--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks Bill and Lauren - great replies. > I feel more attracted to Vimeo and Viddler, and less inclined to > waste time elsewhere.
The communities there are smaller, but way more dedicated. > This lack of traction that you talk about, Bill, is a huge problem > with Youtube. Youtube is still such a popular monopoly that I'm not > sure they see how much of a problem it really is. > > If one of your videos gets popular, it just *does not* translate into > views for your other videos. I have one video with 150,000 views > because it's a video of a flashmob, and *none* of those viewers go on > to watch any of my others. That's because most of the views come from people tuning in to the home page and clicking blindly on videos that are featured. Even if your video's not featured, if it becomes popular for some reason, it's THAT VIDEO that's popular, not YOU or your genre of videos. The analogy I'll draw is that I met someone at a party last week and she knew who I was, but I hadn't heard of her before. When I went home and googled her, I landed on an article she had written about a party that I had attended before I met her. I had read that article, but I had been sent there via probably a link from twitter. At the time I read it, I had no connection to her at all, so I went, read the information, didn't check any more of her posts and went about my business. That's how youtube works. People search for topics, like fighting, for instance. If you make a video about fighting, they'll watch it and then search for more videos about that. On top of that, IME, YouTube leaves open the section "related videos" and leaves the section "more videos from this author" closed. It's more likely that people are going to click on some picture they see and exit your stream than it is for them to open the "more videos" tab and THEN search through the pictures. This is also why people make sure their middle image is of a chick, preferably showing skin. They know that regardless of their topic, guys are going to click on that image to see what they can get from the chick... making their video look popular and getting them the potential to become featured and get all those extra hits. It's all a scam. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com > They just don't do anything to promote the producer of the video. > The idea of "channels" on Youtube is a joke, when you really look at it. > > And they serve the producer poorly with their picture quality. As > IPTV progresses and people start to hook up their home entertainment > systems to the internet to watch shows and movies, this will be > Youtube's Achilles heel - unattractive to both producers, consumers > and most importantly advertisers, who want and need that traction. > And, as previously discussed, there's very little in the way of nice > community and loyalty - especially when compared to the massive > viewership. Idiots. Arrogant idiots. > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.tv > > > On 17-Jun-08, at 4:39 AM, Bill Cammack wrote: > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <rupert@> wrote: > > > > The discussion about YouTube got me thinking. I did a little tour of > > some video sharing sites. > > > > I went to http://office.wreckandsalvage.com/ where they have a list > > of links to all the video sharing sites they upload to. > > > > A bunch of them are now defunct. All the predictable ones, like > > Grouper/Crackle, Studio6 and Dabble. Sharkle is still holding on > > somehow. > > > > I was amazed at how dull they all are. How limited the extra number > > of views they offer, how limited their sense of community & > networking. > > > > Above all, I was struck by the incredibly limited range of videos on > > most of these sites. Blip is really onto something by focussing on > > Shows in the way that it does now. At least it's not all bikini > > models and sport clips. > > > > I wondered what the point of them all was. There's no way that I'm > > going to waste my time uploading videos to any of them, for the sake > > of a few dozen views by people who don't care. > > > > It seems to me that the only reason these sites would interest > > videobloggers & video artists is if they get videos in front of > > likeminded people with whom they can connect and communicate. > > > > So perhaps it's an ability to foster community that will make the > > difference between success and failure for these sites. I heard > > Vimeo has good community. And Viddler? Is that right? What about > > Daily Motion? > > > > Any others? Does anyone else have any good experiences on any other > > video sharing sites? > > > > Rupert > > http://twittervlog.tv/ > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog > > I've seen that Vimeo has some focused groups, like the HV20 group or > Vimeo HD or one specifically focused on comedy. Because of that, they > have people that subscribe to certain topics or filmmakers and watch > the videos and comment. So that ends up being some decent > communities, even though it's still inside a "walled garden" to a > degree, because it's 'only' the people inside Vimeo AND inside that > particular group. > > What you're talking about is the reason that I post my videos to blip. > I stick to self-promotion and iTunes... not that I have a ton of > hits, haha. The point is that the extra locations weren't useful to > me, for the reasons you stated. > > Basically, they tend to depend on some gimmick to make people want to > post there, but in the long run, there's no actual traction. The > traction comes from people bookmarking and RSSing your site, using the > videos as a back end, so it really doesn't matter where the videos are > parked, and you're not seeing much return from the community aspect of > the sites as a "destination". > > Bill Cammack > http://billcammack.com > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
