YouTube's Challengers Mount ... Are Real ... And Are Scary

YouTube -- the 800 pound King Kong video gorilla -- is increasingly under attack at every turn as it struggles to climb to further heights (here is my previous "must read" post, analysis and scorecard of the growing list of challengers).  And, since the last time I wrote at length -- less than 2 months ago -- those challengers mount and become evermore formidable.

Most significantly, Facebook, which is now part of every conversation.  Though focusing in earnest on video only a short time ago, Facebook already now drives more than 3 billion views daily (65% of which are on mobile devices)!  To put a further exclamation point on this eye-popping fact, white-hot "much-more-than-MCN" digital media company Jukin' Media tells me that, "it took 3 months to achieve the same scale on Facebook that took 3 years on YouTube" for its video content.  Just chew on that one a bit ....

And, to fuel continued mass adoption, Facebook just this past week erased one of its leading inhibitors -- its lack of an embeddable video player.  Now check that box -- Facebook has that too.  Make no mistake, Facebook also is fully immersed in the premium video content game, also just announcing major new partnerships with A+ Hollywood players including the likes of ESPN and mega-director JJ Abrams.

But, Facebook is not the only mega-social media threat to YouTube.  Try on both Snapchat and Twitter for size.

Snapchat -- of all major social networks -- appeals the most (by far!) to the demographic that matters most to marketers.  The young and the restless.  71% of Snapchat's U.S. users are 18-34 (45% fall into the 18-24% range) (here's a "must see" chart from Re/Code that lays it all out graphically) -- and those factoids (and its youth-quake reality) don't even capture Snapchat users under the age of 18!  And, I know from personal experience (I am the father of a 15 and 12 year old, after all) that Snapchat -- together with Instagram -- are the social networks of choice.  My two kids -- and the entire population we see -- consume Snapchat feverishly (and increasingly for video).

And then there's Twitter, which increasingly focuses on video and, to that point, just released its own "Meerkat Killer" -- a live video streaming app called Periscope.  Live streaming has become a major new battleground in the video wars (and Meerkat -- a company you definitely should know -- isn't simply standing around as Twitter challenges its recent dominance).

So many other categories of companies -- and mega-players -- who hope to de-throne YouTube.  And, so much time (since we are still in the early innings of OTT video).  Best to review all them via my earlier detailed analysis.

YouTube certainly isn't going away anytime soon.  I fully expect it to be "here to stay" for the long haul and a continuing massive player in the overall wonderful world of video.  But, YouTube certainly isn't the only game in town anymore.

Much like the relentless stalking character in the new movie "It Follows" (which I hope to see later today), Facebook and some other players are closing in ... and are downright frightening ....

YouTube V. Facebook, Amazon, Apple - Clash of the Video Titans (& The Role of DNA)

It's a wrap for the Digital Entertainment World (DEW) Expo in LA -- a conference in its second year that celebrates precisely what is happening now in the media & entertainment business -- which is what most call "disruption."  But, I call it "transformation" -- a positive (but authentic, real) "take" on the massive new opportunities to reach, build, and effectively engage with, an audience in our increasingly multi-platform world ... well, at least for those who accept new realities and have the resolve to act.

Yesterday, I moderated an "all about MCNs" panel with nothing but A-list executive talent.  But, MCNs are just one part of the overall digital-first video ecosystem that is at the center of the fundamental media and entertainment transformation in which we find ourselves -- an ecosystem that was birthed by YouTube, which remains the "mother of all video platforms."

Now, for the first time, even mother YouTube faces what seemed to be almost unthinkable just one year ago -- i.e., real formidable challengers.  THESE are the conversations that took place at DEW.  On the stages ... and, even more importantly in the bars of the Hyatt Hotel where liquor flowed and candid discussions followed.

YouTube "challengers" are everywhere.  And many loudly preach (more like screech) their "alternative platform" gospel to every would-be believer.

Who are these contenders?

Well, you have your primarily short-form video-focused MCNs about which I write regularly.  Leaders include broad-based Maker Studios (now owned by Disney), Fullscreen (now owned by Otter Media, the JV of AT&T and The Chernin Group) and Collective Digital Studio; fashion/beauty young female-focused StyleHaul (now essentially owned by Euro-based media company RTL Group); young male gamer-focused Machinima; foodie-focused Tastemade; sports-focused Whistle Sports; Latino-focused Mitu; urban-focused All Def Digital (with the perfect acronym ADD for our short "bite-sized" vid world); and dance-focused DanceOn.  All of these now actively look to find their audiences on as many "off YouTube" platforms as possible.

Next you have young OTT/MCN upstarts like high-profile Vessel which punches above its weight and hopes to open subscription-based distribution exclusivity windows while others (Netflix) try to slam them shut.

You also have social sharing sites like Twitter and increasingly Snapchat.  Snapchat, a media company?  Really?  Just discover "Discover."  And talk to the CEOs from the leading MCNs.  Snapchat matters. A lot.

You now even have your major brands that advertise on all of these platforms.  Lifestyle brands Red Bull and GoPro aim to be your first-choice destination for a certain, specific action/adventure segment of short-form video content that historically has found its home on YouTube.

Then, you have your established major OTTs like Netflix and Hulu who -- at least up to this point -- focus instead almost exclusively on longer-form motion picture and television content.  That will change over time.  It is inevitable.  Each must play more effectively in the mobile space -- and that means short-form video content.  Just trust me on this one.

You also have your major carriers like AT&T (via its Otter Media partnership with The Chernin Group) and Verizon (via the OnCue OTT platform that it acquired from Intel) getting into the OTT game with their own major plays.

And, of course, you have your more "traditional" cable/satellite companies entering the fray (case in point, Dish Networks' surprisingly heavily-discussed new Sling TV service which is getting real "buzz" here at DEW for what it represents).

But, YouTube's biggest challenger right now in the minds of those at DEW clearly is Facebook.  The votes are unanimous there.  Less obvious -- but real, very real -- are the other two 800 pound gorillas known as Amazon and Apple.

When considering the media ambitions of all 4 behemoths -- YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, Apple -- consider this.  While each of their ultimate video ambitions are roughly the same (essentially to "own it all" -- both short form and long form video), their individual core DNA is not.  And, that unique individualized DNA colors each company's particular video offering and opportunity, as well as the video opportunity for both brands and those who buy from them (in other words, us).

To understand what I mean in this DNA discussion of genetics, first, let's recap.

YouTube is a video destination first and foremost.  It was built for our viewing pleasure.  Plain and simple.  Yes, we can (and do) share videos.  But, we primarily come here to find something of interest and watch.  Passively.  And, YouTube makes money from ads served against that watching.

Facebook -- the video challenger on everyone's lips at DEW -- has fundamentally different DNA.  Facebook is all about sharing.  We go to Facebook to share pieces of our lives and pick up the breadcrumbs of others.  Yes, we can (and do) watch videos.  But, we primarily come here (at least up to this point) to share.  Actively.  And, so while Facebook, like YouTube, makes money primarily from serving ads, the path to (and mindset of) engagement with those ads is very different.  And, the numbers related to engagement bear this out.  Check out this excellent analysis from Advertising Age to take a look behind the curtain.

How about Amazon?  NOT a YouTube competitor, you say?  Don't be fooled.  Amazon wants to own it all.  Yes, Amazon Prime is front and center with its premium long-form movies and television.  But, take a closer look.  That's right, there it is -- something called "Amazon Shorts" that looks a lot like YouTube.  So, now we increasingly watch videos on Amazon.  But, let's face it, we still primarily come to shop, because Amazon's core DNA is commerce.  And, Amazon's differentiated genetics put it in a unique position to effectively monetize videos through commerce.  Videos serve as a marketing spend -- digital billboards that drive us into its virtual store.  Intriguing.  Very.

And then there's Apple .... don't forget this $700 billion juggernaut, of course, because although it has laid largely dormant on the video side (causing all of us to occasionally scratch our heads), let's not forget that little thing called iTunes.  And, reports just recently surfaced, once again, that Apple hopes to launch its own OTT streaming service to become our video platform of choice.  Speculation abounds that Apple's OTT play may be akin to DISH's stripped-down programming bundle approach known as Sling TV.

But, here's my guess.  Apple will not launch its OTT service unless and until its OTT package includes ESPN -- THE critical pay TV ingredient.  And, let's not forget that small little detail that Apple has a long and uniquely cozy relationship with ESPN's owner (Disney) (Jobs/Pixar, anyone?).  If Apple were able to score ESPN (just like only iTunes scored The Beatles), that move alone would be a game-changer.

Why would Apple play in the "alternative YouTube" world?  Sure, incremental revenues are nice.  But, that's not it.  Instead, Apple's DNA reflexively drives its actions -- and Apple's core DNA is not like any of the others.  It is hardware pure and simple (Samsung shares that same DNA via Milk Video).  Apple makes its money by selling "cool" metal -- iPhones, iPads, iWatches and the inevitable iTV (and perhaps even ultimately the iTesla?).  We ride the video Trojan Horse into our neighborhood Apple Stores (in the same way Apple bought Beats Music to build it's music streaming Trojan Horse).

So many video players, and oh so little time.

YouTube.  What to do, what to do?  Well, for now, YouTube remains the "must be there" platform for creators.  We also are still very, very early in the overall digital video game.  So, while YouTube's ultimate market share will be chipped away, that reality will be countered by significantly (massively) more volume.  And, just like long-form video platforms like Amazon and Netflix increasingly play on YouTube's short-form turf, YouTube will play on their home courts and seek to steal share from the in the long-form video space.

After all, many of these players' ultimate vision is to own it all -- be your single destination for all your video needs -- short-form, long-form, and everything in between.

Pandora & Spotify -- 1 More Goliath Coming Your Way -- How Can You Win?

Last week I wrote about goliaths Google and Apple widely reported to be soon starting their own music subscription/streaming services to compete directly with Pandora, Spotify and the host of other "Davids."

Well, that ain't all.  Yesterday, just after Pandora and Spotify had wiped off the sweat from their collective brows and recovered from that news, it was reported that Twitter too likes music -- and plans to enter the fray, Tweet-style.

How can much smaller players like Pandora and Spotify "win" against this coming onslaught?

First, they must offer a significantly better and differentiated customer experience.  Their service simply must be the best.

Second, they must use every effort to optimize their economics as compared with the goliaths.  Most significantly, they must reduce overall COGS -- and that means, primarily, to minimize overall music licensing costs.  Here, the fact that these players are "smaller" should help them.  No music/content company wants to see Apple, Google or Twitter corner the subscription market a la Apple via iTune downloads.

Third, each must think outside of the (Pandora) box to offer a differentiated "experience" and differentiated customer engagement.  One example here is to bring their customer engagement into the physical/offline world -- "Outbox" music festivals for Pandora is just one such possibility (I wrote about this in my recent Huffington Post article titled "8 Ways to Maximize Live Sports & Music Revenues").

Sounds easy?  It ain't.  But, urgency creates opportunity ....

k(NOT)ted Vine -- Because Life Doesn't Happen In 6 Seconds ...

The digerati have essentially crowned Twitter's new "Instagram for Video" app, Vine, the King of all that is mobile video.

But, although I too have coo'd over Vine, let's not forget that it is first and foremost a public sharing app.  Its mandatory 6-second video rule -- while emancipating in some ways -- also is significantly restrictive in others ...

... particularly in the private mobile video sharing context -- a topic about which I have frequently written (including these two guest posts in TechCrunch): (1) Instagram for Video -- Massive Opportunity Yes!  Done Right No!; and Instagram for Video -- Music, Meaning and Moments Succeed Where Others Fail.

Vine IS the most compelling PUBLIC video sharing app right now -- which already is a huge claim to fame (and no small feat).

But, don't forget my earlier thoughts (laid out in detail in both of my TechCrunch pieces) about perhaps the biggest mobile video opportunity -- and, that is, PRIVATE secure sharing of life's special moments with family and friends.  In this context -- this incredibly important context from an overall monetization opportunity on a massive scale -- Vine does not cut it.  It just don't work.

Why?  Precisely because life does not happen in 6 seconds!  Recording your baby's first steps?  Then you better not use Vine because she or he may finally stop wobbling and take that first step on second 7 or 8!  And, poof!  That moment would be lost forever!

That's where mobile sharing without limits is absolutely critical.

So, while Vine is a compelling (perhaps most compelling) public sharing app, that' all that it is (which is enough for Twitter/Vine by the way ... they do have a built-in audience!).

For slices of life -- real life moments in time -- the market and massive opportunity is still up for grabs.

Don't Givit away.  Go grab it!

Vine -- The "Instagram for Video" Holy Grail? My Verdict

REVISED 1/25/13 at 3:55 pm PT

My TechCrunch guest post titled "Instagram for Video -- Music, Meaning & Moments Succeed Where Others Fail" -- went live this past weekend and generated a lot of interest in a topic that is obviously top of mind (judging by the over 600 retweets).  Bottom line -- the race to be the next "Instagram for Video" is on.

Since my post went live just a few days back, several important and relevant developments -- most notably, that Twitter's "Vine" video sharing app is live as of today and available via the App Store.  The screaming headlines are that Vine is video sharing made fun and easy -- all in 6 seconds (the mandatory length of videos that can be created).

No more.  No less.  6 seconds it is.  Take it or leave it.

So, how do I think Vine measures up -- especially with my inherent skepticism over this 6 second rule?

I was on a mission -- I had to know.  So, I downloaded the app.  Watched the video tutorial.  And was off to the races.

INSTANT "GUT REACTION"/VERDICT -- I LIKE IT (a lot more than I thought I would).  And, Vine definitely has the potential to be a big winner, especially with Twitter behind it (at the risk of stating the obvious).  It is a winner for the U/X as well.  Not sure this is the holy grail of mobile video (that is, THE Instagram for video), but it certainly is the Twitter for Video.  And, that alone is big news.

HITS

-- it is easy -- easy -- easy
-- makes brilliant HD videos
-- the auto editing feature works brilliantly
-- easy captioning -- critical for finding relevant videos
-- easy commenting -- highly social
-- video brevity could foster creativity -- jury is out
-- I can see how Vine could be addictive

MISSES

-- you can't record yourself when you hold your phone (i.e., you can't reverse the iPhone camera while you record) -- must touch the screen to record video with camera looking only forward
-- in fact, I couldn't find a way to share my Vine video with one-click -- if there is one, it certainly ain't intuitive
-- in fact, I tried searching my own name in Vine to see if I could share it that way, and my Vine profile didn't even show up when I typed in my first and last name (strange)
-- the mandatory "6 second rule" is limiting, even if it fosters creativity

On the last point -- which is perhaps THE critical U/X issue for Vine's success -- yes, I understand the "brevity is the soul of wit" rationale.  After all, Vine comes to you from the good folks of Twitter.  But, while Twitter has its maximum 140 character limit, there is no minimum.  There is here with Vine.

Being in the video business, I know another real-world justification for the 6-second rule (at least in terms of the maximum).  Video is an entirely different animal than still photos in terms of file size/data at play for two fundamental reasons: (1) streaming costs are involved; and (2) much more significantly, storage of all that video data (compared to stills) is expensive and fundamentally alters business models.  I wrote about these real-world considerations in a second TechCrunch piece.

Brevity, in video, is the soul of monetization wit (or at least the possibility of ever having a video sharing service justify itself with a real-world business model).

As indicated above, Vine is a great video Twitter.  But is it more?  Well, in my TechCrunch piece from this weekend, I identify two fundamental hurdles to mass adoption of a mobile video service: (1) navigation -- i.e., finding videos that "matter" to you; and (2) video "engagement" -- i.e., videos that are worthy of your limited time and attention span (via "communities of interest").  So, how does Vine faire in those two respects?

Vine solves the first problem by enabling the user to title their Vine video, so that the viewer can judge its relevance to them by more than a mere thumbnail.  In other words, Vine passes the first test.

But, how about test #2 -- engagement?  Here, the jury is obviously still out, because it all depends on how Vine is used.  Certainly, Vine videos conceptually can be organized around topics of mass interest - including the "communities of interest" I discuss in my TechCrunch piece (music, meaning, and moments).  It is simply too early to tell if that will be the case (but it is logical that it will be).  And, if this happens, then the folks at Twitter really got something here.

I DO believe that Vine is missing an obvious "mass appeal" use case right now, however -- and that is the video "soapbox" use case where someone with a personal following (e.g., lots of Twitter followers) could use Vine to spout off on any given topic for 6 seconds (and that person's Twitter followers would care).  As I understand things, this is simply essentially impossible now because the Vine user, as noted above, canNOT record themselves with the backward facing camera.

I would like that use case.  And, I know there are many others out there like me.

And, that means opportunity ....

500 Followers on Twitter -- A Personal Milestone

On the heels of my latest TechCrunch guest post (just pushed live earlier this morning), I just reached my personal Twitter milestone of 500 followers.

Now, I will try to have something meaningful (or at least somewhat entertaining) to say to you and them!

Thanks for reading.  I write a lot.  It takes a lot of time and thought (even if some times it doesn't seem like it).  Glad to know that there is an audience for it.  Otherwise, if a blog piece is written and there is no one there to read it, does it make a sound?