Hosting vs Posting
Long time video guy first time web producer. After 20 years in the television production business, a client approached me to help him develop and produce a very video intensive website. Along with the site we are creating a whole web marketing plan including Social media.
I am currently talking to a couple of web designers and getting some conflicting thoughts on "hosting vs Posting".
One side of the fence says if we post and host the videos on youtube you get a lot of advantages including a huge SEO boost. It is also very cost effective as we will have between 30 and 40 videos on the site at any one time.
The other side of the fence says, it is not great to have the youtube brand on the web site it cheapens your brand.
I know this is really a philosophy question, but would love some of the cow members input. It really is fun getting out of the box and doing something different!!!
Thanks for your help and thoughts.
You're right, there are definitely two schools of thought there.
Others might disagree, but personally I always thought sites that rely on YouTube for video hosting look cheap and unprofessional. It might be ok for one or two videos, but as you said the site in question will be "very video intensive." It's those sites in particular that I don't think look quite as legit if they have a lot of YouTube embeds on them.
Our own website here at my company only does internal hosting. All of the portfolio videos on it reside on our own servers here in the building as .flv files, and play on the site with embedded flash players. The upside is that they look and play exactly as we want them, no logos or watermarks on them, and the "end actions" are what we want. The downside is that our pipes aren't are big as YouTube's so speeds can be an issue... and of course we are paying for the bandwidth, not letting YouTube foot the bill for that.
As for clients, we don't make a lot of proprietary web content, but we do a lot of projects where (usually after the fact) that the client will say "Oh, we need a web version, too." So we end up making plenty of those, too (after explaining, of course, to a usually-surprised client that music rights for web-release are often a great deal more expensive than even broadcast rights). I'd say about third of the time we end up making .flv files for their own embedding... and another third we make more YouTube-friendly files for hosting over there.
And... for the rest we end up making both... for clients who are doing both internal hosting, and posting the same videos on YouTube as well.
Just this week we made a web file for a client... it's a political candidate and those guys always want their commercials on their websites. I went to look at it, and it turned out to be a YouTube posting. I watched the video embedded on the candidate's website... and when it gets to the end, up pops the YouTube end screen with the options to take the viewer elsewhere, including videos from some of his competition. Yikes, not good.
So... you can make arguments for going either way. But personally I think internal hosting just looks so much more professional and legit.
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
You can also use the two. Have your material in your site and Choose some videos to post on Youtube, adding a watermark with your site address.
*Always share a link to your site and rate the posts. This is a free service for you and for us.
I encourage my clients to post the videos on YouTube or Vimeo instead of hosting it internally, for two reasons. The video player is a familiar UI. Users can play, adjust volume, jog, and share it easily. And, it's easily findable from YouTube/Vimeo search.
Just realized yesterday after several conversations about this... that I have most of the videos on my site hosted. Not following my own advice. :)
At any rate, if you host your video, it's good to post it on YouTube/Vimeo as well so people can find it and share it easily if they don't go to your main site. Todd's correct about YouTube suggesting related videos that may be from your competitors -- but then viewers from your competitor's videos might find yours too.
Meteor Tower Films
Video creations for music, art, & theater.
[Todd Terry] "and when it gets to the end, up pops the YouTube end screen with the options to take the viewer elsewhere, including videos from some of his competition. Yikes, not good."
You can easily disable the related videos in the embedding options. What I really like about YouTube is all the great info they give you on where your views are coming from. With support for HD, YouTube videos can look very good now. I also like the ability to embed a playlist on a site and how it automatically updates when I change the playlist.
Video production... with style!
We do a lot of compression for clients as well as a fair amount of work helping them setup video based sites. One religious based site had over 300 videos on it, and another in the low hundreds.
I agree with Todd in that when I see videos on people's sites embedded from YouTube it just strikes me as "cheap" and lazy. Maybe that's just snobbery...I don't know, but to me it's just cleaner and more professional to have a nicely designed page with nice player interfaces.
Magnetic Image, Inc.
My vote goes with Fernando and the use-both approach. For a business site, it looks better to have internal hosting, a slick player perhaps custom-designed for the business, and a neat, effective and easily-updatable set of cptions and choices. But there's no reason why doing that well would prevent anyone from also doing anything on youtube or via other social media sites.
I could be wrong but I think the original poster was asking about embedding a video from YouTube or Vimeo on the site in question. That's what I think looks tacky. Certainly putting them on YouTube or Vimeo along with your own site can't hurt.
It's when you embed videos from those sites... along with the social media site's watermarked logo and their player skin...that it tends to cheapen the hosting website.
Magnetic Image, Inc.
If you have staff that is still afraid of youtube, you shoud replace em. Plain and simple. It's your buddy and will be your lifeline for income tomorrow. Leverage it.
Thanks everyone for the input! As I thought this is an interesting debate, especially with video and design people. I totally agree that I hate the thought of another companies logo on my site. I really think it cheapens my design and look. That being said, there are many advantages to the youtube as host concept. First it will improve the SEO. Second it will allow viewing from Iphone and Ipad as well. Great debate!
Thanks again and keep your thoughts coming.
Long Live Da Cow!