Revver: The Newest British Comedy

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

1. lemon obrien
   

   October 10th, 2006 at 1:49 pm

   yikes…i checked it out…the name sucks; but its better than youTube; nicer design; fast; and monitized.

2. michael lambie
   

   October 10th, 2006 at 2:29 pm

   i wonder when people will start putting up more ideas for ad revenues. the clickable ads at the end of the tape is decent, but are people clicking? are they targeted?

3. Ahu Chhapgar
   

   October 10th, 2006 at 2:32 pm

   http://www.engadget.com/2006/1.....ideo-ipod/

   Apple will be launching a wireless iPod by Oct 23rd, the 5th Anniversary of iPod.

4. lemon obrien
   

   October 10th, 2006 at 2:37 pm

   @michael lambie

   Yeah, this is the trick; no one gets paid cause no clicks ads; yet they still get paid for embedding it.

5. James
   

   October 10th, 2006 at 2:50 pm

   It’ll be really interesting to see how this pans out. I’ve just been watching the tests of Fame TV and it’s different to how I thought it would look - like MTVFlux I guess which just launched here.

   As it doesn’t have a music video schedule but the onscreen presence is purely video clips (it’s a 3 by 3 square of clips, plus text numbers and latest votes) I don’t know it’s something you’d sit and watch unless you had sent or were expecting to see something?

6. Amit Chowdhry
   

   October 10th, 2006 at 2:55 pm

   Marshall,
   You should get this on TechCrunch UK too.

7. Brian Solis
   

   October 10th, 2006 at 3:03 pm

   Marshall, this is a good start. I’m also excited up the stuff they have in the pipeline. I’ve been playing with these tools for a while now, and the integration is truly starting to position ZOHO as a viable alternative to the “other” software suite that we currently use.

8. Klim
   

   October 10th, 2006 at 4:02 pm

   And yet they still don’t have commenting enabled on their videos?

   Don’t they want people to come to their site and browse/comment on videos? Or is the whole focus on embedding the videos into other sites that will provide the platform for comments?

9. Dann
   

   October 10th, 2006 at 4:33 pm

   Revver’s lack of content isn’t because it draws revenue-driven creators over authentically creative ones (what does that even mean?).

   The “problem” is that Revver is pro-active in terms of copyright. They don’t knowingly allow videos that infringe on copyright to get posted. It’s kind of a must if they’re trying to profit off the content (and they are).

   Contrasted with YouTube, which will put up anything and then be *reactive* in terms of copyright. How many different people posted “Lazy Sunday” the day after it aired?

   The barrier to entry for Revver is higher. It’s much easier to take some video content (movie footage) and overlay some audio content (popular music) and end up with a wacky movie trailer than it is to create something that doesn’t violate someone’s copyright.

10. lemon obrien
    

    October 10th, 2006 at 4:42 pm

    @Dann

    this is really true. most people can’t create original content beyond the boring, “lets sit in front of the camera and talk about nothing.”

    my company has that problem too; eventhough, we want to make everyone rich; no one gets it that old media is dead….

    this revolution, in my view, is about 10 years too early. Most people are boring, do nothing, and just want to be entertained…the whole pro-active generation is, well, just learning…this is why youTube content is so bad; and mostly stolen.

11. AJ Cann
    

    October 11th, 2006 at 4:38 am

    “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”

    Are you nuts? Waddya mean, aside from Ze Frank?
    AJC, complaining so you don’t have to!

12. RevverSkeptic
    

    October 11th, 2006 at 8:54 am

    The “problem” with Revver is that it’s a platform, and the average online video user isn’t looking for a platform, wouldn’t recognize one if they found one and would look at you pretty funny once it was explained to them.

    The much-mooted “Diet Coke & mentos” cash-in could not be more atypical of the user experience. Users upload videos to Revver and are then left to drive their own traffic. How? Well, you can always email all your friends. Or spam social bookmarking sites “where your stuff will stand out against all the tech stuff”. Yup, very 2.0. Spam your URL in tech forums to drive traffic for your pet trick videos. Nice.

    Let’s then say that the average Revver user manages to drive a little traffic. A little traffic isn’t going to drive the kind of click-thru’s that will result in any kind of serious cash. Or much more than pocket change for the average user. It’s a bait and switch, more or less.

    Revver is the “affiliate marketing scheme” of online video (remember the new retail world of affiliate marketing on every Geocities website?) A handful of users may generate some decent traffic (and click thru’s are a given on traffic right? no? oh…) The majority will not be funding their kids college education on pet trick videos.

    Yup, there’s not a lot of good content on Revver. But be realistic - the issues go beyond that.

13. Slavito
    

    October 11th, 2006 at 10:47 am

    From the article:

    “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…”

    I think this is a very strange argument. If anything, I would think revenue sharing would attract more, not less qualified video makers.

    Would you say then that bloggers who run ads on their sites are also “less creative”?

14. RevverSkeptic
    

    October 11th, 2006 at 5:03 pm

    Perhaps the reason Revver attracts “less authentically creative” video makers is that, as noted, it’s the 2.0 equivalent of “affiliate marketing on your Geocities hopepage”. You put the work in then watch the micropayments be really, really micro.

    It may just be that more creative video makers go where the audience is in the hope of being seen, and that isn’t Revver. Micro-fame remains a bigger driving force than micro-payments.

15. Grazer7
    

    October 11th, 2006 at 8:20 pm

    Revver is really leading the pact in creating sustainable business models for content creators. This is so efficient and exctitng..thank goodness at least one of the 200 video sharing sites out there is respecting creator’s rights and compensating them… I see creators making a living off of their work directly without the need for studios.. WELL DONE REVVER!!! KEEP IT UP!

16. Matt
    

    October 12th, 2006 at 4:48 pm

    I made $10 in a week by posting to a message board footage of me racing my car around a racetrack. Can I do this every week? No. Is this enough money for me to do it again? Probably not.

    Revver is a good idea, but few individuals will be able to scale large enough to make a material amount of money.

    They should make it a lottery. Rather than being guaranteed the $10 based on the clicks I got.. I would have been happier if I were entered into a lottery to win $1000 among a pool of 100 others who would have also earned $10 each.

    1 in a hundred chance to win $1000.. or guaranteed $10?