Danny Sullivan and Michael Arrignton have long posts/roundups with some “day 2″ thoughts on “NewTube,” the News Corp.-NBC project, which apparently isn’t going to be a destination but instead a distribution strategy. That’s very strange.
A destination doesn’t hinder the distribution strategy (via MySpace, AOL, MSFT and Yahoo!); in fact it complements it. But maybe from an operations standpoint it makes sense not to try and build a site. It’s still strange.
YouTube remains “brand” in video for the foreseeable future.
Arrington and to a lesser extent Danny Sullivan are highly critical of what they’ve seen and read. Arrington is close to calling “NewTube” DOA. I’m a bit more cautious, but the current strategy, as evidenced by the press conference, release and related news, may not achieve the desired objectives (especially if one of those is to create a viable alternative to YouTube for these media companies).
Related: Here’s comScore data on video traffic and user behavior by daypart (5pm to 8pm is online “prime time”):
Click to enlarge graphic.
March 24, 2007 at 8:42 pm |
I agree that not offering a destination would be a mistake. Broadcast and cable nets still lament over having built cable operators like Comcast into giants. Why would they do the same online and build Joost, GooTube or anyone else on the content brand and offering?
I don’t advocate a destination full of bad / short UCG that traditional TV advertisers can’t support – let Google have that. But owning a site from which to distribute their own quality short or long form content is a no-brainer.