Andrew Chen

QDub has an interesting point. People only remember a couple brands for a given product. In the current model, people associate shows with a particular network. That being said, if most people map a website to a tv channel, then his argument makes sense. What it also tells you, however, is that other video sites could be in trouble if that is the positioning that users are comfortable with.

The future is in vertical destinations for vid aggregation. Much easier ability for users to find interesting content and much easier to deliver relevant ads.

You'd think someone would have learned something about online vid monetization from porn?

It seems like there is only room for one site for UGC. It may make sense: UGC is numerous and disorganized, and having more than one source can be overwhelming. In fact, I'd say people still conceptualize bodies of video content interns of "channels" or "networks". They're probably thinking "oh Soporanos is on HBO, Heroe's is on NBC, AnimalPlanet is on Discovery, and all the UGC stuff is on YouTube"

The key here is that people are dividing content by type, not the surrounding feature set or "usage model". That could be important guidance for how a video startup might try to differentiate itself.

It actually looks like it's not the sum - I think people just end up watching a bunch of different videos from sites on this list and off this list, and it aggregates into 80+. From the article: "Nearly 135 million U.S. Internet users watched an average of 82 videos per viewer in April. Google Sites also attracted the most viewers (83.7 million), where they watched an average of 50 videos per person. Fox Interactive attracted the second most viewers (52 million), followed by Yahoo! Sites (37.3 million) and Microsoft Sites (29.9 million)."

Fix the Total Internet row to reflect the average videos per viewer overall. It currently shows the the sum of the averages.