006, though, Google’s growth didn’t come without costs — 2007 saw the rise of Google as a true world power, wherein Google became everyone’s best Frenemy - i.e., the company we all hate to love (though Zuckerberg seems to be gunning for top spot in the frenemy category for next year). Google managed to get sued for $1 billion over YouTube, had some antitrust trouble over its acquisition of DoubleClick (apparently now resolved), inspired the ire of both librarians and newspapers, served us some questionable ads, introduced shady “preferred cost bidding,”and without really launching it in a meaningful way, introduced OpenSocial, a consortium that looks like its sole aim is to take down Facebook.
On the other hand, Google also created a super-cool mobile platform/operating system (maybe cooler than the iPhone, maybe not), kept monetizing everything (this could maybe also go in the list of bad things, but we’re all marketers here), and got its hands dirty with TV (not yet a smashing success). Not to mention, Google also continually improved its already supremely useful services (Gmail, Analytics, Reader, etc.), bought and integrated Feedburner, launched iGoogle, and kept us sated with free versions of expensive stuff. Probably in his 20% time, Google co-founder Larry Page even came up with a plan to save the planet and Google funded it. All in all, not bad for a year’s work. Plus, of the top 3 engines, Google’s social network efforts seem most promising and logical. We’ll be watching you, Google, and we know you’ll probably be watching us.
Microsoft
Microsoft was on the defensive (or is that the offensive?) much of this year, especially because Google beat them out for DoubleClick and surpassed it in site traffic. MSFT paid a whopping $6 billion for online ad company aQuantive to help nurse its wounds and then drove Facebook’s valuation to $15 billion by paying $240 million for a small stake - exemplifying its strategy this year, which was to buy or partner up wherever it made sense. Microsoft’s new operating system, Vista, launched with much fanfare but also to mixed reviews. We’ll have to wait and see with this one.
Ask.com
Ask.com is tiny but worked hard this year, introducing contextual ads and getting props for its proactive privacy policy. Its parent company, IAC, decided to be less confusing by breaking up its holdings into a few smaller companies, which should benefit the search engine, and Ask also secured $3.5 billion deal with Google.
Facebook, Social Media
Arguably the leader of the social media pack, Facebook’s high value as a communication vehicle became clear when, after shootings at Virginia Tech, students used the site to share information faster than the news networks could. That paradigm shift continued when the site opened up its API to allow outside development of applications - a move that made VCs sit up and that forced direct competitors and even other industries, like notoriously draconian mobile providers, to follow (in rhetoric, at least).
Thanks to Facebook, it’s not enough to have a site, you’ve got to have a platform. Applications became microcosmic indicators of Facebook’s massive success, and the site made its first acquisition in July. But the social network was also plagued by a some missteps this year. Users of the site are resistant to overt advertising and Facebook bungled the launch of its newest ad program, Beacon, shaking the faith of its advertisers and causing some (minimal) unrest among users, though it continues to secure funding.
Media Convergence, Money, and Ad-Model Growing Pains
ComScore introduced new engagement metrics this year, and social networks added search-like, CPC ad structures. A rash of acquisitions made it clear that everyone was eager to get into the social media game, even if they didn’t know quite how: Ebay bought StumbleUpon, and CBS snagged online video show Wallstrip and music service Last.fm.
This year’s housing market crisis had many worried that the economy’s headed for downturn, but we didn’t think online advertising would be drastically affected, and so far, we’re right. Traditional offline industries (music, TV, and newspapers) continued struggling with web monetization. Steve Jobs railed against DRM, and Radiohead practically gave away their new album as an experiment. The New York Times got rid of paid content online, successfully, but the rest of the newspaper industry seems not to have figured out how to make enough money. In TV, the writers’ strike is still underway because networks aren’t giving writers a cut of online profits, while networks experiment with ways to distribute content online.
And Other Top Stories Worth Remembering…
- For the third year in a row, we evaluated big advertisers for their search-savvy in our Super Bowl Search Marketing Scorecard. The winners made search an integral part of their campaigns, ensuring that millions of dollars spent on TV campaigns didn’t get lost when it came to the search box. Here are parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of that feature.
- Taco Bell, dirty as their restaurants may have been, proved they know how to leverage search to make the best of a horrible health and PR nightmare.
In sum, a lot of growth for the search industry, the emergence of social media as a real force, and still some hobbling by traditional media companies to catch up or keep up - 2008 will definitely be interesting. What stories do you think will still matter next year? What would you add to this list?