Tech Coast Review
The startup and tech news weblog for Southern California
Showing posts with label video. Show all posts
Showing posts with label video. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Los Angeles based, Interent Brands (who we covered last when they went public) today bought a bunch more companies:

A quick browse of these sites shows that the all have strong niche traffic, though none are doing anything particularly interesting. This seems to continue to follow IBs strategy (or lack there of), of buying community driven sites with little technological innovation. While having a slick web 2.0 feel is not a prerequisite, I still wonder if IB is buying assets that ultimately are going to lose their community to cooler places. Maybe the intention is supposed to be that IB will bring the funding in, so these new acquisitions have some financial flexibility to grow, but frankly a look at IBs portfolio, just doesn't show that happening.

 

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

San Diego based, Divx, best known for the popular mpeg4 licensing business, today announced that they are shutting down their Stage6 video sharing website. This has rightly gotten a good bit of play in the blog technosphere (see Techcrunch, Gizmodo, GigaOM, Webware, Mashable, Etc), as Stage6 was a pretty popular service. I personally used Stage6 all the time as it was a good source of content (both original and piratted), and felt quite superior to your typical Youtube knockoff, both in terms quality and speed.

According to their official blog response the reason for the shutdown was "that the continued operation of Stage6 is a very expensive enterprise that requires an enormous amount of attention and resources that [they]are not in a position to continue to provide." Of course as Techcrunch and some of the other blogs have dug into, when they passingly mention that "there are a lot of other details involved" what they really mean is that a rediculously stupid power trip originating from the Divx board over how to properly spin off the new company was a huge problem.

As Arrington put it, "throwing the baby out with the bath water" was certainly the case here. Stage6 had impressive funding to branch off and a business model that was actually working. Throwing out the revenue that Stage6 was making, as well the positive consumer impact it had on the Divx brand because they didnt have the resources to devote to it or the stomach to pound through the internal politics is amazingly short cited on their own. Even just considering Stage6 as its own entity its pretty easy to see that they come out of the gates with great traction and a semi niche, both of which any one of the new video sharing sites we see pop up daily would kill to have.

Overall on the business end this whole thing just exemplifies bad leadership and decision making. Plus as a consumer, I have just got to say I'll be sad to see Stage6 go.

 

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Last week Santa Monica based Wonderhowto.com announced that the received an undisclosed investment from General Catalyst Partners.  The site is basically an aggregation service for "how-to" type videos.  Apparently self-help 2.0 sites are all the rage right now, as TechCrunch just covered yesterday First30Days (not socal based) which similarly focuses on positive self help articles during "the first 30 days of a major life change".  And while the two companies don't exactly overlap, being funded at the same time, does imply that the venture community is recognizing the value in sites that focus on the self help niche.

So how is Wonderhowto.com?  It's actually pretty cool, and they definitely index a lot of content.  I ran across a few bugs while using the site, but nothing show stopping, and overall I was impressed with how thorough the indexing/aggregation of their content was.  
So far in the recent months since the site has launched, Wonderhowto hasn't garnered much traffic yet, but the NY Times recently did a profile of
 them (and their excentric founder), so maybe they'll pickup steam.  On the otherhand picking up steam maybe harder for this type of business, because although clearly their is a huge market for self-help related stuff (just browse a bookstore to see how much we Americans gobble the stuff up), the videos and Wonderhowto itself is not nearly as viral as other video sites.  Because lets face it, as lame as some stupid funny stunt video on Youtube is, people love to forward them around and thus they get a lot of play.  Companies like Break.com do really well with that.  But Wonderhowto doesn't have that growth advantage, I mean, who forwards how-to videos? 

 Of course the founder of Wonderhowto is known for his antics, so maybe we'll see some unuasual marketting strategies from his team to gain the viral traffic that they want.  And because of that, I'd be surprised to see Wonderhowto not pickup some decent traction.  Though I do have to say, guys couldn't you have picked a shorter name?


Screenshot:

 

Monday, January 28, 2008

Beverly Hills based, Break.com is a video sharing social site that targets 18-30 male demographic. They basically focus on funny, crazy, stupid guy humor. As a hypertargeted Youtube clone, they have been doing well for themselves, steadily climbing to traffic upwards of 18 million uniques per month. Today they announced an ad network that extends their strong inventory reach to smaller web publishers.

While I'm not a big fan of Break, because they don't do anything fundamentally innovative (other than taking social video to an obvious niche), they are executing rather well. A year and half ago, they announced that they were going to pay publishers a semi flat rate for uploaded videos that make it to the front page. This has worked well for them because it gives an incentive for common bread and butter users who upload good (though often fake) videos to the site but aren't necessarily people who are trying to make full-time money off of it (ala Revver). They also have extended many partnerships with traditional tv publishers, clearly extending their reach further.

Now that Break.com has a good base, its incredibly smart move to sell/partner their ad inventory to smaller publishers. They have a strong sales and distribution channel that some stupid guy humor website would probably benefit well from compared to just throwing something like Adsense up. According to Techcrunch, they have 15 dedicated sales reps and have decent rates falling between $10 - $30 CPMs. So if you are small-medium sized website that sits in the mens or humor category that might pair well, partnering with Break is likely a much better deal then you'd do on your own.

As someone who falls into Breaks exact demographic and yet have very little interest in their site, I would have likely been not so kind in profiling them during their early stages. However Break continues to grow and execute well, and at the end of the day, that's what matters.

 

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

I just ran across a video based social network company called stickam thats based out of LA.  What I found particularly amusing was the contraversy it caused a few months ago.  Stickam launched in 2006 as basicaly another myspace except it has live web cam functionality.   The streaming video is actually pretty cool, and lends itself to the myspace crowd quite well.  In fact particularly, at launch for the high school kids that weren't leaving Myspace for Facebook, there was a decent chunk that were leaving for Stickam.


Now here lies the problem, Stickam is owned by a parent company that also owns a few major porn sites.  Of course if you stop and think about it, it sort of make sense, who better to scale web cams to large social networking audiences, but porn site experts?  Clearly the issue here is the morality conflict that minors are likely the target demographic of Stickam, and obviously you want minors no where near the porn industry.  Though the truth is, besides a sort of handsoff relationship with the owner, its really hard to tell whether or not there is any real intermingling.  The New York Times article that originally broke the story, is mostly based off a disgruntled ex employee.  Obvisiously there was a bit of sensationalism, and its a hard call to know how big of an issue this really was.

In the few months since the NY Times article broke, Stickam's traffic has remained flat.  Did the article hamper the growth, or has the in crowd moved on to something else?  Is Stickam's chances of success done for?  Who knows, but I actually found watching people transfixed to the computer, while they were playing on stickam kind of interesting.  But then again, I'm not a minor, or a parent either.

 

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Following on the heals of last weeks article about San Diego based Veoh adding NBC and FOX content via Hulu, to become a sort of hyper aggregator of Video Content, Veoh has now also announced that they are adding MTV content (including Comedy Central, Nickelodean, VH1, CMT, Spike TV, as well as MTV proper).  Of course two things are different about this deal then the Veoh/Hulu deal: 1st there was no "official" Hulu deal, so kudus to MTV for trying to work with Veoh to distribute more of their content.  Unfortunately the second difference is that this is only an announcement, none of the official content is live yet :-(



 

Saturday, January 5, 2008

A lot of startups we've been reviewing are new companys that are still looking to break out, and haven't received a lot of mainstream coverage, so we have to do a bit of research first.  Veoh, is a San Diego based video sharing site that I actually use.  Although Veoh has been out for nearly 2 years, they just added video content from Hulu (who we reviewed here) and are beginning to really show their strategy of going beyond Youtube.


Veoh is fast turning into one of the best video site out there because they hyperaggregate official content from the networks as well rely on user generated content (and all the grey areas that that implies).  They have legitimate TV shows from their CBS deal as well as now having semi official shows from Fox and NBC via Hulu. They also are more liberal with taking down unofficial user uploaded content from networks that they don't have agreements with (like the way youtube USED to be), so if your savvy, your likely to find shows from the rest of the networks.  While I'm sure that this strategy is largely unspoken, it's incredibly smart, because it gives the consumers what their looking for until dumb TV lawyers finally begin to wizen up with how they handle Internet distribution.   A great example is that I used to watch 'unofficial' episodes of 24 on Veoh, last year, because it was one of better places to get it on the Internet.  Now I can officially watch 24 via Hulu/Veoh.  I don't care that there are ads now through the official channel, because it was never about not wanting the networks to get paid, I just wanted to watch 24 on the Internet, freely, on my own time.  Its basically a win-win-win, I benefit from getting the content I wanted, Veoh gets another user, and the networks now get the revenue they deserve from making the content.  

Veoh has high level of funding (24M to date from big names like Michael Eisner and Time Warner) giving them great flexibility to work out official deals with content providers, so I'm sure CBS, FOX, and NBC are just the first of even more official content we'll see on Veoh.  Then couple that thought with a track record that shows that Veoh in general gets what consumers want, and you'll see why Veoh is proving that Youtube is not the only new video distribution platform that can shake up the industry.


Screenshot
  

 

Friday, January 4, 2008

If  your looking at at web 2.0 speed dating site and it seems like Deja Vu, you'd be right, we reviewed Woome exactly one month ago.  So what about SpeedDate?  Well first of all, they are not based in Southern California, however the cofounder of SpeedDate, Simon Tisminezky, is from San Diego so we figured it was relevant enough to profile how SpeedDate compares to local favorite Woome.


The Good
The two cofounders of SpeedDate are from Stanford's Graduate School of Business, and we know those guys have produced some pretty successful entrepreneurs.  Simon and Dan have picked a good business where instead of being just another metoo social networking video site, they focus specifically on connecting people to date fast.  Besides Woome there's no other major competitors in this space, so no matter what, they are in pretty good shape. They also recently received a patent for certain aspects of online speed dating, that while I doubt makes their intellectual property highly defensible, it does show that they are working with a mindset of trying to innovate in the dating industry.  Lastly, I feel pretty confident that the SpeedDate team have some good marketing tricks up their sleeve to help spur user growth, considering that they received some good coverage with their creative PR stunt hooking up bloggers for a public speed dating session (which was fairly entertaining).  

The Bad
I'm not a big fan of Woome, but I definitely like it better than SpeedDate.  Woome looks and feels cooler, and when were talking about speed dating, cool matters.  Of course, this stuff is highly subjective, but something about SpeedDate just feels less polished.  Also because Woome comparisons will abound with SpeedDate, I'm highly interested in what they think can differentiate SpeedDate from Woome, because at this point they are running second in both user traffic and general media opinion. In fact, I asked pointblank for the differentiator in my correspondence with the team, and never really received a solid answer. 

Conclusion
I wasn't a fan of web 2.0 speed dating when I reviewed Woome and I'm still not.  Either way though I recognize there's a market for it, and even if Speeddate runs second to Woome, both companies seem in good position to capitalize. 


Screenshot


 

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Apparently Hulu is what you get when two of the major networks (NBC Universal and News Corp) get 100M to build a next gen Internet TV platform.  Hulu is well situated in the hub of the media industry basing itself in the center of Los Angeles.  Much like Gmail was for a long time, Hulu is currently in private beta, you need an invite to get access to Hulu.  Though again like Gmail if you really want access, invites aren't that hard to come by.


Once you do get into Hulu you might be surprised because it is considerable slicker, then TV viewing through the normal website of the various networks.  They are even beginning to add HD content, which is pretty cool in my book.  With over 100 programs offered from 15 TV stations they are off to a pretty good start with content.  Not every show has every episode available, which is annoying, but I'll cut them some slack since its still in private beta.  

One of the things that impresses me about Hulu, is that its a good show of faith that the entertainment industry is trying to adapt their business model around new channels as opposed to just fight it.  While nobody likes, watching ads, they are an important way to monetize content, and thus one of the primary mechanisms for entertainment types to get paid.  For a while, now there has been this fear that if you allowed people to share content, then you lost control of advertising.  Yet Hulu handles this issue quite well because they allow you to embed the tv shows outside of Hulu's main site, but there still is scheduled advertisement pauses so everyone gets paid, regardless of whether the video is embedded offsite or your watching it on Hulu.com.  That seems fair to me, and as a consumer I can accept that.   Besides the inability to download to my ipod or whatever, they don't restrict where I can share Hulu videos online, and that freedom coming from a major network is a good step.

Of course its not all rosey pictures in the land of Hulu.  First off I hate the name (and a funny anecdote is that it means cease and desist in swahili).  And I really wonder about why the investment dollars were in the 100M range.  It seems the networks could have done something similar on their own site (in fact they sort of already do) for far less money.  Obviously everyone wants to compete with Youtube and Itunes as being sort of a universal place to distribute content, but I still think in some ways this was all overplayed a bit.  

In the end though Hulu is a step in the right direction by the big boys, and its good to see them trying to embrace the direction of technology.  In some ways just getting major organizations like NBC Universal and News Corp to both agree on the vision is pretty amazing.


If you want to see more screenshots of Hulu since its still in private beta: check out this review

 

Tuesday, November 27, 2007


While technically a Korean company they are partnered with K2 Network located in Irvine, CA (Orange County) and they are hiring and basing their U.S. activity out of Orange County as well.

While Storyblender isn't live yet, they are already building some early buzz leading up to their December release by their inclusion in the TechCrunch Top 40. What they've demonstrated so far is a service that allows users to collaborate in editing and "blending" their text, audio, video, and image clips online. Once the blending is complete people will be able to share their "blended stories" with their friends in the Story Blender online community.

The Good
It just sounds fun being able to turn a fat kid with a baton...









Into a fat kid with a light saber; so with the help of a few friends I foresee endless hours of entertainment.

There is also a fertile market for Story Blender in music mixing as well as video editing for more practical purposes like school projects, action sports, and work presentations. The social network could really prove useful; not only because it will allow users to share their artistic talents but it has the ability to facilitate a teaching and learning process that might be keeping many people away from editing their own videos.

Finally they have $1.5MM in funding and are headed by Yong Joon Hyoung who is the founder of Cyworld a popular social network in South Korea.

The Bad
Most video editors that I know (even the ones who only dabble) are very particular to their programs, whether it be Final Cut Pro, Abode Premier, or iMovie. Most video editors aren't going to start utilizing a new way of editing when its unlikely that Story Blender will be able to match many of the features of "real" desktop video software.

This leaves Story Blender's real market people who are just beginning to get in on the Youtube craze and aren't ready to dive in and learn the complexities of traditional video editing software. But succeeding in this market means their service needs to be stupidly simple while still powerful and polished enough to get people to find value in using the service. From the early demos they've shown, Story Blender is not quite there yet.

Bottom Line
While we won't give it a full review until they go live, if Story Blender is able to produce a user friendly video editing tool that retains some of the more important features of traditional video editing software, plus leverages the power of online collaboration, they have a decent shot at being successful.

 

Monday, November 19, 2007

Profile:

Revver, an LA based video sharing company has recently relaunched their UI as Revver 2.0.  Revver is one of the original viral type video sharing sites, and was the first to offer users a way to monitize their videos by sharing revenue for inserted ads.  Basically Youtube, but the content creators get payed.

Revver has been well covered, gracing the likes of Forbes, TechCrunch, Business Week, USA Today, et all.  Obviously they are also well funded with over 10 million raised already.  
With the site redesign, Revver now looks the "web 2.0" part more, which is good since it was a pioneer.
 
On the otherhand Revver with all of its VC money, is likely still not profitable.  They announced in September that they have given out 1 million plus dollars to  content creators,which given their 50/50 revenue share model means they brought in 2 million or so... but that aint much in the entertainment industry.  Rough math, also gives that a content creator has ,on average, received about $40, which doesn't seem like enough money to give amateurs a reason not to upload to Youtube instead.  Unique content will be key, and if a recent exodus by big names like lonelygirl (because of the Myspace and Youtube partnership) are an indicator, Revver will need more then just the Revver 2.0 new look, to swoon people away from from the now crowded video field.  

Reverr still has some great things going for it.  It was one of the first in the field, and its revenue share concept could be a good one, if it can achieve critical mass.  Revver has also done a decent job with getting its content out their.  Recent deals with Verizon to access via cell phones and their well documented api are all good steps in the right direction.  Being located in the hub of the entertainment industry is also good, as it could be a catalyst for getting more professional content.  But at the end of the day, the real question is whether or not Revver can get solid traction before the behemoth of Google/Youtube come around with their own whizbang revenue share model.

Website:

Screenshot:


 

Sponsored Ads