YouTube Viewership to Pass TV Audiences

An article by the Wall Street Journal found that the hours spent by users on YouTube is predicted to surpass the hours spent by individuals watching traditional television. This is due to the algorithms that Google has created to encourage its visitors to continue watching additional videos.

Overall, I thought that the information contained some great statistics about the amount of video that is produced everyday and how long people spend watching them on different mediums. The author also interviewed a wide range of authority figures from employees at YouTube to academic professionals.

Although the author had some really compelling statistics and quotes, I struggled a little with the flow. Do you think that the author had some unnecessary tangents in the article or were they relevant to the big picture? Were the quotes given by the “former manager” still compelling without his name? Do you think that the kicker was a sufficient way to end the article or did it appear unfinished? Are there other people that the author should have interviewed for this article? What role does the video play in relaying the information mentioned in the article?


6 Responses to “YouTube Viewership to Pass TV Audiences”

  1. I thought the video was put together very well. They did a good job at showing the trajectory that YouTube was growing at by comparing it other media benchmarks. The video also gave reasonings to YouTube’s success by discussing the role Google played as a parent company. I think the former manager part of the video was just to show that YouTube has been maintaining its growth and was simply meant to show credibility to that. Overall, I feel like all parts of video played a role in showing YouTube’s success in the video market place.

  2. These statistics may highlight some of the benefits of the internet, which allows users to find information that they see trustworthy. I know that there has been a huge push by young people to seek news from sources other than big cable networks (CNN, ABC, FOX, etc.). I thought the video did a successful job of highlight key statistics and emphasizing how and why times are changing. It’s information backs up the article well and allows more users to hear the message of the article. These videos do a great job as a news outlet by highlighting the change in the way we consume information.

  3. Great article choice and analysis. I thought that the video complemented the article well – and how appropriate that an article about YouTube was summarized with a video!

    The video does a good job of emphasizing key statistics and maintaining interest in an organized way. It actually felt as though it was organized like a news article. It began with an important and stunning fact, added details and color throughout, and ended with a something for the reader to think about further: YouTube is about to surpass CCTV as the world’s largest TV network.

    I agree that the quote is less powerful coming from a “former manager.” Naming sources is one of those things where you never really think about it until it’s not there, and then it feels like the nameless quote loses nearly all of its credibility. I was hesitant to use my source’s name for the depression article, for example, but I’m beginning to see how unprofessional an article looks with a source’s name omitted. This will be important to keep in mind as we write our news features.

  4. I agree with the above comments. The video did a lot to show and convince me about the potential for Youtube. The best thing about the video was the highlighted statistics that came to the middle of the screen. It was easy to comprehend. The background and audio for the video also does a lot to keep the viewer engaged. It does a good job of showing how youtube has reached its success and why it has potential to outgrow TV based on trends. The video also parallels the article very nicely.

  5. I can’t help but laugh that the video was created about YouTube, using YouTube. I think it did a good job in addition to the article, just as stated above. What I think is best about the article is that it gives the reader good background in the algorithms Google uses, but doesn’t tell too much so as to confuse the reader. Perhaps it falls a little on the side of too many facts, but I still found it interesting.
    I agree with what kelly wrote regarding the omission of the source’s name. By doing so, it forces the reader to question the validity of the quote and even the article itself.

  6. I agree with Kelly and Emily that it would have been better to include the source’s name instead of omitting it, because that may call into question the validity of the quote. However, I wonder if people would overlook that fact based on the news outlet sharing this story. I personally have found myself being less critical of quotes without sources when they’re shared by organizations that I perceive as being more reputable or unbiased such as this one, but the may present a danger in itself, because they could still be presenting false or inaccurate information. It also puts the responsibility on the reader to determine who is being quoted, and we as readers don’t have the knowledge or means oftentimes to guess and reach out to the individuals who potentially gave this quote.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s