July 18, 2006Why YouTube imitators will fail |
|
Both CBS and MTV (same connection) have and will come out respectively with their own versions of YouTube. And they certainly won't be the last. NBC has taken a rather erratic or even schitzophrenic approach, clearly demonstrating its indecisiveness or perhaps lack of (self) confidence in the space.
...but this post isn't really about criticizing MSM in anyway, but rather to isolate 10 reasons why YouTube stands alone in a very enviable category (social video):
- YouTube began from the ground up. All imitators are looking to make exponential strides with incremental steps and tweaks. Not going to happen
- YouTube has entered the communal consciousness - it belongs to the people and is powered by the very same constituency it serves
- YouTube has entered and nestled into an enviable pop culture acceptance. It is to video what Google (the verb, the act, the behavior) is to Search. When you hear about a clip of interest (from Star Jones' firignation - that's a mashup between firing, indignation and resignation - to Andrew Baron talking about RocketBust or Zidane's Headbutt), there is only one place to go
- The law of one applies. How many online auction stores do you know of? How about book stores?
- YouTube (closely linked with point -1-) subscribes to AND, as opposed to OR. It is completely inclusive; comprehensive. It is the one-stop-shop of online video
- The Whack-A-Mole phenomenon. Whack one mole and another pops up...and again and again and again. Sometimes 2 pop up. Bottom line, any successful attempts to control/restrict/supress consumer generated content are at best short-lived.
- It's freebie distributed content model is the carrier pigeon meets boomerang of the social media world. It always comes back...
- It has not become a safe haven for the fugative 30-second spot. Rather than apply traditional business models to non-traditional value propositions, YouTube is able to help its advertisers win through a) treating messaging as content, b) allowing expression through long-form content and of course c) allowing consumers to produce their own content. The entertainment industry is the lowest-hanging fruit in this regard.
- CGC is not only allowed to sit side by side professional content, but rather is judged/evaluated accordingly and thus has the ability to rise to the top of the heap (can you DIGG it?)
- It is self-regulated - in terms of quality and popularity, but also in terms of objectionable/questionable messaging (I'm not talking about vulturous legal eagles policing against copyright, but rather about relevance, entertainment and utility)
Those are my 10....what are yours? Do you agree that YouTube has no equal? Let me hear you roar.
SPONSORSHIPJaffe Juice – brings a fresh new marketing perspective and commentary from industry thought leader and author Joseph Jaffe. Click here to find out more about sponsorship opportunities. Jaffe Juice continues below... |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/307546/5468680
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why YouTube imitators will fail:
» current.tv - The Social Video Sandbox - What NBC Should Be Doing With YouTube from ExperienceCurve
current.tv is is like youtube in the way that flickr is like photobucket. It may not ever compete on volume, but will surely compete on quality, revenue and recruiting Social Media Talent.
Current.tv is like project greenlight, it encou... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 21, 2006 11:52:57 AM
» current.tv - The Social Video Sandbox - What NBC Should Be Doing With YouTube from Futurelab's Blog
by: Karl Long current.tv is is like youtube in the way that flickr is like photobucket. It may not ever compete on volume, but will surely compete on quality, revenue and recruiting Social Media Talent.... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 23, 2006 9:14:59 AM
Comments
I wholeheartedly agree. I worked briefly this year for a company who built their own take on YouTube and after launching it 2 months ago still only have 20 members... only one of them actually posting any content.
They gave no compelling reasons why their site was a better alternative. In fact, it is definitely not a better alternative! YouTube converts your videos to a commonly viewable Flash Video format, while this other site still relies on Quicktime and Windows Media Player for its content. Worse yet, the site does no format conversion, so the media format is inconsistent from video to video.
Points 2 and 3 have sewn up the market for YouTube. Even the ones that promise percentages of ad revenue to content creators have an insurmountable task to succeed because of these points. Why would you have sponsors willing to pay for ads that will be far less effective on the "also ran" online brand when they could be on YouTube?
Posted by: Jeremy Fuksa: Creative Generalist
YouTube is totally rhizomal and dynamic. This allows it to include everything, including network television and amatuer hour. The nature of peer developed content is responsiveness. It is alot easier for one kid to log and capture an episode of Arrested Development and post it on the internet than for a corporation to file all the paperwork, get it to production, etc. Individuals are playing a faster game. Corporate responses to these peer fueled sites have invariably been reactionary and based on heirarchical modes of development that take too much time and cannot respond fast enough. This always makes them look old fashioned, which is a pariah in internet terms.
Posted by: ryan hoercher
YouTube. The greatest things since…the last greatest thing.
Yeah, YouTube, and MySpace for that matter, are both serious rock stars in the “pimp my world” category. Hey, the kids dig 'em.
But let's not make the mistake of thinking that they're selling books (Amazon or BN.com) or facilitating auctions (eBay) here. No, these guys are in the business of selling our own 14 to 49 year old, ephemeral, flakey, shape shifting culture right back to us. Which is fine. Great. Brilliant freaking idea…UNTIL they instead of playing host to the phenomenon, try to control it or redirect it. Which, along with hiring lawyers that will “help” protect the mothership by suggesting ways to wrangle content, is a necessary evil for any company that simply must make money to survive.
So, while I agree that YouTube is king of the hill for now, and probably will be for a few years, I still have to wonder… will it survive it's growing pains? And/or when will the savvy, smart, and finicky cool kids get tired of the new kid on the block and set out in search of the next “next big thing.” Which will likely be a version of the last big thing, but shinier.
Posted by: Christian
I don't believe "All" imitators will fail. In fact, others will succeed right alongside YouTube. The key factor here, is remaining real (as the kids like to say), while continuing to innovate. Take "Revver" as a prime example -- Their model takes consumer generated content to the next level, in offering content creators a share of ad revenue; based on viewership. Creators are even paid if the "Revverized" version of the content is viewed on YouTube!!
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin September
OK, I have only been partaking in this blog for a month or so, but I have been right into it since I found it.
This is the first time I felt I had enough knowledge on a particular topic to comment…
Here goes:
While YouTube and MySpace will continue to have the bulk of ordinary user generated content, I believe that there is a plenty of opportunity for divergence within user generated industry as YouTube and MySpace are exceptionally generic, and this area of development is exceptionally young. Remember, divergence is a natural part of evolution for technology, media, and Brands. http://ries.typepad.com/ries_blog/
Right now we are growing the trunk of the user generated content tree, and there are many options for specialized channels to branch off and create a niche for themselves as new types of content come to the fore.
TV is watched by millions of people at a time, most user generated content is watched by only a handful… That leaves a lot of room in the middle for new ideas..?
Where do you see niche channels fitting in that are part user generated content and part professionally created content from a particular passion group?
I would really appreciate some dialog on this, (especially from you Joseph) as I am heavily engaged in creating user generated content site of a very specific (And hopefully very valuable) nature myself. http://www.realxstream.com
We are still proving our concept, but I would like believe feel that we have an exceptionally bright future!???
Posted by: Mike McGrath
I think You Tube is fascinating - although - I feel the jury is out about it's longevity. You Tube is to video what mashing was to hip hop: Ultimately, lawyers will shut down or create something more legally strenuous than a cease and desist to prevent the uploading of video that is not properly cleared for use on the internet. You Tube - from the legal POV - is a nightmare.
Posted by: Chris Jennings
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6095736.html
And so it begins...
Posted by: Chris Jennings
I would hesitate to shut the door on other similar sites that attack their own niche and stick with it. With the ever evolving landscape of internet communities, it seems a litle short-sighted to rule out any possibility.
As for all the legal wrangling that has started and will continue, it makes you wonder why anyone would be afraid of the additional FREE exposure they get in this kind of medium. What a powerful selling tool if you could get this demographic to actually choose to watch and distribute your material - all at no cost to you.
Posted by: Ron Hayes
I aggree to the extent that companies that "imitate" will fail, but the model that youtube has pioneered is ripe for innovation.
One example that I just found is http://current.tv , it's actually a social video site, that is vertically integrated with a TV channel. The social video is the sandbox for producing shows, and they even pay you :-)
I just wrote about this, so forgive me for quoting myself:
"current.tv is is like youtube in the way that flickr is like photobucket. It may not ever compete on volume, but will surely compete on quality, revenue and recruiting Social Media Talent."
Great conversation :-)
Karl
Posted by: Karl Long
JJ,
I agree with you on many of your points. However to play devil's advocate for the sake of discussion, there is always to possibility that youtube could be knocked off the top of the hill. What would that take? I would think a new leap in service or functionality from a competitor. iTunes wasn't the first music service to have online music downloads, they just made the experience better. Google didn't invent serach, just a more refined, clean method. But to your point, I just don't see anyone else coming close to getting it right as youtube has. I also don't believe you we see the same communal "buy-in" youtube has with CBS or even MTV for that matter.
Posted by: chupacabra
Joseph,
Right now, YouTube is doing everything right, but wasn't Friendster? The argument made about the invincibility of an installed base is the same argument that television networks used when cable television came around; it was the same argument that AOL thought would keep their @aol.com members with them.
When sites like Revver start paying consumers for their content, when people are able to filter their interests beyond tags and stars, when someone works out a better collaboration engine, then YouTube will be left behind.
Unless of course YouTube does the innovating.
Dan
Posted by: Dan Ng
