Home > Ne(x)t > Archives > 2007 > January
January 2007
YouTube walks a tightrope
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Lots of news — some significant and some not — has been shared in recent days about video phenom YouTube. However, nothing matches in importance for owner Google and the YouTube team than a Harris Poll released Monday.
Nearly three-quarters of frequent YouTube users in the polltold Harris they would not use the site as much if short video ads were added before the clips. Breaking that down further, 42 percent said they would visit a little less often, and 31 percent, a lot less often.
YouTube founder Chad Hurley told the BBC last weekend that they are considering video ads as short as three seconds before videos. That’s far shorter than video ads on most sites, including this one.
Research has shown that users are willing to sit through an ad to watch TV shows and other fare online. But that research has not included the YouTube audience. Aongus Burke, senior research manager of Harris Interactive’s media and entertainment practice, cautioned: “… those who are accustomed to finding and watching everything for free at YouTube may have developed a different set of expectations for the site.”
YouTube/Google’s strategy is becoming clearer. To no one’s surprise, Google Video announced last week its video search now includes YouTube videos. Hurley revealed over the weekend that they’re planning a revenue share system with content creators. Obviously, that revenue comes from video ads and video search ads.
It’s been obvious for some time that YouTube would go through growing pains as it becomes a real business. That day is now here, and we’ll see how it walks the tightrope of making money without losing its massive audience. Its far less popular competitors — Revver, Guba, Metacafe, etc. — will be watching as well.
Would you be less inclined to watch YouTube clips if the site becomes more commercial? Or are you willing to accept a little commerce to see the wacky clips?
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Sing that search
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Can’t remember the name of that song you heard but you can remember the melody? Plug a microphone into your computer and sing or hum a few bars at Midomi, a new site whose mission “is to build the most comprehensive database of searchable music.”
Michael Arrington, a prominent voice in the blogosphere at TechCrunch, apparently grew frustrated when he tried to search for songs. However, Business Week’s Steve Hamm, the first reporter to try the new search engine, and other reviewers were more receptive.
The technology, created by Melodis, a 2-year-old company in Sunnyvale, Calif., launched in beta Friday. In addition to launching Midomi, I’m sure the founders are offering their engine to the main music sites.
Aside from the capabilities of their audio search engine, another payoff for Midomi is a community of users recording their own versions of songs. While yes, a user can download one of the 2 million songs the site has licensed, the real kick is in listening to others singing popular songs.
Users can create their own profile pages, record others’ songs, rate how others have done and, hopefully, offer messages of encouragement.
Could this become “American Idol” on steroids? Picture a group of users who loved The Knack (remember them?) singing countless versions of “My Sharona.”
MyKaraoke, perhaps?
Since I don’t have a microphone handy, I’d love to hear what some of you aspiring musical talents think.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
Brands: It’s all about the Web
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
What are the world’s most influential brands and what makes them so appealing? Brandchannel.com’s annual consumer poll makes it clear — it’s not about traditional companies, it’s about Internet-related brands.
Brandchannel asked 3,625 branding professionals and students “Which brand had the most impact on our lives in 2006?”
The results? Worldwide: 1. Google 2. Apple 3. YouTube 4. Wikipedia 5. Starbucks. In the U.S. and Canada: 1. Apple 2. YouTube 3. Google 4. Starbucks. 5. Wikipedia.
Amazing that YouTube, a firm of under 60 people snapped up last year by Google for $1.65 billion, can hold such influence. Wikipedia, with its less than 10 employees, even more so. Of course, Wikipedia depends on volunteers to write or edit the items in its popular online encyclopedia.
No telecoms, car companies or other giants of industry are in sight. No TV networks.
No, Starbucks isn’t in the online business, but its association with customers armed with laptops and PDAs is obvious.
Little wonder that many of the world’s most powerful companies and the telecoms are rushing to make deals with these emerging giants.
If a company with less than 10 people can become a Top 5 brand in the world, what does it say about our economy? Who knows what some Web developer is building in their garage right now.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Google debate revisited
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
We’re back after a little hiatus with Google in mind. Read/Write Web, an intriguing site focusing on Web 2.0 issues, has launched a new Point/Counterpoint feature with the question: “Can Google take over the Internet?”
That question recalls a previous post here focusing on comments by Topix.net CEO Rich Skrenta who declared the online battles are over and Google the king. Another blogger disputed that contention, saying Google’s reign would end soon because of the natural evolution of the information age — each dominant player (see IBM) eventually is overtaken by the Next Big Thing.
The two sides on Read/Write Web in essence take these positions:
— The Web is too big for Google to dominate all major market segments.
— Google controls search; small businesses have become dependent on its AdWords program and the giant has enough money to create whatever rich apps — desktop or Web — it wants.
The debate’s closing sentence: “Which is more powerful: 250 million new PCs per year running browsers, or 1.1 billion users per day performing searches?”
Good discussion and question. Let’s continue both here. Thoughts?
Permalink | |
The 3Cs: Content, convenience and coolness
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The battle for digital dominance, as expected, has escalated to an unparalleled high, with Microsoft and Apple facing off this week and a host of new companies entering the fray.
Bill Gates made a strong push for a Microsoft home entertainment package and even a new server for the home in his address at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Steve Jobs, as expected, unveiled the iPhone and Apple TV, a box to integrate iPod, desktop and TV. Jobs revealed how serious he was about getting into the consumer electronics biz; Apple Computer Inc. is now Apple Inc.
I’m not going to compare the merits of the products here. Every tech blogger in the world is weighing in. Feel free to weigh in below.
Once you get past all the products, the issue is simple. As the major digital players see it, consumers want it all. They want the 3Cs — content, convenience and coolness. They want to easily consume, create and share content. They want convenience, no matter where they are or what device they’re on. They want to be able to shift whatever they’re doing from a cellphone to a computer or TV (or HDTV) or game player without a lot of fuss or wires. And it all needs to look cool.
While coolness is a major factor (see history of iPod), the real appeal comes in ease of use and, especially, portability — the ability to move your content from one platform to the next. Ultimately, if a company can’t do it at competitive prices, then the consumer will go elsewhere.
In the past couple of years talk began of cellphones becoming the “fourth screen,” behind movies, TV and computer screens. Now, we have the potential to move way beyond that. The cellphone is just another “screen” option for information and entertainment in a total digital life. Who knows what other “screens” will become popular?
At least that’s what the major tech companies seem to believe. Are consumers ready to take the leap? Do you want all the bells and whistles of an iPhone? Would you be willing to pay for it? Do you want a “digital living room” where your TV/computer/game player/music player all talk to each other? And are you willing to pay the cost?
In an age where Wi-Fi is available on beaches where one would seemingly want to relax, have we become that wired a society? Or is the tech industry moving faster than the marketplace?
Permalink | |
Online video 2.0
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
David Berkowitz has two interesting takes on the immediate future of online video that are worth examining. Berkowitz, director of strategic planning at online marketing firm 360i, writes:
— Online video will face a backlash because of users need to multitask. Computer users can watch TV and listen to music while Web surfing. Not with video. His question: “What are consumers going to watch while they’re watching online video? ” He also notes you can’t cook dinner or chat on the phone while watching an online video — unlike watching a movie on a TV screen. “Since there are only so many hours in a day where one can consume online video, and since video content in general is much better suited to televisions than Internet devices, the rate of growth of online video consumption per person is going to slow,” he writes.
— Video tagging and “hotspotting” will change how people find and watch online video. Tagging means video producers can add text keywords to tag a clip to highlight sections of the video, much like chapters in a DVD. “Hotspotting” means turning portions of what’s on the video screen into actual hyperlinks. For instance, if we were watching a trailer for the latest hit movie, we could read an actor’s bio by simply clicking on that person’s image on the screen.
Not sure if we totally agree on either point. While the amount of time watching online video may peak, we don’t think it will qualify as a “backlash.” If it were up to me, the real video “backlash” would be against the endless creation of self-centered clips and fake porn. And when a company eventually succeeds in creating an affordable “digital living room” experience, wirelessly synching all your entertainment devices (whether it’s Apple’s iTV or someone else), consumers will love it.
And “hotspotting?” It’s a cool concept. Articles in 2005 predicted it would catch on last year. Maybe this will be the year. Maybe not. Tagging? it’s on its way to becoming a major phenomenon.
What would you like to see in online video down the road? Seen any video sites or products that are worth a look?
Permalink | |
Google: Reign near end?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
As the co-founder and CEO of news aggregator site Topix.net, Rich Skrenta certainly commands attention when he blogs. That’s why his post on Monday is even more disturbing when you consider the source. To summarize, Skrenta believes the online battles are over and Google is the king. “Google is not your competition, Google is the environment. Online businesses which struggle against this new reality will pay opportunity costs both in online advertising revenue as well as product success,” he writes.
Yahoo, according to Skrenta, could add an extra $1.5 billion to their revenue overnight “by conceding monetization to Google and becoming a distribution partner for Adwords, as Ask Jeeves did.” Other competitors should follow suit. (Disclosure: This site is part of a consortium of newspaper sites which will partner with Yahoo on their HotJobs product.)
Skrenta expects Google, after owning search and the online advertising platform, “to continue to push into lucrative destination verticals — shopping searches, finance, photos, mail, social media, etc. … Crazy as it sounds, it’s conceivable that they could actually end up owning the entire net, or most of what counts.”
Well, then. Let’s all throw in the towel. Web companies, line up for your small piece of the Google pie.
Mitch Radcliffe of ZDnet made me feel a lot better with a post in response to Skrenta. While Radcliffe agrees with many of Skrena’s thoughts, he offers some important perspective. Radcliffe’s take: Google has a year or two of dominance left.
Why? According to Radcliffe: IBM enjoyed 30 years of dominance. Microsoft 14 years. “The half-life of the value of market dominance is falling by more than 50 percent in each ‘age’ of computing,” Radcliffe writes. Google’s dominance began in 2001.
What do you think? Should the online industry hail King Google, or is the end of the giant’s reign in sight?
Permalink | |
