Report: Video Usage Surges, Thanks Partly To Streaming Sites' Commitment To Infrastructure
- by Gavin O'Malley @mp_gavin, September 3, 2010
Over the past year, the amount of time American audiences spent watching video for the major live video publishers has grown 648% to more than 1.4 billion minutes, according to comScore.
By comparison, the amount of time that American audiences spent watching YouTube and Hulu increased 68% and 75%, respectively, over the same time period.
"Live online video sites have not only been successful in building audience, but also in keeping that audience tuned in," says comScore Web video specialist Andres Palmiter. As Palmiter notes, the average live streamed video view is 7% longer than the average online video view. "If you narrow the audience to a specific demographic, though, live video really begins to prove its advertising value to media planners." Live video sites are 72% more likely to deliver the elusive demographic -- males age 18-34 -- than the average online video site.
Palmiter says the success of live streaming video is due in no small part to sites' willingness to build out their technology infrastructure to provide a better user experience. "For instance, Justin.tv recently announced mobile applications for Android and iOS, the former allowing users to live stream from their mobile device," he said. "The growth of broadband (both through regular and cellular networks) has made features that were unthinkable two years ago a reality today."
Along with Justin.tv, other top live video publishers include USTREAM, Livestream, LiveVideo, and Stickam. In July, USTREAM reached over 3.2 million unique viewers, beating out Justin.tv's 2.6 million viewers, and Livestream's 2.4 million. As Palmiter notes, however, Livestream served more than 160 million videos, compared to roughly 130 million from Justin.tv and 20 million from USTREAM. "Those 20 million videos on USTREAM, however, were viewed eight minutes longer on average than videos on Justin.tv and 17 minutes more than those on Livestream." In terms of total minutes, viewers logged almost 900 million minutes watching Justin.tv in July -- outpacing the other two sites.
YouTube is also rumored to be seriously considering a live streaming video service. Google recently integrated its Moderator service -- which lets users vote on user-submitted ideas -- into YouTube. In the past, YouTube used the service for special events, and granted only select users access. Similarly, YouTube has sparingly employed live-streaming for presidential speeches, healthcare debates, cricket matches and a U2 concert.
Regarding online video in general, "a lot has changed in last 10+ years," says Palmiter. "YouTube, once maligned for its streaming quality, can now pump out videos in 4K (for the uninitiated, that's 4x the pixels of broadcast/cable HD), most online TV programming can be found in HD, and even the cheapest camcorders have the capability to upload an HD video."
Video is an amazing way of reaching people which is longer & stronger, highly targeted and cost effective.
I certainly see the day when traditional media understands this shift in viewing patterns and uses 3 - 5 miutes clips to augment and supplement their programming.
We are working on several web series now which will extend the narrative message to involve our targeted audience, with video.
Specializing in online viewer entertainment wth the broadcast live weekly science show I do, The 1st Question, this is great news to read.
Great piece, but ignores some of the less-than-desirable facts that generate these views.
Way too much of the content from Ustream or JustinTV are pirated streams. LiveStream has a firm anti-piracy policy while the other two have huge volumes of pirated streams, live events - like sports - that are being broadcast (pissing off broadcasters) and concerts (terrible quality from an iPhone).
In this situation, looking at the actual content tells a much deeper story than just the number of streams and streamers.