[videoblogging] YouTube rentals
Just come to my attention, up and running. Examples: http://www.youtube.com/videos?s=pps Details: http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/topic.py?hl=entopic=25702 j -- --- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube Rentals
Since we're on the subject, have you seen Dynamo Player? It's not limited to the U.S. (many of our earliest users are in the UK), video publishers can embed the videos in their own web pages, and the revenue split is much better than any alternative we've seen. We're still in beta, but you can try it out soon if you send a request to b...@dynamoplayer.com (mention this email group to catch my attention). We have a new player being released shortly with several major feature additions and improvements. In the meantime, to see our most basic player in action, see how a GigaOm writer embedded a film right inside her report: http://bit.ly/dyna-ntv2 Cheers - Rob Powering Independence www.DynamoPlayer.com On May 23, 2010, at 5:19 PM, David Jones david.jo...@altium.com wrote: Latest news on a new paid content service from Youtube for Partners Only available in the US at present though. http://www.youtube.com/t/youtube_rentals Dave. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Youtube forum
Does anyone know of any good YouTube User/Partner forums? Given the millions of Youtube users I figured there would be no shortage of forums, but my Google search mojo must be totally off today because I can't find any. And I heard on one video there is a forum for youtube partners only, but I'm a partner and don't have a clue! This one is obvious: http://www.youtubepartnersforum.com/ But with 41 members and 97 posts in the last year it's hardly a standout. Any clues? Thanks Dave.
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube forum
Does anyone know of any good YouTube User/Partner forums? Given the millions of Youtube users I figured there would be no shortage of forums, but my Google search mojo must be totally off today because I can't find any. And I heard on one video there is a forum for youtube partners only, but I'm a partner and don't have a clue! This one is obvious: http://www.youtubepartnersforum.com/ But with 41 members and 97 posts in the last year it's hardly a standout. Ive never found any good place where Youtube users hang out and talk. If you ever find a place, let us know. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube link to blog to be retired
http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=178162 I never used this feature in YouTube, but I use the automatic cross posting to my blogs from Blip.TV all the time. I guess this is one more reason I'll keep Blip.TV as my primary means of video distribution. This is weird: We will soon be retiring the ability to add and link to a blog from your YouTube Account. Even though Link to a blog will soon be retired, you still have other options to share your YouTube Activity with external sites. You can: * Embed a video / playlist in a blog or webpage. (Learn more here) * You can AutoShare your YouTube activity to Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader. (Learn more here) It always pays to add a link to your blog INSIDE the video itself. Jay [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] YouTube link to blog to be retired
http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=178162 I never used this feature in YouTube, but I use the automatic cross posting to my blogs from Blip.TV all the time. I guess this is one more reason I'll keep Blip.TV as my primary means of video distribution. --Chad -- Chad F. Boeninger libraryvoice.com - blog libraryvoice.com/videos - videoblog twitter.com/cfboeninger [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Youtube videos going prematurely public
There is an annoying youtube bug that's been bugging me for some time. Every time I upload a new video I set and save the video properties to private so no one can see the video until it's finished processing which can take many hours. And until it's finished the video processing, the video quality is terrible which is why I don't want anyone to see it. However, youtube keeps automatically switching the video to public some time after the upload and before it's finished processing. And of course as soon as it goes public I get hundreds of people jumping in watching it within 10 or 20 minutes, and they see the crap quality version (and I get complaints). If I set my video to private I expect it to stay private! Anyone else seen this and know why youtube does it? Is it a bug or some sort of feature? Any solution? Thanks Dave.
[videoblogging] Youtube thumbnail frame
Hello, I just did a video for a client and this video will be embedded onto his website from Youtube. However, I don't like the thumbnail frames that Youtube chose. They are all with my clients face and either have his mouth half open or eyes closed. Is there anyway that I can choose the thumbnail picture myself? I tried to find how, but couldn't. Any ideas? Thanks. Loreta
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube thumbnail frame
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Vaidotas loretabir...@yahoo.com wrote: Hello, I just did a video for a client and this video will be embedded onto his website from Youtube. However, I don't like the thumbnail frames that Youtube chose. They are all with my clients face and either have his mouth half open or eyes closed. Is there anyway that I can choose the thumbnail picture myself? I tried to find how, but couldn't. Any ideas? You need to be a Youtube Partner to get access to customisable (upload your own) thumbnails. Those without partner accounts sometimes embed frames in their video at the key points YouTubes take the snapshots from, I forget the exact figures but as usual Google knows: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=youtube+thumbnails Dave.
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube Live Streaming Video
I watched the Google Buzz launch video today, and noticed it was live streamed over YouTube. I had not heard of them offering a live streaming service. Is this something new or am I just late to the party as usual? I havent seen a Youtube streaming service. They probably just use it internally since they have the servers and engineers. Could obviously be testing for a public release as well. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] YouTube Live Streaming Video
I watched the Google Buzz launch video today, and noticed it was live streamed over YouTube. I had not heard of them offering a live streaming service. Is this something new or am I just late to the party as usual? Any tech specs in comparison to Ustream et al
[videoblogging] youtube sound
Hello, Ok, so quick update about my sound issues I've been asking you about last week. I got an Olympus LS10 to check if there's camera making the hum noise or the environment. What a relief..it was that specific environment that I was filming in. I tested both my mics (Azden and Rode) on Olympus and there was none to minimal hum noise, which is natural in my home (or any house). The same is So..now that I edited the video and uploaded to the Youtube I'm experiencing some sort of video behind the sound issue. The raw compressed file is looking good, but when I upload it to Youtube, the visual goes faster than the sound. Is it just me or Youtube doing smth wrong today? Have you had any issues like that? I did fix the raw sound to reduce the hum. Could that be doing smth to the video on Youtube? I haven't looked into other forums yet since I just posted the video. But I'll check other forums tonight to see if there are any people who had experience with this issue. Thanks. Loreta
Re: [videoblogging] youtube sound
What encoding are you using for the YouTube upload? j On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:11 PM, loretabirkus loretabir...@yahoo.com wrote: Hello, Ok, so quick update about my sound issues I've been asking you about last week. I got an Olympus LS10 to check if there's camera making the hum noise or the environment. What a relief..it was that specific environment that I was filming in. I tested both my mics (Azden and Rode) on Olympus and there was none to minimal hum noise, which is natural in my home (or any house). The same is So..now that I edited the video and uploaded to the Youtube I'm experiencing some sort of video behind the sound issue. The raw compressed file is looking good, but when I upload it to Youtube, the visual goes faster than the sound. Is it just me or Youtube doing smth wrong today? Have you had any issues like that? I did fix the raw sound to reduce the hum. Could that be doing smth to the video on Youtube? I haven't looked into other forums yet since I just posted the video. But I'll check other forums tonight to see if there are any people who had experience with this issue. Thanks. Loreta -- --- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
Re: [videoblogging] youtube sound
So..now that I edited the video and uploaded to the Youtube I'm experiencing some sort of video behind the sound issue. The raw compressed file is looking good, but when I upload it to Youtube, the visual goes faster than the sound. Is it just me or Youtube doing smth wrong today? Have you had any issues like that? I did fix the raw sound to reduce the hum. Could that be doing something to the video on Youtube? It'd be helpful if you send a link to the Youtube video so we can see it. Also be good to know how you compressed the video and fixed the sound. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
Amen to that. One of the parts of the transition to computer based video that I've hated, hated, hated, is the many codecs and the myriad flavors of each. Flash was one of those, I'll be glad to see it go. Before I get a head of myself, Flash still has a long life yet. Very useful for ease of use. But if Google decide to move away from it...Youtube will help set the tone of the next evolution for web video. Many steps between here and there. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
I'm really bummed that Google and Apple are doing this with h264 and Mozilla is using Ogg. The more I look into ogg the more that I see that for most cases it can be just as good as h264. It would really help if someone made a fucking compression app (with a GUI) for it. Firefogg is pretty darn good though. - verdi On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: Amen to that. One of the parts of the transition to computer based video that I've hated, hated, hated, is the many codecs and the myriad flavors of each. Flash was one of those, I'll be glad to see it go. Before I get a head of myself, Flash still has a long life yet. Very useful for ease of use. But if Google decide to move away from it...Youtube will help set the tone of the next evolution for web video. Many steps between here and there. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 Yahoo! Groups Links -- Michael Verdi http://michaelverdi.com http://talkbot.tv
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
I'm really bummed that Google and Apple are doing this with h264 and Mozilla is using Ogg. The more I look into ogg the more that I see that for most cases it can be just as good as h264. It would really help if someone made a fucking compression app (with a GUI) for it. Firefogg is pretty darn good though. Holy shit! Verdi this is a breakthrough! This summer I know you were pretty down on Ogg/Theora because it would never be as good as H264. Just as good wasnt good enough. Because Google and Apple are now separating ways and competing head to head, Id be interested to see if Google doesnt put out a version of Ogg/Theora that kicks ass because they have a team of engineers working on it. There would be profit in the investment because they'd no longer have to pay a codec license fee for their phones or websites. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
I still have high hopes for the future of Ogg. Will be interesting to see what the next phase entails and if Google will even contribute to Ogg or put out it's own project (typical). Regarding Flash... We should frame this properly Flash obviously has infinite uses beyond the standard web video player and will continue to be heavily used by developers and consumers. What I welcome is the ability to not depend on Flash for the standard web video player and let it be supported by native browser/html standards and get consensus on codecs and/or let web browser users configure it (prompt). Sull On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: I'm really bummed that Google and Apple are doing this with h264 and Mozilla is using Ogg. The more I look into ogg the more that I see that for most cases it can be just as good as h264. It would really help if someone made a fucking compression app (with a GUI) for it. Firefogg is pretty darn good though. Holy shit! Verdi this is a breakthrough! This summer I know you were pretty down on Ogg/Theora because it would never be as good as H264. Just as good wasnt good enough. Because Google and Apple are now separating ways and competing head to head, Id be interested to see if Google doesnt put out a version of Ogg/Theora that kicks ass because they have a team of engineers working on it. There would be profit in the investment because they'd no longer have to pay a codec license fee for their phones or websites. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[videoblogging] YouTube Gets A Makeover
Google have stripped down and improved the YouTube video page design. More about it at this ReadWriteWeb article: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/youtube_gets_a_makeover_launches_new_video_player_watch_pages.php I like it - it's much cleaner. The right hand side is all related videos and a 'featured video'. There's a pull-down menu for choosing what resolution you want to see it in - up to 1080p. There are two separate buttons to let you see it in it's intended resolution and in fullscreen. The Share options have changed - much simpler and clearer. Bad points: The 'More Videos by this User' panel is now even more hidden away - it's now accessed via a link at the top of the page, next to the channel name, saying 34 videos There's no more 1-5 ratings, which is probably a good thing - but they've replaced it with badly weighted Thumbs Down and Like (Add To Favourites) buttons, which I think raises the bar for saying you like something rather to high. Maybe I like something, but don't want to add it to my favourites? But I can imagine a lot of YT morons just clicking Thumbs Down on a video five seconds in and then clicking away. The biggest problem with their pages, of course, is that they still haven't done anything about the comments. They should filter for obscenities better, and not just allow flagging for spam. Kids love watching youtube videos of cartoons and cute animals - but even cartoons have just unbelievable angry hateful comments beneath them. I don't really want to have to stop my daughter watching funny things on YouTube when she learns to read. I don't want her exposed to that level of hate. I don't want MYSELF exposed to it, for god's sake. Google need to sort this out NOW, since Chad Hurley and Steve Chen clearly never gave a shit. You can join the experiment by clicking on this link: http://youtube.com/watch5?enable=1next_url=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjqxENMKaeCU and you can opt out again by clicking here: http://youtube.com/watch5?enable=0next_url=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjqxENMKaeCU Rupert http://twittervlog.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
We've mentioned rumors before, but here it is: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/youtube_begins_to_support_html5.php An HTML5 video player will allow videos to be viewed without Adobe's Flashplayer plug-in, videos will load faster and developers will be able to build all kinds of other intriguing features into a media delivery scheme based on the next version of HTML. For now users will need to sign-up the HTML5 preview on Test Tube and they'll need to be using either Chrome, Safari or the Chrome frame in IE. The biggest benefit of HTML5 support is that it frees users from the need to use proprietary plug-ins like Flash player or Microsoft's Silverlight by using a simple bit of code to render video. (Note this caveat regarding the lack of codec consensus, however.) If you've used Google's Chrome much, you've probably seen how often Flash player crashes in that browser. Firefox doesn't deal with Flash well, either. Here's how I understand it: If Google does it right, you wont notice the difference. Video will be beautiful and lovely online. But for developers and creators, the options will multiply because we wont be stuck fucking with the constraints of Flash players. Flash has helped make watching online video easy. Its done its job, thanks. Now go sit in the corner with Real Audio. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
Jay dedman wrote: Flash has helped make watching online video easy. Its done its job, thanks. Now go sit in the corner with Real Audio. Amen to that. One of the parts of the transition to computer based video that I've hated, hated, hated, is the many codecs and the myriad flavors of each. Flash was one of those, I'll be glad to see it go. -- -- Bohus Blahut (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot) modern filmmaker Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[videoblogging] Youtube 2.0
Google is taking suggestions for Youtube: http://productideas.appspot.com/#15/e=3d60at=3d60b Welcome to Product Ideas for YouTube. We're eager to hear your ideas about what you think we can improve, what features you wish we'd launch, maybe even what the site would be better without. Enter your product suggestions and thoughts about YouTube here; then see what others have to say and vote up the ideas you like most. We'll be checking in from time to time to see what you have to say and will respond directly to some of your comments. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube Direct
Here's an example: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/getthere/2009/11/your_traffic_and_transit_night.html It doesn't seem very practical to me. I was able to submit links to existing videos but there isn't anything on YouTube that links back to this project. It's obviously not very successful as there are only 7 videos submitted (3 of which are mine). And I only know about this particular video response request because someone from YouTube emailed me about it. On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: Have we talked about this yet? *(Watch the video)* http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/11/connecting-citizens-and-journalists.html That's why we created YouTube Direct http://youtube.com/direct, a new tool that allows media organizations to request, review and rebroadcast YouTube clips directly from YouTube users. Built from our APIs, this open source application lets media organizations enable customized versions of YouTube's upload platform on their own websites. Users can upload videos directly into this application, which also enables the hosting organization to easily review video submissions and select the best ones to broadcast on-air and on their websites. As always, these videos also live on YouTube, so users can reach their own audience while also getting broader exposure and editorial validation for the videos they create. I havent seen any example of this in the wild yet, but seems to cool to encourage people to upload videos to a certain project. (though why not just get people to send a link?) Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Kenya Allmond (koa on Twitter) kenyaallm...@kenetic.org Blog: http://kenyaallmond.me Video: http://kenetic.org VM/F 202-478-0490 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube Direct
Here's an example: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/getthere/2009/11/your_traffic_and_transit_night.html It doesn't seem very practical to me. I was able to submit links to existing videos but there isn't anything on YouTube that links back to this project. It's obviously not very successful as there are only 7 videos submitted (3 of which are mine). And I only know about this particular video response request because someone from YouTube emailed me about it. I havent seen much from Youtube Direct since it launched in November. I guess they try things and see what sticks. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] YouTube Christmas Meetup - December 12th (
Come to the YouTube Oakland Meetup December 12, 2009 at Lake Chalet, 1520 Lakeside Drive, Oakland, CA from 2 to 5:30 PM. Fun, meet, eat, greet, video! See the Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=191596828696 And if you're a YouTuber, and of course you are, send me an email so I can add you to the list of YouTubers at: zen...@zennie62.com Thanks. Zennie
[videoblogging] Youtube Direct
Have we talked about this yet? *(Watch the video)* http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/11/connecting-citizens-and-journalists.html That's why we created YouTube Direct http://youtube.com/direct, a new tool that allows media organizations to request, review and rebroadcast YouTube clips directly from YouTube users. Built from our APIs, this open source application lets media organizations enable customized versions of YouTube's upload platform on their own websites. Users can upload videos directly into this application, which also enables the hosting organization to easily review video submissions and select the best ones to broadcast on-air and on their websites. As always, these videos also live on YouTube, so users can reach their own audience while also getting broader exposure and editorial validation for the videos they create. I havent seen any example of this in the wild yet, but seems to cool to encourage people to upload videos to a certain project. (though why not just get people to send a link?) Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Youtube Direct
Thanks for this info. Not sure what to make of it, but it looks interesting. Roger. To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com From: jay.ded...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:24:30 -0500 Subject: [videoblogging] Youtube Direct Have we talked about this yet? *(Watch the video)* http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/11/connecting-citizens-and-journalists.html That's why we created YouTube Direct http://youtube.com/direct, a new tool that allows media organizations to request, review and rebroadcast YouTube clips directly from YouTube users. Built from our APIs, this open source application lets media organizations enable customized versions of YouTube's upload platform on their own websites. Users can upload videos directly into this application, which also enables the hosting organization to easily review video submissions and select the best ones to broadcast on-air and on their websites. As always, these videos also live on YouTube, so users can reach their own audience while also getting broader exposure and editorial validation for the videos they create. I havent seen any example of this in the wild yet, but seems to cool to encourage people to upload videos to a certain project. (though why not just get people to send a link?) Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] _ Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurantsform=MFESRPpubl=WLHMTAGcrea=TEXT_MFESRP_Local_MapsMenu_Resturants_1x1 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube versus Blip.TV quality
Hi Tim, I've messed around briefly with Tubemogul, however now that Blip posts to youtube and vimeo, I will likely just stick with Blip. I'm not sure if you get the usage stats from all your different services inside the blip dashboard, but I mainly just concentrate on the blip stats anyway. Thanks for the input, Chad -- Sent from my Palm Pre Tim Street wrote: Hey Chad, Have you tried Tubemogul? You upload your video once and it goes to both YouTube and Blip.TV as well as any other sites that you chose. Tim Street 1timstr...@gmail.com http://1timstreet.com/blog http://twitter.com/1timstreet On Aug 20, 2009, at 6:11 AM, Chad Boeninger wrote: Hello all, I uploaded the identical 640x480 mp4 file to both Blip and Youtube. Here is the Youtube Version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv4YbxYHJM0 and the Blip Version http://blip.tv/file/2493638 .Once you get past the part with me giving the introduction in the Youtube video, you can see how the screencast gets squished (for lack of a better term). I'm going to use Blip for my actual show, but then also post content to Youtube. Do most folks here post the same content to both places? Do you have a particular way to render for Youtube? With some previous videos, I actually converted the FLV on my desktop with Quick Media Converter and then uploaded to Youtube. Here's the result http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgSU-6y9OLM , which is clearly better quality. I'd rather not have the extra step, but I guess it's necessary if I want the better quality. On a related note, does anyone know if the Blip to Youtube sends a FLV to Youtube or the source? Thanks, Chad -- Chad F. Boeninger libraryvoice.com - blog libraryvoice.com/videos - videoblog twitter.com/cfboeninger [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube versus Blip.TV quality
Hey Chad, Have you tried Tubemogul? You upload your video once and it goes to both YouTube and Blip.TV as well as any other sites that you chose. Tim Street 1timstr...@gmail.com http://1timstreet.com/blog http://twitter.com/1timstreet On Aug 20, 2009, at 6:11 AM, Chad Boeninger wrote: Hello all, I uploaded the identical 640x480 mp4 file to both Blip and Youtube. Here is the Youtube Version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv4YbxYHJM0 and the Blip Version http://blip.tv/file/2493638 .Once you get past the part with me giving the introduction in the Youtube video, you can see how the screencast gets squished (for lack of a better term). I'm going to use Blip for my actual show, but then also post content to Youtube. Do most folks here post the same content to both places? Do you have a particular way to render for Youtube? With some previous videos, I actually converted the FLV on my desktop with Quick Media Converter and then uploaded to Youtube. Here's the result http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgSU-6y9OLM , which is clearly better quality. I'd rather not have the extra step, but I guess it's necessary if I want the better quality. On a related note, does anyone know if the Blip to Youtube sends a FLV to Youtube or the source? Thanks, Chad -- Chad F. Boeninger libraryvoice.com - blog libraryvoice.com/videos - videoblog twitter.com/cfboeninger [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] YouTube versus Blip.TV quality
Hello all, I uploaded the identical 640x480 mp4 file to both Blip and Youtube. Here is the Youtube Version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv4YbxYHJM0 and the Blip Version http://blip.tv/file/2493638 .Once you get past the part with me giving the introduction in the Youtube video, you can see how the screencast gets squished (for lack of a better term). I'm going to use Blip for my actual show, but then also post content to Youtube. Do most folks here post the same content to both places? Do you have a particular way to render for Youtube? With some previous videos, I actually converted the FLV on my desktop with Quick Media Converter and then uploaded to Youtube. Here's the result http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgSU-6y9OLM , which is clearly better quality. I'd rather not have the extra step, but I guess it's necessary if I want the better quality. On a related note, does anyone know if the Blip to Youtube sends a FLV to Youtube or the source? Thanks, Chad -- Chad F. Boeninger libraryvoice.com - blog libraryvoice.com/videos - videoblog twitter.com/cfboeninger [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Youtube economics cont...
No surprise here really. This research concludes that it's worth it for Google to pay the enormous Youtube cost's of serving free video since it brings so much traffic to the web. It's lile grocery stores losing money on eggs to get you into the store. It's a loss leader. http://www.telco2.net/blog/2009/06/google_the_internet_behemoth_a.html Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube economics cont...
What do you think would have happened to youtube if it wasnt aquired by a mega-company? Sure, it would have raised multiple rounds of investment to stay alive and figure out how to monetize. They would have had to launch their own ad platform, probably similar as google's auction based AdWords. And hope for the best. And struggle. It's interesting though. And the evolution is clearly focused around the so-called premium content... Where Hulu has established itself and where Youtube is moving towards as fast as they can. That's where companies want to display their ads. With the exception of the phenomena of culturally viral media. Yet, in contrast, Blip.tv is surviving and they focus on independent shows. Mostly because of new investments as they continue to work their business models. But they are the torso (and longtail). They are banking on success of the thousands of shows that they host and support. They support them because that supports themselves (ads and syndication deals). Sort of like a Talent Agent. Great to have Blip.tv fighting the good fight. Seeing how so many companies are now getting out of the online video business or are struggling to survive without more blind investments... we'll see if Blip continues to succeed. And if a shows success will influence it to move off of blip.tvand self-serve instead... The business of success. @sull On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: No surprise here really. This research concludes that it's worth it for Google to pay the enormous Youtube cost's of serving free video since it brings so much traffic to the web. It's lile grocery stores losing money on eggs to get you into the store. It's a loss leader. http://www.telco2.net/blog/2009/06/google_the_internet_behemoth_a.html Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube economics cont...
of interest... this is a good podcast with Dina_Kaplan: http://www.ontherecordpodcast.com/pr/otro/electronic/Blip.TV_Co-Founder_Dina_Kaplan_on_the_Explosive_Growth_of_Online_Video.mp3 On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Michael Sullivan sullele...@gmail.comwrote: What do you think would have happened to youtube if it wasnt aquired by a mega-company? Sure, it would have raised multiple rounds of investment to stay alive and figure out how to monetize. They would have had to launch their own ad platform, probably similar as google's auction based AdWords. And hope for the best. And struggle. It's interesting though. And the evolution is clearly focused around the so-called premium content... Where Hulu has established itself and where Youtube is moving towards as fast as they can. That's where companies want to display their ads. With the exception of the phenomena of culturally viral media. Yet, in contrast, Blip.tv is surviving and they focus on independent shows. Mostly because of new investments as they continue to work their business models. But they are the torso (and longtail). They are banking on success of the thousands of shows that they host and support. They support them because that supports themselves (ads and syndication deals). Sort of like a Talent Agent. Great to have Blip.tv fighting the good fight. Seeing how so many companies are now getting out of the online video business or are struggling to survive without more blind investments... we'll see if Blip continues to succeed. And if a shows success will influence it to move off of blip.tvand self-serve instead... The business of success. @sull On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: No surprise here really. This research concludes that it's worth it for Google to pay the enormous Youtube cost's of serving free video since it brings so much traffic to the web. It's lile grocery stores losing money on eggs to get you into the store. It's a loss leader. http://www.telco2.net/blog/2009/06/google_the_internet_behemoth_a.html Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Youtube response to Boxee/Hulu?
Markus just pointed me to: http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=ByKmsHdhra8 Last January we introduced a video website especially for people who wanted to access YouTube videos through their Sony PS3 and Nintendo Wii game consoles. You could say we've now expanded on that. Just as there's a YouTube browser for mobile devices, the new YouTube XL is optimized for watching YouTube videos on any large screen. You can see an example here: http://www.youtube.com/xl I assume Youtube is trying to make sure they have a TV interface for their contentinstead of just getting their content sucked into these other interfaces. I also assume that Youtube will start partnering with more commercial content like Hulu is doing now. Just a hunch. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Rupert rup...@fatgirlinohio.org wrote: This is from the Seattle Times last week. Credit Suisse analyst says YouTube will cost Google $470m. Bandwidth costs them $360m, content rights cost them $252m, but sales from advertising are only $240m (um, only). This just got Slashdotted: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/14/1630239 They break down the numbers by viewer and day which is interesting: The average visitor to YouTube is costing Google between one and two dollars, according to new research that shows Google losing up to $1.65 million per day on the video site. More than two years after Google acquired YouTube, income from premium offers and other revenue generators don't offset YouTube's expenses of content acquisition, bandwidth, and storage. YouTube is expected to serve 75 billion video streams to 375 million unique visitors in 2009, costing Google up to $2,064,054 a day, or $753 million annualized. Revenue projections for YouTube fall between $90 million and $240 million. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
75 billion streams to 375 million unique visitors in 2009? Damn, they're catching up with Twittervlog. It's time I installed that new Wordpress theme. On 14-Apr-09, at 8:41 PM, Jay dedman wrote: On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Rupert rup...@fatgirlinohio.org wrote: This is from the Seattle Times last week. Credit Suisse analyst says YouTube will cost Google $470m. Bandwidth costs them $360m, content rights cost them $252m, but sales from advertising are only $240m (um, only). This just got Slashdotted: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/14/1630239 They break down the numbers by viewer and day which is interesting: The average visitor to YouTube is costing Google between one and two dollars, according to new research that shows Google losing up to $1.65 million per day on the video site. More than two years after Google acquired YouTube, income from premium offers and other revenue generators don't offset YouTube's expenses of content acquisition, bandwidth, and storage. YouTube is expected to serve 75 billion video streams to 375 million unique visitors in 2009, costing Google up to $2,064,054 a day, or $753 million annualized. Revenue projections for YouTube fall between $90 million and $240 million. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
Hi everyone: To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com From: rup...@fatgirlinohio.org Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:48:57 -0700 Subject: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year This is from the Seattle Times last week. Credit Suisse analyst says YouTube will cost Google $470m. Bandwidth costs them $360m, content rights cost them $252m, but sales from advertising are only $240m (um, only). Oops. If YouTube and Google can't make it work, how the hell is anybody else supposed to? Google is actually hurting the whole online video market by providing video as a free 'loss leader'? While they can afford to prop up YouTube's failed business model by subsidizing their massive losses to the tune of half a billion a year, how can anybody else innovate sensible revenue models for online video? The Free internet is a massive illusion. You're forgetting one VERY important thing. Not all of us are on the Internet to make $$$. That too is an illusion. It's just like hoping to find that Mr. (Or Ms.) Right in your life. IT IS JUST NOT THAT SIMPLE. Just my $.02 worth Cheers :) Pat Cook patsbl...@live.com Denver, CO BLOGS PODCASTS AS MY WORLD TURNS - http://asmyworldturns.webs.com/ AS MY WEIGHT LOSS WORLD TURNS - http://asmyweightlossworldturns.webs.com/ THE LEFT WING CONSERVATIVE - http://www.geocities.com/theleftwingconservative/ _ Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Storage1_042009 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
It's still early in the game. They're rolling out new revenue models all the time. This one seems to be doing well: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/04/09/youtube-launches-click-to-buy-in-eight-new-countries Credit Suisse analysts may have to revisit their estimate that YouTube will lose $470 million this year. The site has rolled out its Click-to-Buy program - which is intended to result in quite a lot of revenue-sharing - in eight new countries. Click-to-Buy's best success storyhttp://mashable.com/2009/01/22/youtube-boost-sales/ so far has probably been that of Monty Python. After the comedy troupe launched a YouTube channel with links to Amazon, sales of one DVD boxed set soared by about 23,000 percent. Not bad for content that's a couple of decades old, right? On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:09 PM, J. Rhett Aultman wli...@weatherlight.comwrote: ads don't work with ephemeral content. Surely that's exactly where they do work? Most of the media we consume is ephemeral - TV, newspapers, online news, we see adverts alongside those things as they stream into our lives. On-demand video is largely different from that, isn't it? it's short and self- contained and chosen individually and unlike TV and news, it's not time-sensitive - it's actually less ephemeral. No; it's actually more ephemeral when you consider it from a position of total impact. The overwhelming majority of YouTube videos reach tiny numbers of viewers who consume it once. This bears no comparison to, say, TV or newspapers, which reach much larger audiences. It also bears no comparison to media where there are smaller audiences that accept repeat exposure. Such media are ripe for targeted product placement. But most YouTube videos simply don't make good raw material for an ad. The audience is small and not defined, the video will be seen once per viewer (who may not even make it the majority of the way through), the producer isn't available to exploit their relationship with the viewer to endorse things...it's basically an advertising void. But most of it - 97% apparently - is unmonetizable with advertising, because individual videos' viewing figures are too low - and maybe it's all too fragmented and uncategorizable, and perhaps advertisers are not prepared to see their adverts up against every little home video and copyright-infringing clip. Even if those things eventually collectively gather millions of views and last for a lot longer than most ephemeral advertising-funded media. Again, consider ephemeral from a standpoint of overall cultural staying power, and not just from how long something is on a screen once, and you'll see that the YouTube videos are culturally ephemeral. You actually touch on that issue in your above paragraph. According to Credit Suisse, YouTube seems to be making $50-100m from ads in videos, adjacent banners and sponsored videos. That's as good as they can do all year, and they have 40% of the total online video market worldwide, at a time when online video is booming? Right, and this is because they're monetizing wrong. Let's say that 40% of the car market, in terms of cars on the road, was GM's, and GM was found to be losing money badly. In reality, it's because GM loses $1 per car they sell because they do everything wrong. Is it valid to ask if cars as we know them will be viable? No. It's not that cars aren't viable. It's that GM is doing it wrong. Sure, online viewership is tiny compared to TV, but the gap between TV and online video advertising seems to be disproportionately large. This could have everything to do with a casual numbers game not showing the real details. Especially when you'd imagine that online video would provide greater opportunities for more targeted addressable advertising, supposedly the holy grail. Imagination isn't reality, though, and presupposition gets you nowhere. If YouTube isn't doing this sufficiently, then they're losing money. But the TV ad industry in the US alone is worth $80 billion, 60% of total advertising spend. Superbowl ads this year earned NBC over $200m - that alone is perhaps between 2 and 4 times as much as Google's making all year from YouTube video ads. Of course, it's distorting to use the SuperBowl in a good comparison here, because it's well known that the SuperBowl is basically tulip season for advertisers. People spend on those ads because they exist. It's similar to how city after city hosts an Olympic Games but never profits on the venture. That said, I understand where you're trying to go with this, but you keep treating this as a problem with online video when, in fact, it's a problem with YouTube. Your assumption is that, if YouTube can't do it, nobody can. That itself only makes sense if you can prove that the only people capable of doing it are YouTube and what supporting engineers Google gives them. Is
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
Yeah, you make a good case. I can't really argue back any more than just to say that I was - probably naively - basing my impressions on an assumption that Google knows what it's doing as far as advertising is concerned, being impressed by their $20+bn/yr ad revenues. I'd never really considered that Google would be GM-like in their handling of an important property like YouTube: handling it incompetently, not understanding the potential online video advertising market, not seeing the real opportunities, not giving YouTube the resources they need. I had assumed that they're trying their absolute hardest not to lose half a billion dollars and that they haven't been able to make it work yet. But perhaps you're right and they are indeed shackled by a GM-like existing situation with YouTube and don't know how to fix it. And you're also right that I hadn't considered that YouTube would just end because it doesn't work - as the third most popular website, and something that Google paid $1.7bn for, I didn't see that coming about any time soon. But with these kind of losses, maybe it will. Unless they can find another way to fund all that bandwidth from those tiny amounts of viewers that advertisers aren't interested in - bandwidth that they're already paying well below market rate for. I wasn't talking about Micropayment systems for direct payment, though - I was talking about the kind of dollar payments that people pay for media in places like the iTunes store. And I see that you're saying it's just a problem with YouTube, not with online video, and that some of the best and most ready-to- monetize content isn't on YouTube. I don't know what that content is, and I'd assumed that the vast majority of the most monetizable commercial online video is published on YouTube as well as wherever else it might go, just to capture the audiences. So I didn't really understand the difference between the most monetizable online video and YouTube. But you're probably right, there are probably lots of other options that I hadn't considered which mean that advertising in online video will suddenly become very successful and ubiquitous and pay per view won't become the dominant model for funding it all as I'd suggested. And maybe, to follow on from Jay's post about Time Warner as ISP and content creator, there are all sorts of other ways that we will end up paying for all this data that we've hitherto thought of as free. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 8-Apr-09, at 6:09 PM, J. Rhett Aultman wrote: ads don't work with ephemeral content. Surely that's exactly where they do work? Most of the media we consume is ephemeral - TV, newspapers, online news, we see adverts alongside those things as they stream into our lives. On-demand video is largely different from that, isn't it? it's short and self- contained and chosen individually and unlike TV and news, it's not time-sensitive - it's actually less ephemeral. No; it's actually more ephemeral when you consider it from a position of total impact. The overwhelming majority of YouTube videos reach tiny numbers of viewers who consume it once. This bears no comparison to, say, TV or newspapers, which reach much larger audiences. It also bears no comparison to media where there are smaller audiences that accept repeat exposure. Such media are ripe for targeted product placement. But most YouTube videos simply don't make good raw material for an ad. The audience is small and not defined, the video will be seen once per viewer (who may not even make it the majority of the way through), the producer isn't available to exploit their relationship with the viewer to endorse things...it's basically an advertising void. But most of it - 97% apparently - is unmonetizable with advertising, because individual videos' viewing figures are too low - and maybe it's all too fragmented and uncategorizable, and perhaps advertisers are not prepared to see their adverts up against every little home video and copyright-infringing clip. Even if those things eventually collectively gather millions of views and last for a lot longer than most ephemeral advertising-funded media. Again, consider ephemeral from a standpoint of overall cultural staying power, and not just from how long something is on a screen once, and you'll see that the YouTube videos are culturally ephemeral. You actually touch on that issue in your above paragraph. According to Credit Suisse, YouTube seems to be making $50-100m from ads in videos, adjacent banners and sponsored videos. That's as good as they can do all year, and they have 40% of the total online video market worldwide, at a time when online video is booming? Right, and this is because they're monetizing wrong. Let's say that 40% of the car market, in terms of cars on the road, was GM's, and GM was found to be losing
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
I had assumed that they're trying their absolute hardest not to lose half a billion dollars and that they haven't been able to make it work yet. But perhaps you're right and they are indeed shackled by a GM-like existing situation with YouTube and don't know how to fix it. First off, having worked at Google, I know for a fact they're willing to let a project bleed a little while they figure out what to do. It can be as simple as their current model was an attempt that didn't work. I'm not trying to call them GM so much as to just say that Google is not the end all of online video. And you're also right that I hadn't considered that YouTube would just end because it doesn't work - as the third most popular website, and something that Google paid $1.7bn for, I didn't see that coming about any time soon. But with these kind of losses, maybe it will. Unless they can find another way to fund all that bandwidth from those tiny amounts of viewers that advertisers aren't interested in - bandwidth that they're already paying well below market rate for. Well, I definitely think that Google would seriously lose face if they didn't find a way to keep YouTube. They will not do that unless they have to. However, online video exists beyond YouTube and I'd argue it's the stuff beyond YouTube that's got the best chance at making real money. Others on here have noted some very simple ideas like a YouTube Business site...nobody is doing this, and they need to. I wasn't talking about Micropayment systems for direct payment, though - I was talking about the kind of dollar payments that people pay for media in places like the iTunes store. Yes, but as Clay Shirky points out, iTunes doesn't work because it competes in the marketplace. It succeeds because it stays separate from a free market in online media. Furthermore, the popularity of online video right now is in its ability to be linked, embedded, and discussed. If we were to micropay for videos, then I'd be paying money for following links. I'll stop following them or I'll join groups to circumvent that wall. This already happened with online text for the New York Times. That model went over poorly for them, and all you had to do was sign up for a lousy account. I don't know what that content is, and I'd assumed that the vast majority of the most monetizable commercial online video is published on YouTube as well as wherever else it might go, just to capture the audiences. So I didn't really understand the difference between the most monetizable online video and YouTube. IMHO, The Escapist (http://www.escapistmag.com) has one of the best online video systems going. Zero Punctuation and Unskippable are hits, they have plenty of internal ads which likely pay somewhat well, and they drive their own merchandise sales. But you're probably right, there are probably lots of other options that I hadn't considered which mean that advertising in online video will suddenly become very successful and ubiquitous and pay per view won't become the dominant model for funding it all as I'd suggested. It's worth remembering that advertising works in TV and print because television shows and popular publications are *co-created* with the advertising. That is, the content is designed to work well with advertisers, and the advertisements are tuned to work well with the content. You just can't do this in the YouTube model. At a place like The Escapist (or even a person's non-YouTube video blog), you can. -- Rhett http://www.weatherlight.com
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
Great. But if you look at the YouTube videos, the links are in the info panel, not in banners or overlays, so I don't know whether it's really a proper display of the effectiveness of annoying Click To Buy text overlays popping up over someone's home video containing a Britney Spears song. Also, I love 'sales of one DVD box set soared by 23,000 percent'. Classic marketing use of statistics to blur meaning, being (dead) parroted by Mashable from YouTube's blog. Especially with no reference to how many sold before, or over what period this was. If they sold one copy per week of the box set before the channel launched, it'd mean the next week they sold 230. If they sold 100 a day before the channel, it'd mean they sold 230,000 copies the next day. Big difference. On 9-Apr-09, at 9:22 AM, Adam Quirk wrote: It's still early in the game. They're rolling out new revenue models all the time. This one seems to be doing well: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/04/09/youtube-launches-click-to-buy-in-eight-new-countries Credit Suisse analysts may have to revisit their estimate that YouTube will lose $470 million this year. The site has rolled out its Click-to-Buy program - which is intended to result in quite a lot of revenue- sharing - in eight new countries. Click-to-Buy's best success storyhttp://mashable.com/2009/01/22/youtube-boost-sales/ so far has probably been that of Monty Python. After the comedy troupe launched a YouTube channel with links to Amazon, sales of one DVD boxed set soared by about 23,000 percent. Not bad for content that's a couple of decades old, right? On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:09 PM, J. Rhett Aultman wli...@weatherlight.comwrote: ads don't work with ephemeral content. Surely that's exactly where they do work? Most of the media we consume is ephemeral - TV, newspapers, online news, we see adverts alongside those things as they stream into our lives. On-demand video is largely different from that, isn't it? it's short and self- contained and chosen individually and unlike TV and news, it's not time-sensitive - it's actually less ephemeral. No; it's actually more ephemeral when you consider it from a position of total impact. The overwhelming majority of YouTube videos reach tiny numbers of viewers who consume it once. This bears no comparison to, say, TV or newspapers, which reach much larger audiences. It also bears no comparison to media where there are smaller audiences that accept repeat exposure. Such media are ripe for targeted product placement. But most YouTube videos simply don't make good raw material for an ad. The audience is small and not defined, the video will be seen once per viewer (who may not even make it the majority of the way through), the producer isn't available to exploit their relationship with the viewer to endorse things...it's basically an advertising void. But most of it - 97% apparently - is unmonetizable with advertising, because individual videos' viewing figures are too low - and maybe it's all too fragmented and uncategorizable, and perhaps advertisers are not prepared to see their adverts up against every little home video and copyright-infringing clip. Even if those things eventually collectively gather millions of views and last for a lot longer than most ephemeral advertising-funded media. Again, consider ephemeral from a standpoint of overall cultural staying power, and not just from how long something is on a screen once, and you'll see that the YouTube videos are culturally ephemeral. You actually touch on that issue in your above paragraph. According to Credit Suisse, YouTube seems to be making $50-100m from ads in videos, adjacent banners and sponsored videos. That's as good as they can do all year, and they have 40% of the total online video market worldwide, at a time when online video is booming? Right, and this is because they're monetizing wrong. Let's say that 40% of the car market, in terms of cars on the road, was GM's, and GM was found to be losing money badly. In reality, it's because GM loses $1 per car they sell because they do everything wrong. Is it valid to ask if cars as we know them will be viable? No. It's not that cars aren't viable. It's that GM is doing it wrong. Sure, online viewership is tiny compared to TV, but the gap between TV and online video advertising seems to be disproportionately large. This could have everything to do with a casual numbers game not showing the real details. Especially when you'd imagine that online video would provide greater opportunities for more targeted addressable advertising, supposedly the holy grail. Imagination isn't reality, though, and presupposition gets you nowhere. If YouTube isn't doing this
[videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
This is from the Seattle Times last week. Credit Suisse analyst says YouTube will cost Google $470m. Bandwidth costs them $360m, content rights cost them $252m, but sales from advertising are only $240m (um, only). Oops. If YouTube and Google can't make it work, how the hell is anybody else supposed to? Google is actually hurting the whole online video market by providing video as a free 'loss leader'? While they can afford to prop up YouTube's failed business model by subsidizing their massive losses to the tune of half a billion a year, how can anybody else innovate sensible revenue models for online video? The Free internet is a massive illusion. http://tinyurl.com/c2akgl *YouTube set to lose $470M; most ad spots going unsold* According to a Credit Suisse analyst, the most popular video Web site — owned by the richest Web site Google — will lose $470 million this year because it sells advertising only on a fraction of its pages. For a site that generates as much online traffic as YouTube, it would seem a no-brainer that profit is streaming in. But according to a Credit Suisse analyst, the most popular video Web site — owned by the richest Web site Google — will lose $470 million this year because it sells advertising only on a fraction of its pages. YouTube sells ads on less than 3 percent of the Web pages that could carry commercial messages, analyst Spencer Wang wrote Friday in a note to clients. To boost that percentage, Google needs to standardize ad formats and better demonstrate that ads on YouTube help sell products, he wrote. Weakness at YouTube led Wang to cut his 2009 profit estimate for Google to $4.68 a share from $4.83, according to the report. Google stock has fallen more than a third from its 52-week high last May, hurt by slowing growth in the online-ad market and by the decline in the broader stock market. Despite the growth of YouTube's user base, there is little evidence to suggest Google has been able to materially monetize this usage, Wang wrote. In light of the current ad recession, experimental budgets are being trimmed. YouTube's sales will rise about 20 percent to $240.9 million this year, Wang estimated. The company may spend $360.4 million for bandwidth to distribute its video, and $252.9 million to pay content owners for the rights to show their material, he wrote. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
in other news... http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2009/04/disney-says-hulu-running-out-of-cash.html ;) On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Rupert rup...@fatgirlinohio.org wrote: This is from the Seattle Times last week. Credit Suisse analyst says YouTube will cost Google $470m. Bandwidth costs them $360m, content rights cost them $252m, but sales from advertising are only $240m (um, only). Oops. If YouTube and Google can't make it work, how the hell is anybody else supposed to? Google is actually hurting the whole online video market by providing video as a free 'loss leader'? While they can afford to prop up YouTube's failed business model by subsidizing their massive losses to the tune of half a billion a year, how can anybody else innovate sensible revenue models for online video? The Free internet is a massive illusion. http://tinyurl.com/c2akgl *YouTube set to lose $470M; most ad spots going unsold* According to a Credit Suisse analyst, the most popular video Web site owned by the richest Web site Google will lose $470 million this year because it sells advertising only on a fraction of its pages. For a site that generates as much online traffic as YouTube, it would seem a no-brainer that profit is streaming in. But according to a Credit Suisse analyst, the most popular video Web site owned by the richest Web site Google will lose $470 million this year because it sells advertising only on a fraction of its pages. YouTube sells ads on less than 3 percent of the Web pages that could carry commercial messages, analyst Spencer Wang wrote Friday in a note to clients. To boost that percentage, Google needs to standardize ad formats and better demonstrate that ads on YouTube help sell products, he wrote. Weakness at YouTube led Wang to cut his 2009 profit estimate for Google to $4.68 a share from $4.83, according to the report. Google stock has fallen more than a third from its 52-week high last May, hurt by slowing growth in the online-ad market and by the decline in the broader stock market. Despite the growth of YouTube's user base, there is little evidence to suggest Google has been able to materially monetize this usage, Wang wrote. In light of the current ad recession, experimental budgets are being trimmed. YouTube's sales will rise about 20 percent to $240.9 million this year, Wang estimated. The company may spend $360.4 million for bandwidth to distribute its video, and $252.9 million to pay content owners for the rights to show their material, he wrote. Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
Rereading my post, my final comments were supposed to be questions, not statements. Here are some more: As a layman, I don't understand how people will make money with advertising on online video. Surely at some point soon, pay per view will become the norm? Will the recession bring this on? With things like paypal and google checkout, isn't paying for things much easier now? Easy enough to make it worth the viewer's while doing it? And will that lead to a lot more long-form content, so people feel they're getting their money's worth? On 8-Apr-09, at 3:40 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote: in other news... http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2009/04/disney-says-hulu-running-out-of-cash.html ;) On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Rupert rup...@fatgirlinohio.org wrote: This is from the Seattle Times last week. Credit Suisse analyst says YouTube will cost Google $470m. Bandwidth costs them $360m, content rights cost them $252m, but sales from advertising are only $240m (um, only). Oops. If YouTube and Google can't make it work, how the hell is anybody else supposed to? Google is actually hurting the whole online video market by providing video as a free 'loss leader'? While they can afford to prop up YouTube's failed business model by subsidizing their massive losses to the tune of half a billion a year, how can anybody else innovate sensible revenue models for online video? The Free internet is a massive illusion. http://tinyurl.com/c2akgl *YouTube set to lose $470M; most ad spots going unsold* According to a Credit Suisse analyst, the most popular video Web site owned by the richest Web site Google will lose $470 million this year because it sells advertising only on a fraction of its pages. For a site that generates as much online traffic as YouTube, it would seem a no-brainer that profit is streaming in. But according to a Credit Suisse analyst, the most popular video Web site owned by the richest Web site Google will lose $470 million this year because it sells advertising only on a fraction of its pages. YouTube sells ads on less than 3 percent of the Web pages that could carry commercial messages, analyst Spencer Wang wrote Friday in a note to clients. To boost that percentage, Google needs to standardize ad formats and better demonstrate that ads on YouTube help sell products, he wrote. Weakness at YouTube led Wang to cut his 2009 profit estimate for Google to $4.68 a share from $4.83, according to the report. Google stock has fallen more than a third from its 52-week high last May, hurt by slowing growth in the online-ad market and by the decline in the broader stock market. Despite the growth of YouTube's user base, there is little evidence to suggest Google has been able to materially monetize this usage, Wang wrote. In light of the current ad recession, experimental budgets are being trimmed. YouTube's sales will rise about 20 percent to $240.9 million this year, Wang estimated. The company may spend $360.4 million for bandwidth to distribute its video, and $252.9 million to pay content owners for the rights to show their material, he wrote. Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
Yes, YouTube is losing money, but just because an analyst says they are losing half a billion dollars doesn't make it so. Sent from my iPhone
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
True, but from my brief experience of working with Analysts, they do spend quite a lot of time working on their figures, not just plucking things out of thin air. And it's not a two-bit Analyst, it's a couple of guys at Credit Suisse. So I'd presume that they were basing this on something to make it worth reporting such dramatic figures. A bit more detail here: http://www.contentinople.com/author.asp?section_id=450doc_id=174797 Although YouTube makes up approximately 41 percent of all videos viewed in the U.S., the site's ability to monetize its library of videos content remains a challenge. The analysts estimate that YouTube will bring in about $240 million in revenue in 2009, which will come mostly from homepage placement ads and in-video overlays and adjacencies. Credit Suisse estimates that YouTube generates approximately $86.7 million a year on homepage placement ads, or about $7 million per month. In-video ads and banner adjancencies contribute another $87 million, according to the analyst estimates. Sponsored videos ($37.1 million) and sponsored links ($30.1 million) also contribute to YouTube's revenues. On the cost side, Credit Suisse estimates that Google spends $711 million in operating expenses related to YouTube. Those costs include bandwidth, content acquisition, partner revenue shares, site overhead, and storage. The biggest expense for YouTube is the incredible amount of bandwidth that it must pay for. Despite estimating that YouTube pays about half the lowest market rate for bandwidth, the cost of streaming 5 million videos a month adds up. Analysts place bandwidth costs associated with YouTube at about $360 million a year, or $1 million a day. As YouTube ramps up the amount of premium content it serves, content acquisition is also becoming a serious cost for the site, with Credit Suisse estimating that YouTube will pay approximately $260 million in content acquisition costs in 2009. YouTube's revenue share deals contribute an additional $49 million, according to Credit Suisse estimates, while general overhead -- sales and marketing, RD, and GA expenses -- are expected to set the company back about $24 million in 2009. Finally, the cost of storage for Google's content library, estimated at about 150 million to 160 million videos for a total of 5 petabytes, is estimated at $12.7 million a year. ... On 8-Apr-09, at 3:51 PM, Steve Rhodes wrote: Yes, YouTube is losing money, but just because an analyst says they are losing half a billion dollars doesn't make it so. Sent from my iPhone [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
I think you're painting online video with an incredibly wide brush here, and it's pretty distortionary. These questions were once asked about text online, too, and the answer is that any of a number of business models have arisen. Content that has been worth money and isn't value-added through linking, such as books and academic journals, has successfully followed system of paying for titles/editions/subscriptions. Some text is most value-added when it can be linked...like news. That's followed some flavor of ad-supported. The overwhelming majority of text on the web is not seen as worth buying and/or is so ephemeral that its only value is in being linked to for a short period of time. It's remained free, in the sense that its authors tend to absorb costs for keeping it online. Video will be the same way. If YouTube is losing money, it doesn't mean that the advertising model is dead. What it means is something already known-- ads don't work with ephemeral content. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com Rereading my post, my final comments were supposed to be questions, not statements. Here are some more: As a layman, I don't understand how people will make money with advertising on online video. Surely at some point soon, pay per view will become the norm? Will the recession bring this on? With things like paypal and google checkout, isn't paying for things much easier now? Easy enough to make it worth the viewer's while doing it? And will that lead to a lot more long-form content, so people feel they're getting their money's worth? On 8-Apr-09, at 3:40 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote: in other news... http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2009/04/disney-says-hulu-running-out-of-cash.html ;) On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Rupert rup...@fatgirlinohio.org wrote: This is from the Seattle Times last week. Credit Suisse analyst says YouTube will cost Google $470m. Bandwidth costs them $360m, content rights cost them $252m, but sales from advertising are only $240m (um, only). Oops. If YouTube and Google can't make it work, how the hell is anybody else supposed to? Google is actually hurting the whole online video market by providing video as a free 'loss leader'? While they can afford to prop up YouTube's failed business model by subsidizing their massive losses to the tune of half a billion a year, how can anybody else innovate sensible revenue models for online video? The Free internet is a massive illusion. http://tinyurl.com/c2akgl *YouTube set to lose $470M; most ad spots going unsold* According to a Credit Suisse analyst, the most popular video Web site owned by the richest Web site Google will lose $470 million this year because it sells advertising only on a fraction of its pages. For a site that generates as much online traffic as YouTube, it would seem a no-brainer that profit is streaming in. But according to a Credit Suisse analyst, the most popular video Web site owned by the richest Web site Google will lose $470 million this year because it sells advertising only on a fraction of its pages. YouTube sells ads on less than 3 percent of the Web pages that could carry commercial messages, analyst Spencer Wang wrote Friday in a note to clients. To boost that percentage, Google needs to standardize ad formats and better demonstrate that ads on YouTube help sell products, he wrote. Weakness at YouTube led Wang to cut his 2009 profit estimate for Google to $4.68 a share from $4.83, according to the report. Google stock has fallen more than a third from its 52-week high last May, hurt by slowing growth in the online-ad market and by the decline in the broader stock market. Despite the growth of YouTube's user base, there is little evidence to suggest Google has been able to materially monetize this usage, Wang wrote. In light of the current ad recession, experimental budgets are being trimmed. YouTube's sales will rise about 20 percent to $240.9 million this year, Wang estimated. The company may spend $360.4 million for bandwidth to distribute its video, and $252.9 million to pay content owners for the rights to show their material, he wrote. Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
As a layman, I don't understand how people will make money with advertising on online video. Surely at some point soon, pay per view will become the norm? Will the recession bring this on? With things like paypal and google checkout, isn't paying for things much easier now? Easy enough to make it worth the viewer's while doing it? And will that lead to a lot more long-form content, so people feel they're getting their money's worth? Let's look at a parallel issue: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/04/tw_meters_expansion.html According to Time Warner Cable, customers will be charged from $29.95 to $54.90 a month, depending on how fast their connection is and how much bandwith they use. Subscribers who go over their cap would be charged $1 per gigabyte (GB) used. Time Warner Cable will offer cap packages of 5, 10, 20, and 40 GB for users in the test markets. Consumer advocates and telecommunications analysts say the real goal of metered broadband is not to prevent bandwith consumption, but to protect the profits from cable television, which faces challenges from the many services enabling video and TV watching over the Internet. In the US, Time/Warner is a content producer (HBO/CNN, etc)...cable TV provider...and broadband provider. They are realizing that younger people are canceling their TV subscriptions...and just downloading the videos they want to watch. So two of their three business models are failing. I know for me this is true. I stopped paying for cable years ago. I just watch what I want online. This is like the phenomenon of young people canceling their land phone lines and just using their cell phones. So I wonder what this means to the conversation that Rupert pointed out. If YouTube/Hulu are struggling to cover licensing and bandwidth costs, and Time/Warner is charging for bandwidth usage...how will these issues intersect? Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
That's me - broad brush man. Jack of all trades, master of none. I take your point, that it's horses for courses, but I still don't understand the long term future of advertising for on-demand video. It's just not happening on anything like the scale of traditional advertising, or even other online advertising. Surely it's different from text - not least in advertisers' ability to keep track of what content they're being connected to and the costs of providing it? And I don't understand ads don't work with ephemeral content. Surely that's exactly where they do work? Most of the media we consume is ephemeral - TV, newspapers, online news, we see adverts alongside those things as they stream into our lives. On-demand video is largely different from that, isn't it? it's short and self- contained and chosen individually and unlike TV and news, it's not time-sensitive - it's actually less ephemeral. But most of it - 97% apparently - is unmonetizable with advertising, because individual videos' viewing figures are too low - and maybe it's all too fragmented and uncategorizable, and perhaps advertisers are not prepared to see their adverts up against every little home video and copyright-infringing clip. Even if those things eventually collectively gather millions of views and last for a lot longer than most ephemeral advertising-funded media. According to Credit Suisse, YouTube seems to be making $50-100m from ads in videos, adjacent banners and sponsored videos. That's as good as they can do all year, and they have 40% of the total online video market worldwide, at a time when online video is booming? Sure, online viewership is tiny compared to TV, but the gap between TV and online video advertising seems to be disproportionately large. Especially when you'd imagine that online video would provide greater opportunities for more targeted addressable advertising, supposedly the holy grail. But the TV ad industry in the US alone is worth $80 billion, 60% of total advertising spend. Superbowl ads this year earned NBC over $200m - that alone is perhaps between 2 and 4 times as much as Google's making all year from YouTube video ads. Is online video really that unattractive to advertisers? How is that going to change? It seems to me that at the moment, short on-demand online videos are more attractive to the viewers than the advertisers, and therefore that viewers are likely to pay more for them directly than advertisers would. At the moment, they don't have to make the choice, because 40% of the market is being subsidized by Google at a cost of $500m. No other business could sustain that kind of loss. That's what I mean about it distorting the market. And if that subsidy disappeared tomorrow, surely something would have to pay for the huge costs of bandwidth and content in delivering all this video to people? Will that be advertising? Or pay per view? Judging by the stats so far, my money would be on pay per view, not advertising. But again, that's just a broad personal impression from very little knowledge or experience. I am just a layman. Rupert On 8-Apr-09, at 4:30 PM, J. Rhett Aultman wrote: I think you're painting online video with an incredibly wide brush here, and it's pretty distortionary. These questions were once asked about text online, too, and the answer is that any of a number of business models have arisen. Content that has been worth money and isn't value-added through linking, such as books and academic journals, has successfully followed system of paying for titles/editions/subscriptions. Some text is most value-added when it can be linked...like news. That's followed some flavor of ad-supported. The overwhelming majority of text on the web is not seen as worth buying and/or is so ephemeral that its only value is in being linked to for a short period of time. It's remained free, in the sense that its authors tend to absorb costs for keeping it online. Video will be the same way. If YouTube is losing money, it doesn't mean that the advertising model is dead. What it means is something already known-- ads don't work with ephemeral content. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
I wrote about this last June. I don't understand why they are so hesitant to open it up to the business/marketing community for $$$. My entire post lays it out. http://www.jimkukral.com/how-youtube-is-missing-out-on-12-billion-a-year-by-not-having-a-business-channel/ I figure they can make 1.2 Billion a year if they did. And if you're worried about the marketing content ruining the mainstream videos. Wall it off into its own zone. Anyway, I think it's stupid of them to not do this. They have some grand master plan, and that plan might be to fail. Jim Kukral 2220 Superior Viaduct, Suite 3 Cleveland, OH 44113 j...@jimkukral.com http://www.jimkukral.com http://www.connectwithjim.com (schedule an appointment with me) http://www.twitter.com/jimkukral (follow my every thought!) http://www.TheBizWebCoach.com (coaching consulting) http://www.BlendthisBook.com (i'm writing a book) On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Rupert rup...@fatgirlinohio.org wrote: This is from the Seattle Times last week. Credit Suisse analyst says YouTube will cost Google $470m. Bandwidth costs them $360m, content rights cost them $252m, but sales from advertising are only $240m (um, only). Oops. If YouTube and Google can't make it work, how the hell is anybody else supposed to? Google is actually hurting the whole online video market by providing video as a free 'loss leader'? While they can afford to prop up YouTube's failed business model by subsidizing their massive losses to the tune of half a billion a year, how can anybody else innovate sensible revenue models for online video? The Free internet is a massive illusion. http://tinyurl.com/c2akgl *YouTube set to lose $470M; most ad spots going unsold* According to a Credit Suisse analyst, the most popular video Web site owned by the richest Web site Google will lose $470 million this year because it sells advertising only on a fraction of its pages. For a site that generates as much online traffic as YouTube, it would seem a no-brainer that profit is streaming in. But according to a Credit Suisse analyst, the most popular video Web site owned by the richest Web site Google will lose $470 million this year because it sells advertising only on a fraction of its pages. YouTube sells ads on less than 3 percent of the Web pages that could carry commercial messages, analyst Spencer Wang wrote Friday in a note to clients. To boost that percentage, Google needs to standardize ad formats and better demonstrate that ads on YouTube help sell products, he wrote. Weakness at YouTube led Wang to cut his 2009 profit estimate for Google to $4.68 a share from $4.83, according to the report. Google stock has fallen more than a third from its 52-week high last May, hurt by slowing growth in the online-ad market and by the decline in the broader stock market. Despite the growth of YouTube's user base, there is little evidence to suggest Google has been able to materially monetize this usage, Wang wrote. In light of the current ad recession, experimental budgets are being trimmed. YouTube's sales will rise about 20 percent to $240.9 million this year, Wang estimated. The company may spend $360.4 million for bandwidth to distribute its video, and $252.9 million to pay content owners for the rights to show their material, he wrote. Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube will lose half a billion dollars this year
ads don't work with ephemeral content. Surely that's exactly where they do work? Most of the media we consume is ephemeral - TV, newspapers, online news, we see adverts alongside those things as they stream into our lives. On-demand video is largely different from that, isn't it? it's short and self- contained and chosen individually and unlike TV and news, it's not time-sensitive - it's actually less ephemeral. No; it's actually more ephemeral when you consider it from a position of total impact. The overwhelming majority of YouTube videos reach tiny numbers of viewers who consume it once. This bears no comparison to, say, TV or newspapers, which reach much larger audiences. It also bears no comparison to media where there are smaller audiences that accept repeat exposure. Such media are ripe for targeted product placement. But most YouTube videos simply don't make good raw material for an ad. The audience is small and not defined, the video will be seen once per viewer (who may not even make it the majority of the way through), the producer isn't available to exploit their relationship with the viewer to endorse things...it's basically an advertising void. But most of it - 97% apparently - is unmonetizable with advertising, because individual videos' viewing figures are too low - and maybe it's all too fragmented and uncategorizable, and perhaps advertisers are not prepared to see their adverts up against every little home video and copyright-infringing clip. Even if those things eventually collectively gather millions of views and last for a lot longer than most ephemeral advertising-funded media. Again, consider ephemeral from a standpoint of overall cultural staying power, and not just from how long something is on a screen once, and you'll see that the YouTube videos are culturally ephemeral. You actually touch on that issue in your above paragraph. According to Credit Suisse, YouTube seems to be making $50-100m from ads in videos, adjacent banners and sponsored videos. That's as good as they can do all year, and they have 40% of the total online video market worldwide, at a time when online video is booming? Right, and this is because they're monetizing wrong. Let's say that 40% of the car market, in terms of cars on the road, was GM's, and GM was found to be losing money badly. In reality, it's because GM loses $1 per car they sell because they do everything wrong. Is it valid to ask if cars as we know them will be viable? No. It's not that cars aren't viable. It's that GM is doing it wrong. Sure, online viewership is tiny compared to TV, but the gap between TV and online video advertising seems to be disproportionately large. This could have everything to do with a casual numbers game not showing the real details. Especially when you'd imagine that online video would provide greater opportunities for more targeted addressable advertising, supposedly the holy grail. Imagination isn't reality, though, and presupposition gets you nowhere. If YouTube isn't doing this sufficiently, then they're losing money. But the TV ad industry in the US alone is worth $80 billion, 60% of total advertising spend. Superbowl ads this year earned NBC over $200m - that alone is perhaps between 2 and 4 times as much as Google's making all year from YouTube video ads. Of course, it's distorting to use the SuperBowl in a good comparison here, because it's well known that the SuperBowl is basically tulip season for advertisers. People spend on those ads because they exist. It's similar to how city after city hosts an Olympic Games but never profits on the venture. That said, I understand where you're trying to go with this, but you keep treating this as a problem with online video when, in fact, it's a problem with YouTube. Your assumption is that, if YouTube can't do it, nobody can. That itself only makes sense if you can prove that the only people capable of doing it are YouTube and what supporting engineers Google gives them. Is online video really that unattractive to advertisers? How is that going to change? It seems to me that at the moment, short on-demand online videos are more attractive to the viewers than the advertisers, and therefore that viewers are likely to pay more for them directly than advertisers would. Again, it's not about online video. It's about different classes of video requiring different monetization processes. A huge class of online video, which I'd estimate as the overwhelming majority of YouTube videos, is completely worthless at making money. As for why micropayments won't work, I'll defer that to Clay Shirky, who said it far better than I ever could: http://www.shirky.com/writings/fame_vs_fortune.html At the moment, they don't have to make the choice, because 40% of the market is being subsidized by Google at a cost of $500m. No other business could sustain that kind of loss. That's what I mean about it
[videoblogging] Youtube video intern person needed
Rockies.com is looking for a YouTube intern to create 20 to 30 second promotional videos. We will hand you stock video footage and fotos. Intern needs to be able to take written copy we produce and turn out short snappy clips. We are only interested in a video editor who can also do excellent voice overs. Ideal candidate is someone in college looking to garner some clips. You should be able to create each clip in about 2 hours. Pay is $10/an hour (10 to 20 hours a week). Send David Jones a cover letter at da...@rockies.com. Hoist up a sample YouTube clip where we can hear your voice. Create any tourism clip, using any stock footage and photos you can aquire. Use freeware or Commons music. We pay by paypal. Expats living in abroad are encouraged to apply. -30- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube embeds get more ugly?
Shocking... Luckily there¹s a showinfo variable that you can set to false to hide extra information http://code.google.com/apis/youtube/player_parameters.html -- David Terranova www.davidterranova.com | blog.davidterranova.com | www.rebelrave.tv From: Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:12:08 -0500 To: Videobloggers videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Youtube embeds get more ugly? http://mashable.com/2009/02/05/youtube-embed-metadata/ YouTube is inserting more of the information you can get on the website into the embedded videos that are spread far and wide across the Web. Embeds now include both the Title and the Rating for each video - information that dissolves once you click play. -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Youtube embeds get more ugly?
http://mashable.com/2009/02/05/youtube-embed-metadata/ YouTube is inserting more of the information you can get on the website into the embedded videos that are spread far and wide across the Web. Embeds now include both the Title and the Rating for each video - information that dissolves once you click play. -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Youtube to TV (duh)
Youtube announced some deals so you can watch videos on your TV. I highlighted the sentence where they talk about Open TV. It's interesting the language they use. I guess if anyone can pry open the doors to network/cable TV, it would be them. Jay http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=sDFlZe7FwJI Have you ever wanted to just sit on your couch and watch YouTube on your TV? Well, now that's possible via YouTube for Television, initially available through the Sony PS3 and Nintendo Wii game consoles at www.youtube.com/tv. Currently in beta, the TV Website offers a dynamic, lean-back, 10-foot television viewing experience through a streamlined interface that enables you to discover, watch and share YouTube videos on any TV screen with just a few quick clicks of your remote control. With enlarged text and simplified navigation, it makes watching YouTube on your TV as easy and intuitive as possible. Optional auto-play capability enables users to view related videos sequentially, emulating a traditional television experience. The TV Website is available internationally across 22 geographies and in over 12 languages. As previously blogged, YouTube has partnered directly with major TV and set-top box manufacturers to bring YouTube into the living room. Still, very few such devices today contain a Web browser or provide access to YouTube. *Our hope is that this site may help to accelerate an industry evolution towards open television access to Web video. *Over time, we plan to add support for additional TV devices that provide Web browsers. So grab some popcorn, gather your friends and sit back and enjoy the YouTube TV Website. -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube to TV (duh)
though i am hoping for a better UI, the roku box i bought last year has been solid. http://www.roku.com i'm sure youtube will be made available on it along with the default netflix and amazon vod etc. prob hulu too. my tv is like a decade old... so the next tv i get will have all this built in... including an actual computer/os. it's this type of evolution that will at least make the Cable TV companies upgrade their antiquated piece of crap software and the 50 button remote control! sull On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: Youtube announced some deals so you can watch videos on your TV. I highlighted the sentence where they talk about Open TV. It's interesting the language they use. I guess if anyone can pry open the doors to network/cable TV, it would be them. Jay http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=sDFlZe7FwJI Have you ever wanted to just sit on your couch and watch YouTube on your TV? Well, now that's possible via YouTube for Television, initially available through the Sony PS3 and Nintendo Wii game consoles at www.youtube.com/tv. Currently in beta, the TV Website offers a dynamic, lean-back, 10-foot television viewing experience through a streamlined interface that enables you to discover, watch and share YouTube videos on any TV screen with just a few quick clicks of your remote control. With enlarged text and simplified navigation, it makes watching YouTube on your TV as easy and intuitive as possible. Optional auto-play capability enables users to view related videos sequentially, emulating a traditional television experience. The TV Website is available internationally across 22 geographies and in over 12 languages. As previously blogged, YouTube has partnered directly with major TV and set-top box manufacturers to bring YouTube into the living room. Still, very few such devices today contain a Web browser or provide access to YouTube. *Our hope is that this site may help to accelerate an industry evolution towards open television access to Web video. *Over time, we plan to add support for additional TV devices that provide Web browsers. So grab some popcorn, gather your friends and sit back and enjoy the YouTube TV Website. -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] youtube hit the delete key again
sigh . . . the king is dead long live the king. http://thedaredolldilemmas.blip.tv
[videoblogging] YouTube adds Click To Download
Hey all This is awesome and about time! http://www.lessig.org/blog/2009/01/really_great_news_from_youtube.html Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomo.tv - finally moving to wordpress http://hatfactory.net - relaxed coworking AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube adds Click To Download
YouTube in basic-feature-adding shock! (but only for selected videos) On 16-Jan-09, at 1:42 PM, schlomo rabinowitz wrote: Hey all This is awesome and about time! http://www.lessig.org/blog/2009/01/really_great_news_from_youtube.html Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomo.tv - finally moving to wordpress http://hatfactory.net - relaxed coworking AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ Creative Mobile Filmmaking Shot, edited and sent with my Nokia N93 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube adds Click To Download
Great! As Lessig mentioned, there are many tools for downloading Youtube videos, but this take a cue from the open government Obama is said to bring in. I'm just glad for fellow teachers and students, Youtube is adding utility to education. Kevin Lim Cyberculturalist http://theory.isthereason.com This email is: [ ] bloggable[X] ask first [ ] private email locator: ╔╗╔═╦╗ ║╚╣║║╚╗ ╚═╩═╩═╝ On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Rupert rup...@fatgirlinohio.org wrote: YouTube in basic-feature-adding shock! (but only for selected videos) On 16-Jan-09, at 1:42 PM, schlomo rabinowitz wrote: Hey all This is awesome and about time! http://www.lessig.org/blog/2009/01/really_great_news_from_youtube.html Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomo.tv - finally moving to wordpress http://hatfactory.net - relaxed coworking AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ Creative Mobile Filmmaking Shot, edited and sent with my Nokia N93 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube adds Click To Download
Great! As Lessig mentioned, there are many tools for downloading Youtube videos, but this take a cue from the open government Obama is said to bring in. I'm just glad for fellow teachers and students, Youtube is adding utility to education. My hope is that adding CC licenses baked into the uploading process is on their list. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube adds Click To Download
They've been talking about that since the beginning - I seem to remember that it was one of the things they mentioned as high on their list of priorities when they appeared here briefly in August 05, but it's never happened. My guess is that their lawyers tell them it's too complicated with their TOS. So I wouldn't hold your breath. On 16-Jan-09, at 2:30 PM, Jay dedman wrote: Great! As Lessig mentioned, there are many tools for downloading Youtube videos, but this take a cue from the open government Obama is said to bring in. I'm just glad for fellow teachers and students, Youtube is adding utility to education. My hope is that adding CC licenses baked into the uploading process is on their list. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ Creative Mobile Filmmaking Shot, edited and sent with my Nokia N93 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] YouTube normal quality vs. high-quality encoding recommendations?
Hello all. Does anybody have any video encoding recommendations for doing Camtasia Studio screencasts that get uploaded to YouTube and look good in both normal quality and the new high-quality. Ever since the high-quality feature came out most of the normal quality videos on YouTube are either blurry or pixelated. Randy Ksar http://djksar.wordpress.com Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/djksar [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] YouTube is celebrating charities on December 17th
Looks like an interesting video fest http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2008/12/youtube-community-celebrates-charities-on-1217-make-a-video.html -- Beth's Blog: http://beth.typepad.com Nonprofits and Social Media [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] YouTube-to-RSS service
YTPodcaster creates proper, enclosure-friendly RSS feeds for YouTube channels: http://www.ytpodcaster.com The creator of the service told me he's working on getting HD feeds up and running, too. One thing I wonder is how this affects YouTube stats. Do these downloads contribute to view counts? -- Rick Rey http://rickrey.com
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube alternatives - vlog review.
Hi everyone: Not only is what Rupert said below true BUT there are MANY other advantages as well. Some of them are A). Users can download the videos to their iPod or other portable device AS WELL AS their computer via RSS subscription or manual download BUT it's only from your own blog or website. (YouTube doesn't allow the download of ANY videos BY ANY MEANS even though many programmers have developed clients that ILLEGALLY do just that). B). You have ZERO rights control of your videos on YouTube (This is NOT good if you hope to use your videos to propel yourself into a major $$$ making career making videos). C). YouTube is JUST NOW getting into LIVE video (But even that isn't for just anyone). Meanwhile, you've got places like BlogTV, LiveVideo (Albeit just recently) even Yahoo! doing it. D). YouTube limits you to 10 minutes or 200 MB (The latter being a recent upgrade from 100 MB) per video clip. And even that is on a Whichever comes first basis whereas BlipTV and the others don't have such restrictions (Though I think BlipTV's stand-alone uploader has it, but since I don't normally use it, I can't claim that to be 100% fact). I could on and on, but I think you get the gist by now as to why most of us avoid YouTube like the plague as best as possible (Especially when it comes to producing videos which we hope to build a career on and around). That said though, having a YouTube channel AS A SUPPLEMENT to your video blog CAN be a GOOD thing. But ONLY if you do it right. This can be something as simple as putting your blog URL in your YouTube profile (As that's shown on the channel page). When people see that and see the videos in DOWNLOADABLE format, they're more prone to subscribe to your blog so they can take your videos with them instead of feeling (As an old friend of mine who now lives in Philly would put it) tethered to the computer (Nobody wants that these days). Hope this helps Cheers Pat Cook patsbl...@live.com Denver, CO BLOGS PODCASTS AS MY WORLD TURNS - http://asmyworldturns.blogspot.com/ AS MY WEIGHT LOSS WORLD TURNS - http://asmyweightlossworldturns.blogspot.com/ KB0OXD CYBERSHACK | HAM MUSINGS - http://kb0oxd.blogspot.com/ KB0OXD CYBERSHACK | SITE STATION NEWS - http://kb0oxdcybershacknews.blogspot.com/ THE LEFT WING CONSERVATIVE - http://www.geocities.com/theleftwingconservative/ **COMING NOVEMBER 21 - Pat's OTR Podcast - http://backtothefutureradio.blogspot.com/ **AND** THE RETURN OF Back To The Future TV | THE COMMERCIALS (BOTH the iPod Flash Versions) **COMING SOON - Back To The Future TV | THE SHOWS (In iPod Flash) From: Rupert Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 10:53 To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] YouTube alternatives - vlog review. Vimeo's quality is better and their community is better (but smaller) and they support HD. Blip allows you to link to the original mp4 file, which is necessary for podcasting and syndication via things like iTunes. Also, their flash Show Player allows you to embed high quality mp4 files rather than crappy quality flv. YouTube has many more people watching, but don't be fooled into thinking that that translates into lots of viewers for you unless you have a commercial/viral proposition. Also, their community stinks, it's full of haters and the video quality has always been bad. They're finally, after 3 years, sorting out widescreen playback and a higher quality option. But they'll never fix the attitude problem. It's different on your own blog or at the other services. And you still have to work at promotion. If you don't have the patience for something simple and labor-saving like TubeMogul, don't expect people to magically flock to your videos just cos they're on YouTube. On 6-Dec-08, at 8:00 AM, myfirstmemorydotorg wrote: Hi y'all! I am a newbie in this vlog-whatchamacallit thing, so please be kind and forgive me if this is a stupid question. I have been uploading at YouTube, and I am curious why so many other people use Blip or Vimeo or such other services. Is it the quality? Because in my mind, the social functions and the masses of people that are on YouTube make it the only option for me. I also don't have the patience for multi-site distribution through TubeMogul or otherwise... That said, you guys and gals wanna tell me what you think of http://www.myfirstmemory.org? Thanks! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Youtube adds search to embedded videos
Rick rey has an interesting take on youtube adding search box to embedded videos. http://blog.rickrey.com/post/63100432/regarding-the-new-youtube-search-box-in-embedded-videos I don't like it. It's further proof that YouTube is a technology company, not an entertainment company. They are sacrificing the quality of the user's experience for a small bump in usability. Not to mention, it's kind of a slap in the face to content creators who work hard to keep viewers engaged. It's just one more distraction on top of the umpteen others we're up against to keep your attention. This is another data point when choosing what video service you really like. are they supporting you as a creator, or are you supporting them as a network? Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube adds search to embedded videos
YouTube's focus has always been firstly on building themselves as a network, then on the user, with creators coming in a poor third. You can see this in everything - from their codec video quality to site structure to the way their player embeds and the watermark. On 11-Dec-08, at 8:04 AM, Jay dedman wrote: Rick rey has an interesting take on youtube adding search box to embedded videos. http://blog.rickrey.com/post/63100432/regarding-the-new-youtube- search-box-in-embedded-videos I don't like it. It's further proof that YouTube is a technology company, not an entertainment company. They are sacrificing the quality of the user's experience for a small bump in usability. Not to mention, it's kind of a slap in the face to content creators who work hard to keep viewers engaged. It's just one more distraction on top of the umpteen others we're up against to keep your attention. This is another data point when choosing what video service you really like. are they supporting you as a creator, or are you supporting them as a network? Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube adds search to embedded videos
Actually, since Google bought them I think Search has been added to the top of that list, pushing creators down to number 4. - Verdi On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Rupert rup...@fatgirlinohio.org wrote: YouTube's focus has always been firstly on building themselves as a network, then on the user, with creators coming in a poor third. You can see this in everything - from their codec video quality to site structure to the way their player embeds and the watermark. On 11-Dec-08, at 8:04 AM, Jay dedman wrote: Rick rey has an interesting take on youtube adding search box to embedded videos. http://blog.rickrey.com/post/63100432/regarding-the-new-youtube- search-box-in-embedded-videos -- http://michaelverdi.com
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube Embed Customizer
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know Twitter Vlog has a great script for building a high quality version of a YouTube embed. I took it a slightly different direction and make it easy for you to autostart videos, make them loop, and/or embed the high quality version without needing to add the individual parameters each time. http://www.jakeludington.com/youtube-code-generator.phtml you should add this info to the wiki for future reference: http://videoblogginggroup.pbwiki.com Find the best category...or make up a new one. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] YouTube Embed Customizer
I know Twitter Vlog has a great script for building a high quality version of a YouTube embed. I took it a slightly different direction and make it easy for you to autostart videos, make them loop, and/or embed the high quality version without needing to add the individual parameters each time. http://www.jakeludington.com/youtube-code-generator.phtml Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube Embed Customizer
Good work! On 8-Dec-08, at 5:46 PM, Jake Ludington wrote: I know Twitter Vlog has a great script for building a high quality version of a YouTube embed. I took it a slightly different direction and make it easy for you to autostart videos, make them loop, and/or embed the high quality version without needing to add the individual parameters each time. http://www.jakeludington.com/youtube-code-generator.phtml Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube alternatives - vlog review.
I am a newbie in this vlog-whatchamacallit thing, so please be kind and forgive me if this is a stupid question. I have been uploading at YouTube, and I am curious why so many other people use Blip or Vimeo or such other services. Is it the quality? Because in my mind, the social functions and the masses of people that are on YouTube make it the only option for me. I also don't have the patience for multi-site distribution through TubeMogul or otherwise... I checked out your videoblog: http://www.myfirstmemory.org/ cool project: aksing different people their first memory. and nice layout...did you code that page yourself? or is that a service? And yes, some of us post on sites like Vimeo or blip because the quality of compression is better. Also, blip hosts your original file and lets you cross-upload to archive.org so there's a double backup. also, it's easier to talk with sites like blip if there's an issue because they will actually respond. all depends on what is most important to you. When I checked out your site, it looks important that people see the videos in context of your page...versus someone finding in the wild on Youtube. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] YouTube alternatives - vlog review.
Hi y'all! I am a newbie in this vlog-whatchamacallit thing, so please be kind and forgive me if this is a stupid question. I have been uploading at YouTube, and I am curious why so many other people use Blip or Vimeo or such other services. Is it the quality? Because in my mind, the social functions and the masses of people that are on YouTube make it the only option for me. I also don't have the patience for multi-site distribution through TubeMogul or otherwise... That said, you guys and gals wanna tell me what you think of http://www.myfirstmemory.org? Thanks!
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube alternatives - vlog review.
Vimeo's quality is better and their community is better (but smaller) and they support HD. Blip allows you to link to the original mp4 file, which is necessary for podcasting and syndication via things like iTunes. Also, their flash Show Player allows you to embed high quality mp4 files rather than crappy quality flv. YouTube has many more people watching, but don't be fooled into thinking that that translates into lots of viewers for you unless you have a commercial/viral proposition. Also, their community stinks, it's full of haters and the video quality has always been bad. They're finally, after 3 years, sorting out widescreen playback and a higher quality option. But they'll never fix the attitude problem. It's different on your own blog or at the other services. And you still have to work at promotion. If you don't have the patience for something simple and labor-saving like TubeMogul, don't expect people to magically flock to your videos just cos they're on YouTube. On 6-Dec-08, at 8:00 AM, myfirstmemorydotorg wrote: Hi y'all! I am a newbie in this vlog-whatchamacallit thing, so please be kind and forgive me if this is a stupid question. I have been uploading at YouTube, and I am curious why so many other people use Blip or Vimeo or such other services. Is it the quality? Because in my mind, the social functions and the masses of people that are on YouTube make it the only option for me. I also don't have the patience for multi-site distribution through TubeMogul or otherwise... That said, you guys and gals wanna tell me what you think of http://www.myfirstmemory.org? Thanks! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube alternatives - vlog review.
Since everyone is trying to become famous or bootleg commetators (like myself) Vimeo or Blip is better for you to stand out on your own. Matthew On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vimeo's quality is better and their community is better (but smaller) and they support HD. Blip allows you to link to the original mp4 file, which is necessary for podcasting and syndication via things like iTunes. Also, their flash Show Player allows you to embed high quality mp4 files rather than crappy quality flv. YouTube has many more people watching, but don't be fooled into thinking that that translates into lots of viewers for you unless you have a commercial/viral proposition. Also, their community stinks, it's full of haters and the video quality has always been bad. They're finally, after 3 years, sorting out widescreen playback and a higher quality option. But they'll never fix the attitude problem. It's different on your own blog or at the other services. And you still have to work at promotion. If you don't have the patience for something simple and labor-saving like TubeMogul, don't expect people to magically flock to your videos just cos they're on YouTube. On 6-Dec-08, at 8:00 AM, myfirstmemorydotorg wrote: Hi y'all! I am a newbie in this vlog-whatchamacallit thing, so please be kind and forgive me if this is a stupid question. I have been uploading at YouTube, and I am curious why so many other people use Blip or Vimeo or such other services. Is it the quality? Because in my mind, the social functions and the masses of people that are on YouTube make it the only option for me. I also don't have the patience for multi-site distribution through TubeMogul or otherwise... That said, you guys and gals wanna tell me what you think of http://www.myfirstmemory.org? Thanks! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Youtube enables Creative Commons!
Actually not yet...but they should. Chris Messina posted a good argument as to why now is the time: http://is.gd/8Wj2 Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Youtube enables Creative Commons!
On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:42 AM, Jay dedman wrote: Actually not yet...but they should. Chris Messina posted a good argument as to why now is the time: http://is.gd/8Wj2 Wouldn't it be great if TV programs had to give proper attribution to video creators of YT videos (and elsewhere)? I already license my videos on YT using creative commons. That makes at least three non-exclusive, licenses on the video: one for youtube/google and two for YT users (mine and YT's). I agree it would be good if YT had a selection for this so people could easily search by license. It would also be a great way to educate a lot of people about CC. But don't let that stop you from adding a CC license. Good trailers are here: http://superhappyvloghouse.pbwiki.com/Creative%20Commons%20Trailers [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube has gone widescreen.
oh yehh!! damn good www.youtube.com/johndkar --- On Mon, 11/24/08, michaelaivaliotis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: michaelaivaliotis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [videoblogging] YouTube has gone widescreen. To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 11:36 PM Not sure if anyone noticed but Youtube video playbacks are all playing in a widescreen player now on their site. Sure enough, after I noticed this, I checked their blog: http://www.youtube. com/blog? entry=0i22UDAOfj 8 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] YouTube has gone widescreen.
Not sure if anyone noticed but Youtube video playbacks are all playing in a widescreen player now on their site. Sure enough, after I noticed this, I checked their blog: http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=0i22UDAOfj8
[videoblogging] YouTube HD
Here's an interesting presentation of what could turn into Youtube HD: http://mrdoob.com/lab/youtube/superHD/ -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomo.tv - finally moving to wordpress http://hatfactory.net - relaxed coworking AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube HD
that's pretty cool! all that's needed now is a front-end app that will take a hi-res video, split it into fours, upload to YouTube and create the player web page. On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:17 AM, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Here's an interesting presentation of what could turn into Youtube HD: http://mrdoob.com/lab/youtube/superHD/ -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomo.tv - finally moving to wordpress http://hatfactory.net - relaxed coworking AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube HD
that and a new TOS on youtube On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Eddie Codel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that's pretty cool! all that's needed now is a front-end app that will take a hi-res video, split it into fours, upload to YouTube and create the player web page. On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:17 AM, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]schlomo%40gmail.com wrote: Here's an interesting presentation of what could turn into Youtube HD: http://mrdoob.com/lab/youtube/superHD/ -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomo.tv - finally moving to wordpress http://hatfactory.net - relaxed coworking AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube Hot Spots
yeah this is pretty intense as far as information goes now if only the TOS on youtube was good enough that i used it for more episodes :) i think the only episode i can apply this to is boobs in a box but i wish i hadnt sang in that video! On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Richard (Show) Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Michael, Sounds like a very interesting and complex metric, operationalizing the hotness of any given part of a video, relative to other videos. ... Richard On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]michaelverdi%40gmail.com wrote: I think it means, compared to other videos of the same length, the hot side of the graph says you are retaining more viewers than average and/or viewers are rewinding a watching those sections again. The cold side of the graph represents where, compared to other videos of the same length, people are skipping forward or clicking away more than average. From the hot spots page on my video: The ups-and-downs of viewership at each moment in your video, compared to videos of similar length. Above the average line, your video is hot: it's retaining more viewers than average and they may be rewinding to watch that point again. Below the average line, your video's gone cold: viewers are not rewinding or may be leaving the video faster than the average. - Verdi On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Richard (Show) Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] richard%40richardshow.org richard% 40richardshow.org wrote: Michael, I didn't understand what number the curve (the y axis) represented? ... Richard On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]michaelverdi%40gmail.com michaelverdi%40gmail.com wrote: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/your-youtube-video-hot-or-not.html I made a screencast of how it works - http://reports.graymattergravy.com/2008/10/02/youtube-hot-spots/ - Verdi -- http://graymattergravy.com -- Richard (Show) Hall http://richardshow.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://graymattergravy.com -- Richard (Show) Hall http://richardshow.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube Hot Spots
Thanks Michael, Sounds like a very interesting and complex metric, operationalizing the hotness of any given part of a video, relative to other videos. ... Richard On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I think it means, compared to other videos of the same length, the hot side of the graph says you are retaining more viewers than average and/or viewers are rewinding a watching those sections again. The cold side of the graph represents where, compared to other videos of the same length, people are skipping forward or clicking away more than average. From the hot spots page on my video: The ups-and-downs of viewership at each moment in your video, compared to videos of similar length. Above the average line, your video is hot: it's retaining more viewers than average and they may be rewinding to watch that point again. Below the average line, your video's gone cold: viewers are not rewinding or may be leaving the video faster than the average. - Verdi On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Richard (Show) Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] richard%40richardshow.org wrote: Michael, I didn't understand what number the curve (the y axis) represented? ... Richard On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]michaelverdi%40gmail.com wrote: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/your-youtube-video-hot-or-not.html I made a screencast of how it works - http://reports.graymattergravy.com/2008/10/02/youtube-hot-spots/ - Verdi -- http://graymattergravy.com -- Richard (Show) Hall http://richardshow.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://graymattergravy.com -- Richard (Show) Hall http://richardshow.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube Hot Spots
Michael, I didn't understand what number the curve (the y axis) represented? ... Richard On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/your-youtube-video-hot-or-not.html I made a screencast of how it works - http://reports.graymattergravy.com/2008/10/02/youtube-hot-spots/ - Verdi -- http://graymattergravy.com -- Richard (Show) Hall http://richardshow.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube Hot Spots
I think it means, compared to other videos of the same length, the hot side of the graph says you are retaining more viewers than average and/or viewers are rewinding a watching those sections again. The cold side of the graph represents where, compared to other videos of the same length, people are skipping forward or clicking away more than average. From the hot spots page on my video: The ups-and-downs of viewership at each moment in your video, compared to videos of similar length. Above the average line, your video is hot: it's retaining more viewers than average and they may be rewinding to watch that point again. Below the average line, your video's gone cold: viewers are not rewinding or may be leaving the video faster than the average. - Verdi On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Richard (Show) Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael, I didn't understand what number the curve (the y axis) represented? ... Richard On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/your-youtube-video-hot-or-not.html I made a screencast of how it works - http://reports.graymattergravy.com/2008/10/02/youtube-hot-spots/ - Verdi -- http://graymattergravy.com -- Richard (Show) Hall http://richardshow.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://graymattergravy.com
[videoblogging] YouTube Hot Spots
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/your-youtube-video-hot-or-not.html I made a screencast of how it works - http://reports.graymattergravy.com/2008/10/02/youtube-hot-spots/ - Verdi -- http://graymattergravy.com
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube vs. Viacom
I would love to know the data on how often a video is actually finished and when they left the video. That would be some data that could be interesting to mull over in terms of adverts and attention retention. On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Adam Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9242 Adam W. Warner http://indielab.org http://wordpressmodder.org -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Youtube videos, ownership?
Who owns the Youtube videos, I thought it was Youtube. I did a project a year ago, where I asked the uploader for permission to transcode the Youtube .flv to an iPod compatible .mp4. So, I could put it on 1 of my iTunes video-podcast. I did a similar thing for another project: http://strings07.blogspot.com Except, they were uploading QT videos they gave me permission to transcode them to .mp4 for the Strings 07 iTunes video-podcast. We wanted Apple to do an article about how the new Technology was helping the Content/Distribution model for physics conferences. We actually got a response from Apple, but haven't followed up to push it through. (I really should get on it) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080131214045AA3Q4Ia Answerer 1 Read the terms and conditions to truly figure that out. I think that since Google owns the space that the Video is uploaded on that they do own the Videos. Also the fact that they have the right to remove any Videos on Youtube Answerer 2 It's more of a shared ownership. Both the uploader and Youtube can remove the videos at their discretion. All videos uploaded are subject to youtube's policies. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] YouTube high quality
Anyone else noticed that YouTube high quality videos have a tendency to cut off prematurely? Happens to me pretty consistently on more than one video on more than one box. I googled on it and didn't find much. joly --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
[videoblogging] youtube videos on TV through Tivo
no big surprise except why its taken so long. (rocketboom has been on Tivo for what 2 years?) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/technology/12cnd-tivo.html?hp TiVo's strategy is to bridge the gap between Web video and television and make as much content available as possible for our subscribers, said Tara Maitra, the vice president and general manager for content services at TiVo. With the YouTube deal, TiVo becomes the latest entrant into the marketplace for porting Internet video content to television. Apple introduced a new version of Apple TV with similar features in January. Although several companies are trying to merge the online viewing experience with the living-room big screen, no one product dominates the market yet. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] YouTube Partner program explained...
A rather dejected take on YouTube's Partner Program... http://hellyerspuppetworkshop.blogspot.com/2008/02/youtube-partner-program-explained.html -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube Partner program explained...
A rather dejected take on YouTube's Partner Program... http://hellyerspuppetworkshop.blogspot.com/2008/02/youtube-partner-program-explained.html Kent has a good rundown here as well: http://kentnichols.com/2008/02/21/buying-the-cool/ I recently spoke to another partner with a high traffic track record and they said their best quarter in the program has been $500. $500 for three months and a million views. Awesome. (gulp). jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] YouTube Partner program explained...
I didn't know Kent had a blog. -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A rather dejected take on YouTube's Partner Program... http://hellyerspuppetworkshop.blogspot.com/2008/02/youtube-partner-program-explained.html Kent has a good rundown here as well: http://kentnichols.com/2008/02/21/buying-the-cool/ I recently spoke to another partner with a high traffic track record and they said their best quarter in the program has been $500. $500 for three months and a million views. Awesome. (gulp). jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
RE: [videoblogging] youtube prerolls
Here's a question for the YouTuber's in the group, especially those who are partners. Have you ever uploaded videos to YouTube that included your own sponsor prerolls built in? Yes, although I generally run them following a brief intro. Does YouTube care if you do that? I'm not sure if it complies with their terms of service or not, but I decided that because they make money off my videos and I don't that I didn't really care. :) Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
Re: [videoblogging] youtube prerolls
I have jim, and while I am not a partner, youtube doesn't seem to care...though once again, I think it can hinder viewership, perhaps especially on youtube.. best! kathryn http://www.synchronis.tv On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Jim Kukral wrote: Here's a question for the YouTuber's in the group, especially those who are partners. Have you ever uploaded videos to YouTube that included your own sponsor prerolls built in? Does YouTube care if you do that? Jim [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] youtube prerolls
We ran homemade prerolls for a few months last year and uploaded to 10 or 12 different sites/services (ex. http://youtube.com/watch?v=mRABQOh5z1Q ). Nobody seemed to mind. And although we made a bit of money from them, we decided they weren't worth the aesthetic bad taste it left in our mouths. -- *Adam Quirk* / Producer, Wreck Salvage LLC / [EMAIL PROTECTED] /+1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim) On Feb 8, 2008 1:36 PM, Kathryn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have jim, and while I am not a partner, youtube doesn't seem to care...though once again, I think it can hinder viewership, perhaps especially on youtube.. best! kathryn http://www.synchronis.tv On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Jim Kukral wrote: Here's a question for the YouTuber's in the group, especially those who are partners. Have you ever uploaded videos to YouTube that included your own sponsor prerolls built in? Does YouTube care if you do that? Jim [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] youtube prerolls
Here's a question for the YouTuber's in the group, especially those who are partners. Have you ever uploaded videos to YouTube that included your own sponsor prerolls built in? Does YouTube care if you do that? Jim [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Youtube non-profits - tech help
Couldn't find this when I searched the archives, so maybe ya'll can help us out. I am helping a non-profit, Jazz Bridge, get their youtube non-profit channel up. Here's what's happened so far: 1:They applied for the non-profit program 2:They received an acceptance email with a link to get started 3:They clicked the link and signed up, but were not given any options besides the typical youtuber, Director Guru etc., so sigend up as a standard account. 4:They asked for my help - Other non-profits have a little tag indicating their designation, and of course we want this designation and the promo that comes with it. The question is, how do we get it? I have emailed and called youtube (ha ha! - try it sometime...message box is full), and google - no help. Also contacted other non-profit youtubers - the only response so far was from a fellow who said they had an account manager help them when they first signed up. What do we do? Any thoughts, experiences, help? Much obliged to the group... Jason Fifield Jazz - http://phillyjazz.blip.tv Politics - http://theshitforbrainsaward.com Personal - http://fifeslife.blogspot.com Business - http://www.slifepros.com
