• by P.J. Bednarski , Staff Writer @pjbtweet, April 7, 2016

About 99% of the live videos I’ve seen on Periscope have been bad, ranging from average bad to professionally bad to excruciatingly bad. 

But I’m sure live video is here to stay and someday will play a meaningful role during a revolution, like Twitter did, or as a video showcase for politicians’ most politically incorrect moments. 

That’s assuming that being politically incorrect will once again become a liability. The 2016 race still has a way to go; Periscope--and now Facebook Live-- will be there.

Having a more front-and-center Facebook Live strategy seems to be the intent of yesterday’s announcement that Facebook will give its newish Live prominent placement on its app, and make it more user friendly.  

Just read the list of features that, as Facebook tells it, will help viewers, (and can be a godsend for brands and publicists and political operatives:

“Facebook Live is interactive and fun: Live reactions, replaying comments made while live and Live filters will make it even more so. Live Reactions makes it easy for your viewers to express their feelings in real time during a live broadcast. Using the same reactions we launched in News Feed, viewers can select Love, Haha, Wow, Sad or Angry, and the reactions animate right on top of the video.  Live Reactions appear in real time and disappear quickly so broadcasters and other viewers can get a sense of how people are feeling at different points during the live video -– it’s like hearing the crowd applaud and cheer. When your friend reacts to your video or to a video you are both watching together you’ll see their profile pic and a little starburst before their reaction appears."

According to Reuters, at a presentation in Hollywood, Will Cathcart, Facebook’s vice president of product, disclosed that Facebook has paid some publishers to supply video to prime the pump for everybody else.

Among them are Time, The New York Times, BuzzFeed, Vox, CondeNast and Huffington Post.

You wonder, would it be scandalous if they made a similar offer to Hillary, Bernie, Donald, Ted and that one guy who won’t quit?  There’s no group of people with a more sensitive fear-of-missing out meter reading than politicians, particularly when the media offer is free. Only Donald Trump (it seems) has the ability to command live coverage just by existing.

But all politicians are followed around by video trackers hired by their opponents, just waiting for a slip up. The proliferation of live video outlets make the odds of showing some of those gaffes as they happen a sure bet. Eager viewers await.

Reporting on Facebook’s full-court effort to increase Live content, MediaPost’s Gavin O’Malley noted that an exec says viewers spend three times more time watching a live video than the ordinary non-live content. So for publishers, advertisers-- and politicians--there’s some statistical ammo, though I wonder how long being “live” is that exciting.

One easy mark for live use is the entertainment biz and we can’t be six months away from the time every movie premiere is preceded by Facebook Live’s  (or its competitors') feed of stars and starlets throwing softballs among the show biz press. If there’s one place that could really stand some edited video, it’s there. But probably the opposite will happen. I predict a huge increase of live in live nip-slips.

Facebook seems intent to market the heck out of Facebook Live and the results should bounce back soon enough. Supposedly, 500 million people watch Facebook videos every day; the prospect of getting just a fraction of them to peer at a Facebook Live video ought to be enticing to advertisers.