It's lifted up those who have been dumped by their one-eyed lovers.
It's made married couples turn to each other and think: "Why in the blessed blazes did I marry you?"
One can even imagine it will inspire those who are about to embark on one of life's more treacherous paths to reassess their mode of transport.
Am I talking about the new health care bill? No, I'm talking about the latest and perhaps most inspirational video to have graced YouTube's library of life.
When Jill Peterson and Kevin Hines set their wedding date in St. Paul, Minn., they decided to create a special entrance in the church: a loosely choreographed dance to Chris Brown's "Forever."
Jill had been a dancer, you see. And, well, marching up the aisle to organ music is so 1939.
Kevin told NBC's "Today Show" that he had only posted the video because Jill's dad had nagged him to YouTube it so that more distant family members could enjoy the amusement. (I especially loved the portly chap in the shades who looks just like Turtle from "Entourage.")
Since last Sunday, almost 5 million people have watched the delightful wedding party dance. More than 2 million people laptopped it up between 10 p.m. PDT Friday and 10 a.m. PDT Saturday.
But here's the thing. Unlike, for example, the Susan Boyle YouTube video--various versions of which have been watched by more than 100 million people--the wedding dance actually has ads around it.
Well, one. In the box to the right of the video.
Friday night, I saw one for Veet, a superbly relevant wedding product. (Gentlemen, in case you are unfamiliar with Veet, it's an excellent repository of depilatory stuff.)
Saturday morning, the ad space encouraged me to go to the California State Fair (yes, complete with American Idol winner David Cook and a Beatles tribute band.)
As yet, there are none of the little yellow-and-white scrawling ads defacing this mesmerizing video. However, it would be truly instructive if YouTube could give us some sense of how much it is making from what might turn out to be the most-watched piece of film (any kind of film) of the week.
Google has been on an interestingly defensive offensive on the subject of YouTube's prospects for money-making.
Indeed, it has made much of a new ability to "buzz target" those videos that are gaining exponential viral momentum.
So it would be a gracious gift for Google to give us a running score of just how much it's making from Jill and Kevin's wedding.
You see, if I am ever lucky enough to get married, I would love to out Jill-and-Kevin Jill and Kevin. And I'm interested to know if I could make some money out of it myself.
It has always been in the back of many minds that having many not quite legal and not quite professional videos on your site might just affect advertising revenue.
Now Arash Amel, an analyst at Screen Digest, a company that researches digital media, is forecasting that Hulu's U.S. revenue will rival that of YouTube next year, his estimated number being $180 million. (Hulu, backed by NBC and Fox, hasn't even gotten around to launching in the rest of the world yet.)
Mr. Amal makes YouTube's earnings sound like profit of doom: "YouTube is in a very tough place right now," he told the Financial Times. "Most of that user-generated content is worthless or illegal. The next 18 months will determine whether or not it was just an expensive mistake for Google."
Some in the advertising business have always been reticent about YouTube's rather messy atmosphere, when compared to Hulu's more focused upper-middle-class professionalism.
One client once put it to me in very blunt terms: "Why should I put my ad next to a video of some idiot screaming that Britney should be left alone?"
It will surely be interesting to see whether the mere presence of many people floating through your site on a daily basis (YouTube claims 83 million unique U.S. viewers to Hulu's 6 million) will ever be enough to attract not merely the right kinds of advertisers (yes, the ones who still have money) but also a method of advertising that actually makes online hoards pay attention.
YouTube has been frantically trying to find "new" ways to encourage advertisers, yet it seems to be reverting to some very old ways indeed.
So next year could see some considerable cheer for advertisers wanting not to be entirely dependent on Momma Google.
Oh, and good morning, Facebook. How's the growth strategy working for you?
These are depressing times.
The stock market is drifting towards Antarctica, the President of France's wife is singing about him being her 'orgy' and Google is, apparently, thinking of putting pre-roll ads on YouTube.
It's not easy for a company that sees itself as a modern purist to admit that it is considering moldy-worldy strategies.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that Google can only sell advertising around video that is not of questionable legal provenance.
And then there's the other little problem. Real people.
The minute they see a video of an angry woman whose husband is treating her badly introduced by a cuddly bear selling toilet roll, will they give YouTube the bum's rush and decamp to sites unknown?
To some extent, this situation mirrors that in American movie theaters.
In countries such as the UK, people used to go to the pictures, as they so quaintly call it, early just to see the adverts.
I know that must sound strange.
(Credit:
Daniel Morrison)
But the cinema companies were very clever in encouraging agencies to create ads for movie theaters that the TV authorities wouldn't accept.
You know, ads with scenes of social disharmony and jokes about nipples.
Strangely, in the US, the nation that has created a whole new plane for commerce, ads in movie theaters are still something of a surprise.
Even in the last couple of years, I have heard US movie audiences hiss the very presence of ads, as if by clutching their popcorn and putting their feet up on the seat in front, they have suddenly become a VIP audience at the Cannes Film Festival.
So Google has to find a way to be innovative in their introduction of pre-roll.
In the movies, for example, you now see special pre-preview programming which incorporates some advertising.
But with YouTube, Google has the issue of a dedicated following whose attention-span rivals that of a hamster having a nervous breakdown.
Talk of pre-roll being their only choice reflects the fact that perhaps 95% of all online video advertising is actually pre-roll.
Those sites that incorporated it early have the benefit of advertising already being part of their culture.
tmz.com is a good example, a site that claims to do 400 million page views a month. Its video clips seem to have been ambushed by a very beige Brad Paisley ad for Hersheys for at least the last month. Yet viewers seem to accept it as they do any TV ad.
Google, on the other hand, in the search for something a little more clever, a little more Google, has slipped into cultural quicksand.
It will find it very hard to expect its devotees to watch an ad before every video. (tmz offers a series of videos daily. You only have to watch one ad. And the one I just looked at was for Herbal Essences, which promised to treat my non-existent hair to a luscious fragrance.)
Perhaps the company can offer points for every ad watched?
When you have accumulated, say, fifty thousand, you could get a prize. Maybe free child care for a year or something?
Just a thought.
- prev
- 1
- next
