User Generated Content Doesn't Work For Everyone
Denver, Colorado-based ManiaTV was launched in 2004 as a video destination based around quality, professionally produced content. When YouTube exploded onto the scene, though, ManiaTV tried to jump on the bandwagon by launching over 3000 channels of user generated content (UGC). Curiously, however, even while YouTube thrived and eventually grew to a $1.65 billion acquisition by Google, ManiaTV saw 80% of their visitors -- and 100% of their advertisers -- tune in for their professional content, reports BusinessWeek. The site will relaunch later today sans the UGC.
Even Google has so far conceded that it is not easy to monetize UCG. YouTube began placing overlay ads on select videos in August, but so far has not yet started advertising on user generated videos, instead opting to begin their ad program with professionally created content, which is a far easier sell to advertisers who have to worry less about offensive material being associated with their products.
We've reported before about Hollywood's move toward web video, and today MySpace will get in on the act with the release of their first, professionally produced scripted web series, Roommates. This is a trend that we'll likely see continue.
While UGC can drive a lot of traffic for some sites, it is clear that advertisers are still uncomfortable with it. This is nothing new. Many display ad networks do not allow publisher sites to show advertising on user generated content pages. For example, ValueClick's publish agreement prohibits web sites that "contain forums, discussion boards, chat rooms, or any content area that is open to public updates without regulation." As a result, we may begin to see many of the smaller UGC video players start to shift back toward produced content as a way attract advertisers. With the cost of production falling, and the cost of hosting UGC on the rise (as a result of it being a tougher sell to advertisers), creating origin content is a no-brainer.
Share1 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1723
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
A really useful post! Your central point is unquestionably correct: It's difficult, and perhaps impossible, to monetize user-generated video content. Google is still working to demonstrate that this can, in fact, be accomplished.
Your second point is that this will inevitably lead sites to start to create their own video content. This also looks indisputable. These existing services will look for a revenue stream and this producer-created content looks like the only other viable option.
However, it's not clear that this focus on producer-created content will be any more profitable than a focus on user-generated content. As you correctly note, the cost of content creation is falling daily. Nonetheless, when producers create content they are betting that they can build a large audience with a far smaller number of videos. It's important to remember that only a very small number of the many thousands of pieces of video on the site will ever become popular.
I believe Hollywood often referred to producers who could figure out what would be popular as having a golden gut. Now, the owners of these sites must find video productions that will be cost effective to produce and sufficiently popular that they attract enough advertising to make the sites profitable. My guess is that this is going to be a far more difficult task than many of the popular video sharing sites realize.
Bruce Judson
Founder, Search Free Apps
http://www.SearchFreeApps.com
the problem is in the term "user generated content." it is not very different from saying "content" since most content is created by users (except content created by bots).
what's really needed is something that filters and remixes user-generated content. then, we'll see that user generated content is just a cheaper way of generating high quality content.
i used to have 2 video channels @ maniatv that where top5 when when it comes to viewers. I did all this without making any income out of it. I uploaded my fav videos along with my own productions. It was the best alternative to see a different kind of television, more independent, not vulgar and more entertaining for my personal taste. I agree with the person above that user generated content is just a cheaper way of generating high quality content.
anyway, this situation shows how the media is actually dictated by the advertisers. free expression is fairytale when it comes to corporate marketshare hunting. if you would read their Terms of Service Agreement you would see that they cant terminate and suspend without prior notice all your content even if it meets their internal policy by that time. The Corporations are marketing what we want so they can provide us whit what they want.
It wasn't nice and I bet at least a part of the 3000 user generated got mad and in the future they will remember this kind of professional charlatanism.
SOme people cant understand that other want to share their expression freely.
I make my own videos and music and I don't enjoy selling my productions, I like to share. Feel free to watch my videos, rate them and comment . here is the link :
http://www.youtube.com/bogdy72000