If you haven't heard about DailyMotion.com, you probably will fairly soon, particularly if you're one of those people who wants to watch commercial-free television shows for free. I stumbled upon the video-sharing site via by brother, who read about it on Forbes.com.
So who is DailyMotion? Well, they're based in Paris and there does not appear to be any ways they make money right now: no advertising, no sponsored links, nothing. The company, which received seven million euros of venture capital from Partech and Atlas Ventures, has 18 employees, although some of them could be part-timers or volunteers as opposed to full-time staff. The company's two founders are Benjamin Bejbaum and Olivier Poitrey.
According to Forbes, DailyMotion's traffic has tripled in the past three months, albeit off a small base given it only has 0.22% market share compared with 65% for YouTube. (I'd insert an Alexa chart but you barely be able to see DailyMotion on it.)
With DailyMotion running complete TV shows, the question is whether it's violating copyright laws. Forbes quoted someone from the Electronic Frontier Foundation that DailyMotion could be protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's “safe harbor” provision, which lets sites host infringed content if they aren't aware of it, don't profit from it and remove any infringing content immediately upon the copyright holder's request. I suspect DailyMotion may start getting more of these copyright holder requests once its profile starts to grow. In the meantime, have fun. I'm off to watch some “My Name is Earl” episodes as we speak.
Note: You can read an interview with Bejbaum on seomoz.org
What Would You Do With a Newspaper?
USA Today's Kevin Maney has a very intriguing column on what Internet entrepreneurs and thinkers (a.k.a. consultants) would do if they owned a newspaper. What he discovered was this: “These tech folks don't really have any radical, interesting ideas for newspapers”.
That's interesting because you figure a group of people who have embraced the digital distribution and consumption of content would have all kinds of ideas on how to kick-start newspapers into the Web age. You would figure someone would suggest that newspapers simply give away their paper and Web content for free and drive revenue from advertising. Or perhaps newspapers should just do a better job of embracing Internet technology such as RSS, IM, e-mail bulletins, personalized home pages, etc.
Part of the problem facing geeks when it comes to assessing how newspapers should operate is they have little or no knowledge of how newspapers actually work. Sure, they read newspapers – probably less than they did a few years ago – and many of them have all kinds of good ideas about how the Web can deliver content to different kinds of consumers BUT they have no clue of what a newsroom looks like and how reporters do their jobs. It means they don't understand the industry culture and why newspapers are having such a difficult time trying to get some more Web mojo.
Truth be told, newspapers must be a lot more aggressive when it comes to the Web. But it's going to be an extremely difficult process because newspapers have been operating in the much the same way for a 100 years (aside from reporters and editing using computers instead of typewriters). It's not just putting content on the Web but it means changing how content is created, who creates it and when it's published.
The typical reporter, for example, writes one or two stories a day over a nine-hour shift, which gives them time to think, interview, have a coffee, and talk with their editors. But the Web means reporters have to dramatically change how they work. They'll have to write stores in minutes rather than hours; they'll have to do blogs, podcasts and videoblogs at a time when changing economics means they'll have to work harder than ever because the size of newsrooms are shrinking. To really get reporters to buy in, it may take another generation that is more comfortable to multi-task.
In the meantime, newspapers have to focus on no-frills blocking and tackling. They have to embrace the Web with more enthusiasm, they have become leaner, they have to focus less on the news and more on providing readers with smart, well written stories that provide insight and perspective, and focus more energy on covering local stories rather than national and international.
The bottom line is there is no silver bullet for newspapers. They are going to lose readers, they are going to lose advertisers, they are going to lose reporters to maintain profits, and there will probably be much fewer newspapers around 10 years from now. There will be a place for newspapers but people are consuming information in new ways, and it may not mean reading a newspaper every day or, for that matter, at all.
For more thoughts, check out Ethan Stock, who works for a company called Zvents that focuses on providing online local information, and BlackRimGlasses, who would eliminate newspapers and make them all digital (after a dramatic restructuring of operations).
Everyone Loves BitTorrent
According to TechCrunch, BitTorrent has raised $25 million from Accel Partners and Doll Capital Management. BitTorrent has also signed distribution deals with a variety of major film and TV producers. So, the idea is the money and the licensing deals with MTV, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, etc. is going to make BitTorrent legit – and steer it farther away from its roots as a cool P2P technology used to download free movies, TV shows and music? In theory, that makes sense but it's a bit of a pipe-dream unless some of the $25-million is used to crack down on all those Torrent-crazed pirates out there. Mathew Ingram doesn't think much about the press release given he believes it's going to take a lot more than some PR for BitTorrent to compete against the pirates.
Q&A with b5media's Jeremy Wright
For anyone curious about b5media's roots and where it's heading, check out an interview that CEO Jeremy Wright did with Media Industry Professional Profiles.
Goodbye, Google Answers
In what may be a first for Google, the company has decided to shut down one of its sideshows/experiments – Google Answers - after more than four years. Is this a new strategic direction for Google and/or a sign of the times that some projects should die a quiet death if they're not working well? If this is Google's new approach, you wonder how long it will be before Okrut and Froogle are pushed out of the portfolio. Who knows, maybe this move suggests Google will be more pragmatic about rolling out new services rather than slapping stuff on the wall and seeing if it sticks. While Google gets points for experimenting with all kinds of different things, its less-than-stellar success into new markets (Google Spreadsheets, anyone?) has arguably damaged its reputation as an innovator more than it has produced tangible benefits. Update: Rex Hammock has a theory why Google Answers failed: Wikipedia.
Wireless Consumers are Stupid if…..
…anyone gets excited about a plan by Verizon Wireless to offer access to YouTube on a wireless device. For $15 a month, Verizon is offering a YouTube-like service as part of a service called VCast that will provide a limited number of YouTube videos that have been selected and approved by both companies.
Come on, it's a tough enough sell trying to get people to watch videos on teeny-tiny screens without neutering the world's most popular video sharing service…and asking people to fork out $15 for the privilege. The New York Times has a strange quote from YouTube co-founder Steve Chen, who contends “Everybody carries a phone with them, but they may not have a computer…[so people] can take the phone out of their pocket while waiting for the bus and watch a video.”
In theory, that's a nice sentiment but in practice, that's easier said than done. In trying to sell YouTube-lite at a premium price, Verizon clearly wants to manage demand while still getting a sense of whether the service actually works and if there are any bleeding edge suckers out there will be guinea pigs.
Of course, wireless carriers are happy to explore all and any ways to increase average revenue per subscriber (ARPU), which is an acronym for trying to squeeze more money out of existing customers. If YouTube-lite can help boost ARPU, there's no harm in trying to sell it. That said, any consumer who jump at YouTube-lite isn't thinking straight.
