Okay, I agree I may be splitting hairs, but I think it is important in the discussion of Web 2.0 that we do not classify YouTube as a social network.
Social network websites are user generated websites. The growth and success of a social network is strictly dictated by user involvement. Social networks have come and gone over the last several years. The successful ones have been able to keep users interested and ultimately make money.
The above description may sound like YouTube from a basic level. However, once you peel the layers a little more, YouTube is a little more complicated than a social network.
Social networking consists of users interacting and communicating. There is very little communication on YouTube. Users may interact slightly with each other, but not with the actual source of the media. Of course, in most cases that source is not aware that their video is even online.
YouTube must license content, at least the “good stuff.” YouTube users beg, borrow and steal to get the content online. YouTube itself bargains and deals with major corporations to get the quality videos.
When you watch a video on YouTube.com how often do you interact with others? A larger portion of YouTube users view videos without communicating with users.
YouTube is video on demand, just like Charter, CableVision and other major cable networks. The difference being YouTube hosts bad quality videos presented in a small window that are often under 10-15 minutes.
YouTube is a great site, I use it often. It has provided a relatively easy way for users to post stolen videos to a large audience. However, it is important to be clear what it is. It is not a social network. Its success or failures do not depend on user contributions. YouTube’s ultimate success depends on its relationship with production companies.
Tags: Social Media, Video, YouTube
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.