YouTube Case Study
The idea of YouTube is a successful and iconic one – commercially and culturally ranking with ‘Zuckerberg’s’ Facebook, Google, Wikipedia and the loaf of bread as a pre requisite for modern living (as far as the target audience are concerned). If you are not 12-17 as the dominant viewing age group are (but very much not the exclusive age group) or indeed wheat intolerant then maybe these bastions of culture and modern society are not for you.
YouTube’s primary target audience reflects the classic cinema going demographic who enjoy films between the ages of 12-17 before stumbling upon more ‘adult’ entertainment but arguably YouTube can provide this as well with limited restrictions on content. Research suggests this demographic has an equally female to male split but what is becoming more and more acknowledged, particularly in the UK is the significant 25-55, male skew target group with specific cultural capital who comprise a more specialised, niche audience looking for anything from Constructivist art videos to guides on how to change an air filter in a Volvo V70.
There is everything and nothing to look at on YouTube whether entertainment based or informative and educational.
As a file sharing site YouTube relies heavily on individually uploaded, user generated content but it must also be remembered this myth of individualism and democracy can be challenged by the fact that many corporations use YouTube to upload material for publicity and advertising purposes – institutions like the BBC, CBS and even VEVO (see comments later) promote their products and artists who are often consumed virally via viral mixes of existing videos (e.g. parody and homage of iconic music videos or mash ups - a key and unique feature of the site that ensures broad access. Many advertising agencies will admit to being creatively influenced by the literally millions of videos available (current estimates in February 2012 suggest 4 billion views daily) and have taken those ideas back to the boardroom to inspire their own creativity.
Conversely Fallon, a UK based advertising agency in 2007 produced a 90 second television and cinema advert for Cadbury’s entitled Gorilla which depicted a man in a Gorilla costume drumming to Phil Collins’ In the Air Tonight - a viral version was uploaded to YouTube with half a million views or hits in the first week but more pertinently provoked over 200 viral ‘mash-ups’ developed in bedrooms, sheds and garages without the backing of a production company and a non-existent production budget ranging from a spoof Eastenders version to a thrash metal version.
Measuring success in advertising is notoriously problematical but Cadbury’s suggested a not insignificant increase in their chocolate sales post a damaging 2006 Salmonella scare was in part due to this particular advert becoming embedded in popular culture as part of the YouTube ‘community’. For YouTube to have a video become part of popular culture is more hype and awareness of the file sharing brand itself. Some brands like YouTube, Google, Wikipedia, Michael Jackson, God and Elvis Presley appear in within consciousness that it seems incredulous that there are consumers out there that may not have heard of the site.
Since its arrival in 2005 YouTube has produced ‘internet stars’, and generated global interest in material that in other mediums may seem benign or lacking impact – humour and voyeurism are the main source of entertainment in terms of audience appeals although instruction or educational videos on YouTube must not be underestimated; as well as enjoying a talking dog and twins chatting to each other my friend learnt recently the fundamental theory of how to swim from YouTube before presenting herself at the pool with armbands to undertake some ‘theory into practice’. It is difficulty sometimes to image why hundreds of millions of people are so interested in a ‘talking dog’:
Three ex PayPal employees from a Computer Science background; Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim originated YouTube in 2005. The idea itself, in the same way as Zuckerberg’s intellectual ownership of Facebook has been seen as controversial and frequently dragged through the courts, has been fiercely contested. Mythical stories of the three men frustrated at wanting to upload film shot at a dinner party has added to the marketing, hype and enigma surrounding a multi-billion dollar business. On a micro level (just like any website) the domain name www.youtube.com was registered with the first video Me at the Zoo uploaded at 8.27pm, April 23rd, 2005 by co-founded Jawed Karim. From micro, macro swiftly followed with simplistic, open access technology making YouTube available to millions upon millions of users with Hurley, Chen and Karim exploiting available technology – the site uses Abobe Flash Video and HTML with Adobe Flash being the most common pieces of software available on PC platforms accepting most formats making uploading a video and viewing simple. Buyers quickly became interested in YouTube’s global potential and in 2006 YouTube sold to Google Inc. for $1.65 billion which included a multi-million dollar share deals for the three co-founders. Within a year YouTube had become an asset so valuable it meant that their founders would never need to work again. The three PayPal employees attracted an initial capital investment of $3.15 million followed by $8 million which then increased over time.
Web 2.0 quickly followed with the HTML element enabling users to embed and share YouTube videos on any external page as links e.g. on blogs, in SMS/MMS text messages and on social networking pages. With this degree of macro distribution YouTube grew at a phenomenal rate alongside social networking sites like Facebook and ultimately Twitter in a similar way that the internet itself grew and grew to the point that these are monsters that are out of control. Virally, once the technology is available a site like YouTube was always going to spread like a forest fire opening up possibilities, turning consumers into producers overnight and revolutionising the idea of a one way narrative into something more interactive, a two way communication that is more ‘democratic’. The fundamentals of the internet are often forgotten after such a short early life that we now absolutely take for granted – a big, ‘fat’ pipe in terms of broadband connection means that the Global Village is now a reality. We are in touch with anybody, anyplace, anytime, anywhere suggesting that the technology was always waiting for Zuckerberg, Hurley, Chen and Karim as it will be for the next entrepreneur and the next ‘big thing’ whether Web 3.0 or 4.0.
A 15 minute limit was initially the standard upload YouTube time (later reduced to 10 minutes) with trusted account verification needed for longer streams. Quality is now measured in numerical value reflecting low quality streams, higher quality streams, 4:3 or 16:9 more widescreen availability. HD and 3D are now also possibilities. The variation in quality also depends on what format the video was initially shot on and how it was uploaded. Early Beta Testers undertook a 6 month trial before YouTube went global with early statistics confirming the acceleration of interest in the site – in 2006 65,000 videos were uploaded daily along with 100 million views compare to current figures of 4 billion views per day as identified earlier. In 2008, 15 minutes per day was seen as the average YouTube viewing time compared to the average 3/4 hours a day of average American television consumption although it is suggested that ¾ of YouTube views come from outside the US. The BBC journalist Martin Bell described televised coverage war and conflict in 1993 as “immediacy without understanding”; YouTube viewing moves carefully into this category with audiences looking for immediate gratification which has come to be the expectations of so much online access. Successful YouTube videos will hook the viewer immediately offering superficial, but high impact representations that do not intellectually challenge or necessarily educate. See Go ! Bwaaah !:
Despite the above statistic that most views come from outside the US, the user generated ‘entertainment’ content of YouTube is predominantly American suggesting that there is an ‘element’ of audiences from outside the US buying into American culture – not cultural imperialism as in Hollywood film but more a voyeuristic interest into mainstream American culture.
Audience appeals can be complex however and range from the obvious, voyeuristic, manifest appeal to catharsis, to empathy and sympathy, to anger and outrage. Any emotive reaction would be considered as a successful reaction to a YouTube video whether negative or positive with the whole point encouraging you, and other consumers to return to the video increasing the number of hits. This way advertising revenue can be explained and justified. Chen, Hurley and Karim described the business model of YouTube as advertising based with initial monthly revenues of $15 million offset against running costs $5 million per month. The free, open access model may seem to need low production values to sustain their continued existance but bandwidth in particular must be paid for – just like a website or commercial television and radio or print media production costs, profit are all about successfully securing advertising revenue. Open access sites like YouTube have the opportunity to bespoke advertising to content although critics would argue the word in fact is ‘exploit’, not bespoke. YouTube simply reinforces notions of consumerism although Social Analysts Tapscott and Williams argue that 2.0 and global distribution facilitating the Global Village is promoting ‘economic democracy’ and spreading cultural knowledge. Blunt criticism and more liberal, pluralistic, borderline Marxist readings would suggest that YouTube are ‘selling their consumers to advertisers’. There are two clear views in regards to YouTube – does it empower the individual or is it a corporate institution in disguise?
The media and advertising debate will be a long running one with the YouTube ‘you don’t have to watch the adverts’ arguments countered by the fact the even the act of clicking away from a piece of advertising communication encodes some form of brand recognition, whether conscious, subconscious or subliminal. The unconscious argument maps well onto 2.0 as an interactive platform that involves sharing ideas, beliefs and comments across blogs, social networking sites and file sharing sites that all carry advertising images and advertising audio content. YouTube’s commercial imperative was anchored in 2008 after agreement was made with MGM, Lionsgate and CBS to show full length feature films on the site to compete with Hulu, a subscription based service available only in Japan and the US owned by Fox (News Corporation), NBC (part of conglomerate NBC Universal), ABC, Disney and Nickelodeon.
Expansion was, and is continuous with January 2010 seeing a film rentals service brought in available only in the US, Canada and the UK (maximising access to English language, mainstream Hollywood film) and March 2010 seeing claims by YouTube that in making available free streams of the IPL (Indian Premier League, commercially high profile 20-20 Cricket) this was the first time that legally this type of sporting coverage had happened. In November 2011 Google + fully synergised with YouTube by direct linking with their social networking site. YouTube applications on mobile phones and tablets are now commonplace, from iPhones and iPads to HTC to Android and is also available on Sony Play station (PS3), Wii and X Box.
Controversy has added to the hype of YouTube and sometimes this controversy is at odds with the perceived freedom and democracy apparent within the site. Many lawsuits have been filed against YouTube but in the last year the site has seen record companies removing videos as a result of a licensing argument initially with the PRS in the UK (Performing Rights Society). Cynically this has coincided with the growth of VEVO (owned by Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group, two of the major now ‘big three’ oligopoly of music publishers) where mainstream artists’ work is streamed in high resolution. Another multinational conglomerate, Viacom (ex owners of Paramount) failed publicly in a long running case that accused YouTube of not preventing copyright being broken with YouTube’s defence simply being through the courts that this was beyond their jurisdiction – if a video is to be removed for copyright reasons the copyright owner must issue a ‘Take Down Notice’ and then follow the correct procedures. Since this case YouTube have, however introduced Content ID software where the system can allegedly match uploaded material against registered copyright which flag up issues that are not necessarily spotted by the copyright owner.
Governments and individuals have complained about YouTube content but without copyright violation the only way for a YouTube video to be taken down is by it being flagged up by the consumers themselves as having ‘inappropriate content’ with the suggestion that is has broken the very vague YouTube Community Guidelines and Terms of Use. The problem YouTube, as much as the online community is faced with is the fact that with a global file sharing site, who has responsibility as the gatekeeper and who policies the content that must reference issues of cultural regulation? One video will be humorous to one culture but offensive to another. It is also unclear how many complaints through flagging have to be made before an investigation is launched with the possible result of having the video taken down. Once controversial content has been uploaded there is the suggestion that the damage has already been done – in a similar way the ASA (Advertising Standards Agency) investigates complaints about advertising content and in the same way that the PCC (Press Complaints Commission) investigates newspaper and magazine articles once they have been seen by millions of people they have often become part of popular culture. YouTube, for example was the first port of call for those interested in seeing the execution of Sadaam Hussein in 2006, an early piece of cultural hype and marketing for the ‘new’ file sharing site.
China is the only country that has taken the ultimate approach to censoring YouTube content by banning it completely with other countries like Libya and Egypt temporarily disabling access and time of political and social crisis – ironically however in Egypt, Mubarak’s shutting down of the internet and mobile phone networks meant protesters successfully took to the streets.
Despite controversy, lawsuits are frequent but come and go and are often settles out of court. This rarely applies to the raft of pointless uploaded user generated content as identified earlier and often overshadows the educational aspects - what YouTube has done for education is often underestimated. Many teachers have campaigned over the years to have YouTube available to staff and students as a teaching resource with the prolmatical issue being open access to inappropriate content – in the same way that YouTube’s Community Guidelines and Terms of Use are open to interpretation, the 18 age restriction is easy to navigate around. This opens up a far larger debate centred around the whole concept of desensitisation and reregulation. YouTube are very much reflecting moves towards a lack of media regulation driven by desensitised audiences with technology and the need to be entertained on an immediate, often voyeuristic level paramount. The individual is more in control of the content of YouTube and the idea of self regulation is promoted – there are even videos on YouTube explaining to users how to upload a video and avoid issues of copyright, clearly and simply reflecting a more postmodern, self reflexive approach to YouTube use. Traditional media has also drawn an essence from YouTube with television programme like Rude Tube taking the voyeuristic appeal of the file sharing site to another level by constructing yet another show that gives audiences a chance to see shocking, amusing or unfortunate events unfold. This genre of programming from Candid Camera in the 1970s to Beadle’s About in the 1980s, through to Channel 5’s Most Wildest Police Videos and Harry Hill’s TV Burp is not new and in many ways what YouTube is offering in digital format is the same as what television has been reproducing for years. Traditional media and new media implode.
At 419, 323.784 views, Charlie Bit My Finger remains the sixth most viewed YouTube video of all time but the most popular that would be considered as User Generated Content – the most popular video is Justin Bieber’s Baby followed by Jennifer Lopez - On the Floor, Lady Gaga - Bad Romance and Eminem, all from VEVO and all mainstream recording artists signed to Sony or Universal evidencing the control record companies have over YouTube and how successfully they have manipulated the medium. Without going directly to VEVO viewers can link through YouTube while they may be surfing other non music based entertainment. Universal and Sony have exploited YouTube with synergy a key factor. In the defence of Justin Bieber, he was as an artist discovered on YouTube in 2008 and then eventually signed after posting user generated videos of himself of the site. YouTube would claim Bieber is an example of an ‘internet star’.
Charlie Bit My Finger is classic user generated content pressing all the right buttons in terms of audience appeals – children and animals are comprise the main content of YouTube user generated videos because their representations are emotive and humorous. The video is funny, it seems gentle and innocent representing an aspirational sibling relationship and also allows audiences to identify with the most common of familiar concepts; the family. It can, however be analysed in terms of genre (comedy), narrative and representation. Whether intended by the producer the video even has a three or even four act structure applying Todorov – there is equilibrium or ‘normality’, a form of disruption (finger bitten) and a resolution involving order restored. There is a rhythm to the short video that ensures audiences ask questions via narrative enigmas like who are they/where are they? ensuring hype within shared, embedded links in social networking sites. Stereotypically Charlie Bit My Finger would attract mainly female viewers who respond on a more stereotypical level to this type of representation.
YouTube’s bandwidth is full of videos like Charlie Bit My Finger or David After Dentist(106 million views) where audiences voyeuristically enjoy the pleasure of other people’s lives that are both ordinary and extraordinary. This is the domain of the mainstream audience who seek short lived entertainment but in terms of uses and gratifications entertainment that can be shared (personal relationships). Recommended links will take the viewer to similar videos in a perpetual, cyclical narrative where searches reflect the need to be entertainment – Ninja Baby, I Don’t Like You Mommy, Chubby, Cuppy, Cup Cake Boy, and When A 3 Year Old Is Asked About Monsters satisfy an arguably vacuous, voyeuristic pleasure. Alongside millions of videos of children and animals is also a raft of educational content from Philosophy Lectures to software tutorials. As an educational tool YouTube has open ended potential but as with traditional media Documentary versus Action Films, Sight and Sound film magazine compared to Total Film, Radio 4’s Six O’Clock News against Sky News the money is attracted to mainstream, entertainment content. Mainstream content will always attract advertisers compared to niche content with the key advantage YouTube having of being able to attract both.
The latest developments for YouTube currently involve getting rid of a range of privacy policies in terms of simplicity and linking more obviously Google, G Mail and YouTube – convergent links maximise the potential to profit from all platforms owned by Google Inc. YouTube homepage offers the opportunity of creating an account or searching via a number of genre categories including music, film and animation, news and politics, comedy or ‘trending’ and just like other 2.0 platforms suggestions as to areas of interest are offered to the viewer. The future remains very positive for YouTube with an established online community all aware of the brand and all familiar with its content.
No comments:
Post a Comment