"Conan O'Brien may have been "legally prohibited from being funny on television," but thanks to TBS he'll be back on the air very soon. Conan and Andy Richter stop by Google's Mountain View, CA headquarters for a morning of hilarity. This event took place on May 5, 2010."
Showing posts with label youtube. Show all posts
Showing posts with label youtube. Show all posts
Monday, May 10, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Record Labels, Old Media Don't Get New Media, Online Videos and Embedding
I came across this op-ed by Damian Kulash ("WhoseTube?", NYTimes), lead singer and guitarist of the band OK Go. And then this morning I received this article from Fast Company:
"OK Go Ditches Label Over YouTube Embedding Rights" by Dan Nosowitz
The article basically covers Damian's prior piece and tells about the conclusion of their conflict with EMI, who wouldn't allow them to have the embed code active for their YouTube videos. Once EMI blocked embedding their video views went from 10,000 per day to 1,000 per day. After OK Go left EMI and turned back on embeddable videos "digital album sales tripled and digital tracks sales have jumped more than sevenfold."
This brings me back to my days at GoingOn Networks when we were working with Forbes.com on various projects. In early 2007, our first project was to help them with an online video contest. It was going to be an "office pranks" contest where people could upload their videos and get rated by the Forbes' readership and a panel of judges.
Since I was leading this project and the product development, one of the first issues I had with Forbes.com was that they didn't want to allow video embedding. I remember strongly warning them that they would limit the viral effect if they didn't offer this. As typical old media people, they stated that they didn't want eyeballs off their main page and lose ad dollars. Our team explained that ads could be inserted into the videos and it would be a greater loss in terms of the video views. We didn't have hard numbers, such as OK Go's 90% drop-off rate, but it was clear anecdotally it would be a major hindrance to their viewership and audience growth.
Working hard to please our client and make this is a successful contest, I introduced Forbes.com to our contact at CAA, who was extremely helpful. One of their talent agents introduced them to a couple film producers and they seeded the Forbes.com Office Pranks site with some great content. We launched and their numbers weren't great. In my eyes, it was a flop and as a startup we were hoping for a home run. There were a couple other issues we warned them about, but the driver was that they weren't willing to allow the blogosphere to run with their content. They thought people would run away with their content and their ad dollars. This was 2007, but today is 2010 and it's amazing to me that many old media companies still don't get it.
"OK Go Ditches Label Over YouTube Embedding Rights" by Dan Nosowitz
The article basically covers Damian's prior piece and tells about the conclusion of their conflict with EMI, who wouldn't allow them to have the embed code active for their YouTube videos. Once EMI blocked embedding their video views went from 10,000 per day to 1,000 per day. After OK Go left EMI and turned back on embeddable videos "digital album sales tripled and digital tracks sales have jumped more than sevenfold."
This brings me back to my days at GoingOn Networks when we were working with Forbes.com on various projects. In early 2007, our first project was to help them with an online video contest. It was going to be an "office pranks" contest where people could upload their videos and get rated by the Forbes' readership and a panel of judges.
Since I was leading this project and the product development, one of the first issues I had with Forbes.com was that they didn't want to allow video embedding. I remember strongly warning them that they would limit the viral effect if they didn't offer this. As typical old media people, they stated that they didn't want eyeballs off their main page and lose ad dollars. Our team explained that ads could be inserted into the videos and it would be a greater loss in terms of the video views. We didn't have hard numbers, such as OK Go's 90% drop-off rate, but it was clear anecdotally it would be a major hindrance to their viewership and audience growth.
Working hard to please our client and make this is a successful contest, I introduced Forbes.com to our contact at CAA, who was extremely helpful. One of their talent agents introduced them to a couple film producers and they seeded the Forbes.com Office Pranks site with some great content. We launched and their numbers weren't great. In my eyes, it was a flop and as a startup we were hoping for a home run. There were a couple other issues we warned them about, but the driver was that they weren't willing to allow the blogosphere to run with their content. They thought people would run away with their content and their ad dollars. This was 2007, but today is 2010 and it's amazing to me that many old media companies still don't get it.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
" How We Did It"... Chad Hurley
Chad Hurley recently spoke at Dave McClure's Startup2Startup event. NewTeeVee's Liz Gannes has Hurley's talk on video and some great notes here.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Hulu Beta
I finally got around to testing out Hulu's private beta, which is big media's race horse against YouTube. I like it. It's high quality video with good content from most of the major TV networks and two major movie studios. More from their press release:
"full episodes and clips from current hit shows, including Heroes, 24, House, My Name Is Earl, Saturday Night Live, Friday Night Lights, The Riches, 30 Rock, The Simpsons, The Tonight Show, Prison Break, Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader and Top Chef, plus hits from the studios’ vast television libraries, will be available free, on an ad-supported basis, within a rich consumer experience featuring personalized video playlists, mashups, online communities and video search."
So you don't get the random junk clips like on YouTube, but it doesn't compare with the volume of content on YouTube yet. The video and content quality is compelling enough for me to make them my preferred online video source after they get enough content up.
Old coverage from TechCrunch here and here.
"full episodes and clips from current hit shows, including Heroes, 24, House, My Name Is Earl, Saturday Night Live, Friday Night Lights, The Riches, 30 Rock, The Simpsons, The Tonight Show, Prison Break, Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader and Top Chef, plus hits from the studios’ vast television libraries, will be available free, on an ad-supported basis, within a rich consumer experience featuring personalized video playlists, mashups, online communities and video search."
So you don't get the random junk clips like on YouTube, but it doesn't compare with the volume of content on YouTube yet. The video and content quality is compelling enough for me to make them my preferred online video source after they get enough content up.
Old coverage from TechCrunch here and here.
The Davos Question
Last week was the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. It's a gathering of 3,000 leaders from various fields and countries. Top government officials to global business leaders to innovative nonprofit organizers attend this conference.
YouTube had a brilliant co-marketing campaign with the World Economic Forum. They created an area and a booth where people could answer the question, "What one thing do you think that companies, countries or individuals must do to make the world a better place in 2008."
Check out the answers from various world leaders:
TechCrunch has a review here.
YouTube had a brilliant co-marketing campaign with the World Economic Forum. They created an area and a booth where people could answer the question, "What one thing do you think that companies, countries or individuals must do to make the world a better place in 2008."
Check out the answers from various world leaders:
TechCrunch has a review here.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Monday, October 9, 2006
Google Acquires YouTube... Was It Worth It?
I guess the question is, "Will it be worth it?" It's difficult to place a value on such deals and many times you can only eyeball whether it was a good or bad deal a few years down the road. I'm sure part of the incentive for Google was to lock out Yahoo! and other competitors from acquiring YouTube. Imagine if Yahoo! acquired YouTube? Google would always be second or worse in an ad space that has higher CPMs/CPCs than text AND seems to be the next big growth segment of online advertising.
If there could be such a controlled competitive field for Google, I'm sure they would have strongly considered to battle it out with YouTube and the rest of the field. How long would it have taken for Google to catch up especially since they seem to be maturing and focusing their resources more strategically now?
Anyway, here is the official press release. Dissenting view from Mark Cuban. Posts from Michael Arrington, where he brings up some good points on Google's relationship with Fox, and PaidContent.org has more here:
- Stock for stock transaction (for $1.65 billion)
- YouTube will operate independently to “preserve its successful brand and passionate community”.
- YouTube will continue to be based in San Bruno, CA, and all YouTube employees will remain with the company.
- The number of Google shares to be issued in the transaction will be determined based on the 30-day average closing price two trading days prior to the completion of the acquisition.
If there could be such a controlled competitive field for Google, I'm sure they would have strongly considered to battle it out with YouTube and the rest of the field. How long would it have taken for Google to catch up especially since they seem to be maturing and focusing their resources more strategically now?
Anyway, here is the official press release. Dissenting view from Mark Cuban. Posts from Michael Arrington, where he brings up some good points on Google's relationship with Fox, and PaidContent.org has more here:
- Stock for stock transaction (for $1.65 billion)
- YouTube will operate independently to “preserve its successful brand and passionate community”.
- YouTube will continue to be based in San Bruno, CA, and all YouTube employees will remain with the company.
- The number of Google shares to be issued in the transaction will be determined based on the 30-day average closing price two trading days prior to the completion of the acquisition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)