Comments on: Revver Making Last-Ditch Attempt to Avoid Deadpool?

By: Is Revver Dead? | Howard's Notebook

Is Revver Dead? | Howard's Notebook — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:48:21 +0000

[...] Revver, founded in 2004, was one of the first video sharing sites to start sharing revenue with content creators. In September 2007, everything looked rosy when the company said it had managed to pay $1 million to video producers and their affiliates over a period of one year. By February 2008, the company was collecting debt, laying off staff and reportedly put itself up for sale. [...]

By: Is Revver On The Fritz?

Is Revver On The Fritz? — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:43:22 +0000

By: Make Money Online From Your Humorous Pet Video | MakeUseOf.com

Make Money Online From Your Humorous Pet Video | MakeUseOf.com — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:13:13 +0000

[...] from this TechCrunch report things may not be so rosy with the site, but then again, TC do love Dead-Pooling [...]

By: Henry

Henry — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:26:00 +0000

http://www.footyCS.com

By: Henry

Henry — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:25:28 +0000

Revver’s business model is solid, they were effectively hedging against a copy write lawsuit, but the monster lawsuit that was forecast to cripple YouTube never really (or has yet) to materialize. …while they have lost some quality employees over the last year, some one should still see the value in this company and swoop it up…

By: סרטים שלא נעשו מעולם » ארכיון הבלוג » וידיאו דרמה

סרטים שלא נעשו מעולם » ארכיון הבלוג » וידיאו דרמה — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:29:02 +0000

[...] ואני מקווה שהם ייצאו מהמבוי הסתום ויצליחו. עוד מיזם שעמד להיסגר ונמכר במחיר הפסד. הוא revver – זהו מיזם שאני עוקב אחריו כבר [...]

By: Jake mason

Jake mason — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:34:38 +0000

@48… Tim, do you know how many uniques they are getting? surely this will plug into a ‘how much is a website worth according to traffic’ spreadheet and come up with a number.

In my opinion more focus was required for the advertisers… they are the ones paying the bills, and are the ones who should get attention. Not the producers. Advertisers aren’t ready to spend on this as it is new. the model is viable, but needs time

By: S. Whitmore

S. Whitmore — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:54:39 +0000

JB: Music that you can use includes music you create, public domain music (you’ll need some sort of proof that it’s public domain), music you pay for, or music that is published under an open license such as a Creative Commons license. Search the forums there for some links, they’re not coming to mind at hand, but there are entire sites devoted to CC-licensed music. The only way that you’ll be able to use commercially-popular music is if you can prove to them that you’ve obtained (bought) the right (license) to do so. The fact that Revver is so solid about copyright is one of the reasons I like them so much — but, as you point out, it’s also a reason they’ll never “catch up” to infringement-filled YouTube (but that’s not their main purpose anyway).

By: JB

JB — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:53:43 +0000

1. So will Revver continue to pay it content creators? I just joined as one last week!

2. My biggest question in the online video world is the copyright issue. Obviously Revver is hardcore about not breaking any audio copyrights. Is there a list of audio samples that they do allow. I read somewhere that any musical recording is copyrighted. Is this true at all? What about Fair Use?

Youtube’s advantage over Revver is that their site is filled with music and videos that are copyrighted. Even content creators that they pay (TheHill88 for example) will include copyrighted audio in their vids. There are around 40,000 videos of people dancing to the Soldier Boy. The Super Bowl Catch, Eli on Letterman, All of Frank Caliendo… It’s all there within 1 day of it happening. There is no way to stop it, and the stuff is wildly popular. What ever happened to that lawsuit against Youtube?

By: S. Whitmore

S. Whitmore — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:24:37 +0000

Helen, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. What does “ad affiliate” mean? If it means that you can share Revverized videos and make money from it, then anybody could be an “ad affiliate” for Revver, no API or programmer knowledge necessary. The API I’m talking about is the one documented in their Developers section, which I’ve used on a couple sites and is not for mainstream cut-and-paste-HTML users. As for “ads being forced on you” — um, that’s a service, not a problem, since Revver is not only doing the heavy lifting for video hosting and delivery but also for arranging ad contracts that pay YOU (and Revver, obviously).

By: Helen

Helen — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:32:04 +0000

S. Whitmore, Revver’s API to build a video site was a license to become a Revver ad affiliate… But if you want a true API that allows you to build an independent video site, you have to use an API solution like the one offered by VideoBloom.com. Who cares about ads that are forced on you as a publisher?

By: S. Whitmore

S. Whitmore — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:02:43 +0000

Wow, all this commentary about Revver and not one word about the API that allows people to build a video site with Revver doing all the heavy lifting. I can see there’s a deep level of understanding of Revver here… (not). BTW, if you do some searching you’ll find “Revver is going down” rumors that are about a year old. Maybe it’s time to quit harping on Revver and come up with a new rumor?

By: tim

tim — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:32:37 +0000

with the kind of uniques they are getting, they are worth a lot more.

By: Alx Klive

Alx Klive — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:20:44 +0000

Wow. If this turns out to be true, I’m sorry to hear it.

I agree with Sean McMenemy above…

“5. Let me try it free and when I see other option there like those I’d be willing to pay for it.”

SmugMug is a great example of execution of this in the photo space. It’s our plan with WorldTV.

By: Sean McMenemy

Sean McMenemy — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:23:56 +0000

I’m sorry but the real problem is their advertising. The player is great far better than youtube. After trying it out I think the player is great. But then to not have any control over the ads or how they are displayed was a turn off, a BIG TURN OFF. As a content creator I see the need for the advertising to be there to support my products. I just want it to be better. But their execution of it was way off. It’s almost looked like a Bloomberg Channel… That’s crazy I didn’t spend all that time making a shot or graphics for it to be covered up by ringtone ads… When are people going to learn from Google? Let my tags drive the adds!

Here’s what I would do. Okay these are just off the top of my head.
1. Be Relevant. Let my TAGS drive the adds… If no tags match advertisers start looking for those advertisers. Then you might have a better chance of advertisers getting what they pay for and consumers buying based on their interests. Heck some people might get their own advertisers.

2. Don’t cover the video. Build text stream into the player, it could be on the bottom or top on the side… maybe the account holder could figure out where they wanted it. OPTIONS!

3. Let the Account holder choose who they want to sponsor their video feed.

4. How about a fee to remove adds all together? Keep in mind this is the day of free shipping and website hosting costing 8 bucks a month. These sites take a way a lot of the headache of not having to deal with the technical stuff of uploading and converting and making sure everyone viewing your website has the right player, that is worth something. How much would you pay for more options like video size, formats, thumbnail control, tracking, embedding, ads that merge with your content, bandwidth not on your main site?

5. Let me try it free and when I see other option there like those I’d be willing to pay for it.

How hard would any of that stuff been to do? Not very… All of these players have the same basic model when are any of them going to start thinking outside the box?

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:50:53 +0000

I like using Revver, but their embed funtionality isn’t the greatest. Either way I’d like to see them stick around.

By: Paul Nilsen

Paul Nilsen — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:10:02 +0000

From the outside looking in, it appeared that the Revver business was solid but I agree that you can’t hang your hat on advertising alone in the video space.

It seems that competitors like Blip.TV and Brightcove have differentiated by trying to emulate TV networks and promote and cultivate an environment for exceptional content as opposed to serving as a platform for the masses.

By: Still Rob G

Still Rob G — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:02:04 +0000

Revver is still on the myspace banned list, I wonder how much that affected their viability?
Youtube escaped by being huge, photobucket escaped the ban list when it accepted myspace’s offer to buy them, imeem is still thriving despite being banned.

By: plop

plop — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:05:30 +0000

What I find interesting is that one minute TC are raving about reever then the next they say ha ha their fckued. TC lacks a deepened insight into the web2.0 terrain and real business economics.

TC instead parades about who just got funding for such and such. Let me give you a tip, you find companies who have no funding, 30USD a month burn rates and who are sitting on the next big thing, even if it won’t change the world but they will be able to grow into little profitable business they are likely to be more ‘interesting’ than these up and down stories of the speculators in this latest gold rush.

By: Dyde

Dyde — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 07:19:17 +0000

VCs who gave them the $ have to be shaking now. Last couple of months we saw millions being poured into video startups. So this is going to be a red herring for VC industry.

By: Travell Perkins

Travell Perkins — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 06:21:57 +0000

IF they haven’t fired all the developers they can still turn things around. I go more into this in a post I added today. I like them because I tried out their WP plugin on an environmental aggregator I run @ EcoEgg.org.

By: Maya

Maya — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 04:55:37 +0000

Indians, Why using revver when we have Movie MAZIC. Share your favorite audios/videos/pics/movies and many more with your friends like this one http://moviemaz...wuser.php?id=61

By: Evan

Evan — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 04:42:58 +0000

Well, we at HungryFlix.com wish Revver all the best. I can’t see them just jumping into the deadpool. Someone will pick them up.

We still believe that there is an audience for great indie content and that the content providers deserve to be compensated–either via revenue share or promotion.

But it is difficult to get through and get noticed to the YouTube masses.

By: damon

damon — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 04:25:23 +0000

youch

By: Does techcrunch attack startups?

Does techcrunch attack startups? — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:43:38 +0000

So does techcrunch write bad stuff about deadpool startups?