Word of the talks come as Guggenheim, a newly formed division of financial-services firm Guggenheim Partners LLC, is seeking to become a force in digital music and entertainment media. Guggenheim appointed media veteran and former Yahoo Inc. executive Ross Levinsohn to run the unit in January, with a war chest for acquisitions characterized by a person close to the matter as “hundreds of millions” of dollars.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The microblogging service plans to launch its new standalone music application on Friday, according to sources familiar with the matter.

(Update:: Of note — another source claims that the app will indeed launch this weekend at Coachella, though not necessarily on Friday.)
(Update 2: It’s out! But unless you’re one of a very select group of famous Twitter users, you’re going to have to wait a week to use it.)

The app suggests artists and tracks to users based on a number of personalized signals, including the Twitter accounts a user follows on the microblogging service. Users will be able to listen to clips of music from inside the app, using third-party services like iTunes and SoundCloud; they will also be able to watch music videos provided by Vevo, the music video service owned by Universal Music and Sony.

Earlier today, Twitter acknowledged that it had acquired music recommendation service We Are Hunted last year and put its staff to work building the new app.

Timing of the launch couldn’t be more appropriate. It’s the weekend that kicks off Coachella, the huge music festival presented every year in the middle of the California desert, attracting some of the music industry’s top talent.

Twitter did not respond to a request for comment.

You can watch today’s spring training game between the New York Yankees and the Washington Nationals for free just about anywhere you can point a browser, either on a desktop machine or an iPhone or Android. MLB.com is handing out embed codes so people like us can stream the game from our pages, and you can also check it out live on Facebook or Twitter.

Baseball has been playing with free Facebook streams for a couple years now; in the past, MLB.com boss Bob Bowman has said the idea has been “de minimus” as a conversion tool to his paid product, but he must think there’s some promotional benefit to doing stuff like this on a site with a billion users, because he keeps doing it.

Twitter is more interesting, simply because Twitter seems to be more and more interested in seeing what it can do as a video platform (for example: its upcoming music app, which will play music videos from Vevo).

Two years ago MLB.com streamed a minor-league all-star game on Twitter, but I believe this is the first time the league has used Twitter to show a game with real pros. My hunch is we’ll see more of this stuff in the near future.

Oh yes: And starting around 2 pm ET, you should be able to see the game below. Meanwhile, if you want to see Bowman live, head to our D: Dive into Mobile event next month in New York. Registration info here.

Spoiler alert! No one outside of a handful of Googlers really knows.

But we can make some educated guesses:

As previously reported, Google’s Android unit wants to launch a subscription service.

This one’s a no-brainer. Music is a key part of mobile, and Andy Rubin doesn’t want to cede that to outsiders like Spotify and Pandora. (Android’s effort to break into music via a download store and a scan-and-match locker have had little take-up.) And this one is relatively easy for music owners to sign off on, since they’ve already bought into the Spotify model — free ad-supported music that pushes users into a $10-a-month mobile offer.

As previously reported, Google’s YouTube unit wants to do … something with a subscription service.

At a minimum, YouTube is trying to collect the rights to sell music, in both audio and video form, via subscriptions. But it hasn’t told music owners what it actually wants to do with those rights, and it hasn’t shown outsiders a prototype of what it’s working on.

This one also has some logic to it, but it’s not quite as clear-cut. More on that shortly.

Before we get there, though: Regardless of what you’ve read about timelines (“imminent,” or “Q3,” or “2013,” or “sometime” are all options), none of this can happen if Google doesn’t get deals with the music owners.

Right now, as Billboard reports, Warner Music Group has signed on to both ideas. I hear that Universal Music Group, the world’s biggest music label, is interested, but is at least a month or so removed from inking a deal. But industry sources say that Sony Music is resistant to all of this. For now.

Even if Google gets all three of the big labels on board, it’s not home free. It needs buy-in not just from the people who own music, but from the ones who own the publishing rights — the underlying compositions for each song.

Sometimes those rights are owned by the big-three labels, but sometimes they’re not. And particularly outside the U.S., Google will need to make peace with the agencies that represent music owners. That could be tough, given that its relationship with some of them is frequently fractious.

So there are lots of ways this could get slowed down/crippled/derailed.

One encouraging sign that all of this could get done is the fact that Google is no longer insisting that music owners negotiate their deals with both an Android team and a YouTube team. Instead, YouTube content head Robert Kyncl is representing the search giant in all of its talks — though the deals are still going to get done separately.

Small beans? Sure. But at least it shows the Googlebots are beginning to grok the way the humanoids in the content business would like to work.

For argument’s sake, let’s say Google does get all of its deals done. What next?

The Android scenario is relatively easy to map out. Google has yet to show a competence for selling content, but its huge installed base will still make it a serious contender. And that will be an issue not just for Spotify, but Pandora and Apple and anyone else with a vested interest in digital music. At a minimum, it could make Android phones more attractive and/or harder to switch away from. And that may be enough to make Rubin happy.

The YouTube version is harder to nail down. As many people have pointed out, YouTube already functions as the world’s biggest digital music service. That’s in part because of the official music videos it serves up in conjunction with Vevo, the video company it is set to invest in.* But mostly because of all the music that its users upload to the service, with homemade visuals and without permission, which ends up staying there with the blessing of the music owners.

So why does it need to sell music? As Eliot Van Buskirk notes, all of that free music may be the reason YouTube is talking about subscriptions. Offering a paid version may make the music owners more likely to keep their free stuff up there, too.

Background: In olden days, music owners got paid a small fee every time someone played their stuff on YouTube. All those small fees added up, which was nice for the labels, but a real problem for YouTube, particularly when it didn’t have much of an ad business to absorb those costs.

Fast-forward to today: Now the music owners get a cut of the ads YouTube shows when it plays their songs. Much better for YouTube, but music owners grumble that they’re not making enough. And their deals are all up for renewal right now.

Subscriptions can solve problems for both sides. YouTube can tell music owners that it’s providing a funnel to encourage people to actually pay for music. And the music owners can let YouTube hang on to what may be its most valuable asset, which it can keep offering for free.

I don’t believe music subscriptions indicate a real change in Google’s plans for YouTube, though. As far as I can tell, Google fundamentally sees the site as a giant advertising platform, and I don’t think a new music product changes that. Just like the talks YouTube is holding with other content owners about other subscriptions.

I also don’t see how YouTube’s audience, which skews very young and probably hasn’t bought a thing from Google in their lives, is likely to pay for any of this stuff.

But if subscriptions — or even the idea of subscriptions — help convince YouTube’s partners to keep supplying their stuff to the site, then that’s probably good enough to keep everyone happy.

*As far as I can tell, none of the subscription talk affects Google’s plan to renew its Vevo deal and put money in the site. The reason the Vevo deal hasn’t been finalized, I’m told, is because its closing has always been contingent on Google wrapping up other deals with the labels, including subscription rights, as I reported earlier.

Earlier investors — including RezVen Partners, who put $4.4 million into the company last year — are back as well. CEO Stephanie Horbaczewski, a former Saks Fifth Avenue executive who founded StyleHaul two years ago, says her videos now reach 50 million viewers a month.

StyleHaul is one of several YouTube-focused video networks that have sprung up in recent years that produce their own content and aggregate many clips by amateurs and semi-professionals, as well.

That’s the technique, for instance, that Machinima has used to generate billions of views for its videogame clips. It’s not a coincidence that Machinima CEO Allen DeBevoise is a StyleHaul investor.

Many of these “multi-channel networks” (terrible name, but it might stick) are now also looking to build businesses outside of YouTube, and StyleHaul is on that path, too.

Horbaczewski says she’ll use the money to build out her direct-sales team, and to build her own destination site; earlier this week, she hired former Yahoo executive Alvin Fong as her COO.

At a minimum, you can see the investment as another sign that lots of big-media players are trying to get their heads around YouTube as well as lay some bets on the site.

Last year, Time Warner led a $36 million round for Maker Studios, another YouTube network, and Google itself invested directly in Machinima. Google currently has an investment teed up, but not closed, in Vevo, YouTube’s dominant music-video channel.

YouTube and its owner Google have agreed to buy a minority stake in Vevo, according to people familiar with the deal, which hasn’t been finalized.

If it happens, it will be the second time in the last year that Google has invested directly in a video company that relies on YouTube for distribution. In May, Google put money into Machinima, the Web video network aimed at gamers.

If the deal does get done, it will allow the two sides to continue with a symbiotic — and at times contentious — relationship that has gone on for three years: Vevo gets to distribute its clips on the world’s largest video site, and YouTube gets to keep showing music videos from the big labels, which account for many of its most popular clips.

I don’t know the size of the planned transaction, but I’m told it will be bigger than the $35 million funding round Google and YouTube led in Machinima last year. Like Hulu, the TV site, Vevo is a complicated joint venture between content owners — in this case Universal Music and Sony Music — and an outside investor — in this case Abu Dhabi Media.

But while both YouTube and Vevo have signed off on the investment and a renewed distribution deal that includes long-term licenses for the videos, the deal hasn’t closed and could still be derailed.

For starters, the deal is supposed to get done at the same time that YouTube signs separate agreements with Sony and Universal, which cover subjects like user-uploaded videos that incorporate music the labels own. And relationships between the two labels — and between the labels and YouTube — have been rocky at times.

That’s one of the reasons Vevo had previously explored alternate distribution deals with Facebook and Viacom’s MTV over the past year.

But it makes the most sense for YouTube and the labels to work together. The labels would like to see more money than they currently get from YouTube, but it would be hard for them to walk away from the revenue they’re already getting.

And while YouTube has worked hard to attract more “professional” content on the site — which is why it has been writing advances to video makers to create “channels” on the site — the labels’ videos remain enormously popular with its young audience.

Meanwhile, both the distribution and the investment will be crucial for Vevo, which operates a very thin-margin business.

Under both the old deal and the new one the company is set to strike, Vevo hands over about a third of its revenue to YouTube, and more than 50 percent of its revenue to the labels, which doesn’t leave it much in the way of an operating budget. Last year, Vevo CEO Rio Caraeff said his company was doing more than $150 million a year.

Now he’s trying to build one.

On Monday, Morse, 43 years old, became the CFO at privately held Adap.tv, which helps advertisers to buy video-advertising space on thousands of websites including Yahoo and music-video giant Vevo.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

And the two sides won’t have a new deal in place by then, according to people familiar with negotiations.

But that doesn’t mean Vevo’s videos will disappear from YouTube, or that Vevo.com will go dark. The existing contract has what amounts to a 120-day extension, which essentially means that the real deadline for Vevo and Google won’t roll around for another four months.

That said, people familiar with the negotiations say the two sides are in “intense” discussions, with the hopes of wrapping something up much sooner than that.

That seems likely, given that the two sides don’t really have a choice: Vevo needs distribution, and Google needs Vevo’s content.

Earlier this year, that outcome wasn’t as clear. Press reports floated the notion that Vevo might try to work a deal with Facebook, the only Web player big enough to give Google a run for its money. But those discussions didn’t lead anywhere, sources said.

No comment from Vevo. Here’s one from a YouTube rep: “While we don’t comment on individual negotiations, we always hope to renew our relationships with valuable partners.”

Vevo is owned in part by Universal Music Group and Sony Music, the industry’s two biggest labels. It’s supposed to be a “Hulu for Music Videos” — a joint venture that gives content owners a digital hub of their own.

When Vevo launched three years ago, it solved a problem for Google. It allowed YouTube to keep generating views from the videos — a crucial chunk of content for the site — without having to fork out licensing fees every time someone watched a clip. Instead, the two sides share advertising revenue.

Since then, Vevo has claimed that the new structure has worked well. Earlier this year, Vevo CEO Rio Caraeff said the company had generated $150 million in annual sales.

But while Caraeff has worked hard to get eyeballs to his videos without YouTube’s help, via outlets like iPhone and Xbox apps, the company is still dependent on Google — in the U.S., YouTube accounts for two-thirds of Vevo’s views.

Google, meanwhile, is less dependent on music videos than it was three years ago, because it has worked hard to bring in other “professional” content of its own.

But losing the clips would still be a huge problem for the site. Check out the list of YouTube’s six most popular videos of all time, and count the number of them supplied by Vevo. Or I can save you some time: Vevo accounts for five of them.

Here, for better or worse, is one:

But why? That’s a little murky right now.

I haven’t heard back from Google yet. (Update: Here’s a comment via a YouTube rep: “We are working with Apple to make sure we have the best possible YouTube experience for iOS users.”) But here’s what Apple PR rep Trudy Muller told my colleague John Paczkowski today, confirming reports that the YouTube app has disappeared in the newest beta version of the iOS6 app released to developers:

Our license to include the YouTube app in iOS has ended. Customers can use YouTube in the Safari browser and Google is working on a new YouTube app to be on the App Store.

But that’s confusing. Just about anyone can build their own YouTube app, using YouTube’s public API. So something’s broken here: Either Apple really doesn’t want to make its own version of a YouTube app, or Google really doesn’t want Apple to make one.

Neither version of that story makes a lot of sense. YouTube was one of the original apps that Apple included with the very first iPhone, back in 2007, when the only apps on the machine were the ones Apple made.

The linkup was good for both sides. This ad even highlighted the integration:

Then again, that was back in 2007, when Eric Schmidt was on the Apple board of directors, and Google hadn’t launched Android, and Steve Jobs wasn’t talking about going “thermonuclear.”

And since then, of course, things have changed. The Apple/Google rift already surfaced earlier this year, when Apple confirmed plans to replace Google Maps on the iPhone with a homegrown version.

In the meantime, the iPhone YouTube app has always been a weird bit of corporate compromise. If you’ve used the app, you might notice that it doesn’t run ads, and that some YouTube content isn’t available on it — most music videos, for instance.

If you want that stuff on your iPhone, you’ll need Google-sanctioned versions, like the HTML Web app that Google launched in 2010, or the official Vevo app, which is powered by Google. And that’s the only choice you’ll have, starting this fall.

Update: Here’s some insight from an industry executive who works with both companies, and suggests that you’ll increasingly see YouTube take control of all its apps, for the reasons discussed above: Ad dollars and user experience. “YouTube [has] decided they didn’t want third-parties building apps,” says my source. “Their strategy has changed. They want to control their destiny more.”

That seems more palatable. At least to the investors putting $17 million into The Echo Nest, which maintains databases used by companies like Spotify, Vevo and Nokia.

Norwest Venture Partners led the round, and previous investors like Matrix and Jim Palotta, who had put more than $8 million into the company, re-upped.

People like saying “big data” right now, and Echo Nest describes itself as “the leading music big data company.” What that really means is that it has a giant pile of information that music companies use to create recommendation engines and other features for their services.

The best thing about that business is that Echo Nest gets to participate in digital music without having to deal with the headaches and costs of music licensing, which have sunk just about everyone who has tried to make a go of it so far (the jury is still out on Pandora and Spotify).

The downside is that there are a limited number of digital music companies that can use what Echo Nest is selling. Because digital music companies are really hard to run.

So now Echo Nest is positioning itself to sell services to companies that don’t specialize in music, too. It argues that its database could help “a wide range of applications” with tasks like “social discovery,” because it turns out that musical taste and preferences may help predict people’s taste and preferences for other stuff.

As a test case, the company has run the numbers on correlating musical taste and political affiliation. You may not be surprised to learn that country fans lean Republican and Rihanna fans like Democrats, but there’s more interesting stuff at this blog post.

(Image courtesy of Shutterstock/1971yes)

Well-known Silicon Valley entrepreneur and Amazon board member Blake Krikorian is joining the board of directors of FreeWheel, the video tech start-up that helps entertainment companies manage content across digital platforms.

FreeWheel’s customers include NBC Universal, Vevo, Fox, Turner and ABC. It has raised close to $29 million in funding from a number of venture firms, such as Battery Ventures and Foundation Capital.

The San Mateo, Calif.-based company said Krikorian will help with corporate strategy and partnerships.

Krikorian was founder and CEO of Sling Media, the device maker which was acquired by EchoStar in 2007. He’s been an angel investor since then, and became an Amazon director last fall.

In an interview, Krikorian said that monetization and rights management have held back innovation in online video, but that content owners have recently released some promising products, such as Disney’s new Apple iOS apps for watching linear television programming.

“FreeWheel has built a trusted technology platform to manage the money flow for video content providers and distributors as their content is delivered across the Web and on mobile,” said Krikorian. “With these business and technology foundations in place, I can finally see the day coming when every media company will deliver all their programming online, in all of its forms including live linear TV.”

Vevo hired Allen & Co. to look for investors, the people added. One of the people said Vevo hopes to raise $100 million to $150 million, at terms that would value the company at nearly $1 billion. Another person said Allen & Co. has pegged the video company’s value at $700 million to $800 million.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

There’s a popular maxim in Silicon Valley: Find your user base and the revenues will come later.

For a while, it seemed to be the easiest way for a founder to explain his or her way out of a proper business model. But with Facebook’s $1 billion acquisition of the entirely revenue-free Instagram, that adage now carries more weight than ever.

Enter Viddy and Socialcam, two of the hottest start-up apps, both of which have the buzz of being the “Instagram for video.” The pair have exploded in popularity over the past few months, with each garnering user bases in the tens of millions seemingly overnight.

But the growth of one of these apps is not like the other.

Using a combination of fortunate timing, Facebook’s Open Graph influence and a new way of playing the system, Socialcam has effectively gamed Facebook, YouTube and the App Store to keep a strong grip on that ever-so-valuable user base. In the short term, at least, the three-man Socialcam start-up team has discovered a method to beat the 20-plus person outfit that is Viddy.

The method is so effective that Socialcam skyrocketed from around 1.4 million monthly active Facebook users to a whopping 40 million in a span of little more than two weeks. Socialcam surpassed Viddy in the Facebook app rankings last week, and currently sits fat atop Apple’s powerful App Store as one of the most downloaded free applications.

Some have started picking up on Socialcam’s tactics. Threads arose on Quora and Hacker News questioning the validity of the app’s growth, and TheNextWeb picked some of this apart on Thursday.

But there’s far more to it.

History

The concept of social video has been simmering for some time. Viddy was founded in December of 2010, while competitors like Mobli, Klip and Socialcam came along at various points during 2011.

But it was only over the past few months that the mobile social video concept began to boil. Socialcam hit the three million user mark in December. The Instagram acquisition announcement hit the web on April 9th. Two days later, Viddy hit 4 million users.

At some point on April 24, social video apps exploded, and it suddenly became clearer that Viddy and Socialcam were leaving all of their competitors behind.

Web view traffic to Socialcam through Facebook skyrocketed from around 10 million monthly active users to an astounding 40 million MAUs over a period of two weeks. Viddy jumped from around eight million MAUs to upwards of 36 million over that same period.

It was as if someone had flipped on the awesome traffic switch.

What Happened That Fateful Day in April?

What isn’t clear is just who or what flipped that switch. But I’m hearing many different theories.

Theory No. 1: Socialcam received its Facebook Open Graph integration around this time, thus increasing the app’s visibility in users’ Timelines. But Viddy’s Open Graph integration had already occurred on March 12, more than a month previously, at South by Southwest, and both apps received immense boosts in traffic during that same time period.

It’s possible that Socialcam’s Open Graph jumpstart fueled Viddy’s growth by mere virtue of being another social video app. Or perhaps it was the announcement that Twitter co-founder Biz Stone, Shakira and Jay-Z would back Viddy financially, the news of which occurred two days before Socialcam’s Open Graph integration.

Theory No. 2: A more conspiracy-like theory in which Facebook itself made changes to its News Feed in favor of the “Watch” action for social videos on the whole.

Consider this: When the once-popular Facebook social reading apps like the Guardian and Washington Post Social Reader recently started tanking in their monthly active user ratings, Ryan Kellett, a Washington Post employee, confirmed to TechCrunch that it was indeed changes in Facebook’s News Feed that led to Social Reader’s decline. It’s feasible, then, to think that Facebook could tweak things in the other direction, in order to favor video apps.

And, indeed, SocialCam, Klip, YouTube, Viddy and DailyMotion all saw spikes in Facebook traffic on April 24 — some more than others — with Mobli’s traffic following suit shortly thereafter.

Facebook declined to comment to AllThingsD on the near instantaneous rise on April 24, although it did shrug off the date in question to the New York Times: “The popularity of videos and other user-generated content on Facebook is not new, so it’s no surprise that social video apps are growing as friends share with each other and as more developers experiment with this type of content on Facebook.”

In a tweet on Saturday, TechCrunch writer Josh Constine noted that the sudden burst of growth on April 24 was due to a reporting error from Facebook to third-party app tracking site AppData. That also seems reasonable, although doesn’t fully explain the sudden traffic explosion that occurred over that two- to three-week period.

Whatever actually happened, Socialcam saw the chance to seize its moment.

Gaming Facebook

After receiving the boost, Socialcam’s founders discovered the perfect way of keeping that veritable fire hose of Facebook Web traffic pouring in.

According to multiple sources, it was around this time Socialcam began scraping video content from Vevo and YouTube to add to its own network of users, which essentially amounts to ripping content directly from other services.

As you might imagine, it’s not a welcome practice.

Then, sources said, Socialcam uploaded that video content to its own servers, where it began distributing it via different dummy accounts on the Socialcam network. There’s a slew of “YouTube Popular” accounts doing much of the distribution, along with others.

So, in effect, when a Socialcam user on a mobile device clicked on what he thought was a Socialcam video, he was taken into SocialCam’s Custom player, where the ripped YouTube video was played from Socialcam’s servers.

Herein lies the cleverness of the plan: Scraping and ripping stripped each video of its YouTube wrapping, or in the case of Vevo, its pre-roll advertising. So initially, users weren’t even aware they were watching YouTube videos. Socialcam systematically targeted a number of the most viral videos uploaded YouTube in the past four to five years, said sources, aiming to harness that viral success and bolster Socialcam’s network.

Why go to this trouble, especially since it’s against the terms of service to rip off the YouTube APIs? That risks sullying a relationship with a large and powerful online content powerhouse. Embedding the YouTube code within a Socialcam video instead of ripping YouTube’s content would comply with YouTube’s ToS. It’s also potential fodder to get its app booted from Facebook’s platform.

When asked if Socialcam was ripping YouTube videos, YouTube was cagey, only telling me this:

“While we don’t comment on individual cases, however, we take any violation of our open API’s Terms of Service seriously and take action against known abusers,” a spokesperson for YouTube told me.

A Facebook spokesperson concurred: “If it comes to our attention that an app is violating our policies, we will take action. We have no further details to share at this time.”

Vevo declined my request for comment.

Socialcam CEO Michael Seibel responded: “Socialcam has weekly and often daily interaction with the developer relations teams at both Facebook and Youtube. To the best of our knowledge, we are not violating the terms of service of either company.”

But what apparently happened, said sources, was that Socialcam got caught scraping and was told to knock it off. So to continue with its plan but stay compliant with Facebook and YouTube Terms of Service policies, Socialcam then began embedding the YouTube videos into Socialcam posts, effectively doing the same thing as before, only with the YouTube branding in place.

As of last week, nearly every top trending video on Socialcam’s site was a YouTube video.

Combine the viral nature of those YouTube videos with Facebook’s traffic-driving Open Graph, and you’ve got a recipe for success. If an app is integrated into Open Graph like Socialcam and Viddy are, using those apps publishes activity to three sections of Facebook: Timeline, Ticker and the News Feed. With every click, each user would broadcast the videos they had just watched, and that traffic fed on itself.

Despite the fact that social video on the whole received early initial traffic boosts by some yet-to-be-pinpointed variable, Socialcam was able to retain that traffic through proliferating YouTube videos throughout Facebook.

In a way, the guys behind Socialcam are brilliant, cracking a method of using YouTube and Facebook together to extend the app’s reach in a matter of weeks.

And it worked: The app still sits atop the App Store, using its Facebook viral success to boost download numbers immensely. It has soared beyond Viddy and other similar apps, most of which have been around much longer than Socialcam has.

Is All Fair in Apps and War?

And here’s the thing: Aside from the alleged initial screen-scraping, doing what Socialcam is currently doing isn’t breaking any rules.

Sure, its largest competitor, Viddy, is definitely not a fan of the practice. The company spent the past 18 months building its subscriber base out with user-generated content, not to mention raising tens of millions of dollars in venture funding in order to do so.

And Viddy CEO and co-founder Brett O’Brien is making no bones about his discontent.

“Viddy is built on 100 percent community-generated original content, which we feel is the only way to build a true social community as Facebook, Instagram and others have done,” O’Brien told me in an interview, a thinly veiled slight at Socialcam’s YouTube video poaching. “Our active community of over 27 million Viddyographers is passionate about Viddy and is actively growing the community through sharing. Viddy is clearly filling a consumer need to easily create, beautify and share original video content.”

The problem for Viddy is, others are catching on. Of the top 10 fastest growing Facebook apps from the past week, half of them are social video apps. Most recently, Chill gained more than eight million users in as little as two weeks. All but Viddy use a mix of content, both user-generated and user-curated — although Socialcam still remains the most adept at working the larger ecosystem.

It seems, however, that in light of the recent negative press Socialcam has received, the company decided to tweak its app on Tuesday afternoon, incorporating a handful of subtle changes. YouTube videos are now labeled much more explicitly. A bug which kept users auto-sharing their videos to their feeds — whether they turned the option on or off — has been fixed. And now Socialcam’s “Trending Bar” — the one replete with YouTube videos — is gone from the site.

Still, as the social apps using these methods proliferate, it’ll only get harder for non-viral videos to rise to the top. According to one source, Facebook’s News Feed only allows for a certain percentage of its inventory devoted to video. The algorithm that determines which videos make it into that inventory is based on click-through rate, as well as the number of comments, likes and shares it received. Still, click-through rate weighs heavy on that scale.

In that case, it’s obvious that when Socialcam — and apps like it — seed Facebook with the most viral YouTube apps of all time, click-through rates and shares will skyrocket, and those apps will take a much larger portion of the video News Feed pie.

The question, then, becomes a philosophical one: Is it fair? Since Socialcam essentially cracked the video sharing code, does it not deserve its seat at the top of the charts?

That point remains contentious. As Socialcam CEO Michael Seibel told me, the company’s “simple goal is to allow users to create amazing videos and watch videos shared by their friends.” And as Seibel explained on Bloomberg West last week, “people want to see the videos that their friends are watching.”

But, if all that is being watched are the most viral videos Socialcam has seeded, are users not just watching what Socialcam directs them to?

The war isn’t over. Perhaps Facebook will tweak its algorithm to compensate for the types of videos. Or perhaps Socialcam and others like it will ride to the top on YouTube videos, then see an influx of user-generated content after reaching a critical mass of subscribers.

And again, like that old Valley adage goes — it’s all about the user base, right?

That is, more people are watching Web stuff on Microsoft’s machine than on the iPad, iPhone or any Android machine, anywhere. And when it comes to home viewing, competitors like Apple TV, Google TV and Roku are so far behind they’re not even competitors.

This data comes from Freewheel, an online video ad company, and it comes with caveats. We’ll get to those below. But first, take a look:

Now the asterisks: Freewheel is only measuring “professional content” that runs with ads, because that’s how it makes its living. So that means it’s counting stuff from companies like NBC, CBS, ESPN and Vevo, but not YouTube cat videos. It’s also not measuring Netflix usage. On the other hand, this isn’t a poll or sample, but data compiled by the company’s own ad servers.

So it’s possible there’s some variance here with the larger Web video world, but it seems reasonable to assume that this is at least directionally correct. At the very least, it gives credence to Microsoft’s claim that Xbox users are spending more time watching videos on the machines than playing games, and that its deals with conventional TV programmers may be bearing fruit.

And it shows you how much ground Google will need to make up as it gets ready to relaunch its Google TV. Ditto for Apple, if and when it ever gets serious about transforming Apple TV into something other than a “hobby.”

Moderating a SXSW panel today called “Digital Sport: Know More, Do More,” Fallon asked a group of execs, as well as gold medal-winning Olympic athlete Allyson Felix, why data gathering is becoming increasingly important in sports and gaming.

After introducing himself as a lover of technology, as evidenced by his impressive Twitter following, Fallon shook his wrist up and down emphatically to try to boost his Nike Fuel, the new currency by which Nike measures activity for FuelBand.

“That’s why 12-year-old boys have higher Fuel levels,” Fallon quipped, to a series of laughs and groans from the audience.

“Really, Nike+ is pretty cool,” Fallon added. “There’s this one loop I used to walk around my house that I thought was two miles — and it turns out it’s only one mile.”

Nike’s vice president of digital sport, Stefan Olander, said Nike’s foray into digital data tracking through its gear has taken a practice previously known only to elite athletes and made it available to everyone. Nike used to be a product company, he said, but with Nike+ and the FuelBand, it’s becoming more of a service company. By offering data tracking, “you’re offering a service, too,” Olander said.

“Two million EA games have been played in the last month alone,” said Andrew Wilson, executive vice president and head of sports for Electronic Arts. By gathering data on that activity, “it’s like crowdsourcing for how to make a better game.”

“It used to be that we’d make a game and present it,” Wilson added. “Now we just present the components of the game and continue to build it out based on the conversation from the online community.”

In recent years, the market for wearable fitness tech for casual athletes has grown rapidly. See our earlier coverage of devices like the Fitbit, Jawbone UP and Nike FuelBand to get a sense of how some of these devices work. According to a report last year from ABI Research, wearable wireless sensors for fitness and well-being are expected to surpass 80 million devices by 2016, eclipsing the wireless sensor markers for professional and home health-care monitoring.

Fallon asked Nike’s Olander what his power workout song was. “Eye of the Tiger,” someone in the audience correctly guessed.

At the end of the panel, an attendee challenged Fallon to a race down the aisles of the room, which Fallon gamely agreed to. Sadly, the results were masked by the crowds in the aisles and at the back of the hall.

RELATED POSTS:

• The Homeless Defend Becoming Hotspots
• Pinterest CEO Ben Silbermann’s Lesson for Start-Ups: Go Your Own Way
• The Best and Weirdest Requests and Errands at SXSW From Zaarly, TaskRabbit and Others
• Al Gore and Sean Parker Blame TV and Money for Ruining Politics, and Say Social Media Ought to Fix It
• Letters From SXSW: How to Be “Disruptive”
• SXSW News: Jerry Levin’s StartUp Health Academy for Entrepreneurs Announces First Class
• The Best (And Worst) Marketing Gimmick in Austin
• Forget Cleantech — It’s Cleanweb at SXSW
• Houston Comes to Austin as Kara Swisher Talks Lessons Learned with Dropbox CEO
• After Nearly Doubling Its Userbase in Three Months, Instagram Will Finally Come to Android
• The Power of Power at South By Southwest
• How Jimmy Fallon Uses the Nike FuelBand (It’s Naughty, Of Course)
• Gawker Will Deputize Commenters, Says Sheriff Nick Denton
• Microsoft’s Danah Boyd: Social Media Makes the World More Fearful
• Etsy CEO on Building a Lean Start-Up: Deploy, Deploy, Deploy
• South By Southwest Parties On, Despite the Rain
• At SXSW, Joi Ito Invites Tech Entrepreneurs Into the MIT Media Lab
• Texas Gov. Rick Perry Drops In on South By Southwest
• Can Playing More Games Make Your Life “SuperBetter”? Jane McGonigal Thinks So.
• Google’s Vic Gundotra on Why Plus Isn’t a Minus
• Rain Douses Austin as Crowds Flood Into SXSW
• Checking In and Checking Out South by Southwest
• SXSW Serendipity Gets Yet Another Helper: Kismet
• The Essential SXSW Tech Tool Kit
• Geek in the Heart of Texas: AllThingsD at SXSW 2012

It’s a pretty slick overhaul, or at least it seemed to be when I took a preview spin. But it’s up now, so you can see for yourself, which also means I don’t need to spend much time describing it.

I do want to point out one feature. Like every other Web site in the world, Vevo wants to make itself more social, by making it easier to tell your pals what you’re watching, and easier to see what your friends are watching. No surprise there. What’s interesting to me is that when you log in to the site using your Facebook credentials, Vevo will have already “socialized” you — even if you’ve never used the site and none of your friends have, either.

Vevo can do that by tapping into the music data that Facebook has already compiled about you, based on songs and bands you’ve “Liked,” and any music you’ve played via Facebook-connected services like Spotify.

I know that Facebook’s “frictionless sharing” mechanics — where every action you take on the site is broadcast/spammed out to all your friends — built up an important data warehouse for Mark Zuckerberg.

But I hadn’t quite processed that he was willing to share it with outside developers. Who will, of course, be that much more interested in working with Facebook, for that very reason.

Speaking of Facebook: One reason it’s so important for Caraeff to make his site stickier is that his joint venture, which is co-owned by Sony, Universal Music, and other investors, is dependent on Google’s YouTube for the majority of its traffic. In the U.S., YouTube generates about two-thirds of Vevo’s views.

Caraeff is starting to renegotiate a deal with YouTube that expires at the end of the year, and it makes sense for both sides to make it work. But Caraeff also wants options, which is why he is talking to Facebook, among other suitors.

Those would-be partners would have to offer Caraeff traffic and revenue guarantees to make a deal work. But even with those in place, it would be even more crucial for Vevo to have a standalone site that users really cared about.

Caraeff would be overhauling Vevo, in any case. But if the new look makes his site that much more attractive to partners, even better.

YouTube is now insisting on the ability to play all videos from content “partners” — video owners that share ad revenue with the site — on all platforms, including mobile phones and connected TVs.

Previously, some video owners have held back their content from some devices, in hopes of making separate deals with other distributors, like Netflix or Microsoft’s Xbox unit.

But now YouTube says it wants to put all its stuff everywhere. The site informed partners about the change at the end of January, and required them to sign off on the deal within a few days, via an electronic “click form.”

The terms don’t affect any of the video makers that YouTube is working with via its new “channels” program, because those companies had already agreed to multi-platform distribution. And there will also be a class of very big media companies that may not have to play by the same rules, either.

Video music site Vevo, for instance, keeps some of its clips off of some platforms, including the YouTube app on the iPhone, because of technical issues like ad servers and branding. That won’t change anytime soon, according to people familiar with the site. I wouldn’t be surprised if big Hollywood studios or TV networks also have carve-outs that won’t get changed.

But there is still a group of video-makers who have millions of subscribers and have generated hundreds of millions of video views, and YouTube’s change will affect them.

The ones I talked to about the new terms — who don’t want me to print their names — say they’ve accepted them reluctantly, because they need the distribution and/or dollars that YouTube provides.

And it’s hard to tell if this actually puts the kibosh on, say, an Xbox deal — maybe Microsoft will still cut them a check. Or maybe Microsoft was never going to cut them a check, anyway.

But it’s certainly good for consumers. There’s a logic behind media companies’ efforts to distinguish a PC screen from an iPhone screen, or a tablet screen from a TV screen. But only if you’re in charge of making biz dev deals for a media company. If you watch video, a screen is a screen is a screen.

Here’s his interview at D: Dive Into Media today with Ina Fried:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120131/vevos-rio-caraeff-profits-from-ubiquity-video/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20120131/vevo-ceo-we-made-150-million-in-the-last-year-alone/ http://allthingsd.com/20120131/vevo-ceo-we-made-150-million-in-the-last-year-alone/#comments Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:35:41 +0000 John Paczkowski http://allthingsd.com/?p=169030 When it first debuted in 2009, Vevo aspired to be a “Hulu for music.” Today, it’s exactly that: the second largest video property on the Web in the U.S., a title that — you guessed it — was once held by Hulu.

Further evidence of the company’s success: The impressive financials announced by Vevo president and CEO Rio Caraeff during an onstage interview at our D: Dive Into Media conference.

“In the last year alone we’ve generated over $150 million,” said Caraeff. “We paid the labels about $100 million (over the last 2 years). So we’re making money.”

An impressive feat for such a young company. How did Vevo pull it off? By not holding back its content.

“Our strategy was never to create value through scarcity,” Caraeff said. “We feel the Web is about choice and empowering people to go where they want. With Vevo we wanted to facilitate access. So you go to YouTube and you can find Vevo. Go to facebook, you find Vevo. It’s about ubiquity on the Web.”

Mobile is another point of access. Xbox is yet another.

“Our business is only as interesting as it is large,” said Caraeff. “If we want to reach a lot people, we need to be in a lot of places.”

So just how big is Vevo’s business? Pretty big.

“From a volume perspective our growth has been tremendous,” said Caraeff. “We had 300 million global views per month when we launched. Today we’re seeing 3.5 billion views per month. That’s about 42 billion views per year.”

So what’s Vevo’s next move? Will it pursue a linear strategy, head to cable?

“It’s unlikely that we’ll start a cable channel from scratch or buy a cable company in distress,” said Caraeff. “But I think we’ll have linear experiences on the TV all powered by Vevo.”

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120131/vevo-ceo-we-made-150-million-in-the-last-year-alone/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111220/more-stars-for-d-dive-into-media-jason-kilar-dick-costolo-and-martha-stewart-join-us-onstage/ http://allthingsd.com/20111220/more-stars-for-d-dive-into-media-jason-kilar-dick-costolo-and-martha-stewart-join-us-onstage/#comments Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:00:34 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=155401 The D: Dive into Media conference in January is already packed with big-name speakers. But we’ve found room for a few more: We’re adding the leaders of Hulu, Twitter and Martha Stewart Living to our star-studded lineup.

If you’re reading this site, you know who all of these folks are. But just for formality’s sake:

Jason Kilar is CEO of Hulu, the video joint venture co-owned by Comcast, Disney and News Corp.’s broadcast TV units. The site has been a huge hit with viewers and subscribers, who have put it on pace to generate $500 million in revenue this year. But its owners aren’t quite sure what to do with it: They put it up for sale this summer, then decided to hang on to it after all. This will be Kilar’s first major public appearance since that tumult, so we’ll have plenty of questions.

Dick Costolo is CEO of Twitter, which has moved from Web oddity to a service used by more than 100 million people a month. Twitter’s founders didn’t like the notion of turning their baby into a media company, but that’s exactly what Costolo is trying to do now; he is ramping up efforts to attract more eyeballs and sell more ads. And he’s leaning heavily on big media companies — especially TV networks and movie distributors — to make that happen.

Martha Stewart is the founder of Martha Stewart Living, the multimedia empire she built from scratch, which now includes magazines, TV shows, a Web site and multiple lines of branded goods; her newest coup is a big-dollar deal with J.C. Penney. She’ll be joined onstage by Lisa Gersh, the president and chief operating officer Stewart brought in from NBC Universal nearly a year ago. At NBC U, Gersh had overseen the acquisition of the Weather Channel, among other duties; she had previously been chief operating officer at Oxygen Media.

 

They’ll join a lineup that includes ESPN President John Skipper, YouTube CEO Salar Kamangar, Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman, New Yorker editor David Remnick, Warner Music Chairman Edgar Bronfman Jr., News Corp. Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey, Clear Channel CEO Bob Pittman, Legendary Pictures head Thomas Tull and Vevo CEO Rio Caraeff. And we may still have a surprise or two between now and the end of January.

All Things Digital’s first-ever media conference runs Jan. 30 and 31 at the Ritz-Carlton in Laguna Niguel, an hour south of Los Angeles. See you there.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111220/more-stars-for-d-dive-into-media-jason-kilar-dick-costolo-and-martha-stewart-join-us-onstage/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111220/biggest-youtube-videos-of-the-year-rebecca-black-of-course-and-pitbull/ http://allthingsd.com/20111220/biggest-youtube-videos-of-the-year-rebecca-black-of-course-and-pitbull/#comments Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:20:26 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=155380 YouTube is embarking on a big push to make the world’s biggest video site look more like TV: It wants to have fancier productions and programming that encourages you to stick around for hours, not minutes.

Meanwhile, YouTube users seem very happy to do what they have always done on YouTube: Watch weird clips of people and animals behaving oddly.

The site has published its list of 2011’s most popular videos, and they’re basically what you’d expect: Clips of cute dogs, and cute babies, and an annoying 8-bit cat, and a really cute cat. And, of course, Rebecca Black, the poor/maybe rich girl who may or may not be in on the joke. Probably not.

The surprise, if you don’t pay attention to this stuff, is that YouTube’s Top 10 most-popular list of 2011 isn’t really the site’s Top 10 most-popular list. It’s the list of the top 10 videos not put out by big music companies.

Because those clips, which are distributed by Vevo, the Hulu-for-music videos, are way, way, way more popular than anything else on the site.

The most popular music video of the year, for instance, is this Jennifer Lopez clip, featuring Pitbull. It’s at nearly half a billion views, which means it is likely more than 2x Rebecca Black’s clip, the top non-big-music-label clip.

In fact, it turns out that any clip featuring Pitbull does exceptionally well. Here are two more, which collectively have generated close to 400 million views. I’ll let much smarter people, like Maura Johnston, explain why Pitbull is so popular. For our purposes, the key takeaway here is that people really, really, really like watching music videos on YouTube. Even more than they like funny girls and cute cats.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111220/biggest-youtube-videos-of-the-year-rebecca-black-of-course-and-pitbull/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111201/you-are-watching-more-web-video-ads-and-you-are-ok-with-that/ http://allthingsd.com/20111201/you-are-watching-more-web-video-ads-and-you-are-ok-with-that/#comments Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:42:05 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=149210 We’re watching more Web videos than ever: More than 42 billion a month in the U.S. And we’re watching more Web video ads, too.

That seems like an obvious correlation. But, until recently, that wasn’t the case, for a couple reasons. Some Web video sites had held back a bit from shoving ads in front of users’ faces, for fear of scaring them off. And lots of folks who wanted to buy video ads couldn’t find places they wanted to place them.

This is changing now, and that means the Web video business might finally be catching up to the long-running Web video boom.

Here, for instance, is promising news for ad buyers and sellers, via FreeWheel, a start-up that helps serve and manage video ads for the likes of Turner, Vevo and Fox. FreeWheel says that last quarter, for the first time, the rate of video ad views grew faster than overall video views — 128 percent versus 97 percent:

Just as important is that viewers seem okay with the bump in ads, too. The completion rate for the ads seems to have held steady, even as the number of ads has increased.

That’s particularly true for “long-form” stuff — often TV episodes on Hulu and other sites — which have recently seen ad loads double. The longer you watch a video clip, it seems, the more likely you are to watch the accompanying ads all the way through.

Easy enough to cover this stuff with caveats, the most obvious being that FreeWheel is anything but an unbiased observer here. It’s also important to note that this data goes through the first part of this fall. And, as lots of glum Web publishers will tell you now, the Web ad business has gotten a lot less robust in the last couple months.

Big picture, the Web video business is still very much a work in progress, which you can see at a glance by noting the turmoil at Hulu, or YouTube’s overhaul. And there’s still a long way to go: Video ads grew 42 percent in the first half of the year, but still only make up 6 percent of the overall Web ad business. But if it keeps headed in this direction it’s going to quickly make up ground.

Speaking of YouTube, here’s a clip Google’s site tells me is a new favorite. Involves some standard-issue hip-hop swearing:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111201/you-are-watching-more-web-video-ads-and-you-are-ok-with-that/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111129/game-on-espns-new-boss-john-skipper-debuts-at-d-dive-into-media/ http://allthingsd.com/20111129/game-on-espns-new-boss-john-skipper-debuts-at-d-dive-into-media/#comments Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:30:51 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=148002 Time to introduce another D: Dive Into Media speaker, and this one’s very timely: John Skipper, the new head of cable sports giant ESPN.

Disney CEO Bob Iger tapped Skipper to take over his company’s most important asset just a week ago. But Skipper, who had been ESPN’s content boss, has been a rising star there for years, hopping from print (!) to the Web to TV programming. We’ll have his first onstage interview in his new role.

At a time when the value of Big Media’s content is in flux, ESPN’s lock on sports — DVR-proof, pirate-resistant programming that draws mass eyeballs in a niche age — is more valuable than ever. Can Skipper keep it that way?

We’ll ask him in January, as he joins a lineup that includes: YouTube CEO Salar Kamangar, Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman, New Yorker editor David Remnick, Warner Music Chairman Edgar Bronfman Jr., News Corp. Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey, Clear Channel CEO Bob Pittman, Legendary Pictures head Thomas Tull and Vevo CEO Rio Caraeff.

All Things Digital’s first-ever media conference runs Jan. 30 and 31 at the Ritz-Carlton in Laguna Niguel, an hour south of Los Angeles. See you there.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111129/game-on-espns-new-boss-john-skipper-debuts-at-d-dive-into-media/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111107/more-moguls-for-d-dive-into-media-clear-channel-legendary-pictures-and-vevo-join-the-cast/ http://allthingsd.com/20111107/more-moguls-for-d-dive-into-media-clear-channel-legendary-pictures-and-vevo-join-the-cast/#comments Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:00:26 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=141037 We’re about three months away from D: Dive Into Media, which means it’s time to show a bit more leg and tell you about more of the speakers we’ll have joining us onstage.

For our first-ever media conference, we’re trying to cast a wide net, so you’ll hear from movers and shakers from a range of companies. The common theme: All of them are making and distributing content during a time of unprecedented technological change. How do they adapt?

So far, we’ve announced that Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman, New York editor David Remnick, Warner Music chairman Edgar Bronfman Jr. and News Corp. chief operating officer Chase Carey will be joining us on Jan. 30 and 31 at the Ritz-Carlton in Laguna Nigel, just south of Los Angeles.

Let’s add three more to that list:

Bob Pittman helped build MTV, then AOL. And after spending several years as a full-time investor in everything from Zynga to a high-end tequila, he’s running a media company once again — this time overseeing radio and billboard giant Clear Channel. Why would you want to run a radio company when everyone’s consumed with the likes of iTunes, Pandora and Spotify? Because it’s still a growth industry, Pittman argues. And the fact that it’s the industry that gave him his start, at age 15, makes the story even more interesting.

Thomas Tull is a relative newcomer to Hollywood, but he’s moving fast. After founding Legendary Pictures in 2004, he’s produced a string of hits, including “The Hangover,” “The Dark Knight” and “300.” And if you accuse him of making dude-centric movies that appeal to “fanboys,” he won’t flinch — they’re the ones who still come out to the theaters, if you know how to get them there. Last spring, his track record helped him secure an investment from Silicon Valley heavyweight Accel Partners, which gives you a hint about where Tull thinks all of this is going.

Joint ventures formed by big media companies are a tricky proposition, but Rio Caraeff seems to be making his work. Vevo, the “Hulu for music videos,” is co-owned by Universal Music Group and Sony Music, and helped in large part by Google’s YouTube. And as of last month it was the second-biggest video site on the Web — a title that used to be held by Hulu.

Just like our flagship D: All Things Digital conference, D: Dive into Media will give you rare access to deep, smart talks with the people who matter. And we’ll be announcing more of them in the weeks to come. For now: You can find registration information here.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111107/more-moguls-for-d-dive-into-media-clear-channel-legendary-pictures-and-vevo-join-the-cast/feed/ 0