Yesterday, I moderated an "all about MCNs" panel with nothing but A-list executive talent. But, MCNs are just one part of the overall digital-first video ecosystem that is at the center of the fundamental media and entertainment transformation in which we find ourselves -- an ecosystem that was birthed by YouTube, which remains the "mother of all video platforms."
Now, for the first time, even mother YouTube faces what seemed to be almost unthinkable just one year ago -- i.e., real formidable challengers. THESE are the conversations that took place at DEW. On the stages ... and, even more importantly in the bars of the Hyatt Hotel where liquor flowed and candid discussions followed.
YouTube "challengers" are everywhere. And many loudly preach (more like screech) their "alternative platform" gospel to every would-be believer.
Who are these contenders?
Well, you have your primarily short-form video-focused MCNs about which I write regularly. Leaders include broad-based Maker Studios (now owned by Disney), Fullscreen (now owned by Otter Media, the JV of AT&T and The Chernin Group) and Collective Digital Studio; fashion/beauty young female-focused StyleHaul (now essentially owned by Euro-based media company RTL Group); young male gamer-focused Machinima; foodie-focused Tastemade; sports-focused Whistle Sports; Latino-focused Mitu; urban-focused All Def Digital (with the perfect acronym ADD for our short "bite-sized" vid world); and dance-focused DanceOn. All of these now actively look to find their audiences on as many "off YouTube" platforms as possible.
Next you have young OTT/MCN upstarts like high-profile Vessel which punches above its weight and hopes to open subscription-based distribution exclusivity windows while others (Netflix) try to slam them shut.
You also have social sharing sites like Twitter and increasingly Snapchat. Snapchat, a media company? Really? Just discover "Discover." And talk to the CEOs from the leading MCNs. Snapchat matters. A lot.
You now even have your major brands that advertise on all of these platforms. Lifestyle brands Red Bull and GoPro aim to be your first-choice destination for a certain, specific action/adventure segment of short-form video content that historically has found its home on YouTube.
Then, you have your established major OTTs like Netflix and Hulu who -- at least up to this point -- focus instead almost exclusively on longer-form motion picture and television content. That will change over time. It is inevitable. Each must play more effectively in the mobile space -- and that means short-form video content. Just trust me on this one.
You also have your major carriers like AT&T (via its Otter Media partnership with The Chernin Group) and Verizon (via the OnCue OTT platform that it acquired from Intel) getting into the OTT game with their own major plays.
And, of course, you have your more "traditional" cable/satellite companies entering the fray (case in point, Dish Networks' surprisingly heavily-discussed new Sling TV service which is getting real "buzz" here at DEW for what it represents).
But, YouTube's biggest challenger right now in the minds of those at DEW clearly is Facebook. The votes are unanimous there. Less obvious -- but real, very real -- are the other two 800 pound gorillas known as Amazon and Apple.
When considering the media ambitions of all 4 behemoths -- YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, Apple -- consider this. While each of their ultimate video ambitions are roughly the same (essentially to "own it all" -- both short form and long form video), their individual core DNA is not. And, that unique individualized DNA colors each company's particular video offering and opportunity, as well as the video opportunity for both brands and those who buy from them (in other words, us).
To understand what I mean in this DNA discussion of genetics, first, let's recap.
YouTube is a video destination first and foremost. It was built for our viewing pleasure. Plain and simple. Yes, we can (and do) share videos. But, we primarily come here to find something of interest and watch. Passively. And, YouTube makes money from ads served against that watching.
Facebook -- the video challenger on everyone's lips at DEW -- has fundamentally different DNA. Facebook is all about sharing. We go to Facebook to share pieces of our lives and pick up the breadcrumbs of others. Yes, we can (and do) watch videos. But, we primarily come here (at least up to this point) to share. Actively. And, so while Facebook, like YouTube, makes money primarily from serving ads, the path to (and mindset of) engagement with those ads is very different. And, the numbers related to engagement bear this out. Check out this excellent analysis from Advertising Age to take a look behind the curtain.
How about Amazon? NOT a YouTube competitor, you say? Don't be fooled. Amazon wants to own it all. Yes, Amazon Prime is front and center with its premium long-form movies and television. But, take a closer look. That's right, there it is -- something called "Amazon Shorts" that looks a lot like YouTube. So, now we increasingly watch videos on Amazon. But, let's face it, we still primarily come to shop, because Amazon's core DNA is commerce. And, Amazon's differentiated genetics put it in a unique position to effectively monetize videos through commerce. Videos serve as a marketing spend -- digital billboards that drive us into its virtual store. Intriguing. Very.
And then there's Apple .... don't forget this $700 billion juggernaut, of course, because although it has laid largely dormant on the video side (causing all of us to occasionally scratch our heads), let's not forget that little thing called iTunes. And, reports just recently surfaced, once again, that Apple hopes to launch its own OTT streaming service to become our video platform of choice. Speculation abounds that Apple's OTT play may be akin to DISH's stripped-down programming bundle approach known as Sling TV.
But, here's my guess. Apple will not launch its OTT service unless and until its OTT package includes ESPN -- THE critical pay TV ingredient. And, let's not forget that small little detail that Apple has a long and uniquely cozy relationship with ESPN's owner (Disney) (Jobs/Pixar, anyone?). If Apple were able to score ESPN (just like only iTunes scored The Beatles), that move alone would be a game-changer.
Why would Apple play in the "alternative YouTube" world? Sure, incremental revenues are nice. But, that's not it. Instead, Apple's DNA reflexively drives its actions -- and Apple's core DNA is not like any of the others. It is hardware pure and simple (Samsung shares that same DNA via Milk Video). Apple makes its money by selling "cool" metal -- iPhones, iPads, iWatches and the inevitable iTV (and perhaps even ultimately the iTesla?). We ride the video Trojan Horse into our neighborhood Apple Stores (in the same way Apple bought Beats Music to build it's music streaming Trojan Horse).
So many video players, and oh so little time.
YouTube. What to do, what to do? Well, for now, YouTube remains the "must be there" platform for creators. We also are still very, very early in the overall digital video game. So, while YouTube's ultimate market share will be chipped away, that reality will be countered by significantly (massively) more volume. And, just like long-form video platforms like Amazon and Netflix increasingly play on YouTube's short-form turf, YouTube will play on their home courts and seek to steal share from the in the long-form video space.
After all, many of these players' ultimate vision is to own it all -- be your single destination for all your video needs -- short-form, long-form, and everything in between.