Professional Web Video Consumption Up Almost 50% In 2010 Says Accustream

Professional Web Video Consumption Up Almost 50% In 2010 Says Accustream

Accustream just recently published, Pro Online Video 1999 - 2014: Consumption and Category Share Analytics. I'm guessing that they're doing an extrapolation to the future based on trends that were ongoing so far in the industry. In their report they state "Professional video produced, published and hosted by online-only and cross-platform media brands," which makes me think there's a lot of video that they missed along the way. Much of the YouTube content would not fall into professional, would it?

According to the report 2010 was worth a bang on 72.3 billion views or 47.1% over the year before for that professional online video (isn't published and hosted online sort of redundant?). That's the biggest jump since 2007 they say.

Give yourselves a pat on the back.

They say that it was mostly TV content coming online for streaming purposes with over 10 billion total long-form video views tallied, amounting to 14.5% of total views, including TV content on major outlets such as Hulu. Another major piece of the puzzle was video aggregation sites, kids video and music videos.

Yes, music videos which have been in decline it seems for four years.

Online-only brands (including those owned and operated by major offline media companies) generated 63.1% of total views, an increase of 20% over 2009, while cable/premium TV branded sites controlled another 26.3%.

Entertainment/Kids video made up 24.4% of the market, followed by television-related content at 23.6%. Video aggregators originated 17.2% of 2010 video views.

Video views per unique user per site per month jumped by 51% to 6.2 across all categories, with Internet-only brands delivering 9 views, significantly higher than the average. Now this has to be either just branded or just professional and even then I don't believe it. If we look at just December for Google Sites, each user would have averaged something like 54 videos each for the month according to comScore.

Sites with an excess of 100 million views per month clocked in at 18.3 views per unique user, and accounted for 61.8% of total views.

If we compare their total views of 72.3 billion to the comScore who said there were 201 videos per viewer in December 2010 and there were 178 million of them, well that's 35,979,000,000 or 36 billion videos in a single month. Now we can take out most of YouTube which, in Dec. 2010, had 144.8M viewers and they averaged 274.3 minutes when the average video length was 5 minutes (jots math, carries the one) 7,943,728,000 views (roughly) for YouTube in December. That leaves about 24 billion views for the month for all online video. Now if we plot linear growth from 2009 to 2010 according to Accustream that makes December 2010 worth roughly 11.6 billion views (it was a lot of math, don't ask). That would mean that, by my wildly imaginative math, professional branded video online was about 50% of all video viewed in December 2010.

Whew. Of course, none of those numbers are really solid. Things I didn't take into consideration are that there is lots of professional content on YouTube, there is a lot of non-professional content on sites like Facebook. If you were to look at the comScore top ten video properties on the web, you could argue that the professional stuff is a much greater percentage:

  • Google Sites
  • Yahoo! Sites
  • VEVO
  • AOL, Inc.
  • Viacom Digital
  • Facebook.com
  • Microsoft Sites
  • Fox Interactive Media
  • Turner Digital
  • Hulu

Really, outside of Facebook and YouTube (and Yahoo partly) the rest is all professional. Now we have no way of getting to the heart of the matter which is what percentage of online video is professionally made. That means we have no way of really checking their numbers and it's all just another pile of apples and oranges.

I hate when research companies put out these damnable reports. They don't really give clear results and none of them report in the same units so it's always comparing apples to oranges and takes a lot of contortionist tricks and mathematics just to try to make any sort of sense out of the numbers.

I would never suggest anyone pay the $2000 that Accustream wants for their reports. If you're from Accustream and you want to change my mind, send me the reports so I can see the whole things and then I might decide that there is some value in them. As far as I'm concerned, it's all just corporate-driven nonsense and spin.

Image courtesy of Vancouver Film School


Don't Miss Out - Join Our VIP Video Marketing Community!
Get daily online video tips and trends via email!


About the Author -
Christophor Rick is a freelance writer specializing in technology, new media, video games, IPTV, online video advertising and consumer electronics. His past work has included press releases, copy-writing, travel writing and journalism. He also writes novel-length and short fiction as part of Three-Faced Media . View All Posts By -

What do you think? ▼
  • https://twitter.com/DavidMurdico David Murdico

    Well that's good news!