Posts for 'YouTube'

I think Playtex is going to score big time with its humorous new ad campaign entitled "Girl Talk."

The essence of the campaign is summed up below:

"We uncovered that women of all shapes and sizes talk about their bras and breasts in funny, witty and candid ways," said Vicki Seawright, marketing director for Playtex intimate apparel, which is part of Winston-Salem-based Hanesbrands Inc.

The ads will showcase women having funny, honest chats about their breasts, including using nicknames for their breasts intended only for the privacy of their own conversations. (You now see the voyeuristic aspect of the campaign)

Playtex intends to use conventional TV and magazine buys, but supplement or "support" as the company said, with YouTube video and American Greetings e-cards.

Here's my bet: this campaign is going to launch some uproariously funny video spoofs on YouTube. And you know what: Playtex is going to love them all. In the age of viral video-enhanced brand marketing campaigns, Playtex is taking a smart approach. By having fun with their marketing and opening the door for others to do so as well, they dramatically enhance the chances of breaking this campaign out of the clutter and getting big time buzz. In short, this campaign seems well-positioned to be an advertising triumph. Let's see.

WSJ reported today that DailyMotion, the French video sharing site, has raised $34 million in a round led by Advent Venture Partners LLP of London and AGF Private Equity. This financing adds to a wave of capital that has poured into the overall ad-supported video sharing/video aggregator platform space in the last few months.

Companies that I think fit in this group that have recently raised big money are Joost ($45 million), Veoh ($26 million), Metacafe ($30 million) and blip.tv ($10 million). Hulu, the NBC-News Corp JV which raised $100 million could even be considered in this category. And thinking a little more broadly you could include sites like Heavy.com, Break, Vuguru, Next New Networks, DaveTV, Babelgum, BitTorrent and others which are creating and/or aggregating broadband programming.

To be fair, each of these companies has a slightly different approach to their content strategy (pure aggregation vs. original development vs. hybrids), market positioning and technology capabilities. However, as best I can tell, they're all trying to offer distinctive video content into broadband-only delivery networks and to one extent or another, surround this programming with interactive tools. The intended result is unique viewing experiences.

In the aggregator roles they play, they're muscling themselves into the market owned by traditional video distributors like cable and satellite operators, and more recently telcos. These new companies are all very interesting to watch because ultimately they must do at least 3 things to generate traffic and revenue: (1) differentiate themselves from each other, (2) add value to content providers/producers relative to CPs/producers relying solely on a direct-to-consumer approach and (3) shift viewing time from the traditional distributors' programming to their own.

Any one of these would be a pretty high hurdle to get over. Doing all three will be even tougher. Yet a lot of smart money keeps backing these companies, further demonstrating how hot this overall category is -- and how quickly it could become overfunded. But I don't expect things to cool down any time soon. We can expect further funding in this space as investors clamor to get a piece of the action in broadband video.

Today’s announcement from NBC and News Corp, that they have set up a venture to distribute full length programs plus promotional clips through 4 major distributors (with more to come) heralds a potentially new, and radically different era, for the broadcast, and possibly the cable TV industries.

In one fell swoop, 2 of the major broadcast networks have granted distribution rights to four of the Internet’s most-trafficked sites. If one assumes that it is inevitable that the broadband/PC world will be linked up with consumers’ living room TVs (whether through AppleTVs, Xboxes, Slingcatchers, etc.), then it sure seems to me as though we are on the brink of seeing a full-scale digital replica of the analog broadcast TV affiliate model being born. If that’s the case, what does that mean for existing players, most notably local broadcast TV stations? And how about cable TV and satellite operators, who have long relied on retransmitting high-quality feeds local broadcast feeds of network programming as a staple of their value proposition?

I’ve been writing about how the video distribution value chain is being impacted by broadband video for a while now. My March 2006 newsletter, “How Broadband is Changing Video Distribution” recapped my firm’s Q1 2006 report, “How Broadband is Creating a New Generation of Video Distributors: The Market Opportunity for Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL, Apple and Others”. In this report we identified these companies as a so-called ‘Group of 5” which were best-positioned to benefit as new broadband-centric distributors and explained our reasons for this conclusion.

Flash forward one year. Today’s announcement cements the distribution heft of 3 of the 5 (Yahoo, MSN and AOL). Meanwhile, Google’s acquisition of YouTube has strengthened its distribution prowess. If it can build on initial partnerships with the many content providers with which it works, its power will only grow. And of course, Apple now boasts almost 60 TV networks and content producers providing programming to iTunes. Its launch of AppleTV strengthens its hand as the hardware provider-of-choice in linking up the broadband and TV worlds.

We’re exploring all of this in a report we’re (quite coincidentally) working on right now, which examines broadband’s impact on the video distribution value chain. It both updates the Q1 2006 report, and also expands it to include the roles of emerging players such as Joost, BitTorrent, Wal-Mart and others. We’ve been very fortunate to have access to many of the players in the space to gain unparalleled insights into their plans. The report is due out soon. I’ll keep you posted on its progress.

Was of course Viacom's $1 billion suit against Google. I must say, all eyes are riveted on this one. My take is that it's hard to believe there isn't a business deal to be made between these two companies that wouldn't be better for both than having the lawyers slugging it out.

Sure YouTube traffic is up since pulling down many of the Viacom clips, but really what does that prove except that YouTube's rapid growth rate can compensate for these kinds of hiccups? For YouTube to maintain its position as the ultimate video destination, it can't afford to have gaps in its clips springing up here and there. So it should be motivated to make a deal, not just with Viacom, but with all big media companies.

As for Viacom, it's inconceivable to me that they are better off not being a part of YouTube. Exhibit A is the free promotion and exposure The Daily Show has received over the last year from YouTube. Viacom's going to have to lock a muzzle on Jon Stewart to prevent him from lambasting his corporate parent's decision.

None of us knows how courts will interpret the DMCA in this case. The legal scholars' comments I've followed this week certainly don't form a consensus. So I continue to believe, as I wrote about last November ("Big Media's Most Vexing Challenge"), that big media companies' traditional copyright control mentalities are causing them to underoptimize their broadband opportunities. The sooner they loosen their traditional copyright approaches, the sooner they'll be able to fully exploit broadband's potential.

Lots of scorn flying around the net this week criticizing Oscar's takedown notices to YouTube combined with their miserly video offering at their own site. I'm just going to pile on here. What's happening is totally consistent with the findings of our Q4 '06 report on the broadcast industry and broadband video. A key conclusion of that report was that today networks look at broadband as essentially a new distribution path for existing shows. The 2 options are consumer paid downloads (dominated by iTunes) and free streaming episodes.

What they haven't done yet is create robust clip areas complete with interactivity. This area has been dominated by YouTube and others. As I said in Variety, as a result of networks' inactivity, a vacuum has been created which YouTube is filling. Consumers want clips and they want to interact. The networks should be creating these offerings on their own sites. And they should be working with YouTube. But to do neither is ostrich-like. Their inactions suggest they just wish this whole broadband/community thing would just pass already.

Well not quite yet, as the lawsuits are not yet flying. But we're getting there. After some flip-flopping on this last fall, today Viacom officially told YouTube to take down its clips, reputed to number over 100,000. Obviously you'd need to be involved in these negotiations to know the details of what the offers and counter-offers have been, but it's a disappointment for both parties not to be able to work things out.

As I wrote back in November, "Big Media's Most Vexing Challenge (and How to Overcome It)", companies like Viacom are going through a painful adjustment process to the new broadband-dominated world. This flare-up with YouTube is yet another example.

Chicago Tribune article suggests that user generated content producers being paid for their works will soon be ubiquitous. Of course Revver and others have been doing this for a while now. Steven Starr from Revver raises the “recognition vs. reward” question that undoubtedly passes through any UGC producer’s mind.

I’ve said for a while that if someone had laid the YouTube business plan next to the Revver business plan back in 2005, logic would have suggested that Revver would have better prospects given its willingness to share revenues with producers (thereby creating more incentive to post there).

However, what would have been missing from that logic would be the 2 things that I believe made YouTube an early (and big) winner – namely its willingness to push the envelope in allowing copyrighted material to be posted on its site and its superior user experience. Having won the first battle, YouTube appears poised to overlay the financial incentive long missing for content producers. If well-executed, this should make the landscape even tougher for all the others to succeed.