Patrick Beeson

Have you seen the latest viral video on YouTube? It's called "Chocolate Rain," and the song will be in your head for days!

Or how about the YouTube video of the guy streaking through the University of Tennessee library?

You can see a little too much, if you know what I mean.

But will you care tomorrow?

Most user-generated video is lower on the scale of value than reality television. And hardly any of it will be remembered five to 10 years from now.

Yet a lot of newspapers and media outlets are clamoring to host the latest viral-video crack -- and probably losing money by so doing.

This is because most media outlets haven't figured out how to turn a profit from their own videos, let alone somebody else's content. And the costs of serving video can be quite expensive.

Here is a condensed list of overhead for a typical video implementation:

• Developers for your site's video player
• Content management system, or CMS addition, to manage your video content
• Transcoding application or software
• Cameras, lights, mics and associated equipment
• Production software and the computers to run it
• One or more FTEs for editing and producing the videos being shot
• Archival system
• Hosting and bandwidth costs
• Training for the folks shooting video
• Advertising network costs, and/or developer to integrate ad-serving application into video player

If you're doing video right, then none of these costs are going to come cheap. And others are not done after the initial purchase -- the player needs continued development to support the latest features; cameras need upgrading or replacement; new folks need training.

How many viral hits will it take to cover these costs? Can regular video content do this?

Complaints about UGV aside, I think we're very early in the video movement.

Just as most blogging was borderline terrible a few years back -- think back to the newspaper cliche of the guy typing away in his pajamas -- so to is video now.

But it will get better.

There are examples of good UGV on YouTube and some media sites. CNN's cellphone video during the Virginia Tech massacre is one.

Video can also capture an audience in a way word-based stories can't.

Try showing the "Chocolate Rain" video mentioned earlier in this entry to a group of coworkers. Anyone walking by your cubicle will be sucked in.

Now do the same thing with a print story. It doesn't work as well does it?

The trick will be leveraging the captive quality of video into dollars to both cover the cost of said video, while also contributing to the bottom line.

I just hope that in the time it takes to do this, newspapers and other media aren't selling out in the same way cable and network television did with reality shows.

Quality still matters.

Note: This entry has been edited slightly since its original posting.