What's A Web Video "View"? Whatever A Video Site Says A "View" Is
This is a problem that's as old as the Internet, but has gotten hammered out to some degree for traditional Web publishers. Not so for the brave new world of Web video, where pretty much anything goes.
Which means that when YouTube, Crackle, or DailyMotion tell advertisers how well their sites perform, they're all talking about different things. Some video sites, like AOL and Stupidvideos, count a "view" every time a video is launched, meaning that someone watching a dog on a skateboard over and over is counted each time. Others, like Metacafe and blip.tv, only count one view per IP address.
The differences don't stop there. Some sites log a view immediately after a video is launched; others only count a view if a video has been watched for a certain amount of time.
Where do the top video sites stand? TubeMogul tested 14 top video sites on four basic metrics: full view, half view, refreshing a browser after the play begins, and watching multiple times through an embedded player. Their goal is to show just how widely sites differ on what they report back as a "view."
It's the second time they've conducted the test. The biggest difference since their first test last June? Both YouTube and Yahoo lowered their standards. Previously, both logged only one view per IP address and now both count multiple views from the same computer the moment the user presses play.
Here's a selection from TubeMogul's study, in increasing order of permissiveness:
- Metacafe: Counts a view if 50% of a video is watched or if it's watched for 30 seconds -- whichever comes first. Multiple views from one IP address aren't counted.
- blip.tv: Logs only one view per IP address, per session, regardless if the cache is cleared after each play or if the user logs in or out of the site. Video is counted as a view the moment it starts playing.
- DailyMotion: Doesn't count an additional view if a video is refreshed, but does count full multiple views from the same computer. Doesn't count multiple views from video embedded on other sites.
- YouTube: Basically counts everything. TubeMogul tried refreshing 130 times on one video (from one computer) and logged 130 views.
- MySpace: Like YouTube, counts everything, including multiple refreshes of the same video and all views originating on video embedded elsewhere.
UPDATE: The following table reflects that blip.tv does count views of embedded video, correcting previous information from TubeMogul:
Anyone counting things by IP address or making any kind of "IP address == person" assumption is making a grave mistake.
http://blip.tv/file/920372
I'm glad I double-checked that, because embed views are huge - if blip wasn't counting that, we'd go back to embedded Quicktime.
Here's my comment in response to this story (and AOL Survivor):
I believe that TubeMogul has corrected their research about blip counting embeds. Their CEO e-mailed me today to apologize for their error.
In terms of restrictions by IP address, I understand AOL Survivor’s comments. We’re probably undercounting to some degree because we do restrict view counting based on IPs.
We’re not kidding ourselves, though. We understand that IP Address != Person. We understand that AOL viewers often come from the same IP, and we likewise understand that entire offices often come from a single IP.
That said, we face a challenge which is shared by the entire Web video ecosystem. We have to count views realistically, and in fact conservatively. Failure to do so invites advertisers, investors and content producers to lose confidence in viewership numbers offered by Web video companies… which would be disastrous in the medium and long term, as I’m sure you understand.
For the moment, therefore, we use IP addresses because they allow us to be suitably conservative. In the future we may move to a Flash stored object method for counting uniques — similar to the cookie-based approach that many Web analytics companies use. The only reason we haven’t moved to this approach already is because we serve a pretty significant slice of the Web video ecosystem that doesn’t use Flash (i.e. iTunes, Apple TV, Sony Bravia televisions, et cetera). So rather than go the way of YouTube (over-count, over-count, over-count) we’ve decided to slightly undercount and thereby maintain the confidence of advertisers, investors and content creators.
We could probably double, triple or even quadruple our viewership numbers by going the way of YouTube — but would that really be good for our business, or anyone else’s?
Yours,
Mike Hudack
Co-founder & CEO, blip.tv
I'd be interested in finding out what the percent difference is between your method and what Blip's traffic would be if you used the YouTube method.
Either way, kudos for taking a stand.
Big picture, we are confident in the results. YouTube's results, for instance, were corroborated from a separate IP address, browser and computer.
At TubeMogul, we do not take a position on the ideal standard, just that there should be one, or at least full disclosure of what the standards are. It is hard for many of our content creators to monetize their videos without consistent reporting to show advertisers or producers.
http://www.klipstar.com