A VC« Rock Is A Family Affair | Main | Blooking »
Comscore Video Metrix
Well my my. YouTube is not the leader after all.
Sorry about the crappy formatting. This was a cut and paste from an email.
Note: Streams are attributed to the property that provides the stream. For example, the
YouTube data include streams that occurred on their Web property and on other properties
Whereby YouTube provided those streams.
Property Unique U.S. Streams Initiated Streams per
Streamers (000) by U.S. Users (MM) Streamer
-------- --------------- ------------------ -----------
Total Internet 106,534 7,182 67.4
Yahoo! Sites 37,934 812 21.4
MySpace 37,422 1,459 39.0
YouTube 30,538 649 21.2
Time Warner Network 25,675 258 10.1
Microsoft Sites 16,227 156 9.6
Viacom Digital 14,077 322 22.9
Google Sites 7,520 60 7.9
Ebaums World 7,143 67 9.4
MLB 6,442 30 4.6
ROO Group Inc. 5,841 186 31.9
The big surprises are Yahoo! at the top and Google so far down. And of course, MySpace ahead of YouTube. Gotta love MLB. Yes, baseball is still relevant on the Internet!
Comments (11) | Posted September 27, 2006 in Venture Capital and Technology
Comments
Fred, is it possible that the YouTube videos syndicated on MySpace are being counted towards Myspace's stream count?
Pete
Posted by: Pete | Sep 28, 2006 8:15:14 AM
Turns out that Comscore counts YouTube videos streamed from Myspace towards YouTube. This was posted by a Comscore employee over on another blog.
Guess it is exactly what it looks like. That's surprising.
Pete
Posted by: Pete | Sep 28, 2006 8:44:23 AM
The interesting thing for me is what this will do for YouTube's value. Sure it remains a great business but we are in the world of big strategic premiums that might not be the same if the "market leader" tag is lost. More on this on my blog later today.
Posted by: Nic Brisbourne | Sep 28, 2006 8:50:45 AM
Fred I think the big surprise there is crappy, old, gray-haired and wrinkled Time Warner is rigt behind the sprightly YouTube...if they could increase their streams per user, they'd be leaders.
Posted by: Tom W. | Sep 28, 2006 8:55:29 AM
Very impressive that 100MM total unique streamers represents roughly 1:3 to total universe of USA video consumers.
(That is, USA population is ~300MM and its safe to say these days that roughly 100% of the USA population consumes video.)
Fred, what is the growth rate of that number?
Posted by: steve | Sep 28, 2006 9:29:05 AM
One other very plausible reason is that the comScore data is screwy.
Netratings has a very different picture. See today's journal for their table where YouTube is way out in front - not only in UV but also 3x time spent, which would skew the # o streams even larger.
It seems the '98 argument of media metrix vs netratings just doesn't go away.
Posted by: Niki Scevak | Sep 28, 2006 9:29:58 AM
"Very impressive that 100MM total unique streamers represents roughly 1:3 to total universe of USA video consumers."
Made more interesting when you take into consideration that broadband penetration is ~55%. That implies 2/3rds of those capable of viewing video content are doing so.
I'm curious about the methodology behind this research.
Posted by: Erik Schwartz | Sep 28, 2006 9:47:48 AM
The interesting thing about those numbers (as you mentioned) is just how well MLB is doing, and what's even more interesting is that MLB is the only property up there that actually charges users directly for streaming content (although I know google does, I would imagine most of their streams are free).
Why aren't any other sports taking advantage of this? Seems like a no brainer.
Posted by: Dan Putt | Sep 28, 2006 10:01:00 AM
Tip of the hat to Pete for mentioning this blog. As he alluded to in his comment, YouTube videos are attributed to YouTube even when they are embedded on other sites.
Here is a copy of the note from our release that explains this: "Streams are attributed to the property that provides the stream. For example, the YouTube data include streams that occurred on their Web property and on other properties whereby YouTube provided those streams."
...Michael
Posted by: Michael Rubin, comScore | Sep 28, 2006 11:00:14 AM
Note to Steve and Erik
I'd be very surprised if there was no double counting between sites because Youtube viewers don't only view Youtube. Thus we're not dealing with 100 million unique viewers - just 100 million unique streaming occasions. The number of people lying behind that figure is much, much smaller and the longer the period of time that these figures cover, then the smaller I would suggest that number becomes because many streamers will be watching repeatedly.
Posted by: John Dodds | Sep 28, 2006 12:52:34 PM
It is an interesting list, particularly old boring Time Warner. It's a good sign, because when CNN launched free video, their internal usage projections were much higher than the initial outcome (I worked there at the time). Looks like they're figuring it out now, assuming CNN is contributing, and not just AOL Music videos.
Re: MLB. I think it's distorted a bit because the UI "forces" you to view a stream every time you stay on an MLB site for 5 seconds. So an annoying video loads when I'm just looking for some score on Yankees.com (sorry Mets fans, the Bombers are Just Too Deep).
Good stuff, though. Thanks for publishing it.
Posted by: Gordon | Sep 28, 2006 1:12:54 PM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
