Slate's Bizbox
technology: The future and what to do about it.

YouTube's Dark SideHow the video-sharing site stifles creativity.

By Nick Douglas
Posted Wednesday, July 18, 2007, at 5:55 PM ET

Nick Douglas was online on Thursday, July 19 to chat with readers about the article. Read the transcript.

Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty. Click image to expand.

The Internet was supposed to make the video world egalitarian. No longer would an oligarchy of content providers—a few TV networks, a couple of major movie studios—control what we watch. The Web gives creative people a potential audience of millions, as well as countless venues to display their creations. But that's not how things turned out. Web video isn't an oligarchy, it's a dictatorship. You're either on YouTube or nobody's watching. This dominance has a downside: The popular misapprehension that YouTube and Web video are synonymous has limited our sense of what online video can be.

For the most part, the Internet really has decentralized publishing. Photobucket, the most popular photo-sharing site, has lively competition from Webshots, Flickr, Shutterfly, and other services. Bloggers use WordPress, Google's Blogger, TypePad, and lots of other platforms. YouTube, though, gets 60 percent of all online video traffic—that's up from 43 percent a year ago. What's going on here?

Until recently, file formats and bandwidth costs made sharing video online a gigantic pain. Most viral videos were e-mailed around, or stayed on small Web sites that buckled under sudden rushes of traffic. In order to watch videos in your browser, you had to download all sorts of plug-ins. Mac-made videos often didn't work on PCs, and vice versa. Then, in 2005, YouTube launched, fixing all of those annoying problems.

YouTube instantly trumped sites like Vimeo, Veoh, and Grouper by converting all uploaded videos into Flash videos that almost anyone could view.* The site's second genius ploy was its permissiveness. While the staff quickly removed pornographic uploads, YouTube wasn't as hasty to take down copyrighted content: music videos, clips from TV shows, and sports highlights. YouTube's first big moment came when someone uploaded the Saturday Night Live sketch "Lazy Sunday" in December 2005. Since NBC hadn't posted a copy itself, everyone went to YouTube. By the time the TV networks and music studios figured out that a third-party site was siphoning away their traffic, Web surfers already thought of YouTube as the one and only online video clearinghouse.

Once YouTube grabs a viewer, it doesn't let go. While the site got 43 percent of all visits to video sites in 2006, it earned 54 percent of page views—that means YouTube users stick around longer and watch more video than people who browse on competing sites. Next to every clip, YouTube lists up to 20 related videos, as well as other videos by the same creator and four "director videos," all promoted with an enticing thumbnail. With so many tempting links, it takes a lot of self-control not to veg out and clip-surf for hours.

What it comes down to, then, is that if you want your video to be seen, you have to post it on YouTube. In August 2006, Noah Kalina posted the video "A photo of myself every day" on Vimeo and YouTube. Since then, the Vimeo clip has gotten 100,000 views, the YouTube version more than 6.2 million. The outstanding, critically beloved video blogger Ze Frank refused to post his videos on YouTube; at the height of his fame, he got 30,000 viewers per day. That would have made him a B-lister on YouTube. In five months, a 15-year-old boy known as Daxflame has earned 40,000 to 140,000 views for each of his 85 YouTube videos without any publicity.

How can other sites compete? Blip.tv, Revver, and Metacafe tried to distinguish themselves by paying for videos. A year ago, the makers of the "Diet Coke & Mentos Experiments" got famous on YouTube, then made $28,000 in six weeks on Revver from postroll ads. But two months ago, YouTube began offering revenue-sharing to its most popular creators. Now, its traffic numbers and huge base of ad clients make it the no-brainer destination for videomakers who want to get rich quick. The site's allure will only snowball as YouTube uses its clout to broker deals with the likes of Apple and EMI.

But not everyone is welcome on YouTube. While the site has done a remarkable job building up the infrastructure that allows people to watch videos on the Web, it has also created a number of barriers to entry. The site bans nonpornographic nudity, places a 10-minute limit on most uploads, and has a resistance (so far) to including live streams. You won't find the brilliant sitcom Break a Leg on YouTube—the episodes are too long. (Disclosure: I have a bit part in a future episode.) And if you want live streaming video, you'll have to go to Ustream or Stickam. Other sites try to stretch the limits of online video, but YouTube's artificial restrictions set the stylistic tone—since every YouTube clip is short, we haven't come to expect or demand to see long-form video elsewhere.

When I launched my own video blog in February, I decided to join the YouTube avoiders. While I have problems with YouTube's rulebook, my biggest turn-off is the site's more-is-better ethos. The most popular videos in YouTube's history are music videos, TV clips, and lowbrow home-video footage; the same is true for this month's top clips, which include commercials, a TV interview, and a Timbaland video. It's not YouTube's fault that people want to watch Timbaland, and the site does try to funnel content to original work: YouTube features user-created content on its front page and sponsors contests like the Sketchies to promote original sketch comedy. It's no accident, though, that the most prominent number on each YouTube page is the number of "Views." The site puts on a good front about the primacy of user-generated content, but YouTube's real message is that in the world of online video, quality is less important than mass appeal.

Of course, it's likely that people would gravitate toward short, funny videos and copyrighted content even if YouTube didn't exist. But it's hard to ignore the fact that, while YouTube turns into a morass of crap culture, the main innovations in video are coming from other sites. If we accept the idea that online video gives power to creators but ignore the obvious power of the environment in which those creators act, we'll never see online video evolve beyond dance routines and a dog on a skateboard. As YouTube matures, its dominance will continue to dictate how most creators and consumers think of video. The site recently ran a 70-minute independent feature film, likely its first test in stretching beyond the short-video market. This could mean a renaissance for independent video and a way for aspiring filmmakers to attract a mass audience. Or, the race for traffic could just lead to a new kind of popularity contest. Which would play better on YouTube: Eraserhead or Big Momma's House 2?

Correction, July 20, 2007: This article originally implied that YouTube doesn't require any Web browser plug-ins. YouTube videos do require a plug-in, the Flash player. (Return to the corrected sentence.)

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Nick Douglas writes for Valleywag and publishes a personal video blog at Lookshiny.com; he's writing a sitcom about a dot-com.
Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

What I like about YouTube is that it has so many "bad" videos.

I sit with my four year old son and teach him about tubas using high school concerts, how cars are made with a few old East German industrial films, and entertained him by dozens of videos of garbage trucks doing what garbage trucks do best (crushing garbage). I don't want art; I want the so-and-so fire department turning on the sirens.

And, then I find art. I found "We Need Girlfriends" on YouTube, and many other short films. Arty sites demand a bit more commitment, and in a short break some yahoos doing a high school dramatic reading from the Great Gatsby are nearly as good as half the "art" out there.

Does YouTube stifle creativity? No. It gives hope to the fifteen year old who can't crack into the sites with higher standards.

--darling

(To reply, click here.)

No Nudity, 10Min. limit & No streaming...

Okay, these are not creative constraints, they are technical constraints which eliminate some creative forms. Frank Lloyd Wright's town houses don't make the the top 50 music charts because they're buildings, NOT because they're bad songs. If you want to write a haiku stop complaining about sonnet length.

--Tommy2Hats

(To reply, click here.)

Youtube's "permissiveness" and its choice of short-form video clips are linked. The time limit means would-be scalawags can't post entire TV shows and movies without splitting them up. That decision helps YouTube argue that it's not designed to be a gigantic copyright infringement tool. Perhaps that'll make a difference in court, perhaps it won't. But it's the kind of design decision companies make in the face of copyright law run amok: an arbitrary limit on functionality, a sacrifice to appease the angry lawyer gods.

--grimmelm

(To reply, click here.)

You would think that the article would note that Slate (and its new video site) might have a conflict of interest with You Tube. The only acknowledgment in the entire article is that the author will be an extra in a video sitcom that does not appear on You Tube.

--DeaH

(To reply, click here.)

The article smacks of elitism, rather than insightful criticism. In all forms of media, the most popular stuff is not necessarily the most critically acclaimed. That's just the way it is.

With the advent of YouTube, it's never been easier to put out your own videos. And it's never been easier to find your audience. That's a good thing.

And if you think your stuff is too good to sit with the unwashed masses at YouTube, you can always publish elsewhere and settle for the smaller audience. If it's that good, someone will probably just rip it and stick it on YouTube anyway.

--hw2084

(To reply, click here.)

(7/19)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Topic A: Obama's Speech
| Pundits and diplomats respond.
Robinson: Sunshine in BerlinToles: Obama the UniterTelnaes: Meanwhile, McCain
PLUS » Stumped: Bring Back Bill Clinton