While Susan Boyle is undeniably talented, her genre is not opera. A basic requirement for an opera singer is to be able to fill up a large theater with your voice WITHOUT MICROPHONES! This is a basic requirement for even a singer singing the smallest parts in the least known opera theaters. Susan’s voice while lovely is not big enough for opera – without a mike it wouldn’t be heard beyond the end of the stage.

For that matter Paul Potts is not an opera singer either. His voice is good – for an amateur – but his singing is nowhere near the level required by professional opera. Maybe he could have had it with some training, maybe not, but as of now he is not an opera singer. Yes, he sang in an amateur opera theater, but there is a world of difference between amateur opera and professional opera. Yes, he made millions selling an album with a number of semi-classical pop songs, some Broadway and exactly one opera aria, and his singing touches many people – the vast majority of whom has never been in an opera theater and hasn’t heard real great opera tenors like Juan Diego Florez or Roberto Alagna or Rolando Villazon or Jose Cura or Lawrence Brownlee to name but a few. But selling an album that includes an opera aria – or even many opera arias – does not turn one into an opera singer. Signing in professional opera does, and as far as I know Paul Potts has NEVER been invited to sing even in a regional professional opera theater in a stage opera production.

Here is a thought. How about you learn something about opera before mentioning opera in your posts? Because it seems like you think that anything that is not pop is opera. There are other genres out there…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medi.....sing-trial

ITV still “does not have a partner relationship with YouTube”.

YouTube is sold separately to ITV so the two do not directly impact each others revenue. Officially, content is always owned by the copyright owner, not by YouTube.

TV provided Paul Potts and Susan Boyle, but its worth having a look at the myriad (and increasing) quantity and quality of online only short films, feature films, animations, webisodes, channels and celebrities. Natalie Tran’s mentioned in a post above as a good starting point. Also: LonelyGirl15, Sanctuary, Sam King, MySpace RoadTour, In God We Trust. It’s often that new things don’t exist without their older counterparts, but usually the new takes over and the old gently morphs into something different of disappears. Sort of like people.

Worth also pointing out that without old media, the new media would not exist. TV still provides the content for people to blog, chat, upload, etc. Its become a symbiotic relationship, where they both need each other.

Finally, does anybody know who owns the video once its uploaded to Youtube, the content owner or Youtube.

http://www.mediapost.com/publi.....aid=105744

Guy Gadney: On the 24th April, ITV actually started their “Britain’s Got Talent 09″ channel on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/show?p=AmTY70fF2Ys and uploaded the videos there. These are now the top search results on YouTube. And since this also implies that ITV became a YouTube partner, they are now making money with the ads placed next to these videos. They also disallowed all other videos from embedding very early, so they had quite some leverage against YouTube. So, by now, they are actually making some money and their video is increasing stronger than the one I wrote about here. Still … a pretty late step and more of an afterthought than planned monetisation.

John Grono: I agree that “old media” still has a big influence on the popularity of content. However, if you look at the Paul Potts story from 2 years ago, you can see that Paul Potts was in “old media” in the UK, but not overseas. He made it online overseas, but that didn’t impress “old media” overseas. The picture has massively changed because online is now mainstream. So, as online picked it up, “old media” picked it up, too, and thus further increased the reach. Also, a lot of “old media” is now actually part of online – just look at all the TV shows and newspapers that have an online presence. So, in my opinion, the difference between “old” and “new” media is just not so big any more. “Old media” cannot survive any more unless they also embrace online.

Cheers and feel free to check out other posts on video metrics at our blog.

Sure online went a long way to popularising them globally beyond the localised BGT audience. This explains the larger on-line ‘audience’ than the single British broadcast which drew a measly (NOT!) 11.21 million people live in around a single hour for Susan Boyle (and would even higher when you include DVR playback, news reports , other TV coverage etc.).

On this basis, doesn’t “old media” deserve SOME kudos in this wonderful success story?

I wish I could do my assignments about this kind of stuff instead of the rubbish I’m currently researching.

Funnily enough, Silvia’s piece originally touched upon the monentisation issue, although we had to edit it for length.

One thing that perhaps underlines the issue of digital versus TV is revenue scale.

For the sake of argument, Susan Boyle – Britain’s Got Talent’s biggest viral hit ever – might have monetised at $2m, if they’d got it right from the beginning. That’s (and I’m guessing a bit here) a single ad break in Coronation Street?

That’s the issue TV seems to be facing.

Cheers,

Tim – Mumbrella

Youtube’s value add is an extra 5 million people on their site daily.

Top line: 100M views of the video…Revenue to ITV and/or YouTube: $0.