We read just about every online video analyst forecast, which can tend to make even the biggest data wonk fish-eyed after awhile. I know at times I find myself seeing the numbers but somewhere between my eyes and my brain the signal simply becomes “tons.”
September 2007
- 9 billion videos viewed online
- 2.5 billion viewed on YouTube alone (28.3%)
- Nearly 75% of U.S. Internet users watched a video online
- The average online video viewer consumed 68 videos, or more than two per day (this is the most interesting stat for me).
To battle this numbers fatigue, I decided to dig up an old report and see how the analysts fared in their predictions. Heck, maybe I could spice up my data life and put the wow back in the growth figures of online videos. So I pulled an In-Stat report from July 2006 titled, “User Generated Content – More Than Just Watching the YouTube and Hangin’ in Myspace.” (I swear on my life this is the actual title. Maybe it wasn’t cheesy way back in July 2006?)
I was checking out these predictions:
If we annualize September 2007 views, we’re already at 108 billion views. So even with a huge range between the expected and optimistic forecasts, only a year later the In-Stat figures are crushed. I found my WOW!
We were fortunate enough to speak with Greg Baumann a month ago, right about the time he was launching Web Video Report, the new publication on “The Business of Web Video.” Right on! We like that business.
If you haven’t checked it out yet, you should. Baumann is the editor and comes over from TelevisionWeek (both Web Video Report and TelevisionWeek are publications of Crain Communications). He has already built up a nice library of case studies.
In this particular report, “Price Survey: What Do Web-Video Ads Cost?” comparisons are made about the cost to place a web video ad on various sites. Most sites noted are in the $10-$40 CPM range, with Myspace at $25 CPM, Break.com and Metacafe both ranging from $10-$35 CPM, No Good TV at $10-$40, and WSJ.com at $90 CPM. YouTube has a $50K requirement within 90 days, with a homepage roadblock at $100K per day.
ICTv is a free video on demand platform focused on technology and digital life. They did a great demo video on TubeMogul, and though we don’t speak a lick of Italian, we’ve replayed the video about 50 times to see the cleanest demo and best sounding accent of “TubeMogul” we’ve ever heard.
TubeMogul is a partner for the Online Film and Video portion of the Webby Awards this year, and we just wanted to put in a plug and remind people that if you want to enter, you need to submit your videos before December 14th. We helped sponsor the Winnies where everyone was a winner, and now we’re happy to be a partner for the Webby’s where members of The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences select the nominees for awards in each category, and then the actual the winners of the Webby Awards. There is also The People’s Voice awarded by voters in the online community.
Gemstar-TV Guide released a study on the use of their interactive programming guide that shows how widely used these guides are. From my own experience, if I resort to the old behavior of channel flipping WITHOUT using the guide, my wife gets frustrated and takes the remote. She even says, “Use the GUIDE!”
Some interesting points from the report:
- At least eight out of ten i-Guide (Gemstar-TV Guide programming guide) users agree that they always use their IPG to find what to watch and their IPG is a necessity for their viewing experience.
- I-Guide users agree that their IPG makes them aware of programs they didn’t know about, is the best information source about TV programs and episodes, and enhances their overall TV viewing experience.
- The vast majority of i-Guide users agree that they use their IPG when they first sit down to watch TV, when a new program begins, during commercial breaks and when they’re bored with what they’re watching.
- Two-thirds of TV viewers decide what to watch after they sit down, switching on their TV sets with no specific destination in mind.
This report is good to understand in conjunction with the Choice Stream report (highlighted here by NewTeeVee), which shows how consumers find video to watch on computers, media players, or mobile devices. The report found that 56% of survey respondents browse sites to find videos to watch, but that the amount of time required to find what they want is frustrating (respondents were similarly frustrated with the methods available to find programming on their televisions).
The video search engines such as Blinkx, Dabble, and StumbleUpon typically bill themselves as more than just search - they are a means of discovery. This implies you may not have a particular video or set of videos in mind when you tune in, but you’re hoping to find what you want. You can set up your own playlists to give these engines a way of telling them what you like, or simply choose other peoples playlists to convey this information. But this is still alot of sifting!
Do we have too much choice in a world of millions of on-demand, 2 minute videos? By having all the inventory available at all times, maybe it’s too overwhelming when the goal is to just catch a few interesting videos. Surfing 50-100 channels in a programming guide is simpler but still frustrating to consumers (according to the Choice Stream report). Will the video search engines eventually know enough about us to tailor recommendations for us? Will we get to a point where “simple” and “relevant” are brought together in guiding us to our video content? Let’s hope!
WellcomeMat put out an interesting blog post recently titled, “The Beginning of the End for User Generated Video?” In it, they basically state that the reluctance of advertisers to plop down money in UGC will kill the space, and that moves by ManiaTV.com and recently Brightcove.tv are indicators of what is to come.
This is certainly not a bad hypothesis to make. The industry does need ad dollars to survive. However, it appears to us that a growing number of independent content creators are getting better and better at producing quality content, and this trend will continue as better tools become accessible for less cash and the availability of how-to information make it easier to hone one’s film-making skills. There are valuable brands being created as episodic/serial content that are in fact user generated videos. And more are on the way.
In addition, the lack of advertising dollars isn’t just about brand risk - being paired next to unfavorable content. It’s also about a perception that there aren’t enough video impressions to make the spend. This could change, though, if growth in viewing habits continue, if more data comes in on the value of an online video impression vs. impressions in other media, or if advertisers realize the viewership of a single piece of content is far greater than what is seen on one video site. Or maybe advertisers won’t even have to realize these things… maybe they’ll simply need to place bets in online video because the majority viewers they are targeting are found getting video content online.
