YouTube has launched a new advertising option for its partners, called First Watch. The option lets advertisers purchase pre-rolls on users’ first view of a YouTube video each day.
If the sponsorship of a commercial on the home page catches computer users when they are going in the YouTube front door, so to speak, First Watch is to intercept them when they are going in the YouTube side door — for instance, if they click on a link to YouTube video that a friend sends, or if they type youtube.com/theonion into their browser rather than youtube.com and then search for videos from The Onion.
The part about links that friends send sounds fantastic for video views. There’s nothing a friend wants to do more when wading through content and links than sit through an ad before they get to the video that they don’t even know for sure will be worth their time in the first place.
Still, the ads should be pretty valuable for advertisers. According to the report, YouTube’s senior product manager for video monetization says they ads have been “highly successful” in testing, and have had “high click-through rates to adcvertisers’ web sites.” The report says they’re around 1%.
It’s worth noting that the ads will only appear on YouTube partner videos, and not user-generated content.
So far, the First Watch ads have only been shown to 15 million viewers a day in the U.S.
These ads come at a time as YouTube is greatly working to expand its presence in the living room. They recently made a big upgrade to their movie offering, with rentals of new releases. They also launched YouTube Live, which will see more live events being shown on the site.
I’m not one to often correlate random acts with other random acts, but this is quite the “wow” occurrence.
Shortly after the devastating tornado that ripped through Joplin, Missouri on Sunday, someone recorded a beautiful double rainbow in nearby Springfield, which is only about 75 miles away. It’s just amazing that the same storm front can produce something so terrible and something so ridiculously awesome at the same time.
The death toll has now risen to 116 in Joplin, as officials still search through the wreckage looking for survivors. The mile-wide tornado tore a six-mile path through the town, wrecking over 2,000 buildings and destroying about a quarter of the whole city.
Not only is the red cross helping out with shelters and its safeandwell site, but there have been multiple Facebook pages set up for the recovery and survivors. Even lost pets in Joplin have a Facebook page.
It’s clear that in order to appear relevant and viable in today’s political world, you have to have a social media presence. As the Republican primary field slowly takes shape, its candidates all seem to have one thing in common: announcements via social media.
Back in April, Mitt Romney announced the formation of an exploratory. committee to run for President with a YouTube video. Although he has yet to officially declare his intentions, most insiders feel like he is a sure thing to run. Even without officially declaring, he looks to be the frontrunner in most polls so far.
Earlier this month, Newt Gingrich jumped on the social media wagon by announcing his official candidacy with a YouTube video as well. He also alerted followers to his announcement via Twitter and Facebook.
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, or T-Paw as he calls himself on his official campaign site , has announced his run for the White House with a slickly produced YouTube video. The video, entitled “A Time for Truth” states that his main points during the upcoming election season will be national debt and job creation.
Pawlenty also used Twitter and Facebook to announce his announcement:
Tim PawlentyI’m announcing my Presidential campaign at a town hall in Iowa on Monday, and I will begin a campaign that tells the American people the truth. Please watch the video below, share it with friends and neighbors and join our campaign http://bit.ly/jqXFGE Together, we will change this country, and this time it’ll be for the better.
Pawlenty is most likely going to need to build a strong social media base, as his recognition among primary voters is not quite the same as other candidates.
Pawlenty’s Facebook page has 88,860 likes and he has just under 35,000 Twitter followers. In comparison, Newt Gingrich has 134,000 likes on his Facebook page and 1.3 million Twitter followers. Mitt Romney has over 900,000 Facebook likes and 42,000 Twitter followers. Also among the candidates is Representative Ron Paul, who always has a strong internet following. He has 365,000 Facebook likes and 50,000 Twitter followers. Unfortunately for him, his strong popularity on the web and with young voters hasn’t translated to success at the polls in the past.
And let’s not forget that whoever wins the Republican primary will face the President, who is quite the social media star.
Yesterday, a massive tornado swept through the town of Joplin in southwest Missouri. This comes on the heels of the recent tornadoes that touched down in Alabama and other parts of the south, leaving a trail of devastation unlike most people have ever seen in that part of the U.S.
The latest death toll from Sunday’s tornado in Joplin is 89. The Weather Channel’s tornado expert Greg Forbes is saying that the twister could have been at least an F4, which would make it the strongest to hit that area of the country, going back to 1880. He also says that according to the debris signature, the tornado encompassed an area of over a mile wide.
The Red Cross has tweeted a link to their Safe and Well site, where you can report yourself as safe for loved ones across the country.
Videos from the disaster are just beginning to hit YouTube, including this one of people inside a convenience store when the tornado hit. Most of it is dark, but the audio in enough to paint a picture of what it was like to be in the middle of the storm:
These two videos show the devastation left behind by the tornado, one from the air and one from the ground:
There is a new YouTube project called YouTube Town Hall, which has senators and representatives debating the hot issues. Google says the issues are the ones that are the most popular on Google News and Google search over the past year.
One interesting element is that it seeks to tear down party lines, by not positioning them as Democrat vs. Republican at the beginning, but by simply displaying two videos side by side and by having the user pick which one (if any) they support.
“How would you vote if you focused purely on the ideas needed to make our country and our world a better place, rather than on the parties putting them forward?” asks Will Houghteling of YouTube News and Politics. “That’s a question that the new YouTube Town Hall seeks to answer.”
“After you watch the video, you’ll find out which party the representative comes from—and sometimes you might be surprised,” he says.
“You’ll also have the opportunity to ask the questions you want members of Congress to answer,” said Houghteling.”Every month, members of Congress will add new videos to the site answering a selection of the top-voted questions.”
He suggests asking questions about lowering gas prices, reforming the tax system or making college more affordable.
It is really fascinating to see how far YouTube has come over the years from its days of mostly being known as a place to watch cat videos. While it’s been progressing steadily for years, they seem to really be taking things up a notch this year, particularly as more homes get connected devices in their living room.
Now YouTube is presenting interactive debates with Congress, renting new release movies, and streaming big events live. Not to mention the fact that brands, news organizations, and citizen journalists alike all have an opportunity to get to consumers while they’re sitting on their couches.
Is Google, YouTube and mega-producer Danger Mouse giving the world a glimpse of the evolution of music and music promotion? Or are they simply using the esoteric Danger Mouse to show off the power of Web GL and HTML5? Or is it an exercise in both endeavors? If you answered “both,” you’re probably along the right lines.
What we have is, thanks to a post at the YouTube blog, Danger Mouse partnering with Italian composer Daniele Luppi for the Rome project. In order to fulfill their vision, Mouse and Luppi commissioned Jack White and Norah Jones to write and record songs for the Rome album, but the creativity didn’t stop there. After the recording was completed, the duo commissioned direct Chris Milk to create what’s being called an “interactive video,” which makes extensive use of Web GL and HTML5.
In order to view the video/interactive via your web browser creation, called “3 Dreams of Black,” you have to have an HTML5/Web GL compatible browser. If so, simply type in the following web address: ro.me, and hit enter. Unfortunately, “3 Dreams of Black” does not work on non-compatible browsers, and such visitors are greeted with the following message:
We are sorry, but it appears that your browser does not support WebGL. “3 Dreams of Black” is an experiment that was designed with the browser Google Chrome in mind. Please try launching this site again on a computer with up-to-date graphics drivers. Though not the full experience, you can also watch a video trailer, access the rest of the ROME album site, and learn more about WebGL technology.
To celebrate the launch/release, YouTube has turned over curation of the site to Danger Mouse and Luppi. The focus of their content are additional Chris Milk creations. Over at the Danger Mouse Vevo page, the entire Rome album is available for listening, and we’ve also embedded it at the top of this post. There’s also a trailer for the album, which, as mentioned previously, is a phenomenon exclusive to the Internet, thanks, in large part, to the ease of creating and broadcasting Internet videos. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t remember trailers for upcoming albums — no, I don’t consider a commercial for an upcoming release to be a trailer — appearing on MTV back when they played music. The trailer in question:
…the tracks featuring White and Jones are quite good, but ultimately the record “is as much about sublime instrumentals — made of celesta, harpsichord, Hammond organ, strings, nasty funk guitar and those weird-ass choirs — as lead singers.”
While the use of HTML5/Web GL is the draw for this particular industry (e-biz), attention should also be paid to the fantastic new methods of marketing products that have been introduced in recent years. Clearly, the web has redefined how products are marketed, but now, as technology continues to advance, these marketing methods take on a life of their own.
An upcoming scene from AnyPrison, USA in about six months from now: “Hey, fresh fish, what are you in for?” “Streaming Game of Thrones on Justin.tv. You?” “Robbing the elderly, but for some reason, my sentence is shorter than yours…” An accurate portrayal of the current landscape of the Internet or simply a case of tin-foil paranoia? Considering the latest copyright-related Internet bill that was just introduced, perhaps not.
Thanks to the introduction of S. 978, introduced by two senators, Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Cornyn (R-TX), streaming copyrighted content — movies, sports, television shows — will become a felony, provided the bill makes it through. If you need a civics reminder on the process of how a bill becomes law, Schoolhouse Rock is here to assist:
I can’t help but wonder if, under the conditions of S. 978, YouTube is guilty of a felony here…
While the text of the bill hasn’t been released, Ars Technica was mailed a synopsis. Apparently, the idea is to change the parameters in relation to streaming copyrighted content. Under old conditions, streaming was seen as a public performance, and therefore, was not subject to the same levels of punishment as those who distributed such work. Now, these “public performances” will be included, making the act a felony.
Essentially, the bill makes considers streaming the same a distribution, and considering what kind of content is normally streamed across services like the aforementioned Justin.tv — that is, copyrighted content — the distinction is logical. Granted, such clarification has not gone over well with large portions of the Internet crowd, like Fark.com, for instance, it is a common sense distinction.
Under the new bill, offenders could face the following:
Online streamers can now face up to five years in prison and a fine in cases where:
They show 10 or more “public performances” by electronic means in any 180-day period and
The total retail value of those performances tops $2,500 or the cost of licensing such performances is greater than $5,000
The bill makes no mention of those watching the streams, so you’re free to watch with impunity. Just don’t save or join in the streaming revolution.
Back to YouTube for a second. Considering their long battle with copyrighted material, are they liable if snippets from the latest episode of Family Guy shows up on their servers or does the bill target the user that uploaded the content in question? YouTube is merely a hosting service for videos, one that makes use of Google massive storage space. The service also pulls protected content, once its alerted to its presence. So again, would YouTube be at fault under S. 978 or would the user who uploaded the content be targeted. Without such a distinction, such loopholes are asking to exploited.
It’s not hard to envision a “It wasn’t me, it was YouTube” defense from some creative legal team in the near future.
The space shuttle Endeavour launched today, beginning a 16-day mission that will see it heading to the International Space Station. In attendance was U.S. Reprsentative Gabrielle Giffords, whose husband Mark Kelly is commanding the mission.
For the event, Google partnered with NASA and PBS to set up a YouTube/Google Moderator-based interview with the crew, to be emceed by Miles O’Brien in 3 days, as discussed in the video above.
The questions are already pouring in. If you’re unfamiliar with how Google Moderator works, you can submit questions and they will get either voted up or down by other users, and typically, the questions that rise to the top will be the ones asked.
There are already plenty of questions pouring. So far, as of the time of this writing, 1,906 people have submitted 1,595 questions and cast 11,788 votes.
Google has also taken the opportunity to express its love for space exploration in other ways. “To mark the occasion, we put together this video to celebrate our love for space, told with the help of products we pour our hearts into every day,” explains Google’s Tiffany Montague, going by the title Intergalactic Federation King Almighty and Commander of the Universe. “You’ll see everything from historical sky maps featured in Google Earth, to 3D buildings at Kennedy Space Center, and our salute to both the astounding achievement of the Apollo era and the Google Lunar X PRIZE, a new space race of entrepreneurial leadership.”
She also expresses the company’s aspirations to continue moving beyond Earth in its quest for data dominance. “At Google, we’re never afraid to think big, and our mission to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful doesn’t stop at our exosphere,” she says. “The universe is full of information, and as we push the boundaries of exploration, our job will be to organize it and make it searchable.”
Perhaps a better mission statement for Google would be to “organize the Universe’s data and make it worldly accessible”.
Another side note: Google’s main campus is less than a mile away from the NASA Ames Research Center.
The Endeavour’s launch lasted a reported 12 seconds.
If YouTube wasn’t serious about movie rentals before, it is now. Today, the company announced that it was expanding its movie offerings by about 3,000 new titles.
While YouTube dropped the news a little while ago, they’ve now made more details available. “In addition to the hundreds of free movies available on the site since 2009, you will be able to find and rent some of your favorite films,” the company said in a blog post. “From memorable hits and cult classics like Caddyshack, Goodfellas, Scarface, and Taxi Driver to blockbuster new releases like Inception, The King’s Speech, Little Fockers, The Green Hornet and Despicable Me. Movies are available to rent at industry standard pricing, and can be watched with your YouTube account on any computer. ”
YouTube has partnered with NBC Universal, Sony Pictures, and Warner Bros. This is in addition to standing partnerships with Lionsgate, Starz, The Weinstein Company, and Magnolia Pictures (among others).YouTube’s movie catalog now boasts over 6,000 titles. Most new releases start at $3.99 and library rentals at $2.99.
Users will have 30 days to begin watching most titles, from the time they purchase the rental. Once a user actually begins the movie, however, they will typically have 24 hours to finish it. The service accepts all major credit cards.
While YouTube says it’s always up to the content owner, many titles will be available the same day as their DVD releases.
Interestingly, users can embed movies on other sites, and if a user who hasn’t rented the movie views the video, the embedded player will show the movie’s trailer along with an overlay that users can click on to rent the full movie. This should make for some interesting virtual viewing party experiences.
The new titles should start appearing today and throughout the week at youtube.com/movies. Have fun.
YouTube announced today that it is adding about 3,000 new movie titles for rent in the U.S. as well as some new original content from partners as part of the “future of video”.
The movie titles, the company says, will be accompanied by reviews and behind-the-scenes movie extras. “Whether it’s short movie trailers, funny movie parodies or full-length blockbuster films, we encourage you to sit back and settle in to the YouTube movies experience,” writes Head of YouTube Salar Kamangar.
He says YouTube is bolstering its investment in partner content as well. “Our 20,000+ partners—folks like Machinima, Annoying Orange and Ryan Higa—are producing original content for the web and commanding TV-size audiences for their own brand of programming,” he says. “Through YouTube Next, we’re helping fuel the creation of this type of content with initiatives like the YouTube Creator Institute and YouTube NextUp, following past initiatives like Partner Grants(which brought us Key of Awesome, creators of one of 2010’s most-watched videos) and $1,000 B&H Photo credits. In the coming year, we’ll bring even more content to YouTube. Building on the success of Partner Grants and YouTube NextUp, we’re providing even more resources to creators who you’ll know from TV or Hollywood, and to existing YouTube partners who have already built loyal audiences on the site. Look out for more details on this in the coming months.”
More details about YouTube’s movie plans should be made available later today.
Google I/O, the company’s developer conference kicks off this week, and developments around Android, Chrome, Chrome OS, and Google TV are expected. It will be interesting to see what kinds of YouTube-related news is sprinkled in there (particularly in relation to Google TV).
YouTube also recently announced YouTube LIve, a new destination for live streaming video options, and a platform it is sharing with select partners to provide live video. The site has already provided users with access to live streaming of the Royal Wedding, the Coachella festival, and soon a live concert film experience for the band My Morning Jacket, to name a few.
Demand Media shared with WebProNews, some further insights into its content strategy on the video side of things. In light of the recent discussions surrounding Google’s Panda update, and its impacts on YouTubeand Demand Media, we thought it would be worth taking a closer look at the relationship these enormous web entities have with one another.
YouTube was a clear winner (along with other Google properties and other video sites) after the Panda update. Various Demand Media properties were impacted negatively, and the company announced last week that its flagship eHow property experienced a 20% decline in search referrals following the update. It’s interesting that YouTube would go up, and eHow would go down, considering that earlier this year (as the company’s IPO approached), Demand Media CEO Richard Rosenblatt told All Things Digital’s Peter Kafka, “We’re the largest supplier of all video to YouTube, over two billion views…”
Quinn Daly, Demand Media’s SVP, Corporate Communications, tells WebProNews that while it is Demand Media (not just eHow) that is the biggest supplier of video to YouTube, it is the company’s Expert Village brand that has the largest number of videos from Demand Media on YouTube.
Of course the Expert Village brand has been rolled into eHow. If you go to ExpertVillage.com, you’ll be greeted with an eHow header, and the following message:
Liked Expert Village? You’re gonna love eHow.
All of the Expert Village videos you’ve come to count on now live at eHow.com – and that’s only the beginning. With two million articles and videos, plus a supportive community, eHow empowers you with the kind of help and advice you need to accomplish your goals each day.
On the Expert Village YouTube channel, it shows 1,898,439,921 total upload views. The eHow channel boasts 112,350,956 total upload views. Based on my own experiences, eHow-branded videos seem to appear more frequently in Google search results. This is just an observation, however, and is inconclusive.
Last week, Demand Media held its quarterly earnings call, and announced some new clean-up efforts around its content strategy, and eHow in particular. These efforts include the deletion of some articles, and further editing of others. This content comes from Demand Media’s writers’ compensation program, a user-generated content effort, which the company has now completely shut down. Much of this content is/was on eHow.
Given that Demand Media is the biggest supplier of video to YouTube, and that Google has taken some criticism on how YouTube has performed following the Panda update (criticism namely from HubPage CEO Paul Edmondson), we wondered if Demand Media was pulling any videos in these new efforts.
Daly tells us, “The efforts around UGC content on eHow.com were primarily articles. There was a short time that people could also upload videos as well but we removed that function. None of that UGC content was distributed on YT.”
“There are no UGC videos from the WCP program on YT; so in that context, there is no content coming down,” she says. “That said, the body of work on YT is always changing; we are adding new video and working to review older content that may no longer meet our quality standards, so I can’t say that there will be NO content coming down from YT because that wouldn’t be accurate.”
YouTube recently dropped an interesting stat, in that 30% of YouTube videos make up 99% of views. Edmondson is bringing Google’s competitive practices into the Panda conversation, at a time when Google faces regulatory scrutiny over them.
We’ve been covering a lot of the fallout from the Google Panda update, and have reported on HubPages specifically a number of times. Recently we looked at comments made by CEO Paul Edmondson, comparing Hubpages to YouTube, as he pondered why YouTube didn’t get hit. He posted some direct questions to Google, which evidently, they’ve mostly ignored.
Edmondson is back at it with a guest post at TechCrunch. Here’s a snippet of what he had to say in that:
HubPages has seen a negative impact from this change, but so far YouTube has not (Search Metrics Winners). One presumes Google isn’t treating its own affiliated sites differently than any other site, but YouTube’s open publishing environment makes low-quality content as prevalent as on any other moderated open publishing platform. Google shows over 13 million indexed videos on YouTube for lose weight (known spammy area) and over 10 million for forex (another spammy area). Apparently, Google’s Panda update has been punitive only to platforms other than Google’s.
We certainly support and encourage changes to algorithms to provide the public with access to the best search results. We appreciate that open publishing platforms with a wide range of content quality also have a responsibility to moderate their content appropriately. While we understand the need for ordering search results, we also think it is a mistake to broadly impact an entire domain negatively where the content has been contributed by individual people. Bear in mind that a lot of the content on open publishing platforms like HubPages and YouTube is great, and it is exactly what people are searching for on the Web.
We have reached out to Google seeking feedback and guidance about what elements of an open platform are being penalized by Panda. There has been little response to our inquiries, from questions about site architecture posted on the official Google forums, to personal emails sent to Matt Cutts, the head of web spam at Google.
Image credit: Edmondson's article on TechCrunch
He even goes on to play the competition card, at a time when Google has come under plenty of scrutiny for competitive practices (an FTC probe is reported to be in the works), saying, “We are concerned that Google is targeting platforms other than its own and stifling competition by reducing viable platform choices simply by diminishing platforms’ ability to rank pages. Google is not being transparent about their new standards, which prevents platforms like ours from having access to a level playing field with Google’s own services.”
A couple weeks ago, we asked, “Should YouTube have gained visibility from the Panda update?” Beyond Edmondson’s points, further fuel for the question was provided when YouTube released a stat in an unrelated blog post, indicating that 30% of YouTube videos make up 99% of views. Also worth noting is the fact that Demand Media is the biggest supplier of videos to YouTube. DM’s eHow lost 20 of its search referrals as a result of Panda.
It’s also interesting to note Edmondson’s lack of communication from Google, considering a Googler even went so far as to write a guest post on writing better articles for AdSense on the HubPages blog, prior to phase 2 of the Panda rollout.
Mercy for Animals has written a letter to Vimeo trying to get an investigative video exposing animal cruelty at the E6 Cattle Co. reinstated on the site after it was pulled as a violation of Vimeo’s terms of service. If you’re unfamiliar with the story up to this point, allow me to quickly summarize.
Last week, Mercy For Animals sent us a letter it had written to YouTube after that site had pulled the same video. YouTube had previously labeled it a “gross out video” and banned it. After our initial report on that, YouTube took another look and reinstated the video, adding a warning. Meanwhile, Vimeo had originally allowed the video. We embedded it on our original article, only to find later that they had decided to pull it around the same time YouTube reinstated it. YouTube told us that sometimes they make the wrong call. Vimeo told us:
“We removed this particular video because of its depiction of excessive violence against animals. While we understand that the point of the video is to protest cruel practices against cattle and we are sympathetic to that cause, it nonetheless violates our Terms of Service.”
Now, Mercy for Animals Executive Director Nathan Runkle has written another letter, this time to Vimeo, and shared that with us as well. Here it is in its entirety (minus Runkle’s contact info):
Dear Mr. Klein:
I am writing on behalf of Mercy For Animals (MFA), a national, non-profit animal protection organization, to ask that you reinstate the “No Mercy – Calf Farm Cruelty Exposed” video on Vimeo. The video can be viewed via YouTube at www.mercyforanimals.org/calves.
Earlier this week, MFA’s “No Mercy” video documenting routine abuse of calves raised for the dairy industry at E6 Cattle Company in Texas was removed from the Vimeo website. We have learned through a WebProNews.com article that Vimeo removed the video because it violates the company’s Terms of Service. According to the article, a Vimeo spokesperson stated: “Vimeo cares deeply about the issue of animal cruelty and has specifically banned content that contains gratuitous animal cruelty… While we understand that the point of the video is to protest cruel practices against cattle and we are sympathetic to that cause, it nonetheless violates our Terms of Service.”
We understand the importance of prohibiting videos of gratuitous animal cruelty, but “gratuitous” means “lacking good reason.” MFA’s videos document egregious cruelty to animals, but for a very good reason: to expose and end animal abuse. While we admire their intent, it would be more beneficial to animals if Vimeo created a clear policy against “glamorized” animal abuse videos instead of censoring educational videos and effectively shielding animal abusers from public scrutiny. MFA’s groundbreaking investigations have a long history of leading to successful criminal prosecutions of animal abusers, raids of factory farms, corporate animal welfare policy reforms and increased legal protection for animals – all testament to the crucial role these videos play in preventing cruelty and educating consumers. Censoring these videos is counter productive and harmful to the animals Vimeo claims to care so deeply about.
MFA’s meaningful gains for animals include the results of our Conklin Dairy investigation, which was widely viewed on Vimeo and exposed animals being beaten in the face with metal pipes, repeatedly stabbed with pitchforks, having their tails broken, and being kicked, thrown, and punched by employees. Upon release of the investigative video, a farm worker was arrested and charged with 12 counts of cruelty-to-animals, numerous dairy suppliers ended their relationships with the facility, support was generated for a statewide animal protection initiative, and consumers nationwide learned about the dark side of dairy production.
A 2009 MFA investigation at an egg farm in Maine, which was posted on Vimeo, prompted the Maine Department of Agriculture and state police to raid the farm on grounds of cruelty to animals. Grocery chains nationwide dropped the farm as an egg supplier, and as part of a landmark civil settlement, the mega-farm pleaded guilty to 10 counts of cruelty to animals, agreed to pay over $130,000 in fines and restitution, and handed over authority to the state of Maine to conduct unannounced inspections of the
facility for the following five years.
The “No Mercy” video posted on Vimeo is part of MFA’s important mission to educate consumers and bring justice to animals who are routinely tortured and killed in factory farms and slaughterhouses. It is vital to our efforts to hold the E6 Cattle Company and its owner accountable for egregious cruelty to animals and that the public be able to access and disseminate this video. We respectfully request that the “No Mercy” video be reinstated on Vimeo as soon as possible, in order to help us bring these animal abusers to justice.
Thank you for your time and consideration. You may contact me directly at…
I look forward to your positive
response.
Sincerely,
Nathan Runkle
Executive Director
Here is the video, in case you haven’t seen it by now (warning: graphic and disturbing):
As of the time of this writing, the video is still missing from Vimeo. Currently it has over 1,800 views. We have to wonder how many more it would have if sites would stop pulling it. As is clear from the comments we’ve received on our coverage of the story. People feel very passionately about the content of this video, and its need to be exposed. It will be interesting to see if Vimeo follows YouTube’s lead and/or alters its ToS, or if it stands its ground on the content.
Runkle certainly raises a good point about the word “gratuitous”. Do you think Vimeo should reinstate the video and adjust its terms of service? Tell us what you think.
Let it never be said that Google doesn’t promote their products. Granted, they aren’t big adopters of television advertising — save for their famous Super Bowl commercial — but that doesn’t mean they won’t use other mediums to entice would-be adopters of Google Tech, like, say, YouTube.
With that in mind, the Google Chrome YouTube page has recently debuted two new videos, and much like the Super Bowl commercial, the “ads” feature a myriad of ways Google’s web browser can make your life easier. As indicated, the videos don’t make much use of the humorous approach, instead of relying on more on the dramatic. Of the two videos, one is receiving the majority of the publicity because of its subject matter: An appeal to persecuted gay people, saying that life does indeed get better.
The “It Gets Better” commercial also appeared as a televised commercial, appearing during the latest episode of Glee. To create “It Gets Better,” Google made use of content from the “It Gets Better” channel, a service started by Dan Savage. Savage is, among other things, a gay activist who created the “It Gets Better” project as an invitation for positive content aimed at bullied, and/or persecuted gay people.
Check out the Google Chrome commercial and see what you think:
As for the other Google Chrome commercial, the subject of fatherhood is discussed; specifically, using Google Chrome to preserve memories of your children. In “Dear Sophie,” Chrome isn’t as much a browser as it is a scrapbook/time capsule. See for yourself:
One thing’s for sure, Sophie’s inbox is going to be awfully full. In fact, she may very well exceed the 7579 megabyte capacity before she’s a teenager — especially if dad keeps sending video files.
As for each commercial’s reception, the responses seem generally positive, with “likes” for both videos far exceeding the “dislikes.” One thing that stands out is the view count for “It Gets Better” far exceeds the count for “Dear Sophie” by over 100,000 views. Sure,the appearance on Glee had a lot to do with that, but “Dear Sophie” was run during the One Tree Hill time slot.
Apparently, Glee use the Internet more than their One Tree Hill counterparts.
Vevo, along with partners YouTube and American Express, have announced a live concert experience around an upcoming performance from the band My Morning Jacket, to be directed by Todd Haynes.
The show takes place on May 31 in our (and MMJ’s) home state of Kentucky, and the project, titled My Morning Jacket UNSTAGED, will be streamed live on YouTube, as the latest example of how online video is changing the game.
“Something like this even a few years ago would have been unthinkable, what with how clumsy movie cameras and film editing used to be,” says Vevo in a blog post. “Until now, live-streamed online concerts have often been not much better than a guy with a handicam somewhere in the front row. But now, with advanced cameras and digital editing, the best directors can create a unique vision for a live music event, and fans in front of screens around the world can see that vision come together in real time! The result is not that you feel like you were there, but that the experience is designed for you where you actually are.”
Last month, YouTube announced the launch of YouTube Live, a new home page for live content on the site, as well as a live streaming platform for select partners. “With over 2 billion views a day, it’s easy to think about YouTube as a place to watch videos recorded in the past,” the company said. “But you’ve told us you want more – and that includes events taking place right now.”
The My Morning Jacket performance coincides with the release of the band’s new album Circuital, which is already available for pre-order.
I had the pleasure of seeing My Morning Jacket here in Lexington a couple weeks ago, and I can vouch for them putting on a good show. UNSTAGED should certainly be easier on the wallet.
Mercy for Animals had reached out to WebProNews, explaining that YouTube had deemed the video a “gross out” video, that was ‘intended to be shocking, sensational, or disrespectful.” Looking at the video (embedded below), it’s obviously presented as an investigative report (warning: the content is graphic and disturbing):
Interestingly, Vimeo, a competing video site, had not pulled the clip…at first. After our first report on the subject, Vimeo actually did pull it, and YouTube reinstated it. A spokesperson for Mercy for Animals told WebProNews, “Nathan [Runkle – Executive Director} says that it appears that YouTube is once again hosting the video, while it appears Vimeo has removed it. They will be communicating with Vimeo, as they did with YouTube, urging them to repost the video.”
Runkle actually wrote a long letter to YouTube about the video before it was reinstated. We included that in the previous report. YouTube has since told WebProNews that it does not comment on specific videos, but a spokesperson did give us the following statement:
With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call. When it’s brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it.
The video now carries a warning with it, and requires the user to be signed in when viewing from the site, not unlike other graphic videos (including movies).
Mercy for Animals might not have as much luck with Vimeo, however. Vimeo tells WebProNews, “Vimeo cares deeply about the issue of animal cruelty and has specifically banned content that contains ‘gratuitous animal cruelty.’”
“We removed this particular video because of its depiction of excessive violence against animals,” Vimeo adds. “While we understand that the point of the video is to protest cruel practices against cattle and we are sympathetic to that cause, it nonetheless violates our Terms of Service.”
Those terms of service can be found here. The relevant section says that users agree no to “upload, post, email otherwise transmit any Submission depicting gratuitous animal cruelty.”
So, Vimeo is right. The video, by definition, does violate these terms. Perhaps the real question is whether the ToS should be amended to reflect cases such as this. Vimeo has the right to keep this kind of content off its site if it so chooses. Nickelodeon probably wouldn’t want this content on their channel either, but Vimeo at large isn’t simply a kids channel either (though it does tout itself as a “respectful community”). It’s still a major channel for online video. It’s no YouTube, but it’s not a small fry either.
Do you think Vimeo should allow investigative reports like this, even if they are graphic in nature? Tell us what you think.
Vimeo cares deeply about the issue of animal cruelty and has specifically banned content that contains “gratuitous animal cruelty.” We removed this particular video because of its depiction of excessive violence against animals. While we understand that the point of the video is to protest cruel practices against cattle and we are sympathetic to that cause, it nonetheless violates our Terms of Service.
Update: YouTube tells WebProNews that it does not comment on specific videos, but did give us the following statement:
With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call. When it’s brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it.
A spokesperson for Mercy for Animals tells us, “Nathan [Runkle – Executive Director} says that it appears that YouTube is once again hosting the video, while it appears Vimeo has removed it. They will be communicating with Vimeo, as they did with YouTube, urging them to repost the video.”
In the article, we had included an embed from YouTube competitor Vimeo, which had not blocked the video, though the tides appear to have turned now. The Vimeo embed now says, “Sorry…this video does not exist”.
It comes with the following disclaimer from YouTube, which appears before the video is able to be viewed from the site:
This content may contain material flagged by YouTube’s user community that may be inappropriate for some users.
To view this video or group, please verify you are 18 or older by signing in or signing up. If you would instead prefer to avoid potentially inappropriate content, consider activating YouTube’s Safety Mode.
It’s worth noting, that if you do a search for “no mercy calf farm” on YouTube, the top result is the video described above, and the second result is the same video posted by a different user, with no disclaimer or mandatory sign-in.
We’ve contacted Mercy for Animals, YouTube, and Vimeo about the whole thing, and will update as we get new word. So far, Vimeo has been the only one to respond, simply asking for the broken link so that they can “investigate from there”.
As far as I can tell, Mercy for Animals has not censored the video in any way to get it back on YouTube.
Update 3: A spokesperson for Mercy for Animals tells us, “Nathan [Runkle – Executive Director] says that it appears that YouTube is once again hosting the video, while it appears Vimeo has removed it. They will be communicating with Vimeo, as they did with YouTube, urging them to repost the video.”
Update 2: YouTube tells WebProNews that it does not comment on specific videos, but a spokesperson did give us the following statement:
With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call. When it’s brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it.
Update: Now, the vimeo video embedded in this article says it “no longer exists”. Meanwhile, the video does appear to be back on YouTube, though it comes with a warning. I’ve contacted MFA for more details, and will update accordingly.
In the wake of the infamous elephant-killing video from GoDaddy CEO Bob Parsons, there is another disturbing video involving animals making web news. This involves an “undercover investigation” into the practices of E6 Cattle Company in Texas. Mercy for Animals put its investigation footage on YouTube, only to have it removed.
“Mercy For Animals’ undercover investigation into E6 Cattle Company in Texas continues to be at the center of controversy now that YouTube has banned the video evidence documenting E6 workers committing acts of cruelty and abuse to dairy calves,” a representative for Mercy for Animals tells WebProNews.
“When news of the investigation hit early this week, the price of cattle futures fell, consumers were outraged, the American Veterinary Medical Association issued its condemnation, and agribusiness circled its wagons,” he continues. “YouTube’s notice characterizes the undercover footage as a ‘gross-out video’ that is ‘intended to be shocking, sensational, or disrespectful.’”
“However, YouTube seems to have no qualms about videos glorifying hunting, dogfighting, or similar forms of animal cruelty,” he adds.
The video is below. Be warned, the footage is indeed disturbing.
Among the video’s contents (if you don’t want to see it), as listed by MFA:
Workers bludgeoning calves in their skulls with pickaxes and hammers – often involving 5 to 6 blows, sometimes more – before rendering the animals unconscious
Beaten calves, still alive and conscious, thrown onto dead piles
Workers kicking downed calves in the head, and standing on their necks and ribs
Calves confined to squalid hutches, thick with manure and urine buildup, and barely large enough for the calves to turn around or fully extend their legs
Gruesome injuries and afflictions, including open sores, swollen joints and severed hooves
Ill, injured and dying calves denied medical care
The budding horns of calves burned out their skulls without painkillers
MFA’s executive director has posted an open letter to YouTube CEO Salar Kamangar about its policies. The organization has shared the letter with WebProNews. Here it is in its entirety (minus the contact info):
Dear Mr. Kamangar:
I am writing on behalf of Mercy For Animals (MFA), a national, non-profit animal protection organization, to ask that you reinstate the “No Mercy – Calf Farm Cruelty Exposed” video on your website. The video can be viewed via Vimeo at www.MercyForAnimals.org/Calves.
Earlier this week, MFA received notification that our undercover investigation video documenting routine abuses of calves raised for the dairy industry at E6 Cattle Company in Texas had been disabled for violation of YouTube Community Guidelines. The notice states: “It’s not okay to post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies or similar things intended to be shocking, sensational, or disrespectful. If a video is particularly graphic or disturbing, it should be balanced with additional educational or documentary context and information.”
In keeping with YouTube guidelines, as well as MFA’s mission to educate consumers about modern animal agriculture practices, the video includes documentary context and information in the form of quotes from workers at the facility, explaining why sick and injured calves are neglected without veterinary care, as well as a statement from world-renowned cattle welfare expert and advisor to the USDA Dr. Temple Grandin, condemning the cruel practices at this facility: “It is obvious that both the management and the employees have no regard for animal welfare.”
MFA strongly agrees that videos of cruelty to animals are shocking and disturbing, but in the context of helping to expose and eliminate animal abuse they are extremely important.
Consumers have a right to know how their food is being produced, especially when the production methods are shocking or disturbing, so that they can make informed choices. MFA’s “No Mercy” video opens a critical dialogue about animal use and abuse in our society, as well as pressing social and consumer issues. Without open dialogue in a free society, broken systems remain unchallenged and unchanged.
It seems an obvious contradiction that YouTube censors MFA’s efforts to expose and eliminate cruelty to animals, while continuing to allow highly sanitized meat, dairy and egg industry propaganda videos that promote killing animals for profit, and countless sensationalized prohunting videos that glamorize gleeful hunters mercilessly maiming and killing animals for “sport.” YouTube was awarded a 2008 Peabody Award and cited as “a ‘Speakers’ Corner’ that both embodies and promotes democracy.” Silencing one side of the debate over how farmed animals should be treated flies in the face of democracy. YouTube seems to be sending a message that hurting animals for fun or profit is acceptable but speaking out against such abuses is not.
We understand that the “No Mercy” video documenting E6 workers bashing in the skulls of calves with hammers and pickaxes, dragging them by their ears, standing on their necks, burning them, and neglecting them to die without veterinary care is shocking and horrifying to most people. The “No Mercy” video was posted on YouTube precisely to draw public attention to this important case and give people the opportunity to learn about and speak out against cruelty to animals, and to use their democratic voices to help pass laws to prevent such shocking and disturbing abuses from occurring in the future.
MFA’s groundbreaking investigations have a long history of leading to successful criminal prosecutions of animal abusers, raids of factory farms, corporate animal welfare policy reforms and increased legal protection for animals – all testament to the crucial role these videos play in preventing cruelty and educating consumers.
For example, as a result of our Conklin Dairy investigation that was widely viewed on YouTube and exposed animals being beaten in the face with metal pipes, repeatedly stabbed with pitchforks, having their tails broken, and being kicked, thrown, and punched by employees, a farm worker was arrested and charged with 12 counts of cruelty to animals, numerous dairy suppliers ended their relationships with the facility, support was generated for a statewide animal protection initiative, and consumers nationwide learned about the dark side of dairy production.
A 2009 MFA investigation at an egg farm in Maine, which was posted on YouTube, prompted the Maine Department of Agriculture and state police to raid the farm on grounds of cruelty to animals. Grocery chains nationwide dropped the farm as an egg supplier and, as part of a landmark civil settlement, the mega-farm pleaded guilty to 10 counts of cruelty to animals, agreed to pay over $130,000 in fines and restitution, and handed over authority to the state of Maine to conduct unannounced inspections of the facility for the following five years.
The “No Mercy” video posted on YouTube is part of MFA’s important mission to educate consumers and bring justice to animals who are routinely tortured and killed in factory farms and slaughterhouses. It is vital to our efforts to hold the E6 Cattle Company and its owner accountable for egregious cruelty to animals and that the public be able to access and disseminate this video.
We respectfully request that the “No Mercy” video be reinstated on YouTube as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Nathan Runkle
Executive Director
“It’s especially galling that YouTube removed the video at a time when legislators in several states (Minnesota, Iowa and Florida) are attempting to criminalize undercover investigations like MFA’s, which have exposed animal abuse, assisted law enforcement, and helped assure food safety,” the representative says. “Factory farms need more transparency and scrutiny, not less.”
Whatever your position is on all of that, the whole thing does raise questions about YouTube’s own strategy, particularly as it gets more into both citizen journalism and the movie business. As you know, movie content is also often disturbing. In fact, there’s a whole genre dedicated to that emotion. It’s called horror. Where will the line be drawn on that? Currently, the NC-17-rated “The Gore Gore Girls” is feature in YouTube’s movie offerings. It could definitely be considered a “gross out movie”. I’ve seen it. It’s by H.G. Lewis, if that tells you anything. He’s often credited as the “Godfather of Gore”.
Often, reality is more disturbing than fiction, and video is a big part of journalism. YouTube has encouraged citizen journalism, even starting its own citizen news channel. Will this be compromised if the footage isn’t family-friendly?
Currently, there is still a broadcast news clip featuring edited footage from the E6 investigation video on YouTube.
Should YouTube have banned this video? Comment here. ]
For those who love film – especially the world of independent film – the Tribeca Film Festival is the place to be. Although the annual festival is only 10 years old, it has already thrust itself into the running for the top film festival in the U.S. and is internationally respected among filmmakers and fans alike.
The Tribeca Film Festival was started in 2001, most notably as the baby of Robert De Niro. The purpose of the festival was not only to help independent filmmakers get their movies to audiences, but also to spur the economic and cultural revitalization of NYC, post 9/11.
The 2011 festival, which started on April 20th and runs until May 1st, as detailed earlier takes place in New York City and thus prevents many film enthusiasts from attending.
But have no fear, film geeks! YouTube has announced today over on their blog that they will be showing the short films from the festival on their Screening Room channel:
Are you a film festival fanatic? Do you love keeping up with the latest indie hits? Are you at least somewhat interested in hearing David Duchovny voice a polar bear that’s BFF with Leonardo DiCaprio? Of course you are!
Since not everyone can make it to New York City for the 10th annual Tribeca Film Festival, YouTube, Tribeca and American Express have teamed up to bring the festival to you.
From today through May 17, check out the YouTube Screening Room for short films from both past and present Tribeca Film Festivals
First up are five short films: Brink, The Ignorant Bliss of Sun and Moon, Loose Change, Mr. Stache and The Beaufort Diaries. The latter is a short animated tale that tracks the rise and fall of a displaced polar bear in Hollywood. It is narrated by David Duchovny and due to some fictional dialogue from David Mamet is kinda NSFW.
YouTube also says that once you’ve blown through the first 5 short films, check the screening room on April 29th for the next batch.
This is all brought to you, the viewer, by a partnership between YouTube, Tribeca, and American Express. The Screening Room channel is just one in a number of steps YouTube is taking to become a colossus in the world of video. Recently, they launched YouTube Live for live streaming and soon after streamed California’s indie music festival Coachella for delighted music fans around the world.
On April 29th, the world of social media will explode when the latest Royal Wedding takes place. The soon-to-be nuptials of Prince William and Catherine Middleton, which takes place at Westminster Abbey, is the first Royal Wedding to take advantage of the Internet and the forecast is easy to predict.
There will be a run on Royal Wedding related Twitter hash tags, Facebook will explode with posts from ladies who dream of being in Middleton’s place, and of course, YouTube and Google will be in on the fun as well. In fact, YouTube will be streaming the event live, and some publications think the video king of the Internet could see viewership records broken as people flock together around mobile devices and laptops everywhere, eager to get a glimpse at the attractive couple.
It almost reminds one of a family gathering around the radio; however, in order to capture it correctly for this generation, instead of a black and white photograph, the medium would be a mash-up video of various people watching the event on their computer. With that in mind, it’s hard not to picture the video looking like a Chatroulette session.
Currently, there’s a countdown page on YouTube’s page for the Royal Family — the Royal Channel, naturally enough — reminding us that currently, only six days and 12 hours remain until the most anticipated wedding of the 21st century, considering the massive amounts of hype, anyway, kicks off. Interested YouTube members can upload best wishes and congratulatory videos if they so choose, which is the 21st century version of signing the wedding book:
YouTube’s page for the Royal Wedding also features the Buckingham-Palace-to-Westminster-Abbey procession route the couple will travel, making use of Google Maps in order to do so. There’s already a Google Earth-powered video of the route, which was previously discussed by WebProNews:
As for the records in doubt, as pointed out by The Vancouver Sun, the previous viewer record for a live stream was set when approximately 30 million viewers watched the YouTube Symphony Orchestra concert. If the whole world is indeed watching this wedding, creative license-ly speaking, of course, then that number should fall quite easily.
YouTube’s coverage starts an hour before the Royal Wedding does, giving users ample time to get their drink orders in and fulfilled.
HubPages, one of the content sites negatively impacted by the update is asking why YouTube did so well, and HubPages got hit, while they both have similar models in terms of user-generated content, each with its fair share of lesser-quality content.
What are the best practices for open publishing platforms due to the recent Panda update? In particular, where high quality content on a domain has been negatively impacted on average as much as any other content? Is it a question of content moderation, site architecture, both or something else?
While we believe the democratization of publishing and earning potential is an important part of the progress of the Web, we want to avoid a situation where a portion of content negatively impacts the rankings of high quality content. It appears HubPages has been impacted by this while YouTube has not, despite HubPages having a more strict content policy. In Google’s view, what is the recommended moderation standard that open publishing platforms should enforce?
Open publishing platforms tend to use one of two domain models. WordPress, Tumblr, Blogger organize mainly by subdomain, while HubPages and YouTube organize all the content under a single domain. Is there a recommendation on the best practice for open platforms regarding architecture?
In an effort to give Google clues, HubPages’ internal linking structure promotes the best content. For example, we program the “related articles” suggestions with content that we think users will find useful, and we submit sitemaps with a set priority so Google knows the most important content. We also understand the challenges of fighting off spam, spun articles and various forms of attacks; we believe we do the industry’s best job of fighting spam in an open publishing environment where every individual can have a voice.
Interestingly enough, Google has already even gone so far as to write a guest post for HubPages’ blog, providing tips on how to make content better for AdSense.
So far, Google hasn’t responded to Edmondson’s forum post.
Google did, however, drop an interesting stat in an unrelated post on the YouTube blog: 30% of all YouTube videos make up 99% of views. Here’s the quote from YouTube’s James Zern: “Given the massive size of our catalog – nearly 6 years of video is uploaded to YouTube every day – this is quite the undertaking,” he said of transcoding videos into the WebM format.. “So far we’ve already transcoded videos that make up 99% of views on the site or nearly 30% of all videos into WebM. We’re focusing first on the most viewed videos on the site, and we’ve made great progress here through our cloud-based video processing infrastructure that maximizes the efficiency of processing and transcoding without stopping.”
Another interesting point of note is that Demand Media (which operates eHow, which escaped the wrath of the initial U.S. Panda update, but was hit in the most recent version) is the biggest supplier of video to YouTube. eHow videos on YouTube still often appear in Google search results.
HubPages announced some new changes to its editorial policy, to crack down on affiliate links in articles. They’ve also decided to eliminate a news box, which ironically was originally designed to make pages contain more relevant information. A HubPages writer going by Ellen B. shared some interesting information in the comments on one of our articles, discussing the site’s content policies and impact of the Panda update. She writes:
Some years ago I attempted to take my notes from a college art history seminar I had taught as a graduate student — my own notes, my own lectures — and convert them into Hubs so I could earn a little adsense money from them. The only link I had was to my own travel diary of a trip I took to Greece, as a photo credit to demonstrate proof that my photos were my own (and, yes, some visitors might be interested in my trip to Greece, where I nattered a lot about Greek art).
They were wildly successful on Hubpages, but eventually every single one got shut down as overly promotional. I was selling NO PRODUCTS on them.
Meanwhile, I wrote similar informational, educational articles on Squidoo, and some of them earn $30+ a month. There are more ads, which I honestly don’t like, but I can’t knock the traffic and take-home pay. My Squidoo pages include links to many more educational resources and sites I’d recommend to students studying Greek art.
The Panda update knocked Hubpages traffic below Squidoo’s. This honestly surprised me. But one thing I wonder is whether they’re shooting themselves in the foot. As far as I can tell, you can barely link out to anything… even before this latest policy was put in place. Linking to sound, informational, un-spammy, and above all RELEVANT content which is related to your topic provides value and content. Hubpages won’t let its users do that. Squidoo does. There’s also Squidoo’s long-time aggressive internal system of banning, deleting, and taking down spammy topics and duplicate content, but I think Hubpages has similar policies… or does it?
I’m unsure why Hubpages got hammered harder than Squidoo. It’s a good idea not to keep all eggs in one basket anyway, so learning and posting on both is surely a good idea. Also, it’s good that the two sites operate differently, so you’ll never get burned on both. Yet I fear Hubpages may be learning some of the wrong lessons from all this.
Dana, another WebProNews reader, writes:
I write for Hubpages, and my traffic has not recovered yet either. I had a huge drop initially, and then my best hubs have slowly risen to about 3/4ths of what they used to be.
I am very pleased with Hubpages’ strategies to make Hubpages a higher quality site, as there are many many serious writers there.
As we speculated regarding eHow, it’s entirely possible that Google’s domain-blocking feature has contributed to HubPages’ search visibility woes. When Google announced the most recent roll-out of Panda, it also announced some tweaks to the U.S. algorithm, that it said impacted about 2% of queries, including the addition of domain-blocking as a ranking signal in “high confidence” situations. With eHow, it seemed likely that the site would be among the top-blocked sites, simply because it is generally one of the first named in discussions about “content farms”. Something similar may have happened with HubPages. The site was initially impacted by the U.S. Panda update, so if enough people blocked the domain from their results, Google could’ve considered it a “high confidence” situation. Again, just speculation.
It’s hard to imagine how many people may have blocked YouTube from their search results, but given that it’s the most popular video site on the web, and the fact that Google owns it, it’s not so hard to imagine Google keeping YouTube out of the “high confidence situation” category, even if there is a large amount of less than stellar-quality videos on the site.
