Wired 14.12: YouTube vs. Boob Tube - 0 views
-
As for Sacerdoti's so-called postroll ads, even the most self-satisfied marketer wants to know who in the world would stick around to watch – or, more to the point, who can prove that anyone did.
-
dracmere on 13 Feb 08This brings up a good point. I do not know of many people that would stick around for a commercial after the video. I usually am ready to click on the next video after the one I am watching is done.
-
-
Wait until their commercials make it onto YouTube and hope they go viral.
-
This option seems to work. I have seen many Superbowl ads make it onto Youtube, which probably allows more people to see them then the Superbowl did.
-
Because many people watch the Superbowl only to see the commericals uploading them onto youtube would increase even more the use of the internet instead of television cable.
-
If the commerical is effective enough to capture its audience, then it should no doubt appear on youtube so that people can see it again and again.
-
-
- ...33 more annotations...
-
As for Sacerdoti's so-called postroll ads, even the most self-satisfied marketer > wants to know who in the world would stick around to watch – or, more to the > point, who can prove that anyone did. >
-
"They've got the audience,
-
YouTube actually encourages this – so long as the free posts are accompanied by paid versions.
-
A lot of those upload monkeys have a nasty habit of posting clips from TV shows or enhancing their clips by adding music tracks – which, of course, are somebody else's property.
-
I just finished reading the article assigned next week about plaigerism. It is true that many individuals think that just because it is on the internet and free access does not mean it is free to use. There are a lot of consequences that come along with stealing other peoples work.
-
wouldn't the artists be getting more publicity if people put their music/videos online? it's free exposure....
-
-
-
YouTube refused to sell ads appended to either end of a video
-
I think a lot people come on youtube to watch highlights of their favorite show and not be distrubed by commercials. Everywhere we go we seem to see ads and this is the one place you wouldnt get any annoying breaks or pop ups. I think it would be stupid to start.
-
I agree, I think that youtube participation would downfall greatly if commercials were added to the videos.
-
-
#2 "They've got the audience
-
Though younger crowds are generally geared towards new media, I think older crowds are catching on and are becoming crazed by it as well.
-
As it said in our article about Facebook, the average age of the fastest growing users is over 35 years old.
-
they have such a broad audience...my dad is hooked and it seems as though everyday my mom is showing me a funny video that her sister sent her...my brother watches tv shows and my cousin posts videos. it is universal
-
-
So what about "Evolution of Dance," for instance? To put together this medley, did Laipply license 30 songs?
-
The guy that created "Evolution of Dance" came to Rowan and spoke to us about this. He did have to receive copy right license I believe. The law is the law. The internet is not a "free for all"
-
What if someone else videotapped his performance and posted it on youtube, could he get in trouble for that if he didn't get permission to use those songs?
-
-
"I think its the beginning of the end of youtube as we know it," wrote a poster named SamHill24. Another, Link420, declared simply, "ITS OVER!!!! youtube is screwed."
-
In short, what if there were a missing link between the old model and the glittering new one? What would happen then?
-
AS SOMEBODY ONCE SAID, 100 million people can't be wrong. They can, however, be useless. It turns out that success is 1 percent inspiration, 99 percent monetization.
-
Media reflects the desires and whims of the audience. YouTube already has this, but when there's a sharing attitude prevalent that doesn't restrict the everyday, ordinary Joe Shmoe from posting, it's hard to come up with profitable ideas. No one wants to see commercials; that's why internet clips are so popular! People post what they want to see how they want to see it--and they don't stick in a 30-second add for cookies with it!
-
This statement kind of made me laugh. It is totally true. I guess if so many people are using Youtube, it obviously can not be wrong. Also, I think how they are called useless is funny. As long as people are enjoying the videos, then who cares if they are useless? In their own minds they are successfull and that's all that matters!
-
-
#11 A lot of those upload monkeys have a nasty habit of posting clips from TV shows or enhancing their clips by adding music tracks – which, of course, are somebody else's property.
-
This is a major problem. There is a code of ethics that needs to be followed, but a lot of people don't care about that. Maybe some don't realize what they're doing, but still, it's illegal. We inherently accept that lying is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that plagerism is wrong. What's the difference between that and breaking copyright laws? Is that some sort of "golden opportunity" that people can ignore? No! But maybe they just figure they won't get caught. Few others appear to.
-
I'm suprised YouTube users (and people in general) aren't against this. For that matter, maybe I should phrase it as more people not publically being against this. It seems very sneaky to me to encourage this behavior, especially considering the ethical implications.
-
-
YouTube refused to sell ads appended to either end of a video
-
As for Sacerdoti's so-called postroll ads, even the most self-satisfied marketer wants to know who in the world would stick around to watch
-
It's true, most people probably won't watch ads after the vdeo. I can't speak for anyone else, but I usually wont even watch the credits. Maybe if video makers did what filmmakers do now, have a bonus scene after the credits. You would see a video, the credits, a short ad, and final a bonus scene. A lot of people still wouldn't watch, but it's a possibility.
-
-
Which may suit the users just fine. One of the biggest obstacles to advertising success is the damage that success could inflict on the YouTube experience, till now an oasis of relative noncommercialism in a world of brand inundation
-
It's a good point. A lot of YouTube videos make use of copyrighted material, and although they credit the original creators, users seem paranoid about what the companies will do to them. By opening the site up to advertisers, it becomes even more likely that the big companies will start censoring what users can post.
-
-
But speculation abounds that copyright holders have just been waiting for someone with deep pockets, such as Google, to acquire YouTube, whereupon the lawsuits will fly.
-
This is exactly the fear of users. They use songs and video clips, and even though they aren't making money for their videos and most of the users do credit the original artists, they know that big companies can come along and tear their work down. Which isn't fair, when you think about it. All art is influenced by other art. In previous generations, it was okay for kids who became artists to begin by tracing and kids who became writers to begin copying other writers' styles, and kids who became directors to use action figures and a script drawn from other scripts. It's how people grow and discover who they are and what they want to say.
-
-
"we are at the very, very beginning of online video."
-
Yet Zuckerberg was at the beginning of the social networking when he started Facebook and now look at what has come from it. If anything, it is likely that YouTube had a more direct startup (its target audience was not initially as limited as Zuckerberg's). Despite being at the beginning of online video, YouTube is becoming a social norm.
-
-
fatally intrusive
-
One of the things I find most annoying with TV shows online is the pseudo-commercials they include while loading and throughout the programs. If YouTube started using pre-video commercials, I personally would probably use the site less.
-
If they have to run an ad, I think it should be done at the end or at least have the option to skip it. I think having it at the beginning sometimes hurts things in the end because people are impatient and they may just skip to another video or site else that does not have the ad first.
-
-
-
This is rather true. Sure, Google is a billion dollar company now, but what will happen five years from now? We live in a world where everything is constanly changing. Technologies are being upgraded and replaced. New companies are putting old ones out of business in a matter of months. No one can predicat anything in the digital revolution.
-
-
-
This is rather true. Sure, Google is a billion dollar company now, but what will happen five years from now? We live in a world where everything is constanly changing. Technologies are being upgraded and replaced. New companies are putting old ones out of business in a matter of months. No one can predicat anything in the digital revolution.
-
-
But even 100 million daily streams and $1.65 billion into the evolution of this species, how it will actually thrive is a mystery. "If anybody tries to answer that question
-
This is rather true. Sure, Google is a billion dollar company now, but what will happen five years from now? We live in a world where everything is constanly changing. Technologies are being upgraded and replaced. New companies are putting old ones out of business in a matter of months. No one can predicat anything in the digital revolution.
-
-
It, too, was a peer-to-peer revolutionary – one killed aborning by copyright infringement issues .
-
I have never thought about this before. This YouTube revolution is very similar to the Napster craze. People who use YouTube post television shows, music videos, songs, and commercials for anyone to access. This really isn't much different from the concept of Napster's music sharing. In fact, YouTube can probably bring up more infringement issues, because it crosses over a wider range of genres.
-
-
. It, too, was a peer-to-peer revolutionary – one killed aborning by copyright infringement issues .
-
have never thought about this before. This YouTube revolution is very similar to the Napster craze. People who use YouTube post television shows, music videos, songs, and commercials for anyone to access. This really isn't much different from the concept of Napster's music sharing. In fact, YouTube can probably bring up more infringement issues, because it crosses over a wider range of genres.
-
have never thought about this before. This YouTube revolution is very similar to the Napster craze. People who use YouTube post television shows, music videos, songs, and commercials for anyone to access. This really isn't much different from the concept of Napster's music sharing. In fact, YouTube can probably bring up more infringement issues, because it crosses over a wider range of genres.
-
-
-
have never thought about this before. This YouTube revolution is very similar to the Napster craze. People who use YouTube post television shows, music videos, songs, and commercials for anyone to access. This really isn't much different from the concept of Napster's music sharing. In fact, YouTube can probably bring up more infringement issues, because it crosses over a wider range of genres.
-
-
It, too, was a peer-to-peer revolutionary – one killed aborning by copyright infringement issues .
-
I have never thought about this before. This YouTube revolution is very similar to the Napster craze. People who use YouTube post television shows, music videos, songs, and commercials for anyone to access. This really isn't much different from the concept of Napster's music sharing. In fact, YouTube can probably bring up more infringement issues, because it crosses over a wider range of genres.
-
-
It, too, was a peer-to-peer revolutionary – one killed aborning by copyright infringement issues .
-
I have never thought about this before. This YouTube revolution is very similar to the Napster craze. People who use YouTube post television shows, music videos, songs, and commercials for anyone to access. This really isn't much different from the concept of Napster's music sharing. In fact, YouTube can probably bring up more infringement issues, because it crosses over a wider range of genres.
-
-
It, too, was a peer-to-peer revolutionary – one killed aborning by copyright infringement issues .
-
I have never thought about this before. This YouTube revolution is very similar to the Napster craze. People who use YouTube post television shows, music videos, songs, and commercials for anyone to access. This really isn't much different from the concept of Napster's music sharing. In fact, YouTube can probably bring up more infringement issues, because it crosses over a wider range of genres.
-
-
The second big issue is the nightmare of protecting intellectual property. As eager as Madison Avenue is to push stacks of chips online, in the back of its mind is Napster. It, too, was a peer-to-peer revolutionary – one killed aborning by copyright infringement issues . Nobody wants to invest only to see the fledgling industry paralyzed with litigation, regulation, or legislation. And it is not an idle fear.
-
Actually, that's an easy one: Procter & Gamble would be ecstatic
-
-
-
The idea of intellectual property and copyrighting is something that we discussed in our other two modules, so I found it intriguing that it continues to be such a sticky area. Also, the concept behind lawsuits being driven by the amount of money the company running the site has shows how it may all just be about wealth.
-