Is YouTube upping the ante for social networking and online communities?

[MktgRob]

YouTube has announced that they are launching a new addition to its partnership program (which was launced last year and enabled revenue sharing to the big posters) where anyone who posts a video that goes viral will be able to make some money off their video via revenue sharing if they let YouTube place ads in relation to your video.

If this goes off and works will it force other social networking and online communities to offer something similar? For Online Communities it would probably entail placing ads on blogs that are particularly successful.

[Samir]

Revver has been doing revenue sharing in videos for a while now. I think this is just youtube's reaction to services like these.

Social networking has always been advertising driven, so if they don't have enough revenue and the technology mades video advertising a reality, then they'll do it.

[MktgRob]

Revver has been doing revenue sharing in videos for a while now. I think this is just youtube's reaction to services like these.

Social networking has always been advertising driven, so if they don't have enough revenue and the technology mades video advertising a reality, then they'll do it.

Thanks for the info. I never heard of Revver. What is it like in comparison to sites like YouTube and Vimeo?

[Samir]

Revver and the competition have a ad revenue sharing plan. The going rate is around 50%. These sites have sophisticated tracking that even works when someone downloads the video and re-uploads it to another service.

They also work a lot better with you in terms of intellectual property rights. Youtube owns your stuff. These other companies won't use it for anything other than distribution that is under your control. No videos on television without a royalty to you. ;) It's because of these IP issues that I didn't release videos until recently, and on a private video serving system.

[MktgRob]

Revver and the competition have a ad revenue sharing plan. The going rate is around 50%. These sites have sophisticated tracking that even works when someone downloads the video and re-uploads it to another service.

They also work a lot better with you in terms of intellectual property rights. Youtube owns your stuff. These other companies won't use it for anything other than distribution that is under your control. No videos on television without a royalty to you. ;) It's because of these IP issues that I didn't release videos until recently, and on a private video serving system.

Good to know. Currently one of my clients are using YouTube to post videos provided by the manufacturer of the products they sell. But if they ever start creating their own video content I will keep Revver in mind. Thanks for the heads up.

[Samir]

Good to know. Currently one of my clients are using YouTube to post videos provided by the manufacturer of the products they sell. But if they ever start creating their own video content I will keep Revver in mind. Thanks for the heads up.

The way that your client is using Youtube is one of the best ways to use it--as an advertising medium. Since advertising videos are a means to an end, relinquishing IP rights for free wide distribution is a suitable tradeoff, even if they produce their own content.

Unless your clients produce something that is completely innovative. Then that's good, and you make a teaser for your video and release that instead, while controlling the distribution and rights on the main video.

It's in this control where viral videos have failed. The video becomes the endpoint, and the advertising content in them becomes a sidepoint. So the video becomes popular and the business associated with the video doesn't. It's a tricky game to do it right. That's why a lot of companies have given up on the marketing potential of the viral video phenomenon.

Revver is more for content which is the endpoint, like a viral video, which if completely given away, doesn't benefit the author. Because private video serving systems are expensive, most content authors don't have them and are forced to resort to the free hosts like YouTube or Revver.

It's going to be interesting to see the Internet video revolution evolve as it grows. I can see Youtube and other sites with rich content and high traffic being able to charge for advertisers for ads like on tv and then sharing that revenue with the content creators.

The problem is that you have to have good content creators, and a blanket 'we own all your rights' IP policy will deter any business-minded ones.

[MktgRob]

The way that your client is using Youtube is one of the best ways to use it--as an advertising medium. Since advertising videos are a means to an end, relinquishing IP rights for free wide distribution is a suitable tradeoff, even if they produce their own content.

Unless your clients produce something that is completely innovative. Then that's good, and you make a teaser for your video and release that instead, while controlling the distribution and rights on the main video.

It's in this control where viral videos have failed. The video becomes the endpoint, and the advertising content in them becomes a sidepoint. So the video becomes popular and the business associated with the video doesn't. It's a tricky game to do it right. That's why a lot of companies have given up on the marketing potential of the viral video phenomenon.

Revver is more for content which is the endpoint, like a viral video, which if completely given away, doesn't benefit the author. Because private video serving systems are expensive, most content authors don't have them and are forced to resort to the free hosts like YouTube or Revver.

It's going to be interesting to see the Internet video revolution evolve as it grows. I can see Youtube and other sites with rich content and high traffic being able to charge for advertisers for ads like on tv and then sharing that revenue with the content creators.

The problem is that you have to have good content creators, and a blanket 'we own all your rights' IP policy will deter any business-minded ones.

The other reason for the YouTube use by my client is that they are ultra-conservative when it comes to linking to other websites (afraid a competitor is going to steal a client or latch on to one of their partners) so their YouTube account is linked to the website with the hopes that their will be a positive affect on SEO. Also, they use a crappy, free CMS called Umbraco to build their website and they are not willing to invest any money into buying add-ons that would allow them to deploy video in their website nor will they pay for the .Net developer that would be needed to do the backend work. All in all, it makes for an ugly web presence when you are referring visitors to your site off of your site to get the video content you want to provide to attract their attention.

[Samir]

The other reason for the YouTube use by my client is that they are ultra-conservative when it comes to linking to other websites (afraid a competitor is going to steal a client or latch on to one of their partners) so their YouTube account is linked to the website with the hopes that their will be a positive affect on SEO. Also, they use a crappy, free CMS called Umbraco to build their website and they are not willing to invest any money into buying add-ons that would allow them to deploy video in their website nor will they pay for the .Net developer that would be needed to do the backend work. All in all, it makes for an ugly web presence when you are referring visitors to your site off of your site to get the video content you want to provide to attract their attention.

A lot of sites use YT embedding, so it's not that bad of a practice if done in good taste. Outsourcing video can have merits and I think your client actually has a pretty good solution for what they need. Doesn't sound like there's much of a web presence for the industry that they're in.

[InsightsDigital]

I actually have advised a client against YouTube. Why? The reaosns were:
1. the clients materials are not copyrighted
2. the content was not edited nor clean
3. it will actually harm rather than help the client especially if it becomes viral.

[MktgRob]

I actually have advised a client against YouTube. Why? The reaosns were:
1. the clients materials are not copyrighted
2. the content was not edited nor clean
3. it will actually harm rather than help the client especially if it becomes viral.

After reading these points I made them to my client. Unfortunately they are weighing no-cost against the points you made. All we can ever do is advise and hope they learn the easy way rather than the hard way. I think my client is destined to learn the hard way.

[InsightsDigital]

Only if you can tell them "I told you so."

[MktgRob]

Only if you can tell them "I told you so."

I won't tell them. I will create a really cool flash clip to do it. It will seem like I really cared that way. LOL