YouTube

Tonight on CNBC, Donny "I like to hold my glasses to look smart" Deutsch had "Internet Nobodies to Instant Celebs" on. He tries to come across as someone who really understands the Internet. No idea if it's for real or just a show.

I am guessing this will be on CNBC International or on YouTube at some point. (actually if you are on the west coast it's on at 10pm I understand and 12am on the east coast)

The guests on the show included:

• The two mentos guys - $35k in revenue from the videos so far
• Lisa Donovan - "used YouTube to become a star" (she had the longest segment by far)
• Liam Sullivan - "created comedy shows on YouTube and now gets paid by iTunes
• Gary Broslsma - "created Numa Numa on YouTube" - 15 million plays
• Brooke Parkhurst - turned blog into a book deal and a Conde Nast Deal
• Amanda Congdon - her segment was literally 90 seconds max - considering she hyped the heck out of this, it must be a shock to her about what they actually showed.
• John Vesely - was able to turn a MySpace album into a best-selling album with over 18 million plays on MySpace
• Brent Weinstein - his firm UTA is looking for online talent to help make people into celebs (they represent Ask A Ninja)

Overall, I thought the show was well done but could have used another 30-60 minutes as it felt very rushed. Give these people a chance to explain how they did what they did, but more importantly what they are doing now and where they are going.

Also, I think we all need to remember our audience. I just can't speak about this enough. When you get the chance to sit on TV in the real world, make sure you remember that most people watching are not Internet geeks. I can only guess that the name Nick Denton means nothing to most CNBC viewers.

CNN is reporting that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) will soon shut down overseas troop access to popular web sites including MySpace and YouTube. Looks like the new policy will take effect beginning today.

The article notes, "The policy is being implemented to protect information and reduce drag on the department's networks, according to Bell.

"This recreational traffic impacts our official DoD network and bandwidth ability, while posing a significant operational security challenge," the memo said."

It is important to note that soldiers can still access these sites on their own computer and network but most of the networks overseas are DoD networks.

CNN lists the banned sites as:

• YouTube
• Metacafe
• IFilm
• StupidVideos
• FileCabi
• MySpace
• BlackPlanet
• Hi5
• Pandora
• Photobucket
• MTV
• 1.fm
• Live365

I say shame. These men and women are busting their butt everyday and when they get 5 minutes of relaxation, why shouldn't they be able to watch a funny video on YouTube, edit their MySpace profile with new pictures or more importantly view their families pictures on Photobucket. Of course, there are plenty of ways around these filters and I am guessing that we will see some sites crop up quickly which help soldiers still access what they want to.

If some communications giant (Comcast, AT&T, etc.), they would create some way for soldiers to access these sites using their networks. Might be a great PR story.

Just received a press release from the new "premium" online video service from News Corp. and NBC Universal. After the buzz in March, April seemed pretty quiet for the venture. Today they are announcing that CNET Networks has signed a multi-year content and distribution deal.

From the release:

"A pioneering online media company, CNET Networks has long understood the value of creating richer, more authentic experiences online," said George Kliavkoff, Chief Digital Officer, NBC Universal and interim CEO of the joint venture. "We are delighted that they will be joining us as both a content provider and distributor, ensuring that we continue to add to the depth and breadth of premium video available on our site and on our video network. In addition, we further extend the reach of our protected content to their highly engaged user base."

"CNET Networks is proud to be the first online-focused content company to offer its original video to this new venture," said Neil Ashe, CEO of CNET Networks. "We are excited to bring video from NBC Universal, Fox, and other high-quality content providers to our users. This relationship further demonstrates our commitment to creating an engaging online experience at our market-leading brands."

While I don't visit CNET like I did in the '90s, this should certainly help their visibility. I am really looking forward to this new video service. While it won't compete directly with YouTube, it might start to give me what I want in television online.

Additionally they note, "The News Corporation and NBC Universal venture's content will be distributed via some of the most popular sites on the Web, including AOL, MSN, MySpace, Yahoo and Comcast. The new NBCU/News Corp. joint venture will have offices in Los Angeles and New York. Permanent management and corporate branding will be announced shortly."

At last nights NY Video 2.0 Meetup, AOL demo'ed their new video portal. While some of the content is AOL-specific, most of the videos listed come from other video sites including YouTube. A few questions were asked of the speaker regarding payment to the content producer and the video hoster. He noted that he is a product guy not a finance guy so we did not get any answers. Then there was a discussion about what AOL gives to the video hosting site, it seems to be that they send traffic to them. Or do they?

When Shay from Kaltura presented, he started by sharing a popular ratio, "1% produce 9% might comment, 89% sit back and watch". So this means that 89% just watch. So if someone finds a video from XYZ producer that is hosted on YouTube, but embedded into AOL, what does YouTube really get out of the transaction if the user only watches?

I am not picking on AOL, just using them as an example as it's the most recent one for me. Lots of video sites are doing this. And my question is when are the video hosting companies (YouTube, Viddler, etc.) going to look to monetize the embed?

Let's think about it. I upload a video to YouTube. YouTube displays it. 100 sites embed it and then monetize the page that my video is on. Since we know that most will watch but not go to YouTube, what does YT get in this overall transaction?

My guess is that we will start to see ads within the embeddable players by years end (actually 3Q seems reasonable). Frankly AOL should be returning a portion of their income to the video creator and to the hosting service. So AOL has two choices I see for this future embeddable player:

1. Pay the video hosting service a fee to provide the player on their site
2. Allow ads within the embeddable player

I see non-commercial sites still being able to offer the player at no cost or advertising. Am I offbase? Remember to think with a financial mindset where companies (not mom's blog) need to make a profit to continue operations.

Could the same thing happen with RSS? Maybe.

Israeli startup SuTree launched their site in Beta earlier this week. The site offers a repository for how-to videos, video lessons and training and tutorial videos. So far they have over 5,000 listed in about twenty categories. What I like is that you can rate and comment on each listing.

Kristen from Mashable noted about their community aspects, "While you can register for a SuTree account, their site could fully operate without this process. There are no user profiles, no way to search by username, and no way to create a playlist from your favorite videos. Bulking out the community aspects of SuTree would help immensely for the service they aim to provide."

I think the site works pretty well but can use the improvements that Kristen notes. For some reason in IE, I also get prompted on each page to install the Hebrew language.

They have pages setup for most popular, newly created and most viewed. These are important elements for a rating site. From an advertising perspective, I think they would probably do better with the Google Adsense if it was either on the right or inside the content.

The key for a site like SuTree is to make sure they have videos in as many categories as possible so users keep coming back. Also, making sure that users vote and comment on the videos is important. My last suggestion is to enable an option so that the video content creator is notified when a SuTree user posts a comment or vote on one of the creator's videos.

Viddler, a video sharing service, has been upgraded to version 2 which launched early this morning. They have a video that shows that they launched the changes at about 2am this morning.

There is no post yet about the upgrades so I am working off memory here...

• Viddler logo on the video - I thought they should have done this from the beginning because branding in this space is critical
• Cleaned up a bit of the interface, now when you mouseover the video, you get a toolbar with the embed, email, etc.
• You can now comment on a video itself vs. just the timed commenting
• They have added a new icon bar which I am not sure if travels with the video but you can flag a video, blog, etc. Actually I think this is just on the Viddler site itself
• Also on the Viddler site there are some other design changes including a large number showing how many videos you have uploaded probably in some attempt to get you to upload more :)

UPDATE: Colin, the Viddler evangelist let me know that I have missed a ton of other new features. I apologize to my readers for missing these items. Here are the other features Colin sent over:

• Video commenting on the timeline.
• Global comments
• Social tagging
• RSS feeds
• Ability to download RAW source files (such as MPEG, MOV, etc)
• Play all is cool
• Featured, Most discussed, most favorited - all new
• Flickr and Twitter integration
• Brand new flash player
• Share this and blog this
• Timed comment voting

Lastly it looks like the videos already out there have been upgraded with no code change. That's great because changing code sucks. You can check out the upgrades on the Viddler site or check out my TapeFailure video.

Alrighty, so everyone and their mother have covered Justin.tv. My friend Jeremiah did a video interview with Justin and has about 40 facts that people may not know about Justin. SFGate also has an extensive piece about Justin.tv. Josh at Cnet has a writeup as well. So here are some of my thoughts and comments.

1. Who the F cares?

People are hooked on this now... but will they in a month, in a year? I doubt it. I also doubt that Justin can do it for a year or more. Naturally since he is in San Fran, he will get invited to every party, be on every video show, etc. But once it's done once, will it keep up? I question the longevity. But Justin will be a nice rich Yale graduate before it's all done. Can't fault him for that.

2. Is it really a live twitter?

So we know that twitter allows us to post when we poop, post when we date, post our cat photo. Justin.tv is a live version of this. Why read that you just took out the trash, when you can watch it!

3. This is like a live Big Brother

Big Brother's tv show (seen in many countries) is very addicting. Why? Because people want to see the fights, the drama. Will Justin.tv be able to provide that "drama" in some fashion? Seeing Justin eat his cheerios or put on his underoos won't keep the audience coming back over and over. Now give me a fight between Aisylene and Imogen and I will watch all day!

4. Archive

This show needs an archive. In say thirty-minute segments. This is a Tivo generation. We need to be able to rewind, fast forward, pause Justin's life. Oh yea, and add some Viddler timed tagging/commenting love.

Final Summary

In the end, it's good fun. It's like the milliondollarhomepage, it will work once. Actually it will probably work once for a woman as well. But that's it. If I strap a camera to my head, no one will watch.

Are you watching? If so, why?

Its days like today that make me love the tech industry. No sooner than the news of the Fox/NBC video platform hit, tongues around the business wagged as if Paris and Nicole had reunited as friends and paparazzi were speeding behind them after they lunched at the Ivy. Gossip and opinions blazed across blogs, message boards lit up like the 101 in heavy traffic. The YouTube Killer! Fox/NBC Join Forces! It had all the trimmings of an Us Weekly drama (minus the stint in rehab). I love buzz as much as the next business girl, but let’s keep things into perspective.

The first thing that came to my mind was “why?’ Two big entities that could own the web alone if they were wise suddenly join forces…for what? I know there has to be a just cause (other competition? Cable companies?) but even my best guesses can’t seem to shake the this-really-isn’t-necessary feel of it. If two people in a garage can build something that’s now competing with them, two giants with plenty of investment capital should be able to do it without holding hands.

Not that it matters, really. Google’s got as much money as they do with a better handle on what’s now and what’s next, two things you need to survive in the market. Nobody knows the internet business like internet business, and that puts all of us – not just Google – at an advantage in the market. I’ve done production and believe me, they’ve got it to a money-making science, but when it comes to the web? I’m not convinced that they understand the user or the unique arena the web has created. Moves made by the topmost players from Hollywood somehow feel nervous and reactive, and they’re following versus leading – that’s the kind of stuff that’ll get you killed on the information highway.

In order for Hollywood to shake the IP channel, it needs to shake its dependency on ‘safe’ and proven process and trim away some of the fat that makes it slow to move and sluggish. All the lawsuits and aggressive moves at the helm mean little ship itself is too big to navigate the water and it’s probably the most heavy-laden industry I’ve ever worked in. Between the labyrinth of junior level assistants and middle handlers, it’s not a surprise that giant, creative companies dedicated to entertaining us are being kicked down by nobodies like LonelyGirl15. It’s not enough to have the interns pouring over YouTube clips to find what’s working – you need to have that kind of touch yourself.

News Corp bought into the web. Google/YouTube was built out of it and at the end of the day, that’s going to make a difference. This won’t be a battle of who has the most muscle or cash, but of who has the most wits. Google’s stock was at $450 a share today. News Corp? $24.75. So far, I’m putting my money on the geeks.

Editor's note: This article was provided by Patricia Handschiegel, Founder StyleDiary.net

With all of this talk about YouTube, NewTube, video platforms, user-generated content, etc., etc., etc., I thought I would take a stab at what I want from tv/video/etc. So, if I could have my way (don't worry it has never happened yet), here are the things I would like in a "produced" platform. I will be leaving out your cat videos. Sorry Fluffy.

So here goes:

I want to get rid of my Dish Network satellite dish. I know that some of the channels subsidize others, but of the now "200 channel" plan, maybe I watch 20 of them. Not ION, BET, Speed, TCM, FitTV, QVC, HSN, etc.

I want to order channels a-la-carte or in packages (sports, news, etc.) from anywhere in the world. I enjoy British programming but I can't see it at home. And one of my friends loves Elvis - why not let him see tv from the US?

I want to be able to record shows that are live (dvr) and I want to be able to edit the shows that I recorded. Just want to see one part of Office Space, you can cut it out.

I want to watch shows live as they are now on TV, and then be able to call them up on demand.

I want to be able to watch old shows whenever I want.

I want to be able to access my shows from anywhere... laptop, desktop, hotel tv, iPod, Zune, bar tv, airplane monitor (ok maybe not the last one).

I want to get live tv for free with required commercials.

I want to pay for the past shows and archives and have no commercials.

I want videoblogs and podcasts to be offered this on this platform.

I want all of this to be delivered either by cable or by wireless.

I want to be able to create playlists that I can share with my friends.

I want to be able to Twitter what I am watching currently.

I want a channel dedicated to commercials - not infomercials, but company commercials. This channel will offer me credits towards my bill for watching.

I want to be able to tag shows I watch - ala Viddler-style.

I want to be able to favorite shows I like.

I want to be able to embed timed clips on my site (or anywhere) - these clips can link back to the service and can serve an ad.

So there are some of the things I want in a video system... what do you want?

Last week Viacom announced that they are suing Google's YouTube for $1 billion dollars. Today we learn that Fox/NBC are looking at creating a media site (tv and movies) and some potential content from users. Good discussion across the 'sphere including Mashable, Valleywag and TechCrunch.

Mike notes, "This won’t be a direct YouTube competitor in that the focus will be on distribution of content to third party sites: deals may already be in place with Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL and News Corp.’s MySpace. There may or may not be a dedicated website for this content as well."

Valleywag says, "Google's online video site could soon look -- but for amateur videos, cat pratfalls and marketing stunts -- rather barren."

So why should we care if YouTube starts to fall apart? A few reasons... first is the investor community. If the investors in Google start to believe that the 1.5 billion was a wasted purchase, this will most likely affect the stock. And honestly, I believe as Google goes, we all go. Investors only care about return (nothing else) and if less videos = less revenue opportunities, then less revenue will follow.

This is important because if investors start to believe the Internet cannot hold the revenue expectations, then some may start to back away from it as an investment choice. And this is part of what lead to the burst at the beginning of this century.

Where will YouTube end up? Easy. They will be a user-generated content site. Is that so bad? No. Is it worth 1.5 b? No.

I still believe Google should have kept YouTube and mass media separate. They could have leveraged their Video platform for the "big boys" and kept YouTube as it was.

So here is the question... will Google (who owns the Internet) be able to beat Fox/NBC (who own the airwaves) for the crown of online video. I still want to be able to pick what I want to watch from anywhere in the world. I want worldwide ala carte service streamed to me.