The next trend to watch

By Steve Outing

Live streaming video. Next big thing. Sarah Meyers of Pop17.com explains it well:

When Youtube adds this sometime this year, as Meyers discovered it will, it’ll become huge. Hey, mainstream media companies: Jump on this now. Don’t wait for yet another big Internet trend to go huge before deciding then to experiment (as has happened SO many times before with other things). Let’s move a bit faster this time, eh?

Chris Pirillo is an example of leading the way on live streaming video. Experimentation is the order of the day with this. Yeah, Pirillo at his desk occasionally talking can be pretty dull. But there are interesting uses for this, you can be sure. I’d just like to see some media companies do some of the innovating.

How could traditional news and media companies best use live streaming video?

Author: Steve Outing Steve Outing is a Boulder, Colorado-based media futurist, digital-news innovator, consultant, journalist, and educator. ... Need assistance with media-company future strategy? Get in touch with Steve!

6 Responses to "The next trend to watch"

  1. Alan Steele
    Alan Steele 9 years ago .Reply

    The traditional mediacos are missing a huge opportunity RIGHT NOW in the current presidential election cycle.

    Imagine how many people would be interested in tuning into a live justin.tv-like feed of what is going on real time with their favorite candidate.

  2. Alan Steele
    Alan Steele 9 years ago .Reply

    The traditional mediacos are missing a huge opportunity RIGHT NOW in the current presidential election cycle. Imagine how many people would be interested in tuning into a live justin.tv-like feed of what is going on real time with their favorite candidate.

  3. Zac Echola
    Zac Echola 9 years ago .Reply

    Over the past year some of our properties have experimented with streaming live video for high school games. We’ve also done streaming of concerts put on by newspaper properties in our company.

    I see the value, clearly, but the manpower, bandwidth, and organization it takes to stream video doesn’t quite mesh with audience size and advertiser enthusiasm–yet.

    Part of the problem is technological; For a reasonably high quality game, you’re going to end up cutting out a lot of users on DSL and wireless ISPs. The infrastructure just isn’t quite there in many places.

    Secondly, it flies in the face of what makes the Web go strong. Live games seem to have a mediocre spike in traffic during the game early on and then fall to near or absolutely zero after they’ve been archived. The game highlights, however, do much better than the entire game, which appears to be a better way to harness long tail value.

    I think there’s better ways to use live video, such as in breaking news situations, though the technical hurdles might be too high for many newspapers depending on the cell and Internet infrastructures in their coverage areas.

    Lastly, because of these reasons, I don’t know if the trend should be encouraged yet. Papers, especially weeklies, that aren’t publishing news content to their sites routinely shouldn’t focus on live video. Neither should papers that don’t have a solid grasp on video, either.

    Experimentation is good, but focusing too much effort into it when you could be spending your time with higher ROI endeavors will lead to disaster.

  4. Zac Echola
    Zac Echola 9 years ago .Reply

    Over the past year some of our properties have experimented with streaming live video for high school games. We've also done streaming of concerts put on by newspaper properties in our company. I see the value, clearly, but the manpower, bandwidth, and organization it takes to stream video doesn't quite mesh with audience size and advertiser enthusiasm–yet. Part of the problem is technological; For a reasonably high quality game, you're going to end up cutting out a lot of users on DSL and wireless ISPs. The infrastructure just isn't quite there in many places. Secondly, it flies in the face of what makes the Web go strong. Live games seem to have a mediocre spike in traffic during the game early on and then fall to near or absolutely zero after they've been archived. The game highlights, however, do much better than the entire game, which appears to be a better way to harness long tail value. I think there's better ways to use live video, such as in breaking news situations, though the technical hurdles might be too high for many newspapers depending on the cell and Internet infrastructures in their coverage areas. Lastly, because of these reasons, I don't know if the trend should be encouraged yet. Papers, especially weeklies, that aren't publishing news content to their sites routinely shouldn't focus on live video. Neither should papers that don't have a solid grasp on video, either. Experimentation is good, but focusing too much effort into it when you could be spending your time with higher ROI endeavors will lead to disaster.

  5. Zac Echola
    Zac Echola 9 years ago .Reply

    That said, most colleges have a locked contract with local radio, TV or both. Forget about pro sports completely.

    If you can figure out how to do live high school games in your coverage area, you’ll pretty much guarantee yourself as the market leader. Then it’s only a matter of waiting and hoping for a market to follow.

  6. Zac Echola
    Zac Echola 9 years ago .Reply

    That said, most colleges have a locked contract with local radio, TV or both. Forget about pro sports completely. If you can figure out how to do live high school games in your coverage area, you'll pretty much guarantee yourself as the market leader. Then it's only a matter of waiting and hoping for a market to follow.

Leave your comment