How the Harlem Shake became a global phenomenon

The Harlem Shake is a nearly perfect internet meme because it almost perfectly erases its origins. If every imitation of “Gangnam Style” inevitably leads you back to the deceptively subtle, near-perfect original, the Harlem Shake does the opposite. Every imitation leads you to another imitation, the lower its fidelity the better.

The videos themselves are quite literally viral. A YouTube search for “Harlem Shake” turns up 60,000, with 45,000 uploaded within the last week. One person starts out with symptoms — dancing, a motorcycle helmet, etc. — and within moments, someone else is infected. A few minutes after that, everyone who saw the video has the same idea, and the meme spreads further, a domino effect of cascading bass drops. Like the punchline of a joke, the archetypes propping up a folktale, or even its decades-old namesake dance, the Harlem Shake circulates without an author, needing no authority but its own deliberately stupid sense of fun.

THE HARLEM SHAKE CIRCULATES WITHOUT AN AUTHOR, NEEDING NO AUTHORITY BUT ITS OWN DELIBERATELY STUPID SENSE OF FUN

Of course, this is a lie. Nothing moves without a mover, there are no chickens without eggs. Likewise, there is no breakthrough meme that doesn’t get its velocity from something that’s making it go. And so it is here: a nine-month old, three-minute song called “Harlem Shake,” by a nearly-unknown artist named Baauer, whose freshly-scattered thirty-second fragments of awkward dancing have peppered the video memescape since video blogger / comedian Filthy Frank established the template in a 34-second February 2nd video called “Do the Harlem Shake” that’s already gathered 10 million YouTube views.

It’s Filthy Frank and his dancing posse that everyone’s been imitating and on February 14th, “Harlem Shake” first broke through to number one on iTunes’ best seller list. At the time of this writing, the iTunes charts put “Harlem Shake” at number one overall, in the US, Australia, Belgium, Canada, and Luxembourg, and in the top five in most of the rest of Europe. It’s also crossing over from digital: “Harlem Shake” debuted at number 3 on the BBC’s radio charts on February 17th. In an interview with Billboard, a representative of Baauer’s label, Diplo’s Mad Decent records, describes the song as “the biggest thing we’ve released on Mad Decent as a label, and it’s happened within six days.” Baauer also sold out a February 15th show at New York’s Webster Hall, based almost entirely on the song’s popularity.

Even all those YouTube views, scattered across the dozens or hundreds of fan-made videos, add up. Baauer and Mad Decent have generally been happy to let a hundred flowers bloom, permitting over 4,000 videos to use an excerpt of the song but quietly adding each of them to YouTube’s Content ID database, asserting copyright over the fan videos and claiming a healthy chunk of the ad revenue for each of them. All this happens more or less automatically through Mad Decent’s partner INDmusic, There’s no pressing need to herd fans to a Facebook page or rig the YouTube search to drive “Harlem Shake” queries to an “original”: all of the videos can make the artist and his label a little bit of money. Hence the proliferation of the “Harlem Shake.”

After all, these Harlem Shake videos are just the last link in a chain of gently borrowed content. Before Filthy Frank, it was just a song, and not a terribly lucrative one. Before that, it was just a sample, a young Jayson Musson saying, “do the Harlem Shake” on 2001’s “Miller Time,” a track an even-younger Baauer probably mixed as a Philly-area DJ. Before that, the Shake was just a dance of uncertain provenance, something anyone could reference. But each step meant borrowing from something that already existed. Nobody involved was ever terribly keen on asking for permission. Why would they be? For the most part, neither the borrowers or the lenders even noticed what was happening.

But that open spirit has a limit, and embracing most of the song’s copies doesn’t mean it’s a free-for-all. When hip-hop artist and Harlem native Azealia Banks tried to upload her own remix of the track, Baauer had SoundCloud take it down. When she asked why, his response was simple enough: “It’s not your song.”

As long as it’s Baauer’s song, he’ll decide who can remix, and who else can appear on it. There’s real money and real control at stake here. This means the Shake gets to be open culture and it gets to be big business. But for most people the business, just like the original dance, just fades away.

The Verge

YouTube’s Plan for TV Domination

Quick: Think of watching a YouTube video. What kind of screen pops into your head? Chances are you thought of your laptop, desktop, smartphone or tablet before you imagined flopping down in front of a YouTube video on your widescreen TV in the den.

But that’s an attitude YouTube is desparate to change — and TV makers are eager to help them out. A number of sets launching at CES 2013 this week in Las Vegas — including sets from Bang & Olufsen, LG, Panasonic and Sony — offer the video service’s recently launched “send to TV” feature.

This lets you pair an Android phone with a TV on the same Wi-Fi network, and cue up videos using the YouTube app as your remote. Sony and Samsung apps on some recently-sold TVs already work with the feature, as do TV apps on Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Wii and Wii U consoles. Google TV not required. (Controls in the iOS YouTube app are coming soon.)

And all of that is just the tip of the iceberg. During interviews at YouTube HQ in San Bruno, Calif., the company tried its best to convince Mashable that a Minority Report-style future — one where the majority of us will simply flick videos off our phone screens and have them appear on our TVs, without a second thought — was just around the corner.

“We’re trying to build this infrastructure that scales everywhere from watching 1080p HD-quality video on your TV all the way down to using a dial-up modem in a developing country,” says Shiva Rajaraman, YouTube director of product management. “We’d like to be all things video, and that means getting video into all places” — with your smartphone replacing your remote or your game controller.

It also means turning YouTube into more of a DVR. The company hopes to persuade you to treat YouTube as a primetime, evening watching experience, rather than something you use for cat videos at work.

In this effort, YouTube has a major ally — its audience. The service already experiences a boom in viewers every evening in every time zone in America. “We see traffic spike on the smartphone, tablet, and TV-connected UIs,” says Rajaraman. “Prime time is prime time everywhere, for YouTube too.”

Uniting the Second Screens
Though YouTube doesn’t offer any numbers, a big chunk of this primetime spike is likely to be second-screen watching. You’ve got the TV on in the background, but you just got reminded of the really cool video that got passed around the office.

So what do you do? Reach for the tablet, grab the laptop, pull the phone out of your pocket. Why? Because they seem like the best screens for the job.

If you’re anything like me, you already have the ability to watch YouTube on your TV, along with Hulu Plus, Netflix and Amazon Prime. But you don’t do it because experience has taught you the result is likely to suffer by comparison with those other services.

The big streaming companies offer a pretty consistent video experience. Load a movie on Netflix streaming, and you know it’s going to seem somewhere between DVD and Blu-Ray quality.

Load a YouTube video on the big screen, and there’s a chance the quality could appear somewhere between an 8-bit video game and a fuzzy LEGO art project. There’s not a whole lot YouTube can do about that; it’s the one truly democratic, worldwide video network. Quality of uploads is bound to be all over the map.

No Verified Videos, Some Nudging
So how to overcome our wariness of using YouTube on the TV? During our conversations, I suggested the service start verifying accounts, Twitter-style — you get a tick next to your name if you consistently post videos that look great on a 42-inch screen, say. (Because as we know from experience, simply saying a video is HD when you upload it doesn’t make it so.) You could also use the verification process to clamp down on one of YouTube’s most terrible scourges: the vertical video.

The YouTube team demurred. They’re leery of encouraging user behavior in that direct a manner. For example, there are plenty of times the service can see there’s a problem with your video playing, and can make an educated guess as to why. There have been discussions behind the scenes about having a dialogue box pop up telling you, for example, that you might want to quit the 10 other programs you have running.

“We don’t want to add to the confusion, or look like we’re pointing fingers,” says Andy Berkheimer, YouTube’s head of engineering. “If you suggest the user take action and say it’s something else’s fault, you have to be sure.” Having said that, he adds, “We’ve definitely identified a few scenarios where we can help people out.”

The Sliced Bread Solution
Still, YouTube’s focus is mostly on fixing its video service on the back end. An ongoing internal project code-named “Sliced Bread” has made the whole service a lot smarter about how it feeds video to you, chopping it up into slices much the same way regular internet content is divided into packets, and making a half-dozen other software and bandwidth adjustments on the fly.

“The goal is to get rid of the spinner,” says Berkheimer, referring to the rotating series of dots that shows when a YouTube video is loading. The server software is “making decisions about next five to 10 seconds, asking: how do I provide highest quality with lowest risk of inducing a spinner?”

Getting a spinner, in fact, is the number one predictor of whether you’re going to abandon your YouTube video and move on to something else. So if you’ve found that your videos have started playing more smoothly with fewer interruptions recently, thank sliced bread.

YouTube apps on Samsung and Sony sets sold within the last year will start updating themselves with improvements to the service, as they’re now controlled by YouTube rather than the manufacturers. You’ll also find that if you’re watching a lot of videos on TV, the apps will know that and start offering more HD videos to you.

“If you only watch HD on your TV, you shouldn’t have to go and toggle some settings switch in order to do that,” says Rajaraman.

YouTube Can’t Go It Alone
Ultimately, none of this matters unless the content creators start viewing their stuff as TV-ready. Which is why YouTube is encouraging the whole concept of Channels and Subscriptions. On both the user and creator side, the plan is to turn the millions of YouTube Channels — whichever ones float your boat — into must-see TV.

Developers are part of the bigger picture, too. The company is also releasing updates to its API with a mobile embeddable player, allowing more apps to take advantage of YouTube content. Ultimately, YouTube will rise or fall on what creators do with it. It isn’t trying to be Hulu or Netflix; there are no major deals for movies or cable content on the horizon. Whether it can compete with those services for your TV-based attention is up to you.

Source: Mashable

Epic Meal Time Launches New Competitive Cooking Series

Epic Meal Time is one of the most popular channels on YouTube with nearly 3 million subscribers and over 486 million video views to date. Now, with the help of Collective Digital Studios and NextTime Productions, the channel has launched a new web series called Epic Chef, which is being described as “an over-the-top, calorie-filled take on the competitive cooking genre”. If you’re not familiar with Epic Meal Time, the channel is notorious among the college crowd (and like-minded viewers) for cooking up ridiculous, cholesterol-heavy dishes such as meat gingerbread houses and egg rolls the size of a human head.

Epic Chef, which will keep that notoriety intact, debuted Friday. The series pits two chefs against each other every week, as part of a bracket-style competition to determine who is, in fact, the most “Epic Chef” of them all. Each episode will feature a themed challenge such as “Epic Burger” or “Epic Mexican,” for which the competitors will have 45 minutes to create a meal worthy of the moniker, only using a box of mystery ingredients and a pantry that they will have access to.

Celebrity judges for the series include Duff from Ace of Cakes, Adam Gertler from Next Food Network Star, and a collection of YouTube stars, among others. Competing chefs include former contestants on shows like Top Chef and Iron Chef, as well as other notable food personalities.

YouTube Scales Back Original Content Partnerships

YouTube is planning on reinvesting in only about 40% of the current original channels on the video site. This doesn’t mean that the channels that are cut off will be kicked off the site, just that they will no longer be an active part of YouTube’s original content initiative.

The new deals will most likely be similar to the original ones, in that YouTube will front up to $5 million to produce original content, will recoup that money via advertising, after which the site and the content owners will split ad revenues 50/50. According to AllThingsD, for all the channels that haven’t yet earned back all of the money YouTube invested in them, the video giant will continue to collect all of the ad revenue generated by those channels.

There’s also an understanding that any content that is produced as part of the original content initiative will be exclusive to YouTube for a year

YouTube Continues Focus on Original Programming

According to new numbers released by YouTube: The top 25 original channels average over a million views a week; 800 million viewers are watching 4 billion hours every month; the number of subscribers has doubled year-over-year; and channel partners are reaching the 100,000 subscriber milestone five times faster than they did two years ago (this presumably includes partner channels before the initiative officially launched last year).

The video company now plans to expand the program globally by launching 60 new channels from media companies in France, Germany, the UK, and yes also the US. These new channels, which add to the approximately 100 that are already available, span categories from local cuisine to sports, animation, comedy, and news.

Original Programming, The New Internet Video Land Grab

This week, Hulu announced a slate of 10 exclusive shows coming to its platform this summer—one of the most aggressive moves yet in a land grab that is taking place among the pioneers of Internet video. Netflix has now green-lighted five premium series, and earlier this month, Amazon unveiled Amazon Studios, its first foray into original video. At YouTube, Google is plowing $100 million into launching 100 channels, with the goal of creating more content than there are hours in the day to watch.

In the hypercompetitive community of TV creation, where fortunes are made and programs are killed without mercy, online is where the action is. “The phrase that I keep hearing a lot is that it’s the Wild West,” says J.D. Walsh, the showrunner behind the original Hulu series, Battleground. “And I think that it is the Wild West. What that connotes to me is that nobody really knows what the rules are, what’s going to be stable, or who is going to [emerge as] the leaders. But even within the Wild West, you did have some major cities—and that’s what you’re seeing with these platforms.”

Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, and YouTube are all taking a unique approach to original programming on the Web. Their differing bets—on such questions as quantity, polish, advertising versus subscriptions, nudity, and more—provide a hint of what the future of “television” will resemble.

Hulu, which is jointly owned by the legacy television networks, is coming to resemble a broad-interest network with catholic tastes. Of the 10 series announced this week, three are wholly original to Hulu, and they run the gamut: there’s Spoilers, a kind of movie club hosted by Kevin Smith (Clerks); Up to Speed, a travelogue by Richard Linklater (Dazed and Confused); and We Got Next, a “bro-mantic comedy” about a pickup basketball clique. The other seven titles, for which Hulu bought exclusive streaming rights, involve everything from teen pregnancy to the British clergy to a faux-gritty mockumentary set on an elementary-school playground.

Andy Forssell, the executive in charge of content—and a $500 million annual budget—says he has no idea how many titles Hulu will come to produce in the coming years. “We’re quality-gated,” he said in a recent interview. “There’s no quota that I want to go hit. We don’t have a set number of hours to fill, like a lot of traditional networks do—that’s actually an advantage I want to jealously guard.”

“A year ago, it was difficult to have people audition for our show because they just thought, ‘Oh, it’s just going to be on the Internet.’ Now we don’t have that problem anymore.”

Jason Kilar, the chief executive officer of U.S. online video content provider Hulu. (Kyodo / Landov)

One thing Hulu’s original titles will never depict, though, is nudity. That’s in part because a significant portion of the company’s revenue comes from advertising.

That provides an easy point of comparison with Netflix, which has sought to reposition itself as the HBO of the Internet, home to premium dramas and comedies that viewers are used to finding on pay-tier cable channels. That includes the promise of gore—horror auteur Eli Roth is developing a werewolf series titled Hemlock Grove—and, when appropriate, boobs. In April, at an event in Las Vegas that offered a first look at Netflix’s original programs, much was made of the shower scenes to come in Orange Is the New Black, a comedy set in a women’s prison.

The first Netflix series, Lilyhammer, premiered in the United States in February, and four more will come in 2013, including the $100 million drama House of Cards, with a pilot directed by David Fincher (The Social Network) and Kevin Spacey in the lead role. While Hulu plans to release episodes of its programs week by week, as the broadcast and cable networks do, Netflix will make whole seasons available to stream at once, a competitive advantage in courting the most artistically demanding writers and directors.

Amazon is far behind Hulu and Netflix’s leads, having only just unveiled its Amazon Studios division in early May. But its model is intriguingly disruptive, and of a piece with the company’s dotcom and retail roots. While Hulu and Netflix are hobnobbing with Morgan Spurlock and Jenji Kohan, Amazon is crowd-sourcing its production process, soliciting pilot scripts from the general public.

After a 45-day option period, Amazon will offer chosen artists $10,000; if the series makes it to the Amazon Instant Video service, creators get $55,000 and up to 5 percent of the proceeds from toy and T-shirt sales. And for now, Amazon is taking the opposite of Hulu’s kitchen-sink approach to genre, asking for pitches specifically in comedy and children’s programming.

Then there’s YouTube, with the deep pockets of Google and a deeper commitment to the messy, anything-goes world of user-generated Web video. Its 100 subsidized channels will feature sports talk, family fare, self-help, and virtually everything else users expect of the YouTube jungle. These episodes will be Web-sized—a couple of minutes each, instead of the familiar 22-minute blocks that will be found on Amazon—and creators will get a cut of Google’s advertising.

Why are these online video giants all rushing into original content? A number of factors play a role. With more homes gaining access to broadband Internet—and higher quality feeds—the audience for streaming is reaching a critical mass. Viewers have more choices about where to watch video, too—Friday Night Lights is available on Amazon Instant, Netflix, Hulu, Apple’s iTunes, and other services. As these libraries get more similar, the streaming companies have only two options for differentiating themselves: either pay through the nose for exclusive deals, or put that money toward great original programming.

The talent is ready. “A year ago, it was difficult to have people audition for our show because they just thought, ‘Oh, it’s just going to be on the Internet,’” says Battleground’s Walsh. “Now we don’t have that problem anymore.”

Online Video Viewership Continues Rapid Climb

According to data from April’s comScore’s Video Metrix report:
181 million U.S. internet users watched nearly 37 billion online videos.
The top five digital video properties on the web were Google/YouTube (157.7 million unique viewers); Yahoo Sites (53.6 million unique viewers); VEVO (49.5 million); Facebook.com (44.3 million); and Microsoft Sites (42.8 million).

Of the 37 billion video views, Google/YouTube was responsible for 17 billion, while Hulu and Yahoo accounted for 901 million and 742 million, respectively.

The average viewer watched 21.8 hours of online video content, with Google/YouTube (7.2 hours) and Hulu (3.8 hours) earning the highest average engagement among the top 10 properties.

U.S. internet users watched 9.5 billion video ads in April, making it another record-breaking month for video ad views.

Hulu led the way with 1.6 billion video ads delivered, followed by Google/YouTube (1.3 billion), BrightRoll Video Network (943 million), Adap.tv (881 million), and TubeMogul Video Ad Platform (831 million).

Total time spent watching video ads amounted to 3.9 billion minutes, with Hulu once again leading the way as it delivered 670 million minutes worth of video ads.

Overall, 84.5% of the U.S. internet audience viewed online video.

Three Reasons why Video on TV is still better than TV online

Google, Microsoft and AOL are hoping that their web video offerings and NewFront presentations will help them extract a healthy slice of the TV industry’s upfront money this year.

That all-too-familiar annual rite of spring is upon us. The trades are full of pre-negotiation rhetoric. Industry conferences are dotted with panels of shadow-boxing buyers and sellers. Every day it seems we get reports from industry equity analysts telling us which networks will see pricing growth and which holding companies are best situated to hold the line.

This year, however, we have a new dynamic. A group of would-be interlopers are trying to nudge their way into the TV advertising futures market, where advertisers and their agencies make billions of dollars in commitments to lock up the best inventory and, they hope, best pricing.

No, it’s not the cable networks. They’ve been trying to crash the party for years, and some have even gotten their own seats at the table. These crashers are the web folks: Google, Microsoft, Hulu, AOL and others hoping to reframe the upfront conversation from “just about TV” to “all about video.”

They have some strong arguments. Web video is growing, with hundreds of millions of streams a month in the U.S. Much of the higher-quality web video now carries interruptive video ads, not unlike the ads we get on TV. Web video delivers targeting and measurement, just like the web (it is the web) and; finally, it gives advertisers and agencies the cross-platform product showing up in everyone’s briefs this year as we all prepare for a multiscreen, multiplatform digital-media future.

The web guys scored a lot of good points with their presentations. They got some great visibility. However, they aren’t going to get cut into that action at the “adult” table that they so cherish, at least not this year. Here is why:

There’s not enough reach yet.
The upfront is a futures market where people buy things they need that are precious and scarce. For mass-awareness advertisers, massive reach accumulated quickly is scarce. That is why TV media is so in demand. That is why the biggest and best shows are bought in the upfront. Web video just doesn’t have that kind of scale yet. As Nielsen told us just last week in its annual Three Screen Report, 98% of video in the U.S. is viewed on TV. Only 1% is viewed on the web. Web video is not an alternative to TV when it takes a month to deliver as much national reach as two TV networks deliver in one night.

The best stuff will be bundled.
Advertisers do want web video, but the best stuff — the “premium” video associated with existing TV programming — is already being bundled and sold by the TV networks in packages. It is largely being sold with TV, not as a stand-alone web product.

Buying streamers means buying heavy TV viewers.
If you dig into the recent Nielsen numbers, you realize that the one quintile of U.S. consumers who stream 95% of the web video also consume four hours of regular TV each day. Advertisers buying TV are already buying the heavy web-video viewers. Thus, if you buy web video, you’re not buying incremental reach. You’re buying more frequency against heavy TV viewers.

Change is glacial.
U.S. viewers have been spending more time watching cable than broadcast programming for well over 10 years. However, according to Nielsen, last year was the first year that cable networks received more advertising than their broadcast-network brethren, despite now having twice the viewership of broadcast. In this industry, it takes a long time to earn your place at the table. The web folks won’t get entirely shut out. Some web video will be bought this year around the upfront. Digital planners created enough noise with the NewFronts that clients are going to demand they get something. After all, web video is this year’s bright shiny object. Plus, if nothing else, acquiring some will give the buyers something to use for leverage — even if it’s illusory — when the TV networks ask for the inevitable double-digit pricing increase. Yes, Google, Microsoft and AOL will get some of TV’s scraps. It’s progress, even if it’s not yet a seat at the table.