PEW Studio on Teens and Streaming Video

[cseeman]

PEW Studio on Teens and Streaming Video
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-online-video/Findings/Streaming-video.aspx

13% of online teens stream video live to the internet for others to watch.

Some 14% of teens who use social network sites stream video, compared with 5% of teen internet users who are not social network users. Similarly, 15% of Facebook users say they stream video, compared with 6% of teens who do not use Facebook. And once again, Twitter users are the most likely to report streaming video, with one-quarter of users of the service reporting streaming, compared with 10% of teens who do not use Twitter.

I'd thought I'd add their study and teens and uploading video for comparison.
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-online-video/Findings/Recording-and-uploading-video.aspx
27% of teen internet users record and upload video to the internet

and Video Chat
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-online-video/Findings/Video-chatting.aspx
37% of online teens have video chat conversations with others.

The entire study on teens and online video
http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Teens_and_online_video.pdf

[andrewzarian]

Very interesting. I would think that the number is higher then just 13% . Sites like Stickam.com and Tinychat are good examples of streaming sites that teens go to .

[cseeman]

13% doesn't surprise. I think that's a pretty healthy number given the newness of it all.
YouTube (video upload) has been around a bit longer and its use dwarfs the streaming sites.

I'd be curious what the "adult" numbers are like. I hope PEW does a study.
In my own experience talking to businesses, many still have the attitude that they're rather upload a pre recorded (and pre produced) video to YouTube. They may even point to the greater views of a YouTube video compared to a transitory live event.

That, in and of itself, is a good topic for discussion. I should start a thread on that.

[BradShoemaker]

Of course what they are not taking into account is their loyal fan boys. If a company just posted a video it will gain better numbers as it is around for a long time, but if you wanted to take care of your core base, making a live event would satisfy their need to be on the breaking forefront of anything new.

Take any company (like Apple and Facebook) who use live events to release products. Yes some things have slipped, but people flock to the sites that are giving live web feeds or even live updates. The fan boys of any company need to know now, the general public will pick up the recorded video or quick synopsis later when they have a free moment.

[cseeman]

But for any business "the fanboys" count as that's targeted sales.
They are your word of mouth evangelists.
That's actually one of many reasons why live streaming serves a purpose that can't be done as effectively as with video on demand.

You could say sports is a good model.
People love to watch live. Those are your fans.
Others are content to watch the highlights on the evening news.
The fans make you the most money fastest though.

It's one example when pitching "live" to a business.
It's not about getting the most views but the most sales and a targeted live audience may be the most interested buyer.

[cseeman]

A good survey question might be to ask those 13% is why they are doing live instead of VOD (or in addition to VOD).