Comscore released data saying that 139k people visited Oscar.com on Oscar Sunday. Seperately, Mashable reported that the Oscars asked Youtube to remove videos from the show that had been uploaded. In the same report, Mashable had a screen capture that showed that an Oscar Comedy Musical video had been viewed more than 200k times. Lets say that those 200k views translate into about 100k actual people viewing the video.
The question is: Do the Oscars benefit or are they harmed by their video being seen on Youtube.com rather than Oscars.com ?
Its a simple question with a very important answer. Youtube proponents want everyone to believe that every impression is a new found impression that can only benefit the brand. Others, myself included believe the opposite. That the last thing you ever want is for another entity, that is completely out of your control, becoming the defacto manager of your brand.
So the question is this. If a content owner, like the Oscars, wants to control their content and their brand, what can they do ? If the Oscars wanted to capture 100pct of Youtube viewers of Oscar Videos on their site, what would it cost them ?
Its actually a cheap and easy operation to do so. Just overwhelm them
To capture Youtube viewers, the first step would be to OVERWHELM Youtube with partial clips of full length that tease Youtube users and point them to Oscars.com. For this Will Ferrell clip, I would have created a video that showed the first 10 secs of the clip, then had 4 minutes of a billboard that said " Great videos from the Oscars telecast and exclusive behind the scenes videos are all available at Oscars.com"
IN addition to the billboard in the video you would have an active link to Oscars.com on the Youtube video page. I wouldnt post this video 1 time. I would post this video 100 times.
And i would do the same thing for EVERY moment and segment in the Oscars.
The reality is that Youtube viewers will grow tired of scanning through every video and just click over to Oscars.com where they will see all the unique video that isn't anywhere on Youtube along with the Oscars.com paying advertisers.
The cost of hiring 10 people to slice and dice videos and post them on Youtube while the Oscars is going on, ? Lets say $20 dollars per hour and 10 hours of work during and after the show is over. Thats $ 2k dollars.
Thats the value of the Oscars videos being on Youtube.
Old Media of course hasn't figured this out. The old media way is to try to pre empt new and better ways of enabling entertainment. They just don't get it. Rather than sending take down notices, they should be leveraging the technology and medium and making it their own.
Youtube and Google Video, by adopting the DMCA Safe Harbors has defined themself as a hosting provider. They have made the choice to provide these services, along with links back to a destination of the uploaders choice for free. Content owners shouldn't fight this. They should celebrate this and fully take advantage of Google's generosity.
As a hosting provider, Google and Youtube don't know or care what videos are being hosted. They don't see them (other than reviewing them for porn of course), they just host them. So let them do their job. Let them spend their money on bandwidth hosting your promotions and videos. Let them provide free links back to your sites next to every video.
What about the Youtube Community ? Won't they be upset ? No. They don't care. Sure a couple people will bitch and post videos, just like they have when Viacom and others took down videos. Just like they do when they get takedown notices around their uploads. Who cares ? Youtube and Google Video are a hosting service. Nothing more or less. Let them do their job.
So my message to every and any content owner is this: DO NOT send take down notices. Look at how much money you spend on lawyers on the notices. How much you spend searching the site looking for your content. Instead, hire a bunch of interns to continuously upload videos that suit your purposes.
Make the math work in your favor. For example, if you have a movie called Ghost Rider, do a 90 minute video with 1 minute from your movie, 2 minutes of promo for the movie and where to see or buy it and 80 minutes of a cat chasing its tail. Call it - Ghost Rider the Full Movie and post it 100 times. Every day.
The net result is that you are using the tools that Gootube makes available to you while minimizing the chances of anyone finding infringing content. Its not a new idea, but it sure is effective.
Of course, none of this changes whether or not the final product, whether a movie, tv show or website delivers on user expectations. If they dont, none of this is matters.
If they do. Then promote it. Use the resources our friends at Google make available. Its what new media is all about !
Oscars.com vs Youtube.com and the value of hosting on Gootube
Recent Posts
- Beating Google ? (5/14/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 2)22. Mark Cuban... advocates spamming?!
Gootube is already full of shit, so sites like
http://www.tv-links.co.uk/ and http://www.peekvid.com/ are appearing
to deeplink through the muck.
Like all attempts at digital restrictions, this effects novices but
not anyone wired to social networks. And all it does is damage the brand for the novices, since they've _heard_ you can watch Ghost Rider on gootube, but just get spammed, and makes those wired think the brand is even more laughable.
Posted at 6:44PM on Feb 28th 2007 by dave
23. there is something you forgot. It just takes one person to find a good quality rip not endorsed by the Oscars and share the link around.
Posted at 6:51PM on Feb 28th 2007 by superdave
24. Why not just encourage people to make "fan videos" that mix your content with something else? Random people on the Internet will "spam" YouTube more cheaply than interns that you have to supply with computers, software, and net connection. And fan videos will stay up longer than deliberate spam.
This is what Fox seems to be doing for the show "Prison Break" -- you can't find actual show clips on YouTube because almost all 98,200 search results are fan videos.
To encourage the behavior, just put some outtakes from the show up on a login-required site for fan video makers only. If a viewer makes a video that scores well in competition with the pirate clips on a search, he or she gets an account on the site. Do really well and you get a jacket or something.
And you get all kinds of PR for being a Pioneer of User-Generated Content when you're really just using the fan video makers to help you spam YouTube and keep people from finding your real show.
25. In my opinion, it is difficult to overwhelm them in YouTube's game which are providing video clips with easy access and fast speed. Oscar.com needs to find other ways to attract people. For example, make a oscar forum where people can discuss about the oscar or post some ads offering gifts or certificates
Posted at 10:47PM on Feb 28th 2007 by Kevin Jang
26. "IN addition to the billboard in the video you would have an active link to Oscars.com on the Youtube video page. I wouldnt post this video 1 time. I would post this video 100 times.
And i would do the same thing for EVERY moment and segment in the Oscars.
The reality is that Youtube viewers will grow tired of scanning through every video and just click over to Oscars.com where they will see all the unique video that isn't anywhere on Youtube along with the Oscars.com paying advertisers."
Actually, I wouldn't click over. I would start bitching about what assholes pulled this fucked up maneuver and start demanding that YouTube ban them.
Overwhelming a system like YouTube is the kind of process that ruins a good channel, just as sp@mmers have ruined MySpace.
You're really thrown by Gootube and related phenomenon aren't you? Your blog has really gone downhill since you started obsessing on this topic. I've never seen you miss the point so many times.
But I'm still a fan.
Posted at 11:27PM on Feb 28th 2007 by Clyde Smith
27. I agree DMCA takedown notices are not the answer, absolutely. But flooding YouTube, essentially adding noise and confusion to the marketplace, doesn't seem like a healthy solution.
Oscars.com was not hosting some of these clips at all, and indeed has idiotically stated it will remove clips there now to "generate interest" for next year's Oscars. HUH?
Oscars.com also does not allow people to share, embed, or comment upon the videos. YouTube is the place to be because that's where people are! YouTube lets you share, lets you comment, lets you participate in video and deepens/extends its impact.
Posted at 3:02AM on Mar 1st 2007 by Chuck Olsen
28. Mr. Maverick,
I enjoyed your post, but I must tell you that I take issue with this part of it:
"a 90 minute video with 1 minute from your movie, 2 minutes of promo for the movie and where to see or buy it and 80 minutes of a cat chasing its tail. Call it - Ghost Rider the Full Movie and post it 100 times."
I consider that to be false advertising, and if it were done the way you suggest, that the COMPANY actually DO the false advertising themselves, that's pretty low.
Just take out the words "the Full Movie" and post it a gazillion times for all I care, but let's not have honesty go by the wayside.
Just my one cent.
;)
Posted at 5:35AM on Mar 1st 2007 by Trading Goddess
29. Post 19 nailed it. I'm not sure how anyone can disagree that you should never hand over your brand image to someone or something that you can't control. It's why outsourcing things like Customer Service to the wrong place can kill your business. However, I also disagree with Mark here that you should create extra long video of "garbage" and have that represent your brand - one step forward with at least one step back.
The question that I have in this specific situation is "Can Oscars.com even handle the extra traffic?" that something like this would bring it if it works. My gut says no.
I don't have the solution but the idea for the Oscars to use YT as the hosting for it's clips and let it pay for the bandwidth and handle the traffic, is solid. Perhaps the Oscars can produce the clips on the fly with Sponsorship and then upload them to YT in different forms so that they control the quality and content of the clip and can create some revenues.
And PS Mark, I don't care one way or the other but could you just buy the cubs so that I don't have to read about it here anymore?
Posted at 8:28AM on Mar 1st 2007 by bromo98
30. It's the same with the music and movie business. By the time they figure out that M$ hoodwinked them into DRM (aka, CRAP) when they could have been "leaking" slices and then marketing the song online for a fraction of what DRM is costing them, it will be wayyy tooo late. In fact it probably already is with Apple in the lead and now Ruckus. Only in America, eh?
Posted at 10:26AM on Mar 1st 2007 by Jim
31. Your suggestion ignores the part where the Oscars failed to make more than a five minute highlight reel of the real ceremony available. People who were looking to see, for instance, the Jack Black/Will Ferrell song about being a commedian couldn't go to Oscars.com to satisfy their desire. They could go to Youtube or they could bug their friends who taped the show, but the MPAAS failed to provide a legitimate ad-supported or purchasable method of obtaining the content.
Posted at 1:18PM on Mar 1st 2007 by zvi
32. I agree mark, Your idea is genius!
- I would also think to contact, Google/Youtube 2 months before the oscars in hopes of reaching a deal, where YouTube could host every video uploaded plus whatever they wanted from the HD cameras that are recording the oscars ... etc. (Surely the deal would pay more than the adverts on Oscars.com)
- But if that didn't work out, I would for sure, start that little "army" of video slicers and uploaders! - I did it long ago with registering Yahoo Id's richardbowles001 - richardbowles099 this was to game some old yahoo games.. etc. Anyways create 500 youtube id's and then start slicing and dicing and uploading! .. I would even do some practice runs! lol
Rbowles
Posted at 1:59PM on Mar 1st 2007 by Pallet Rack
33. So this post actually got me thinking how oscar.com is and has made a really bad mistake. So I wrote about it on my blog. You Tube really should be the #1 place a company or marketing team should focus on if they want to get their video's watched widespread AND if they had done the same thing as NBC did, they could control their own video content and manage what get's seen.
34. It seems to me there must be a middle ground. Allowing YouTube to control your brand doesn't make sense. But not allowing YouTube to post your content doesn't make sense either.
Can big media not accept that YouTube actually helps their traffic flow? Allowing to post pieces of their work guides people to additional offerings from that organization, whether it is media or some other kind of corporation. And YouTube allows organization's to spread their message in another way. Posting strategic clips also can help organizations.
I appreciate the discussion.
35. Dont agree.......music companies have already tried this tactic on kazaa and limewire and all the other p2p servers. certainly not an original idea. for every twenty interns you hire there will be twice as many bored college students who will post the real deal just to spite you. people are not going click on a link to go to your site to buy your movie. the reason they are on youtube is to get it free. if they cant get it free then they will go look at something else.
Posted at 4:53PM on Mar 1st 2007 by ryan
36. Doran and I, co-hosts of the show, Digital Village Saturdays 10-11AM, KPFK 90.7FM) which has been broadcast from for 12 years now, have been saying basically the same thing you just did for about a decade now. Few have listened. Hopefully, due to your name recognition many more will do so now. Thanks, Ric
37. OR content providers can provide content specific to YouTube's audience via the full length clips, w/ YouTube's Ad embeded technology.
Why are the old school media companies so arrogant and greedy? I just don't understand. It is like they don't realize how to maximize their gain.
DRIVING TRAFFIC AWAY FROM YOUTUBE DOES NOT WORK. The content needs to be contained, and easy for the audience. Youtube's viewers are there to see YouTube videos, not get redirected to a more compersome complicated old media site where they have to watch a 15-20sec ad before they see a video 1 minute long.
EVERYONE INVOLVED WITH OLD MEDIA NEEDS TO GET WITH THE PROGRAM. even you.
38. This sounds great, but I know that you are smart enough to realize that if people actually did this it would sabotage the YouTube portal. It would convolude their library and drive away traffic. Now of course Google would allocate resources to take down your 100 videos of cat hissing, but at some point they would work to change their model. The continual uploading of "trick" videos is not a long term solution to online media distribution.
As far as not letting others that are out of your control manage your distribution.....How do you feel about Comcast, Time Warner, DirectTV etc...They are often not serving the interests of HDNet or any other content provider, yet everyone knows that they are a necessary component for feeding viewers with your content.
Mark, I know its frustrating to see YouTube profit off of a model that seems so flawed. How did these two guys rise to the top despite blatant distribution of copyrighted material. If you ask me, they got really really lucky to pass off this mess to Google and cash out with billions. Mark I can sense that it bothers you on several levels that they are still getting away with this. It doesn't make sense. The big companies and our judicial system just don't think the way you (and I) do. They don't see the critical flaws of their systems and nor do they see the obvious workarounds and loopholes. It is people like you (us) who see these visions and can actually push out society in a positive direction. Its just a lot easier to do this was a couple $B in your pocket.
39. Another great post, and a take on the issue that seems pretty "obvious", yet is counter to how corporate America sees it. You're dead-on when you say Google and Youtube don't care what you post, and they have to handle and pay for all the bandwidth to play all these videos. Companies should take advantage of the free "airwave" (bandwidth) to get their company name and message out. Bravo on another great post.
40. Now YOU get it.
Power to the people Mark.
You are making the new 800# gorilla smile.
If you can't beat em, join em, and kill em with kindness.
Posted at 6:23PM on Mar 4th 2007 by gary
21. I don't think the Oscars should resort to spamming. There is an easier way to get attention, make your site a destination worth going to. Put up some teasers (maybe some exclusive composite clips) with a MORE AT OSCARS.COM splash at the end. Not a 10 minute splash, just a friendly note. Then at Oscars.com have a really nice site with high-quality videos that are easy to link to, embed and email. Most of the time content producers put up their videos in the most hard to access fashion. On my Mac I usually can't even view them. YouTube is popular because it's easy.
I just went to their website and the videos are pretty good quality, but you can't even link to them. That's no fun. There's also not much to choose from, none of the good moments (not that there were many!). Very underwhelming.
Posted at 6:23PM on Feb 28th 2007 by Jon Gales