In Beyond Viral, Kevin H. Nalty breaks down several areas of viral media, who produces this content and who it aims to interest.
In the second chapter, “Flavors of Video: From Skateboarding Cats to Pro”, Nalty makes several valid points about the blurred line between content put out by professionals or corporations and user-generated content (ugc). There are several people who have become webstars via YouTube by becoming YouTube partners along the way. Generally it is a lot easier for a company to become a partner versus an individual. In order for an individual to become a partner, their YouTube channel must receive thousands of hits per video.
What is the difference between a video of a person jumping out of a brand new car that is produced by the car company and the exact same video shot and uploaded on an iPhone by a car owner? These days the line has become extremely blurred. In his analysis and assessment, Nalty uses data from Nielsen and Tubemogul.com to analyze the YouTube user “DaneBoe” who regularly produces a webshow, to content produced and distributed from major broadcasting networks. While episodes of “30 Rock” garner an average of 4.2 million viewers an episode, Larry King’s old show, “Larry King Live”, regularly pulled in about 500,000 viewers. DaneBoe sits right in between at a modest 1.6 million views a day.
Nalty writes that, “the original and core audience of YouTube arrived to escape professional content, and they embrace amateurs.” (Nalty 40). Could this hurt YouTube as they try and mix amateur videos with network content? They have already experimented with streaming full-length movies (legally provided by the studios). Is YouTube trying to steer away from amateur content? Isn’t that what made YouTube worth over one billion dollars?
While I agree with Nalty that there needs to be some sort of distinction (which there currently isn’t) between pros and amateurs, the ability and ease for an individual or small company to upload a video in the same way a major corporation such as Southwest Airlines can has been able to launch start-up media companies while offering a free place to host videos.
YouTube has allowed me, while starting Hands on Dallas, to publish ‘professional’ videos. I put professional in semi-quotes because in this case while a major company such as Southwest Airlines or the Dallas Morning News isn’t publishing the videos, they are professional quality and are published by a small media company.
Interesting. Do you think that Nalty’s claim is motivated by a desire to maintain outdated media hierarchies? If there is no distinction between professional and amateur/small business content, how will we know what is good? What mechanisms arise out of this chaos to help us filter? What is the drawback of accentuating these differences or allowing them to become irrelevant?
I think Natly’s claim could be motivated by a desire to maintain outdated media hierarchies. If it were though, what would that accomplish? Our new media hierarchies will at some point soon (probably) be outdated. The line is blurring between what is professional and what is amateur/small business content. I could tell you that first hand. I’ve gotten paid to take photos and publish content before, but since I’m currently not on a payroll for my website does that take away my professional status? I don’t know the true answer to this. It’s something that I go back and forth about a lot. If others didn’t see the site as a small business/professional we wouldn’t be granted all the opportunities we have been given.
I haven’t come across many sure fire mechanisms that have arisen out of this blurred line that will help us know what is pro and what is joe. This could be considered a large drawback if you want to look at it in that light, but you could also look at it in a positive light. The local newspaper rather than having a staff of 150 now has the majority of the city able to send them a photo taken from a cell phone when the paper wasn’t there to capture a fire, brawl, etc.