YouTube will remain the television equivalent of a Kit-Kat – time for a break
Raymond Snoddy says that despite recently announcing record video views, YouTube is a rather hackneyed old television programme – America’s Funniest Home Videos – in a new format.
Roll the drums. YouTube has just celebrated its fifth birthday by announcing it has hit the 2 billion video views a day mark.
And that of course is more than double the viewership attracted by the US networks combined in primetime.
The achievement is awesome by any standards and the YouTubies are entitled to celebrate.
The numbers have led one comic celebrity, Conan O’Brien, to predict that in another five years there might not be any network television at all.
“Wouldn’t that be sweet,” said the Tubehead who seems to earn at least part of his current income from… network television.
Are we heading towards an eventual tipping point where the internet will be the world’s dominant video-delivery system.
Perhaps.
Eventually.
But in the meantime we must get on with the boring and predictable work of deconstructing the “YouTube Overtakes Network Television” headlines.
Just in case there is anybody out there who is not wholly awake – someone had better make the effort.
First the YouTube total hits come from the entire world not just US television viewers. An academic would probably argue that is a classic case of false comparison.
The average stay on YouTube is 15 minutes. They are doing their best to increase that but to put up entire shows rather than clips might cost money and meet competition from Hulu, whose owners include network companies ABC and NBC.
By comparison the average American viewer watches five hours of television a day.
The US networks still bring in advertising in the billions. YouTube does not.
And sorry to be boring again. It’s important to look at what the viewers to YouTube are actually watching: their tastes and preferences.
Luckily we have that information too.
The top five stars in descending order are:
1. Charlie bit my finger (190m)
2. Susan Boyle – Singer – Britain’s Got Talent 2009 (92.8m)
3. Paul Sings Dessun Dorma (65m)
4. The Sneezing Baby Panda (62.6m)
5. High School Musical 2 Everyday (56m)
A mixed bag for sure, from Turandot to SuBo – who is presumably still not bringing in any YouTube income for ITV.
But just think for a moment about the implication of 253 million people queuing up to watch a sneezing baby panda and a baby biting his brother’s finger.
Are TV executives wasting all their money on development, talent, scripts?
The truth is simple. These are different things – different experiences.
YouTube was, and is, a rather hackneyed old television programme – America’s Funniest Home Videos – in a new format, amplified endlessly by the internet.
Perhaps Neil Postman’s 1985 prediction – made in different circumstances, is finally coming true – that through television we are all in danger of taking nothing seriously and amusing ourselves to death.
The good news remains people watch on average for only 15 minutes a day – much of it probably in their employer’s time.
Pity those who are above average viewers.
There is of course an obvious threat to the future of network television from the likes of YouTube.
The eyeballs watching YouTube on computers cannot be simultaneously watching network television.
Come the already arriving next generation of TV sets and YouTube will be there in all its glory on the main set in the living room.
What chance will a Channel 4 documentary on the atrocities committed against Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka have then?
It is actually much more likely that both will co-exist, often in the same consumer’s viewing habits.
YouTube will remain the television equivalent of a Kit-Kat – Time For A Break. If it tries too hard to be anything else that could be the start of its demise. Although there was that very serious Gordon Brown smile moment.
YouTube, despite its wilder claims, is positively benign compared with Facebook.
Yet another survey has this week identified just how important the social networking site is, particularly in the life of young girls.
Forty per cent of eight to 15-year-olds said Facebook was one of the most important things in their lives compared with only 6% of boys.
They’re probably too young to have much of a financial profile to leak around the world but Facebook sounds pretty sinister all the same.
Critics note that a social networking site which promised its users privacy has been opening up personal information and photos to strangers.
Anyone going for a job interview beware.
Critics go on to say Facebook has deliberately made it difficult for users to protect themselves by forcing them to go through 50 settings with more than 170 options.
My personal relationship with Facebook has been very clear from the outset. I personally don’t want anything to do with it.
Yes to LinkedIn, Twitter and even YouTube. No to Facebook.
There is a problem. Son Oliver, who is something in online interactive media, has signed me up without prior consultation.
Friends who have come out of the woodwork have been met with a resolute and stony silence which must seem very rude. Nothing personal. As Bruce Forsyth would say I love you all. It’s just the Facebook block.
Can anyone tell me how to get the listing taken down before this becomes too embarrassing?