Not really, i’m just reading into this statement by the Worldwide Chief Creative Officer of one of the worlds largest advertising agencies (Mark Tutssel of Leo Burnett):
This was part of a financial times article titled YouTube bigger than MTV’ for advertisers, sorry for the repetition, but you get the point. The Ad Men are proclaiming they “get it”.
Word on that point.
YouTube may be the part of the story here, but it is co-creation that is at the heart of this. IMHO YouTube’s days are numbered once the content creators move over to revver, revver is a competing service that pays content creators for the amount of times there content has been watched. So what i’m saying is, what if you created 30 second spot that was so good that people sent it around to their friends, and you got paid every time someone watched it. Huh? an ad supported ad… Hell yeah, at least then they’d put some effort into the creative, the humor and the story. Advertising is not the problem in my opinion, shit advertising is the problem. Advertisng that aims to give me misinformation, and treats me like “the great unwashed”, that has no soul, no authenticity, no humor.
In the end advertisers have to be careful, glomming onto YouTube, Myspace or even secondLife because they are a collection of eyeballs is going mean more disconnection, disillusionment and suspicion just in an interactive environment. The question is how do you move the conversation forward, how do you empower your customers, how do you connect with your customers creativity, how are you going to LISTEN.
The problem I see with your logic regarding Revver is this. Intentions and Commodotization.
Intentions first. A small minority of people relative to the larger whole will create content to generate ad revenue and most of them will most likely see it as nothing more than a small bonus.
On the other hand if I’m wrong and everyone jumps from YouTube to Revver as you say, then the value an advertiser gets from the ads goes down, as does the dollar per view.
In either case, the answer is the same in my mind. Now is the time when you can make some extra cash, next month is probably too late.
Just food for thought and my desire to be beaten up for posting my thoughts on a freinds blog.
I guess the one thing I will say is that it IS a small minority of people creating the content. Take flickr for instance, Caterina points out here that only 1 to 10% of the people are creators, that a small group create something that is interesting and valuable to a much larger group. Intention and motivation is important obviously, flickr community is motivated differently than the YouTube community. My point is that creators of good, viral content on YouTube must be tempted to get some revenue from it? Maybe they won’t leave but I guarantee they will start publishing in both places, and any “new” content creators, co-creators, mashup artists that are given the choice of giving it away free on youtube or making a few bucks via revver seems like a pretty clear choice. Why shouldn’t brookers make some cash for this:
Whatever…
Current TV’s V-cam + Youtube = Great way to reach youth audience.