Online Video Stats

Nielsen, as well as a number of other companies, measure the number of streams viewed on online video destinations every month.

October was no exception, although the figures were more interesting than usual. mainly because while the top two of YouTube and Hulu remained the same, there were some big changes after that. And it could be the start of a trend set to get stronger over the next few months/years.

YouTube Beats All-Comers

First, the non-surprise. YouTube topped the Nielsen chart for streams in the United States by a huge margin. The Google-owned site racked up 6,632,964,000 streams and 105,923,000 viewers.

Hulu ranked second as it has for a goods few months now. The site managed 632,662,000 streams and 13,472,000 viewers, which though impressive enough isn’t even a tenth of the numbers YouTube can boast.

Facebook Jumps To Third

Then the surprise hits. Facebook has jumped from number 10 to number three in the space of a single month. The social networking site racked up 217,765,000 streams and 31,594,000 viewers – the latter being more than double the number enjoyed by Hulu.

According to CNET, Nielsen Vice President of Media Analytics Jon Gibs, said in a statement:

“Facebook’s rapid growth in online video during the last year illustrates the site’s evolution from simply a communications focused tool to a media portal.”

“Social networking sites are evolving from a venue for catching up with friends to a platform for personal expression, allowing consumers to share their experiences in the full variety of content formats available online.”

Conclusions

This is a potentially pivotal moment for Facebook as it could (and only could) signal a new trend where YouTube is being abandoned in favor for the social networking site.

Facebook has millions of users worldwide who want to share videos with their friends and family and the system Facebook has built-in provides everything they need to do so.

While I can’t see Facebook ever catching YouTube for sheer number of streams every month, Hulu is certainly catchable.

Citizen Journalists

There was a time when news coverage was strictly professional, delivered by paid reporters, photographers, and cameramen. And then everything changed with digital cameras and video cameras standard on cellphones.

Now, any Tom, Dick, or Harry can be a citizen journalist, reporting the news as it happens in front of them. Twitter and social networks are an important facet of this trend, as is online video and in particular YouTube.

YouTube Direct

Google has this week unveiled YouTube Direct, which is designed to be a meeting place for citizen journalists and the news media organizations increasingly using this amateur footage as the basis, or to embellish, news stories.

YouTube Direct is an API tweak that allows news organizations to set up a virtual assignment desk. Requests for video can be placed on the site, and citizen journalists who want to see their footage reach a bigger audience can respond.

At that point, editors from the news organization can vet the videos sent in and pick the ones most suitable. The Washington Post, ABC News, Huffington Post, Politico, the San Francisco Chronicle, and NPR are already testing out the product.

Conclusions

This is good news for Google as it helps smooth over the search giant’s relationship with the news media. It’s also good news for the news media organizations as they get access to up-to-date amateur footage which won’t cost them a penny.

However, I can’t quite see what’s in it for the citizen journalists themselves. Apart from the five minutes of fame achieved by their video footage being picked up by major news channel or Web site, there’s little reason to participate in this.

[Via TechNewsWorld]

This is an important move not just to support the increasing number of home video cameras with HD options but also to give professional content creators confidence that the platform is right for their work.

YouTube Video Quality

When YouTube first launched four years ago, video quality (360p) on the site wasn’t great. But that wasn’t what the site was about so it didn’t matter. YouTube was there to offer a free and easy way for people to host video online. And it did that so well that Google paid $1.65 billion for the site a year later.

But times move on, as does technology.

YouTube first started offering a ‘High Quality’ (480p) version of some videos, and while the difference wasn’t vast it was noticeable. Then in December 2008 YouTube launched ‘High-Definition’ video, which took the clips to a native 720p.

Full HD On YouTube

Now, after an announcement on the YouTube Blog, the site is starting to offer Full HD of 1080p. There’s already a test video running at that super high quality and the rest of the videos on the site will begin airing in 1080p from next week.

YouTube is in the process of re-encoding all content that has been uploaded at 1080p back to its original resolution. However, there will still be a 720p option available on all videos so as to support viewers who can’t view 1080p without massive lag or hardware problems.

There will still be a 10-minute limit on video uploads but the 2GB size limit will surely be increased to cater for this new breed of high-definition video clips.

Conclusions

This change could have a huge impact in a couple of different ways.

For the average home user of YouTube it’ll make the viewing experience more pleasurable than ever, especially for those watching on HD televisions via their games console, set-top box, or connected laptop.

But more importantly than that, it will surely help YouTube in its quest to entice professional content creators to the site. Some may have been resistant all the while their content was going to look relatively poor, but now it’s widescreen and in Full HD, that reason not to get involved flies out the window.

Related Ad

Buy a ‘Sony BRAVIA 52-Inch 1080p 240 Hz LCD HDTV’ on Amazon

YouTube Revenue Vs Pageviews

Since buying YouTube for $1.65 billion in 2006, Google has tried to turn it into a moneymaking site. It’s certainly managed to take the site to the next level, with it now managing one billion page views a day, but the revenue still hasn’t come.

There’s been some debate over whether YouTube makes money, breaks even, or loses money every year but needless to say revenue needs to be upped in order for Google to make its money back. Especially as Google CEO Eric Schmidt has admitted the company paid $1 billion too much for the online video site.

Advertising Experiments

Google has experimented with a range of advertising options on YouTube. From huge one-off banner ads to overlay ads which remain through the course of a video. From pre-roll adverts before clips to post-roll after clips. None of which has been the magic bullet required.

YouTube now carries a range of advertising, with Google clearly deciding a scattergun approach for different videos and advertisers is the right path to follow. But the company still wants to fine-tune the experience.

Skippable Pre-Rolls

According to MediaPost, Google is now testing out skippable pre-roll advertising. The ads will run on carefully selected videos from content partners who have agreed to be a part of the experiment.

Google will collect data on when the ads are skipped, on what length and kind of video they are mostly skipped on, and the people most likely to skip an advert rather than watch in full.

The results of this experiment will then be used to formulate a new advertising model.

Conclusions

Pre-rolls are already used successfully on Hulu and other sites, but the YouTube crowd hasn’t really accepted them as of yet. Whether the option to skip ads that are too long or for uninteresting products makes a difference isn’t yet clear.

Either way Google will obtain data it can then use in the future to further fine-tune and develop its advertising model. The ultimate goal, of course, is to turn a profit and make the most of those one billion page views a day.

Fred Who?

Fred Figglehorn first came to my attention early in 2008 when his YouTube channel started gaining fans faster than most teen pop stars manage.

In June, I covered Fred’s story, which in actual fact is Lucas Cruikshank’s story, as he’s the kid who created and plays the character in numerous YouTube videos.

In short, Fred is the six-year-old alter-ego of a 14-year-old kid from Nebraska. His charms are talking in a squeaky voice, mugging to camera, and ranting and raving in a way most six-year-olds are incapable of. At least the ones I’ve met.

From YouTube To Hollywood

Bizarrely, although the plot of most Fred episodes, which are usually nothing more than three-minute pieces to camera by the fake tween, is shallow to say the least, Fred (and Lucas Cruikshank) has built up a huge following.

Fred was created in 2006 and reached his peak earlier this year when he hit 1.4 million subscribers. However, Nigahiga has now overtaken Fred as the most subscribed YouTube channel.

Not to worry, as Fred has bigger fish to fry.

Fred: The Movie

September saw TubeFilter News report that Fred was moving to Hollywood, with a movie version of the online video character on the way. Lucas Cruikshank will be starring as the titular Fred, with other recurring characters such as Judy, Bertha, and Kevin currently being cast.

The latest rumor suggests the filmmakers are looking for a well-known actor to play a cameo as Fred’s father. And would certainly lend some weight to a project that the prospect of has probably scared as many people as it has delighted.

Filming on Fred: The Movie (working title) is set to begin on November 20, with Fred chasing his would-be girlfriend Judy across the States in what sounds like a road movie of sorts.

Viral Video Stars

Lucas Cruikshank is already reported to be making a six-figure salary from playing Fred. And he’s now set to star in a movie based on the character he lovingly crafted and has nurtured for the last three years.

No wonder more people than ever before are trying to create a viral video hit and become famous off the back of it. What was once merely a hobby for light entertainment is well on its way to becoming big business. And I can’t see where the story will end.

Live Success

YouTube is no stranger to live streaming, having experimented with the method of broadcasting a few times since being acquired by Google. However, Sunday night’s U2 concert was a hit like the site has never experienced before.

When competing with the bread and butter of YouTube – the viral videos generated by users – the U2 concert was a relative failure, but gaining such a large audience for an event such as this is nothing short of spectacular.

Handling Difficulties

The challenges facing YouTube and its partners were huge for this event, with negotiating the rights from all parties and the actual technical difficulties needed to be overcome needing to be managed inordinately well.

Thankfully, YouTube pulled it off, thanks in no small part to Akamai, the content delivery network which handled at least some of the load this type of high-profile event would have generated.

Viewing Figures

Initial reports suggested the viewing figures were under a million. This was then upped to 2.5 million. But Variety is reporting that the U2 concert on YouTube managed to attract 10 million viewers.

As MediaMemo points out, these figures mean the concert wouldn’t make the Top 20 highest-rated TV shows in the United States, with The Mentalist sneaking in with 11.8 million viewers. And the U2 gig was available in 16 countries.

But I still count it as a huge achievement.

Conclusions

Foo Fighters have now announced they will be playing a set from their studio which will be streamed live on Facebook. And I’m guessing this trend will continue, especially once groups and record labels realize how much potential for publicity there is.

With Vevo launching soon, and Muzu.tv and MySpace Music Videos already with us, there are no shortage of places for live streaming concerts to take place. Whether they become a regular occurrence or not all depends on everyone involved getting enough out of it to persuade them to do it again.

The full concert is now available to watch at YouTube.com/U2.

Interestingly, YouTube was mentioned continuously by the other panelists on the show, with references to video clips featuring Griffin. Clips he couldn’t simply talk his way out of. Online video is clearly even affecting politics now.

Nick Griffin & The BNP

Nick Griffin is the leader of the British National Party, a far-right political organization in the U.K. which believes Britain should essentially return to how it was prior to 1948 – that is with a vast majority white, indigenous population.

Without getting into the politics of it, the party has had some success in recent years fueled by terrorism and the failings of the British government to properly police immigration into the country.

Nick Griffin On Question Time

Due to the successes – two MPs in the European Parliament, a seat on the London Assembly, and a number of councilors around the U.K. – the BBC invited Griffin to appear on Question Time, a weekly current affairs debate show featuring politicians, celebrities, and members of the public.

Griffin was continually asked to justify various comments, remarks, and views he and his party have held and communicated over the years. And while he tried to distance himself from and flatly deny others, his fellow panelists informed viewers the video evidence was there for all to see on YouTube.

Video Evidence

Two of the videos mentioned, usually by the British Justice Secretary Jack Straw, were: this one appearing to show Griffin denying the holocaust; and this one showing Griffin speaking on stage beside David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

Victory For YouTube

This was an amazing achievement for YouTube because it was used as a fact checker – a place where facts are irrefutable and evidence is on show – on a mainstream TV show watched by millions of people. And it was used ahead of other sources such as newspaper quotes.

Overall, a bad day for the BNP but a good day for YouTube and online video.

Live Streaming

Live streaming video is an everyday occurrence on the Web these days, with lifecasting sites such as Justin.tv, UStream, and Livestream (formerly known as Mogulus) offering everyone the chance to air an event to the wider world.

Last month saw Livestream launch Livepack, which includes all the kit required to film and stream live events such as weddings, graduations, and concerts. And all in a compact enough size to fit in a backpack.

U2 On YouTube

While that is a brilliant innovation, live streaming of big events is still a relatively rare treat for Internet users. I’m talking about rock concerts from big, well-known bands. Like for instance, I don’t know, U2.

Which is exactly who is lined up for a live streaming event on YouTube this coming weekend. As the video below previews, YouTube will live stream U2’s sold-out gig at the Pasadena Rose Bowl in California this Sunday.

Details, Details

The live stream of the whole concert, with 90,000 people in attendance, will take place at YouTube.com/U2 at 8pm local time on Sunday. 16 countries will be able to view the stream, including Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, the U.K., and the U.S.

This signifies YouTube’s first streaming of a full-length concert. It has previously dabbled in live streaming, hosting its own event in November 2008, and streaming performances by several bands at the Outside Lands festival in San Francisco recently. But this is a much bigger deal.

Conclusions

This has reportedly taken a great deal of time and effort to set up, with the live streaming of a concert complicated by the number of rights-holder involved (the artist, record label, publishers, venue, etc.).

But this will hopefully become a more regular occurrence as all those involved realize how much there is to gain from it. I’m guessing Vevo may make this kind of event a much more regular thing when it launches.

YouTube and Channel 4

YouTube has for a while now been moving away from user-generated content and trying to entice broadcasters into providing content via the site. It’s had mixed success but it has now nabbed a major broadcaster in the form of Channel 4.

Channel 4 was the first UK broadcaster to launch a video on demand service, doing so in 2006. But 4oD failed to get the attention it deserved and the BBC iPlayer snatched the limelight instead. 4oD has gone through some major changes since then and now rivals the iPlayer for user experience.

Deal or No Deal

However, Channel 4 is keen to have its programming reach a wider online audience, and so has teamed up with YouTube. A three-year deal between the two should do just that, and provide revenue as well.

For its part YouTube will gain full-length TV shows and also take a cut of the revenue. Although the financial terms of the deal have not been made public, YouTube is expected to take a 30 percent cut of all revenue generated by the Channel 4 programming.

4oD And…

4oD will continue to provide the premium catch-up service it does currently, but YouTube will gain 50 hours of current programming soon after it airs on Channel 4 as well as around 3,000 hours of archived programming.

This includes shows such as Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares, Brass Eye, Skins, Teachers, Peep Show, and the Derren Brown Specials which recently had everyone in the UK talking.

Channel 4 Speaks

Channel 4 said:

“Channel 4 was the first broadcaster anywhere in the world to make all its commissioned content available online and we’ve consistently pioneered in this field. This strategic partnership is another important milestone for us and we’re delighted to be combining the power of the ‘4’ brand and the appeal of our content with YouTube’s unrivaled reach and reputation online.”

“Making our programmes directly accessible to YouTube’s 20 million UK users will financially benefit both Channel 4 and our independent production partners and help bolster our investment in quality British content. It demonstrates our ability to strike dynamic commercial partnerships to help underpin our future as a commercially funded, not-for-profit multi-platform public service network.”

Conclusions

Unfortunately, this deal only applies in the UK. And although there are 20 million YouTube users in the UK it would have been nice to see the rest of the world welcomed to the party. Those international rights licensing agreements have got in the way yet again.

But in every other way this seems a great deal. Both Channel 4 and YouTube gain from it, and the real winners are viewers who now get to watch premium quality programming online, on demand, and for free.

Three Years Ago Today

It seems like just yesterday that the co-founders of YouTube sold the site to Google. In fact, it was a full three years ago that Google decided to ante up $1.65 billion for the fledgling online video site.

We found out just yesterday that Google CEO Eric Schmidt thought that price tag was around $1 billion out, with the site actually worth more like $600 million. But Google wanted the site so badly it was willing to pay a premium for it.

We’ve Been Acquired

Chad Hurley, now CEO of YouTube under Google’s reign, took time out today to celebrate the three year anniversary. In a blog post which referenced the video above (which shows Hurley and Chen minutes after agreeing the acquisition) he spoke of the past, present, and future of YouTube.

One Billion Views A Day

He also announced that YouTube now serves up “well over a billion views a day,” a quite astounding figure that even outdoes most estimates. There are few sites on the Web with these sorts of numbers, and it’s amazing that YouTube is now one of them.

YouTube now carries a new logo (as above) celebrating the one billion views a day. As Mashable points out, that figure equates to “at least 11,574 views per second, 694,444 views per minute, and 41,666,667 views per hour.”

Which shows why Google needed to get involved in the first place because it’s one of the few companies that could handle delivering that amount of data.

Revenue Vs. Viewers

There is, of course, one thing left out of these celebratory announcements, and that is any talk of revenue. Hurley and Chen are now focused on making YouTube as good a site as it possibly can be. But Google has to be more focused on turning it into a moneymaking business.

And that still isn’t yet the case, although Google has been making progress in clawing back some of its investment. Whether it’ll ever actually make its $1.65 billion back is another matter.