Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ever wonder what the guys that can pick woman's fashions think? Curious as to what it might be like to be well groomed, have four girls but still be all man? Think that if someone's metro than they're as deep as a puddle? Get ready to have all you preconceptions blown up. I am MetroMan!
2 comments:
That article, and the stats it is based on, have been shown to be misleading. They only looked at removed videos -- and the problem isn't the removed videos, it's the videos that weren't removed.
I don't really see how YouTube can last, as it is. It seems to "Get by" in the press -- except some good commentary I've found in a few places. (For example, Shelly Palmer's "Where's the Business?" article on Media 3.0.)
YouTube has to change, there's just no way around it.
- Martin
Hey Martin,
First - good job registering so you could see the article. I didn't realize that it was behind registration when I posted it.
Second, I think you misunderstood what the article said. Here's the lead paragraph or so...
"AS MAJOR MEDIA COMPANIES CONTINUE to battle with YouTube, evidence is mounting that the video-sharing site is winning the fight for users' time -- with or without copyrighted clips. Online video metrics company Vidmeter Wednesday issued a report concluding that copyrighted clips accounted for a small proportion of the most viewed videos on the site. For the study, Vidmeter looked at 6,725 of the most popular clips on the site between December and March -- the same time period when Viacom, News Corp and others publicly complained about copyright violations on the site.
The clips examined by Vidmeter garnered a total of around 1.59 billion views in that three-month time period. Just 621 of those clips, or less than 10%, were removed during that time for copyright violations; those expunged clips accounted for around 94 million views, or 6% of the total. "
According to this paragraph the sample segment was "the most viewed clips on the site" and that the copyrighted clips - which were then removed - were only a small percentage. They didn't just look at the removed videos - they looked at all of them.
Lastly, after looking at Shelly's Palmer's article (which was posted in November of 2006 by the way - so isn't completely relevant nor time specific to this news), I'd say I have to agree with him - that this is a new art form. You Tube isn't going to be in business to show 2 hour movies that we can purchase - it's there for fun, for promotion and mostly to sell ads for Google (now that Google has acquired it).
Thanks for your comment by the way!
Post a Comment