Your analysis is off the mark by a long way. Relative user base is irrelevant since the vast majority of YouTube users are not interested in dance at all, what they are interested in is a mystery but anything substantive is off the menu for a start.

Any dance company choosing a video hosting platform cannot use perceived site popularity in their decision making process because most of the sites user base don't care about dance.

Alexa page rankings are skewed towards users foolish enough to install the Amazon owned spyware toolbar and as such the results for relative user base, and those of any other website metrics based on third party tools, are unreliable. If you don't have the tool you don't get counted.

The view counts on the NYC's GooTube page are also irrelevant. YouTube videos play and count a play automatically when a page is loaded. Vimeo requires user to press the play button and only then does the play number count. The follow through to other NYCB videos on GooTube is less than 10 percent.

As argued by both us (Article19) and Danciti, whom I don't speak for, the overall experience, design and presentation, not to mention the video quality and other features for outstrip those provided by GooTube.

As for quality not being important and bad video dissuading people from attending shows! What is creative work about if not quality? Why should people put up with substandard video delivery when superior options are available?

Let's also not forget that GooTube was founded and sold for 1.5Billion US Dollars because the vast majority of videos held on that site were and still are copyright protected clips used in violation of the law.

Google also has a less than proactive policy towards deleting and monitoring video content featuring violence against children and other disturbing content.

I suppose it comes down to whom you want to be associated with.

Michelle,

Thanks for your comment.

There are a number of points I'd like to follow-up on. But for now, could you expand on this statement:

"...the vast majority of YouTube users are not interested in dance at all, what they are interested in is a mystery but anything substantive is off the menu for a start."

Are you saying that not a single dancer, choreographer, dance company, presenter, instructor or others involved in dance have not benefited from their YouTube videos in any manner whatsoever?

Hello Doug

I would like to add that Article19 is not "discouraging" users from putting video's on YouTube. The article simply states that Vimeo is a better platform from a usability, distribution and quality perspective. In addition, the types of video that dancers or companies create are irrelevant to this type of analysis.

I should also clarify that when I wrote that the majority of YouTube content is copyright protected and used in violation of the law what I meant was that the popularity of YouTube was built on that type of use.

As for "benefits". The onus would be on YouTube users to provide substantive evidence that their video material had provided such a benefit and what that benefit was. There is also nothing to suggest that the same benefit could have been derived from other online video sites.

Michelle said "the vast majority of YouTube users are not interested in dance at all, what they are interested in is a mystery but anything substantive is off the menu for a start."

First of all, Youtube viewers are veeeery interested in dance. In fact, I would say dance is one of the dominant languages of Youtube. There are countless videos by users dancing at home, at clubs, in the studio, battling, teaching, sharing new material, whatever. A lot of these videos have views numbering in the millions. So people are definitely watching dance on Youtube.

Second of all, Youtube users are generally interested in... Youtube. That means they spend time on Youtube. And while many may not be particularly interested in concert dance or dance-films or something "substantive", it is quite conceivable they could stumble over a promotional NYCB video and decide "Thats awesome!" But, it's highly unlikely, mostly because NYCB video content is pretty lame. I can see the higher ups now. "I have an idea! Lets do a behind the scenes series on Youtube to appeal to the under 80, under 6-figure crowd!"

Which brings me to, content is so much more important than video quality on Youtube, it's true. I think that is a good thing. That means you can post something with extremely low production value, and it won't stick out because of that. On the other hand it might stick out because of its content. NYCB has a (relatively) huge budget and their 10 videos have about 1000 views combined. In their case, I agree with Michelle. They should at least have a high quality image since their content stinks.

Adrian: you're confusing page views with "viewers" of videos. YouTube's counters are unreliable at best. No system is perfect but theirs is as far from perfect as possible because they sell advertising and advertising is all about numbers.

Video quality is not the only quality that matters. Yes there are videos of dance on that site with millions of page views but what are those videos? what is the content of those videos?

Basketball players messing about on a court or endless break dancing re-treads may be good enough for the Ritalin generation and their 5 second attention span but when compared to Hofesh Shechter or Jasmin Vardimon, William Forsythe, Shobana Jeyasingh, Jonathan Lunn, Finn Walker, Siobhan Davies, Charlotte Vincent, Ulysses Dove, Bill T. Jones and the professional dancers they work with, etc, etc they are found wanting.

Let's not confuse dance makers with considerable skill and talent with a robot dance at a wedding and Article19's piece and Article19 in general are concerned with that sector.

The quality of YouTube videos has improved since google acquired it but the overall quality of video on the web is low anyway. Having a better low quality video is not going to make much of a difference to those watching videos. Doug is correct in pointing out that it matters why you put videos on these sites. I began with the higher quality site blip.tv and moved to Youtube because of better opportunities for networking and more traffic. I still use both but Youtube is the clear winner in terms of building and finding an audience.

"Having a better low quality video is not going to make much of a difference to those watching videos."

if that is the case then why would Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, NBC, ABC, BBC, cable companies and many more be pushing HD video platforms?

People do care about quality and because the YouTube crew don't care or appear not to care shouldn't mean the rest of us get dragged down with them.

High quality video is attainable via the internet. The video compression used by Article presents the user with a viable watching experience and we will be turning the quality up toward HD source and higher bit rates in the final online video.

In much the same way as Vimeo is using higher bit rates and pseudo HD to raise the bar.

The idea is to move forward, not backward simply because one website dominates in numbers only.

Wow. I agree with Boris, whole-heartedly. I've gotten two choreography/performance opportunities based on a stranger seeing my work on youtube.

As a working artist, my audience and my income have increased due to the popularity of youtube. THAT MATTERS.

I completely respect both sides of the argument, and I do understand the idea that poor quality of the video can compromise dance.

I think the underlying issue might be deeper than that - it coincides with the idea that serious dance is seen only in high quality places (or websites), such as classy theaters and at least in libraries or art museums. Would great dancing be just as appreciated on a street corner, or in a trash dump, as it is on the Lincoln Center stage? But what if the quality of the dancing is really really good, such as Angel Corella doing his famous jumps and pirouettes on a mat on a street corner in NY as compared to Lincoln Center?

At the same time, some would compare Youtube to a trash dump, and perhaps they wouldn't be completely wrong in doing so. However, if marketing and accessibility to a wider market is the goal, then classic standards *have* change to adapt to a modern world, in order to accomodate younger audiences. It's a changing world, where future (younger) audiences are very active online. So what standards would we pick to change? I'm on the side that if dance is good dance, it doesn't matter if it's presented on Youtube or on Vimeo (which, coincidentally, I've never personally visited). But I would more likely run across a dance video on Youtube because I never go to Vimeo. And so who wins?

It's clear which side I'm on, and I'm one of the people who search Sylvie Guillem's "Manon" pdd video. It's of course not as thrilling as watching it on DVD, but since that isn't an accessible option, Youtube is a choice that I do not take for granted. I also say compared to the flash in the pan Youtube stars, give me dancers to star on Youtube any day.

YouTube is so popular and I find the quality of the NYCB videos there to be more than acceptable. I watch them frequently, have them linked on my blog and have 'sent' them all over the world.

Of course the main audience for the videos will be people who are already devotees of NYCB; the NYCB website uses the videos as a way to interest prospective ticket-buyers in the specific programmes on offer in a given season. At the moment traffic at the YouTube/NYCB site has lulled due to the fact that their winter season is over and new videos for the Spring season haven't appeared.

I had suggested to Kristin that short video bios of the principal dancers could become a permanent attraction both at the Company website and on YouTube. These would 'replace' the headshot/written bios now offered and show the dancers in motion (class/rehearsal/performance) as well as letting them speak a little.

Bottom line: everyone - even old farts like me - knows YouTube. I'd never heard of Vimeo before.

Michelle,

I read your article to mean that you were discouraging dancers from using YouTube. You wrote at the end of the article:

"New York City Ballet is backing the wrong horse."

Above, you take issue with Alexa. But any ranking/traffic data about websites will say the same thing. YouTube is one of the largest websites on the Internet. Visit YouTube data page on Quantcast, which indicates that YouTube has 60 million unique visitors per month. Blip.tv and Vimeo are a fraction of the size:

http://www.quantcast.com/youtube.com

Also, you didn't answer my question from above:

"Are you saying that not a single dancer, choreographer, dance company, presenter, instructor or others involved in dance have benefited from their YouTube videos in any manner whatsoever?"

You said you didn't have to answer the question and that the onus is on Internet users. But you're the one that questioned the value of YouTube, and I'm just asking you to clarify your position.

Also, you write the "types of video that dancers or companies create are irrelevant to this type of analysis." How could this be? Different types of videos (concert stage, site-specific, instructional, interviews, etc.) will be watched by users in different ways who bring different expectations to the quality that they would like to see.

Finally, why did you not do a comparison of the video on Article 19 with the new HD service of Vimeo? As I said in my post, it appears you did a side-by-side comparison with Vimeo's non-HD service.

All internet metrics systems are fundamentally flawed. Comscore, Alexa, Neilsen Net Ratings, etc. They are either statistical analysis (probably more accurate than Alexa but still) or rely on a specific application to be installed on the users computer before their visit is recognised.

Article19 does not deny that YouTube is a popular website but as I have already said, hoping that someone stumbles across your video because of the sheer volume of users is not savvy marketing. Even when they do find your video material, what exactly do they get?

The onus is on the video provider to prove there is a benefit in having any video material online and not just on YouTube or any other service if such proof is being asked for by anyone. If you consider the view counter on a YouTube page to be the indication of a "benefit" then fair enough but asking me to not prove something is a little bit ridiculous.

Article19 did not do a side by side comparison with the HD video on Vimeo because we, at the moment, do not shoot features in HD. The HD portion of Vimeo is mentioned in the article however.

The type of video being placed onto YouTube is irrelevant. YouTube and Vimeo are video hosting platforms. The technical constraints, design, presentation, userbase etc are what is relevant, not the type of video that you are presenting.

With regard to other points being made. It makes no difference if you have never heard of Vimeo or any other website out there. The video producer/uploader has the responsibility for pushing their content to those that they think are interested. When provided with links to video material on Vimeo would a user say;

"never heard of it so I'm not visiting it!"

Of course not. You correlate user base with the expectation that this will result in millions of people accidentally stumbling across dance related video content or being referred to that content by YouTube's content management system. Such a strategy is fundamentally flawed.

When promoting anything the onus is on the dance maker or company or individual to actually do the promotion. A wordpress blog, some reliable web hosting and QuickTime video compression technology is far superior to either Vimeo or YouTube but if people feel disinclined to go that far, from a technical, design, and user experience point of view Vimeo is superior to YouTube in every respect.

If 1,000,000 people watch your video and only 100 of them take anything from the experience then you have achieved nothing more than someone else who has a video viewed 100 times from which all of the viewers took something.

Why choose the inferior option when there are better toys to play with?

The choice is up to the individual of course and I will re-iterate that Article19 at no point said people should not use YouTube. We looked at Vimeo and Vimeo is better. That's our view and you are free to disagree.

The issue is not poor quality versus superior quality but good quality versus better quality. if I was an organization, superior quality might matter to me if the internet was the core of my business. If I was expanding my business using the internet then as NYCB has done, I would go where there are the most users and seeing how no one heard of Anaheim Ballet until they launched a youtube channel it make sense that if they did not want to seem out of touch with what is happening in the world that NYCB would join the youtube network. Having better quaility is pointless if you don't have people watching and youtube provides that network. If in the future Vimeo can provide a network it would be worth my investment.

Equipment makers are pushing HD because it makes them money. Britian's ITV says they hate HD. Unless you are a large corporation you are not going to distribute your content in HD because it is too expensive and there is not enough of a market for it. Having higher quality images might matter in 20 years when it becomes cheaper and easier to produce but not now.

Content is important. I can go on youtube and see Bill T Jones and Fluxus and Bejart and David Gordon and point other people there and put those videos on my page and share them in many other ways. Until Vimeo can do that, it is irrelevant and if quality becomes an issue youtube can reencode and match the quality of Vimeo.

Quality is not all that is important, if it was then everyone would be using a Mac instead of PC's you need a good business plan like Microsoft with Windows, Apple with the iPod and Google with Youtube.

Content is intrinsically linked to quality because what is the point of having content at all if it does not reflect your work in a positive light?

On one of the Bill T. Jones clips on YouTube the audio is out of sync with the video (a common problem with YouTube). One would think that musical timing was inherently important to dance!

I'm sure plenty of people have heard of Anneheim Ballet before they ever went on YouTube and once again meaningless number counters are being equated with some form of success. It is ironic that Annaheim Ballet has much better quality videos hosted on their own blog (albeit incorrectly formatted).

Taking your position that YouTube has a lot of users and therefore you are gaining exposure to a lot of people. The internet as a whole has many more users than YouTube so why is it simply not a case of having a website, providing content and hoping that people stumble across that content by accident?

Vimeo can do all of the things that YouTube can do and, once again, it does them better.

What I appear to witnessing in this comment thread is a particular problem related to dance and the arts in general. There is a mindset that thinks high quality media, communications and presentation don't matter. Even when faced with a better, higher quality, just as free alternative the same failed policy of numbers, numbers, numbers applies.

If you wish to follow the herd then by all means use YouTube. If you care about the quality of your work and wish to lead the charge in the other direction and build a real audience for your work via the internet, then build your own website, compress and prepare your own video material and do some promotion. It's harder, a lot harder, but the end results are far more rewarding.