YouTube and the streaming of America

March 4, 2012

It’s not just America, of course, but since YouTube is now owned by Google and is an American company, let’s leave this title as is for now.

A January 16, 2012 article (“Streaming Dreams: YouTube Turns Pro”) in The New Yorker by John Seabrook updates us about where YouTube is fitting in the world.  For the sake of brevity, here are his key points.  I encourage you to read the full article if you have any interest (and you should) in the impact of the online world.  Because where YouTube is today, the rest of the world will be tomorrow.

– By 2016, one half of all US households will have Wi-Fi enabled devices on their TVs.  The impact of this will be profound, because all of that web video will come to us in our lounge (living) rooms, in glorious widescreen.  Home entertainment, as we know, will change even more.

– YouTube went live in May 2005, created by three former PayPal employees in … a Silicon Valley garage (but of course).

– YouTube is now the second most popular search engine in the world (after Google).

– YouTube has 800,000,000 million unique users a month, generates more than three billion views per day and 48 hours of new video are uploaded to the site every minute.

– YouTube has some 30,000 “partners”, and the top 500 earn more than US$100,000/year from their videos on the service.

– Advertisers spend some US$60 billion annually on television, but only $3 billion on online video (not certain if this is just in US or not).

– One reason for this lack of video advertising is that for a long time, YouTube was not seen as “brand safe” because its streets “were not clean and well lit”, according to David Cohen, a Universal McCann executive vice president.

And finally, Seabrook makes a good description of the dichotomy between the “Hollywood” mind set and the “Silicon Valley” mindset.  Hollywood is founded on “scarcity” (in TV, airtime is a scarce resource, and expensive to create) so “entertainment works by withholding  content with the purpose of increasing its value”.  By contrast, Silicon Valley is founded on an “abundance” mentality (information, rather than entertainment), and spends its time “writing great programs to process it” and “giving people useful tools to use it”.

Malcolm Gladwell on Social Networks

October 23, 2010

Malcolm Gladwell – one of my favourite authors – is in the news again with his October 4, 2010 New Yorker article entitled “Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted”.  The article is worth reading in full (and is freely available online, at least for a while), but here is a good summary of Gladwell’s important conclusions (from his final two paragraphs):

[Clay] Shirky considers this model of activism an upgrade. But it is simply a form of organizing which favors the weak-tie connections that give us access to information over the strong-tie connections that help us persevere in the face of danger. It shifts our energies from organizations that promote strategic and disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and adaptability. It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact. The instruments of social media are well suited to making the existing social order more efficient. They are not a natural enemy of the status quo. If you are of the opinion that all the world needs is a little buffing around the edges, this should not trouble you. But if you think that there are still lunch counters out there that need integrating it ought to give you pause.

Shirky ends the story of the lost Sidekick by asking, portentously, “What happens next?”—no doubt imagining future waves of digital protesters. But he has already answered the question. What happens next is more of the same. A networked, weak-tie world is good at things like helping Wall Streeters get phones back from teen-age girls. Viva la revolución.

There has been, as they say, lots of “conversation” about Gladwell’s article, including a New York Times discussion section entitled “Can Twitter Lead People to the Streets?”, a New Yorker on-line chat with Gladwell (one of the most interesting parts of this is Gladwell’s admission that he does not follow Twitter – too much else to read, he says), and articles in the Atlantic Monthly, among others.  Gladwell also makes reference to the (just published book) The Dragonfly Effect: Quick, Effective, and Powerful Ways to Use Social Media to Drive Social Change, by Jennifer Aaker and Andy Smith (Jossey Bass).  (Note this link is to the Australian publisher page for the book.)  The blog from these authors (whose book, is criticised, in part in Gladwell’s article) has followed the discussion.

Useful reading.

Separate note: The Social Network film opens in Australia next Thursday, October 28th, so more on that later.

Chris Anderson’s Free, continued

August 22, 2009

Returning to the Chris Anderson book Free:  The Future of a Radical Price, which I originally wrote about on August 2 of this year.

As with his earlier book The Long Tail, Anderson has done a great job at capturing a certain “cultural moment” (yes, I will use that phrase) – in terms of how we relate to information, entertainment and our connected world.  His basic concept is give people lots of real value free items and there are a number of business models that will allow you to make money.  In the Prologue of his book (pages 1 & 2 of my edition), he points to the example of the Monty Python team:  claiming to be exasperated as to the amount of digital piracy of their programs, in November 2008 they posted lots of their high quality archival video material free on YouTube.  But they asked for:

…. something in return.  None of your drivelling, mindless comments.  Instead, we want you to click on the links, buy our movies & TV shows and soften our pain and disgust at being ripped off all these years.

 And according to Anderson, they were wildly successful, with their DVDs climbing “to number  2 on Amazon’s Movies and TV best-sellers list, with increased sales of 23,000 percent”.

 The point that Anderson is making is that providing free information and entertainment is the way the world now turns – having the “force of economic gravity”, and that organisations will need to adapt to make money off of the “free”.  Giving away lots of free samples will encourage purchase, provide training instead of selling software, sell merchandise and concert tickets and don’t worry about the free downloading of music, but instead charge for extras and add-ons and up-sells.  He makes the point that the difference between something which costs and something which is free is enormous, even if the cost is small.  An example:  Amazon’s offer of “free shipping” for orders greater than $25 (alas, not available in Australia, but that’s a whole other discussion) is wildly successful.

“Give a product away, and it can go viral”, Anderson writes. 

I know this to be true.  At the Rural Health Education Foundation, where I am the CEO, we give away large numbers of health and medical educational DVDs (about 22,000 in 2008/09 alone, and that was not an unusual year).  But when the Foundation offers the same product/s for sale at a price, even at extremely low prices, the orders fall away dramatically.  The business model of the Foundation is, interestingly, also based on “free”, although not the commercial model which Anderson discusses.  The model is to receive funding up front to produce and distribute the educational programs and then give as much of it away free as possible (with as little cost).  When the “free” is digital (Internet delivered) or via television (satellite or national broadcast), it’s pretty cheap to add lots of users – although in our experience it is not exactly zero.

It is important to note that, like his “Long Tail” concept, Anderson builds directly on the work of others (but what’s wrong with that?), updating it to the very current present and near future.  This sort of futurist writing – explaining what we have just done and are about to do, can be very exciting, and Anderson is a master of this, even if he is often so excited about his concepts that sometimes he sounds more like an evangelist than anything else.

The context here is important:  print editions of newspapers are disappearing in the USA, the Google search (and advertising) model is killing many of them (see the July 14, 2009 article by Peter Osnos entitled “What’s a Fair Share in the Age of Google?” at the Columbia Journalism Review   or the Century Foundation

(I will soon write in detail on the business models for media organisations – which I recently presented a paper on in Brisbane in July 2009 at the Australian and New Zealand Communications Association conference.   Also more on Osnos at another time:  he is one of the clearest and most interesting commentators around).

In his article, Osnos discusses the concept of “information wants to be free”, noting that it originally came from Stewart Brand – who said it at a computer programmer’s convention in 1984 and later detailed in his book 1987 The Media Lab:  Inventing the Future, writing the following:

Information Wants To Be Free (note:  capitals by the author).  Information also wants to be expensive.  Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy and recombine – too cheap to meter.  It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient.  That tension will not go away.  It leads to endless wrenching debate about price, copyright, “intellectual property”, the moral rightness of casual distribution, because each round of new devices makes the tension worse, not better.

And remember this was written more than 22 years ago.

Esther Dyson (see for her latest activities) was also another pioneer of thinking in this area, particularly with her December 1994 article (from Release 1.0) entitled “Intellectual Value” (available from Wired magazine archives).  Dyson wrote at the time:

Chief among the new rules is that ‘content is free’.  While not all content will be free, the new economic dynamic will operate as if it were.  In the world of the Net, content (including software) will serve as advertising for services such as support, aggregation, filtering, assembly and integration of content modules, or training customers in their use.

Discussing media and entertainment, she accurately predicted the rise of Google: 

The payments to creators are most likely to come not from the viewers, readers, or listeners, but from advertisers….  The challenge for advertisers is to make sure that their advertising messages are inextricable from the content.

That was fifteen years ago.  Like Brand, she too was an early evangelist.  And her predictions were wildly optimistic:  they were not wrong, just way too early.  As Paul Krugman (another one of my favourite authors, but more on him another time as well) pointed out in the New York Times on June 6, 2008:

The predictions of ’90s technology gurus are coming true more slowly than enthusiasts expected — but the future they envisioned is still on the march.  In 1994, one of those gurus, Esther Dyson, made a striking prediction: that the ease with which digital content can be copied and disseminated would eventually force businesses to sell the results of creative activity cheaply, or even give it away. Whatever the product — software, books, music, movies — the cost of creation would have to be recouped indirectly:  businesses would have to distribute intellectual property free in order to sell services and relationships.

There is an interesting rule here (let’s call it “Don’s technology rule 1.01”):  the predictions of “technology boosters” (Dyson, Brand et al) are almost always overly optimistic (has broadband reached all of rural Australia yet?), but most do come good … eventually, if you wait long enough.

But back to Anderson.  Many hundreds – probably thousands by now – of commentators, analysts and reviewers have responded to Anderson’s book with a variety of responses.  He has had a number of critics, and their points are worth noting. 

Most notable of the critics is Malcolm Gladwell, in his New Yorker review (July 6 & 13, 2009) entitled “Priced to Sell:  Is free the future?”.  Gladwell summarises the four claims of Anderson’s thesis:

–          technological (digital infrastructure is effectively Free)

–          psychological (consumers love Free)

–          procedural (Free means never having to make a judgment)

–          commercial (the market created by the technological Free and the psychological Free can make a lot of money) 

Here Gladwell points out a fallacy of the argument, that one of Anderson’s main case studies, YouTube, which “has so far failed to make any money for Google” (which now owns YouTube), noting that “YouTube’s bandwidth costs in 2009 will be 360 million dollars.”  Thus in this case, “the effects of technological Free and psychological Free work against each other”.  Put simply, YouTube’s business model does not work, not yet, and … probably never.

Criticising the book’s use of an electrical power industry analogy, Gladwell accuses Anderson of making the “kind of error that technological utopians make.  They assume that their particular scientific revolution will wipe away all traces of its predecessors”, which it won’t.  Gladwell mentions newspapers (the New York Times may not be able to charge for content, but the Wall Street Journal can, and does so successfully) and television:  while broadcast television is struggling, “premium cable, with its stiff monthly charges for specialty content, is doing just fine”.  He also discusses the Apple iPhone business model, which makes money from both the phones (“stuff”) and downloads (“ideas”).

Mark Cuban has an interesting (July 5, 2009) blog post on the topic of “Free” entitled “When you succeed with Free, you are going to die by Free”, where he points out that “The problem with companies who have built their business around free is that it is far from free to remain successful.” 

Cuban’s point is that the more success there is, the harder it will be to stay on top.  All “freemium based content plays” will have a company that replaces them, their “Black Swan” (from the Nassim Nicholas Taleb book of the same name)  competitor that will appear and replace them:  Myspace to Facebook, even Google: 

We don’t know who their Black Swan company will be.  But we all know it will happen don’t we?  The only question is when.  Of course Google knows it as well.  Which is exactly why they invest in everything and anything they possibly can that they believe can create another business they can depend on in the future.

Do you think Cuban is wrong?  Remember AOL?  Some years back it was so big it bought Time Warner, movies and all.  And where is AOL now?

And this comment on Google from John Ott’s “Making the Movie” blog post (“Free is not Free”) of July 8, 2009:  “Google isn’t truly free.  It has ads.  It’s the same model as TV and free newspapers, except it has better economies of scale.”

Free – is it really?

August 2, 2009

I am a great fan of Chris Anderson, whose book The Long Tail I have spent countless hours analysing and discussing.  In July 2007 I presented a conference paper (at the Australian and New Zealand Communications Association conference in Melbourne) about it, analysing my own organisation’s (the Rural Health Education Foundation’s) “long tail” effect.

Anderson has just published his new book Free: The Future of a Radical Price, and I have spent more hours that I will admit examining the impact, controversy and critiques of this idea.  From Malcolm Gladwell’s review in the New Yorker to Janel Maslin in the New York Times to bloggers everywhere, there’s a lot of discussion going on about Anderson’s ideas.

Anderson summarises it thus in his book (page 3):

Therein lies the paradox of Free:  People are making lots of money charging nothing [Google being the prime example of this].  Not nothing for everything, but nothing for enough that we have essentially created an economy as big as a good-sized country around the price of $0.00.  How did this happen and where is it going?

Reportedly, Free is currently tied for 11th best-selling book on the New York Times best-seller list (Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell is still number after some 34 weeks; see my Outliers book review).  And Anderson truly “puts his money where his mouth is” (as they say) – offering it, as they say, totally FREE, through SCRIBD.  According to Anderson, the free digital version has already been downloaded “between 200,000 and 300,000 times”.  And yet people are buying it also, helping Anderson to prove his point that “free” can be an effective business model.  (Although no-one has yet compared the sales of Anderson’s The Long Tail to Free; perhaps Free will have fewer sales, running against Anderson’s argument.  You can see where this is going.)

By the way, Free is NOT available “free” for those of us who live in Australia – and presumably in most other places outside the USA.  Go to the “Free” download page on SCRIBD – – and you will be automatically transferred to: and given the following message on screen:  “Sorry, this content is geographically restricted.  Due to our agreements with our publishing partners, the document you requested is only available to users located in the United States.”  So “Free” is not really (in print form, at least) … free after all.  Hmmm.  It reportedly was also offered free for a brief period on Amazon’s Kindle (not available in Australia), Sony Reader and iTunes.  You can, however, download the audio book free (I have done this, so it works; note 285 MB zip file) by going to Wired magazine of 17 July 2009.  As far as I can tell, there is no preview available on Google books, although Anderson’s website says it is.

I bought my copy at Abbeys Books on George Street in downtown Sydney for Aus$35.00 on Friday 31st July, the only place I could find it then.  (August 23 note:  it has since made it to other bookshops in Australia, including airport news stands, so is reasonably available).

To read more about this book, click here for my August 22nd post.

(By the way, Scribd has a little sting to its website tail.  Once you are on it, the site will not let you go back to your previous website if it was in the same browser window.  It’s irritating.  So open a new window every time you go there.  You’ve been warned.)