gootube1.jpgHave to give some props to Henry “I used to be a famous Wall Street analyst” Blodget over at Internet Outsider for his post about YouTube and the recent stats from Vidmeter (PDF link here). Seems content from the almighty Viacom only accounted for about two per cent of YouTube’s traffic — and all of the removed content from Big Media accounted for a measly six per cent of the total. So much for the argument about “NewTube” — the joint venture between News Corp. and Viacom — eviscerating YouTube by taking all the valuable content away. As Valleywag says, it’s the kittens who should be suing.

Update: Pete Cashmore at Mashable has a fair point when he notes that the Vidmeter report looked only at the videos that had been removed from the site, so it might not be a statistically accurate portrayal of what is on YouTube — since not everyone has been as aggressive as Viacom about sending takedown notices (to be fair to Vidmeter, they note that in their report).

Still, food for thought. Liz Gannes has some thoughts on the subject over at NewTeeVee. And here’s more food for thought: the 6,700 or so videos that Vidmeter included in their sample — the most-viewed — generated more than 1.58 billion views in a little over three months.


Kyle Redinger, among others (including a commenter here) takes issue with the Vidmeter survey. And Henry Blodget has a response to some of those criticisms — which Viacom also made in a recent Reuters story — in an update on his blog.

About the author

Mathew 2430 posts

I'm a Toronto-based senior writer with Fortune magazine, and my favorite things to write about are social technology, media and the evolution of online behavior

2 Responses to “Thanks for nothing, Viacom”
  1. These stats are completely bogus. Henry Blodget should be embarrassed to write about them. I wouldn’t be surprised if he removes the post.

    You can’t just count removed videos from a site that does not remove videos. It’s completely ridiculous.

    Listen, the nay-sayers are right about YouTube. (You should read Shelly Palmer’s article on Media 3.0 — Where’s the Business?

    There is no business, any different than the guy standing on the corner selling bootleg DVD’s.

    – Jason

  2. Thanks for the comment, Jason. I did point out that sampling only removed videos distorts the results somewhat. And I have read Shelly Palmer’s piece on YouTube — but I think that he is overstating the case somewhat, as I think you are with the bootleg DVD analogy.

    In any case, thanks for commenting.

Comments are closed.