User created video sharing site Revver has landed an intriguing partnership with a new UK TV station called FameTV. Revver users will be able to opt-in for TV broadcast and those selected will be shown on FameTV. Viewers will vote for their favorites by SMS and revenue sent to Revver will be split 50/50 with the video publishers.I think the blogger brings up a very good point about how Web 2.0 Revver is. Of course since we are all done finishing our finals we can debate whether or not Revver is meeting the Web 2.0 requirements. There are a couple other things I want to point out.This is the kind of partnership we’ve seen fomenting in previous deals like PodShow’s Sirius broadcasts, the podcast fueled radio station KYOU and Rocketboom on Tivo.
Revver is very 2.0, with post roll still frame ads, revenue splits for publishers, social bookmarking integration and an API. Unfortunately, they’ve had a tough time building the kind of critical mass that YouTube has. Aside from a handful of high profile video series (Ze Frank, Ask a Ninja, Lonelygirl15) there’s not a lot of good content on the network. Perhaps it’s the revenue sharing that brings less authentically creative and more profit driven amateurs to make up the bulk of the content at Revver. I don’t know. A TV partnership may or may not help.
1) Does sharing revenue produce less authentic and thus therefore less desired content. The post mentions that it has not reached the critical mass of YouTube but is that simply because YouTube got the buzz jump or is it the content.
2) Will this model work in the US? I know American Idol and other shows use SMS to have the audience vote. Will this be the new model for America's funniest home video? I can see it now, Bob Sagat hosting a bunch of Revver clips and making jokes about his days on Full House.
1 comment:
Having just met with a Revver VP at their offices yesterday, I can say they are very hung up on the legalities of content. They believe that YouTube was built on stealing... However correct they are, the movie and TV industries seem determined to work with them rather than destroy them like Napster.
I disagree that Revver's model leads to lower quality content. If anything, I would expect that they have better content in percentage terms; however, YouTube's huge numbers virtually ensure they will have some good or creative material emerge.
The real question is: are people posting their creations to make money? I think the answer is no; they areposting to get noticed, to get the big Hollywood deal, where the real fame and fortune is... This means they go for the exposure - audience size - not the dollars, in general terms.
If this market evolves like blogging, however, that could change quickly as quality producers begin to seek to make a living rather than just make a name for themselves.
Lastly, the most valuable thing Revver my have is their ad insertion technology... The "Video Adwords" of the future is where the bucks are and why I believe that Google ultimately bought YouTube... for ad inventory.
Post a Comment