THIS BLOG HAS MOVED

Please visit us at No Permission

Return Of The Online Video Of The Living Dead

Over on his blog today, Kent Nichols of Ask A Ninja asks the all important question- "Is Online Video Dead?"

It's true that the real successes of web video series can be counted on one hand. But then we're still very early on in the game. The things people are trying now are different from what they were trying a year ago, or two years ago. It's a field that's still evolving, month by month. Different models come and go. Just because most of what's been tried hasn't worked doesn't mean that nothing can work.

In my opinion, the major problem is that most models aren't bold enough. No one is trying the full-on assault yet, everything is either aimed at being under the radar weird or boring mainstream. The same categories we've been with for years. Until we get new models that break out of those paradigms, we can't even proclaim the birth of online video, much less its death.

For me, the key thing to realize is that it's more than just production and distribution that have been democratized, it's the whole shebang. And the big success will come from a model that incorporates all aspects of the filmmaking business process, not just one or two.

Of course, that's really, really hard to do. Therein lies the adventure.

Fun And Games At BarCampLA

I spent last weekend at BarCampLA, an "un-conference" for technophiles. The BarCamp concept is that people from various computer related communities come together to talk about whatever interesting ideas they're exploring at the time. There's a number of sessions each day, and the sessions are presented by the attendees. No featured guests, the whole activity soup to nuts is organized and created by the community. It's a great idea, and in Los Angeles it's been working beautifully.

I don't know about other BarCamps, but in LA the community core seems to be very hacker-based, in most senses of the word hacker. You know the Gibson quote "The street finds its own uses for things"? Well, BarCampLA is mostly made up of that street. People using technologies in ways that weren't quite what they were designed for.

From Jay Bushman of the Loose-Fish Project telling stories via Twitter and Wikis to Dan Kaminsky breaking languages with language, from hi-rez cameras revealing the secret lives of automobile dashboards to genetic algorithms preparing to take over the world, BarCampers are finding new uses for lots of things.

Not to mention things like FlickrWall. Take a spare cell phone, combine with a prepaid sms card, a laptop, and a projector. Project the phone number on the wall and allow barcampers to text message Flickr tags to the system that then retrieves and projects images with those tags. Watch as people quickly try to wash out someone's "goatse" tag with "puppies" or "unicorns". It's a lot more social than you'd think, with a fun ebb and flow.

This was my second BarCamp, and both times I've come out refreshed and inspired. Making new connections between various technologies and thinking up new possibilites. Sign me up for the next one, and I might even head down to San Diego for their BarCamp in May!

Case Study of a Hit Viral Video

One offshoot of SoCal Film Group is Monkey With A Shotgun, a group formed for the purpose of making sketch comedy shorts for internet distribution. The name isn't just a moniker for the group, it's also a sort of operating philosophy. Make a lot of different stuff fast and hope to hit some target somewhere.

Over the last 6 weeks or so, Monkey's 20th video, Spanish For Your Nanny, has succeeded in hitting a target, and is approaching half a million views on the sites we track (and likely many more on sites we don't!). There's several reasons for the success of the video, but those are for a later post.

Instead, I'm going to look at how the video has spread and what that might indicate about the nature of a viral video.

All of Monkey's videos are posted to a variety of sites, about a dozen in all. We've found that there's no real way to predict which video will succeed on which site, so we post all our videos on all our sites. We've been featured on a number of them, but that always occurs at the whim of the site's editors, and isn't anything we rely on. While a featured spot on the front page of Yahoo or Myspace can certainly bring in a number of hits, it's usually a brief burst and doesn't seem to carry over to other sites very often (though it can provide an ancillary boost to our other videos on the same site).

In this case, we'd posted Nanny to the usual sites, and we were getting a bit more than the usual number of views, and the video had been "stolen" and posted on other sites a fair amount, but nothing really spectacular, outside of one site where we had been featured (JoeCartoon).

A couple of weeks after I had posted, a friend sent me an IM "Hey, you never stumbled Nanny". He meant that I'd never given the video a thumbs up via the StumbleUpon browser plugin. StumbleUpon is a social network / link sharing site, in which your friends in your network see sites you've given a thumbs up, and vice versa. We've had some success using this and other similar sites, and I usually Stumble a new video post on YouTube as a matter of course. I use YouTube as the preferred Stumble site because it's the most popular video site, and a video there benefits more from a greater view total than on any other site.

In any case, my friend Stumbled the site, and I immediately seconded it. The seconding serves two purposes, one it's a vote of confidence in the first Stumble, which makes it more likely to be seen by others, and two it combines my stumble network with my friend's, increasing the number of people the video can be exposed to.

Nanny caught on with the Stumble crowd, and racked up a number of views from people Stumbling on the page over the next couple of days.

But then the big step happened- the video got added to the FunWall application on Facebook. Someone, likely one of the Stumblers, started "forwarding" the video via FunWall, and the view count really took off.

To understand why, it's important to understand the nature of FunWall, and of Facebook in general.

Among other things, Facebook is very good at reducing what I call "link friction" to almost nothing. The key element of a viral video is getting the link to the video into new hands. Thus the ease of passing the link is crucial. The effort involved in passing the link can be seen as "friction" working against the momentum a link builds as it's passed from person to person. Having to cut-and-paste a link, for example, is a relatively high level of friction, as each stage of passing the link on requires that each person actively take several steps to do so. Something like StumbleUpon has somewhat lower friction. All you have to do is click the Thumbs Up icon in the plugin. Then others are more likely to see what you've approved.

But this is a sort of passive forwarding, low friction as it may be. Facebook encourages a more active level of participation. Since the advent of the application platform on Facebook, the culture of the FB community has become such that sending invites, links, and applications to your friends is a natural part of your Facebook usage. One of the most popular applications on Facebook is called FunWall. FunWall extends the functionality of your "wall", which is the part of your Facebook profile page where friends can write messages for you. FunWall adds two features relevant to viral videos- one, it embeds video from sites like YouTube. Two, and perhaps more importantly, it includes a "Forward!" button on each FunWall post. Clicking this button allows you to forward the posts to any number of friends.

So FunWall both encourages active participation and does so with almost no Link Friction at all. It's like magic pixie dust for viral videos.

Soon after the FunWall wave started, I started getting reports of Spanish For Your Nanny being emailed around as a file attachment. People I don't know were sending it to other people I don't know and it was eventually making its way back to me. This was Old Skool virality! Spirit Of Christmas stuff! It's interesting to note this came later than the social network spread. It's a good example of a higher friction process, but one that a viral video may grow into if the circumstances are right.

In recent days the video has gotten boosts from being featured on high profile sites such as those of talk radio hosts and so on. In some ways, this is sort of last stage virality, when the video bubbles up high enough for at least minor attention from mainstream media.

The important thing to note in this whole process is that the big gatekeepers have come at the end. Prior to that, the spread of the video has been accomplished by thousands of nano-gatekeepers, individuals deciding to either pass the video on to their friends or not. No one of these individuals has a lot of push in making the video spread, but collectively they can make a video spread much further and much faster than any one give large gatekeeper.

The ultimate lesson is rather straightforward- get your video in front of as many people as possible, using as many tools as you can to do so. You don't know which of them will work best, so use them all. Take special care to use those tools that put your video in front of people in a way that makes it easy for them to spread it.

I hope this has all made at least some sense, and I look forward to adding to it as Monkey With A Shotgun has more videos on the loose!

STRIKETV.com : More info, site still placeholder

Looking at their domain name's site, it's hard to tell if this project is going to launch with this name or not.

But the blog Divided Hollywood has some more information on the workings of the project. It's apparently intended to be a clearinghouse for WGA member web video projects, presumably including some intended more for entertainment than agitprop purposes.

Reading the comments, there's a fair amount of concern about the idea that members of other unions would be asked to donate their time and work for what could turn out to be for-profit projects. STRIKETV.com says they will be donating all profit from the site to support striking writers. But the creators (ie producers) will retain ownership, and could potentially profit from the show later or through different venues.

The irony of asking union members to work for producers for free since it's an experimental internet project has not been lost on many people.

In later comments, it looks as if STRIKETV.com is willing to work out these issues in a manner favorable to the crew, but details are scarce. Details on the whole project seem to be scarce at this point. Hopefully it works out, it really could be a watershed moment. But producers are producers, regardless of their status as writers, and there's still a lot of questions to be answered.

STRIKETV.com

I'm hoping that either a) the name is misreported or b) they have
secured the name from the person that's had it since 2005.


"Starting in January, the WGA will commence STRIKETV.com, where clips
of video material will be put up and advertiser support sought."

And yeah, I was checking because well...I always check.

Some people don't, ;-)

Quarterlife- the jig is up?

Looks like NewTeeVee is also asking questions about Quarterlife's performance.

It's worth nothing the reported total of 2,000,000 views is still considerably more than you can track on the main video sites, at least for the episodes. Unless QL is counting total views for all the videos, including the little interstitial-like things and then dividing that by 8. Hopefully not, hopefully they really do have about 500,000 total views at the main QL website.

In any case, as I mentioned in my previous post, I don't think the web audience was ever more than the cherry on top of the network pickup for this show.