bdb: sorry but I didn’t see that you actually posted any real argument to refute? All you’ve posted is an ad hominem attack, requesting that us know-it-alls “shut up” and that I stop “spewing.” A little hint: if you want others to hold an intelligent, grown-up debate with you, you’ll have more success if you act intelligent and grown-up.

As for this statement:

“There will have to be some major changes to the standard household entertainment center before one can compare the viewer numbers between the 2 very different content types.”

This hardly qualifies as a reasoned argument because you provide no evidence to back it up, but just to appease your desire to have anybody actually take you seriously in this discussion given *your* complete lack of respect, I will make one comment. It’s apparent that your understanding of the way the advertising business works is either limited or flawed. When a major advertiser or ad agency is looking to spend money, it is typically looking at total audience size. What medium that audience is found in, whether it be television, radio or the Internet, doesn’t matter. Obviously the metrics are slightly different for each, but at the end of the day advertising is designed to reach consumers and the metrics that drive most decisions are related to audience size. When advertisers make their decisions, different mediums are compared side-by-side, regardless of whether or not you think it’s impossible to do so on an apples to apples basis. Therefore, if you have an eventstream with a small audience, how that audience is interacting with the content is not very important if the audience is not large enough to be of benefit to the advertiser, or the labor cost of doing the deal does not make sense given the amount of the money that has to be spent. In short, 1,000 viewers is 1,000 viewers regardless of the medium.

Thank you. Now that I’m probably over 2,500 words here, I’ll “quit spewing” since you asked so nicely.

I don’t see any revolution happening here. The fact that these sites are feeding (or trying to ride the coattails of) the iPhone hype is humorous since their sites will not work with the iPhone. Apple is not aware of this “revolution” perhaps.

Web 2.0 gold rushing continues….

Bob, Editor
Gary Carvolth Voice of the Common Man
http://www.garycarvolth.com

Feeling self-important these days?

Please quit spewing, it really is ridiculous.

And if the definition of “eventstreaming” a sporting event is standing outside the stadium and broadcasting what people are doing, well, good luck with that, too.

Did you really compare ANY cable tv show (”2nd tier” or not) to an online video? That is simply not an “apples to apples” comparison (you should know better). I don’t know many, if any, that see video online unless it’s on/from youtube.

Most folks I know sit down in front of a TV when they want to see video, and control it via handheld (eg. remote) with very little interaction other than selecting the content. There will have to be some major changes to the standard household entertainment center before one can compare the viewer numbers between the 2 very different content types.

I clearly understand what you are saying, in fact your words “Let’s ask ourselves two questions: how relevant do we really think this “event” was to the average American? Do we really believe that average Americans are going to flock en masse to spend hours watching eventstreams of “events” like a bunch of people waiting outside of an Apple store in Palo Alto for a product launch?”

You my friend are missing the point. No matter the event, there will be a niche who wants to see it. The combined number of all these niches is significant and yes, does demonstrate a turning point in how media is delivered. It may not be through Ustream or a similar service, but the 24/7 coverage of these events will increase I assure you. For advertisers it filters directly to those perspective buyers.

@DPM Good luck streaming sporting events besides little league games?? Obviously the actual events themselves won’t be streamed, but not real sure how you can stop a football fan with a blog who has a EVDO card and a camera streaming in the superbowl parking lot while tailgating. The possibilities go on and on. Will large numbers watch? Probably not, but as Ustream’s figures from yesterday show (70,000 total uniques) that IS significant. The die hard fans of whatever event will watch. That translates to money for advertisers. Why? Because those 70,000 are exactly the people they are trying to target.

idealism+naivety=bankruptcy.

KrizBiz your “the revolution will not be televised” mentality is refreshing but naive. Sure things are changing in media. But speaking specifically of sports and someone wanting to start an “eventstreaming” service targeted at sports..well, they are wading into an multi-billion dollar business. All these organizations already have the means to “eventstream” if they want to. Do you really think that just because there is “demand” that someone wanting to “eventstream” a sporting even for which they do not have the broadcast rights is going to be successful. So, if MikeW thinks he can outbid ABC, NBC, CBS, TNT, FOX, ESPN, GolfChannel, TBS, MSGNetwork, and every other regional and local broadcast entity for rights to “eventstream” sporting events, hey, more power to him. But all the combined VC funding in the world would not be able raise enough capital to outbid those guys. Here’s a homework assignment…what did NBC bid to broadcast the NFL on Sunday night? And NO ONE has the rights for rebroadcast.
So, unless you can outbid them, good luck!

The YouTube model is great, until you start stealing content. Take out the stolen content and you basically have the internet version of America’s Funniest Videos coupled is Web 2.0 infomercials. How original is that?

Why do you thing the YouTube guys sold to Google? Because they knew the content owners were closing in on them. And why do you think Google overpaid? Because they knew they had to set aside enough money to settle the many lawsuits for content thievery they knew was coming.

So, again, good luck trying to get rights to “eventstream” sporting events. Short of “eventstreaming” your company’s softball game, you kids soccer game, or your buddy’s bowling tournament, you are going to run into problems. Hell, you MIGHT be able to get away with “eventstreaming” Little League games..until it comes to the regional games. Then expect a knock on the door from ABC/ESPN.

You ask how valuable a thousand highly-targeted viewers would be to an advertiser. Obviously that depends, but I can tell you that major advertisers (the ones who account for a sizable portion of the total ad spend), need big numbers to drive tangible results. When your company does billions of dollars in revenues annually, allocating resources to do a small ad buy that is going to reach even a few thousand viewers simply isn’t feasible. The cost of actually going out and doing thousands of those deals to reach an audience capable of benefitting the business simply exceeds the potential return. Anybody who tells you that they can go to a major brand or major ad agency and get significant interest in spending a reasonable amount to reach an audience in the thousands obviously hasn’t had experience in the industry.

There’s an assumption out there that you can have almost infinitely small niche audiences and have a viable advertising business. That’s not the case. Regardless of how niche your audience is, you still have to have a certain threshold of viewers to have a property that is saleable to major advertisers. Whether you achieve this threshold organically or via some platform for aggregation, ad buyers base their decisions primarily on statistics and right now I see a lot of people who don’t realize that because they’ve never been involved with the industry. Maybe a VC analogy will work:

1. A major VC has just raised a $1 billion fund. A startup looking to raise a $250,000 seed round is probably rejected, regardless of how promising the company looks, because the economics don’t work. The VC’s capital has to be spent more efficiently.

2. A major ad agency is given $25 million by a major brand. A local eventstreamer with a few thousand viewers asking for $2,000/month is probably not of interest, regardless of how well his demographic matches the target demographic, because the economics don’t work. The brand’s money has to be spent more efficiently.

If there’s any entity best equipped to solve these challenges, it’s mainstream media. Let’s take your concept of user-generated news gathering. Say that a local citizen eventstreams local high school sports games. He now has content that is potentially of value to many people in his community. What’s his best option for having it distributed and monetized? He could use a service like Ustream, but he still doesn’t necessarily get the best reach to his community and he’s obviously not in a position to call up a major brand or ad agency and get them to buy advertising (that’s just not how it works). His best option is to partner with an established local media outlet, which can distribute his content and include it in advertising packages they’re already selling, compensating him for his work. That local media outlet also serves as a quality filter, ensuring to advertisers and the local community that the user-generated content being provided is comercially-acceptable.

You are dead on that mainstream media is facing changing dynamics and challenges of its own, however the idea that mainstream media is going to be removed from the equation by hoardes of eventstreamers and citizen journalists just doesn’t work because the problems they face are even more challenging than the ones the mainstream media faces.

Of course there are events. And of course people have an interest in them. However, how many of these events are compelling enough to cause the average American to want to watch an eventstream?

Duncan’s argument is that the seeds of a revolution were planted yesterday and that eventstreaming, in the form discussed here, represents the missing link in Web 2.0’s challenge to network television. I have rebutted that argument. I have not argued that events are of no interest to people, which is what you somehow seem to believe. I simply stated that mainstream media is well-equipped to better cover these in a fashion that appeals to the average American whose time is limited.

That said, let’s look at what you’re arguing. You claim that there are events people have interests in, such as press conferences, church conventions, etc. I (obviously) agree. The mainstream news media *already* covers events that are likely to be of importance to us. Whether it’s on television, in a newspaper, in a magazine, etc., events of interest are the subject of reporting in the mainstream media. With the iPhone launch for instance, many major news agencies provided a segment from an Apple store. Note, however, that it was a segment, not a 24/7 eventstream. The logic behind this is simple: the news agencies know that the vast majority of the viewers would tune out if they started providing lengthy coverage of an event that was only truly important to a small portion of the American public.

A few of your other examples:

1. Live coverage of important sports press conferences is already often provided by local media outlets when warranted.
2. Many red carpet events in Hollywood are the subject of live coverage.
3. The release of an endagered species back into the wild may receive a segment on the news.

So let’s recap the points you seemed to have missed here:

1. I have not claimed that “no one is willing to watch eventstreaming.” I did claim that “this is not the average American’s cup of tea (or Coca-Cola).” People have increasingly limited time and more choices than ever, hence the demand from consumers to time-shift video content and consume it in short clips. This trend does not seem to support mass mainstream adoption of eventstreaming; most people don’t have the luxury of taking 4 hours out from their day to watch an eventstream.

2. I have not claimed that people don’t love events. I did claim that the mainstream media already provides adequate coverage of them, and more often than not serves as a filter for determining how much coverage should reasonably be given. Mainstream media is also are much more likely to provide *quality* coverage of an event. You, and other people here, apparently don’t recognize that events, like press conferences, a red carpet party, etc. are already being covered by the mainstream media so the concept that some geek with a camera on his head eventstreaming on Ustream is not exactly a revolution.

3. My conclusion is quite clear: eventstreaming as contemplated here is not going to dethrone the mainstream media and this is what we’re talking about. Logically, this does not mean that there isn’t a relatively small group of avid fans who will find nothing more pleasurable than watching live 24/7 coverage of all sorts of events, much of which would be considered boring and low quality by the average American. The fact that eventstreaming is only likely to appeal to a niche audienece raises a number of questions about how viable business models can be built around it, etc.

Drama 2.0 indeed…do you work for the NAB?

Mass marketing isn’t dying – it’s dead. It’s all about the niche audience. The advent of cable in the 70’s is a precursor to what the web 2.0 initiatives will deliver over the next few years – only exponentially smaller niches and smaller and smaller audiences – cable made it work quite well, thanks you very much. Eventstreaming is one small variation on a coming revolution in news coverage – LOCAL news coverage. I submit that smaller audiences become even more valuable as their location and demographics are known.

While the hoopla surrounding the iPhone launch as an eventstream did attract an audience – on a national scale – can you make some assumptions about who those people are? Are they an audience that would be perfectly suited to an advertiser? Say someone who has a competing product to the iPhone? How valuable would a thousand viewers be to the advertiser?

The bigger point is that organic, UGC-like news gathering, from events to high school sports to a severe thunderstorm in YOUR neghborhood attracts an identifiable audience. That has value and there are a number of attempts under way to democratize the newsgathering process away from traditional media and into the hands of those who make their own news judgements. It also brings new advertisers into the mix at the ZIP+4 level.

Read the audience research on local news over the last 20 years – even national news is suffering from lack of relevancy to most viewers. Eventstreaming and LIVE UGC are about to change things and it won’t be about attracting a mass audience – just the right one.

Ever so slowly the people who pay for most of the news and event coverage you see now are rejecting the mass marketing model for the niche market identifiable online – eventstreaming is just the tip of the iceberg.

Stay tuned.

You write long posts and are passionate about your position, unfortunately you are dead wrong.

Its laughable to suggest no one is willing to watch eventstreaming. How many “events” are going on today in the US? Thousands. And people are watching. Whether it is a sports press conference, a church convention, a red carpet event in Hollywood, or the release of a endangered species back into the wild. They are all events. Time and time again, we have seen people’s willingness to watch these events.

Humans have watched “events” since the beginning of time from public hangings, to weddings, to eclipses, to chariot races. People love events, and the medium or method from which they watch (ie Ustream) is immaterial of the event itself.

Jeremiah Owyang: I would like to make a couple of points.

1. Referencing the long tail is not entirely relevant because you are first assuming that a significant number of people even have a desire to watch eventstreaming. One of the things that amuses me the most when dealing with the Web 2.0 community is that when you point out that something isn’t popular and has no mainstream appeal, somebody will simply say “Well it’s just part of the longtail.” Genius!

2. Even thousands of people watching an eventstream is the media equivalent of a drop of dew on a single leaf in the Amazon rainforest. As I illustrated in my blog post on this topic, a show about hairstylists on a second-tier cable network has an audience orders of magnitude greater than anything on Ustream.

It’s apparent to me that there are quite a few Web 2.0 people who have no understanding whatsoever about the audience metrics of mainstream media and what large advertisers reasonably require in order to be sufficiently interested in significant advertising deals. I’m not saying that online video in all of its various forms can’t be successful or profitable, but I think many people here just don’t quite grasp that the numbers and way the media and advertising industries work create a significant challenge. I would not be celebrating any revolution just yet.

Furthermore, I would love to read a better explanation of the methods used to measure audiences at services like Ustream. For instance, if I load a stream and leave one minute later, and then come back an hour later and watch for five minutes, how is that measured? Is that two streams or one stream? Can Ustream track the fact that I didn’t really watch the stream for very long either time? Additionally, what does Ustream know about the viewers of a stream? As mentioned, even thousands of viewers of a specific stream is nothing worth getting excited over, however if we assume for argument’s sake that one day this will be a popular platform, prospective advertisers are going to demand accurate measurement of the audiences.