all great points, and I wanted to offer a slightly different perspective in support of UGC AND “professionally produced content” (however this community describes network and other “pro” content creators).

We are embracing all forms of content, including UGC, and Professional “top TV hits, etc” because we are looking at the holistic consumer.

By looking at an individual consumer as the whole of their various consumption and demands (and habits), our system mirrors actual behavior of real people. As a longtime reader of Om’s papers (some of which I understand, some I admit that I am still catching up), we embrace the “chunk” theory of content he has long written about.

A “chunk” can be a long-form Network TV show, like Grey’s Anatomy, or it can also be a short consumer created video, or even a consumer created ad, or it can be a highly polished (ok, let’s say “high quality”) from someone like Kara Swisher, for example. It can also be a music video from a studio or a garage band. It can be a video of one of Bill Tai’s friends like Pierre Wolf doing an acrobatic move on one of those Kite Surfing rigs on the SF Bay.

In this sense, we collect “all” of the chunks that a consumer will accumulate, view and share, and create a holistic view of the consumer.

This will naturally include a mix of UGC and “hits” (professionally produced content), and whatever comes in between. Some consumers will be more in one camp than others… through “discovery” and our “community” effect, lots of people who fall mostly in one camp will organically be introduced to some new forms of content… just as it is in “real life” at the water cooler and in the blogosphere “hey did you see the new Will Farrell / Pearl video?”)….

Our approach allows us to do a lot of things that advertisers and publishers can’t do today, because they are stuck on what “the” content category is….(“if it’s UGC, then it falls into this targeting and CPM/CPA formula…”

Because our system predicts behavior of an individual consumer in and around a “set” of content chunks (in addition to the usual baked-in contextual and behavioral data sets), we can boost CPMs and CPA rates of both types of content (UGC and Pro)….

What the advertisers want is access to The consumer, not access to the content. Think of the drill bit. Nobody wants a drill bit when they buy one. They only want a hole.

We provide the hole. Well, not really. We provide data that allows the advertiser and the publisher to work together to predict which consumers, around which bundles of content will act in ways that make the advertiser happy (high response and outcome ratios), the publisher happy (higher CPMs and CPA rates due to more defensible targeting and audited outcomes ratings) and consumers happy (more control of their content, more relevant and welcomed ads).

Until others join us in approaching consumers holistically, the divide between Online Video that is “pro” (or Network) and UGC will widen to reflect the disparity between today’s CPMs of Network TV and UGC, and the poor folks trying to earn a living on thirty cents to seven dollars per CPM (those are real ranges) won’t be able to make it. That’s why you’ve noticed the big sea-change in the board room of these start-ups… the VCs are saying “follow the money” but they are only looking at CATEGORY CPMs and CPAs, not the holistic consumer. That’s the miss. We fix this.

So unless they join us in this approach these great start-ups that were founded to address UGC run the risk of drifting into hobbyist and lifestyle or enthusiast portals, and the networks will bleed right over to Online with their CPMS and, incidentally, their tendency towards hedgemony, intact. They can’t help it–it’s in their DNA. They really, honestly, belive that they know what’s best for us. Anyone familar with how cable and satellite companies sell ad time will understand that they “package” their hit shows with their long-tail or “not popular” (euphamism for loser) shows. Buyers are stuck with the bundle. We hope that the Web breaks that concept into bits forever.

Certainly EyeTMedia is hoping to help advertisers and publishers get out of that old model and out of those old “broadcast” traps that look at chunks, not at the holistic consumer.

For example, I am happy for The Platform team but guarded about what Comcast has in mind, as far as openness and embracing the total consumer.

But that’s another rant.

Keep up the great work.

There is yet hope to monetize Online Video! All of it.

Stay Tuned!

Matt Weeks
Founder & CEO
EyeTMedia
http://www.eyetmedia.com

Basically, they are adding the human-touch factor to fulfill the overall functions required by a network (sorry, but, technology will not be the final factor in success).

Regardless as to what technology they have (who cares if they hire an Editor to glue ads to content, which was done, up until 2005 by those who preceded the current crop of players in the market), they will have advertiser relationships and an ad inventory they can push across the tail of UGC.

Too bad the other “networks” aren’t as forward thinking.

If anyone remembers VIDEOEGG (when they were in Rhode Island, or Connecticut?), they just had a clever transcode system, and they weren’t competing with the emerging networks like BRIGHTCOVE, REVVER, YOUTUBE, etc.

• I have no relationship with VideoEgg, and, don’t even run any content through them (yet).

Monetization.

The comment re: VIDEOEGG is spot-on — I don’t think it was by design, but, they have broken apart from the pack.

Biggest problem is that NONE (with minor exception of VIDEOEGG dabbling in this area) are being pro-active in facilitating Professional or Prosumer content FINANCE that will be the Dog that Wags the Tail.

Most of the new “networks” (which are really just ad serving technology companies who host UGC and Pro content as a loss leader) have utterly failed in grasping what a Network needs to do to succeed. They believe that technology and technology ad/content matching is the Holy Grail.

In many respects, the question is: Do any of NewTeeVee’s readers care about UGC, if they are not in the Start Up ad serving business? Or, is the audience here (ok, sorry, “community”) REALLY PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH MONETIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND SEMI-PRO content?

First off, I think you’re neglecting VideoEgg which is taking on monetizing UGC head on and making some good headway.

Secondly, I think that there are a lot of “shades of gray” between professional and user generated video. Its worth while parsing out some of the issues that separate the two; some of these have been mentioned above:

Professional content tends to be able to guarantee no “Objectionable content” that would be problematic for an advertiser (e.g. hate speech, risque content, violence etc)

Professional content tends not to have copyright/rights issues

Professional content tends to have higher production values than UGC

Professional content tends to have better metadata for targeting advertising than UGC

IMO, the first two of these are show stoppers. The other two just affect CPM. So e.g. Diggnation, which comes close to UGC on production values and has limited metadata for targeting has no problem getting advertising.

If UGC can address the first of these two issues, and can alleviate some of the concerns around the second two (especially targeting) I think that there is a path to monetization

However, as more “prosumers” begin creating content that is as good as anything you see on TV in terms of production quality, the pendulum will swing back and the line between “professional” content and that created by independent folks will blur to the point of being unrecognizable.

Tim Bourquin, Founder
Podcast and New Media Expo
http://www.NewMediaExpo.com