

Justin.tv Beats YouTube in Time Per Viewer by 2-1 Margin - abstractbill
http://www.beet.tv/2010/05/justintv-beats-youtube-in-time-per-viewer-by-21-margin-nielsen.html

======
rauljara
I don't think having a more engaged audience is necessarily that good of a
metric to look at. The more popular a website is, the more casual viewers it
will attract. The fact that justin.tv has such a high viewership time may have
more to do with the fact that its audience is tiny, and that viewers kind of
have to consciously seek it out. As opposed to youtube, which is one of those
timewasters you go to without really thinking. If/when justin.tv grows, it may
find its time per viewer ratio shrink proportionally.

Of course, there is absolutely nothing bad about having an engaged viewer
base. Especially if that core groups' enthusiasm can be used to help recruit
more eyeballs.

------
bonsaitree
This article's analysis is dross. This is purely a selection bias issue. ANY
significantly smaller video site with similarly-sized content will have a
higher engagement metric.

This is no different than "deep" cable television channels, or really, ANY
form of niche media down to individual book authors.

FWIW, A.C. Nielsen knows this all too well and says as much in their "cultural
impact" reports (Full Disclosure: I once worked on A.C. Nielsen software). A
fact which is conveniently missing from this article.

------
metamemetics
Considering that YouTube now limits video uploads to 10 minutes in length,
this is hardly surprising!

[http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en...](http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=71673)

------
smackfu
How much of that time is people watching illegal retransmits of live TV?

~~~
smallblacksun
I suspect that is the vast majority of justin.tv's audience.

------
Shamiq
It's probably because of puppy cams.

