Porting the social functionality of FB provides a powerful connectivity layer which YouTube has so far lacked. The Fan base can be grown through the personal newsfeed, while privacy can be controlled and propagates through to YouTube or any other platform.

The thing I find really interesting is the idea of using your social connections and behaviour to validate who you really are.

Google recently introduced a feature which enables users who are logged into a Google account to leave comments. This looks very much like a move towards at least the possibility of social search. By analysing the search and browsing behaviour as well as your email/talk network, it shouldn’t be too difficult to identify a real user from a auto-generated fake account.

The SEO community have argued that social search (i.e. taking social signals to influence organic search results) is unlikely to happen until you can trust those signals.

I’m looking forward to seeing how Coke’s Green Eyed World benefits from the authenticity provided by FB connect.

If you want to understand a bit more about traditional login based identity compared to what it may look like in a network, I’d recommend reading Adriana’s post ‘Bringing identity home a VRM view.

Now five days later it has just under 30,000 views. We can assume that the first jump was mainly just from the TV show. Old school push media to kick-start the viral effect. Usually the impact of TV on online after a few hours is very limited. So the biggest growth must have come from the WOM effect – people recommending the video either in conversation in the pub or online through, IM, email and social networks

None of this is going to surprise any marketers connecting their online and offline strategies – for those that haven’t I think this provides a fairly compelling argument. While TV viewers may have a short attention span, if you use TV to drive an online exploration you can get more bang for your buck.

As the TV program ended there were 1800 views. Today there’s over 8000. Was expecting more from TV, but not bad

Similar to Adsense (contextual advertising) – A publisher can have videos from youTube embedded on their site with ads placed above and below the video.

The Publisher can chose to have content from a specific content provider, by content or let the system decide based on your on-page content.

The advertiser is charged for every click or impression and revenue is shared between Google, the content provider and the publisher.

Could mean content providers get a chance to monetize their content. Publishers get to make their sites more interesting and provide a better user experience. And Google finally get a change to make money from youTube.

But this could be a nightmare for brand and reputation managers. If I was to put up contextual Video Adsense next to my post about Mcdoanlds providing free Wifi– are my visitors likely to see the video of Louis Ogborn strip searched at a mcdonald’s in Kentucky – currently ranking 1 in YouTube for Mcdonalds?

Guess we are going to have to wait and see how this pans out.

They plan to develop an online video platform for publishing ‘their’ network content, and cash in on the popularity of their material on YouTube.

If I’ve got this right – The media companies that is responsible for producing 5-10% of the most popular videos on YouTube, plan to create a rival, by publishing that content on their own site. So, the other 90% of video content on YouTube has nothing to do with its success. The report doesn’t say anything about sharing or contributing either.

Coverage: Reuters

For those still wondering why Google needs to go there – here’s a straight and dirty synopsis from Shoe Money – 10 Reasons Why The Google YouTube Deal Makes Sense – His point 9 about legal issues makes a lot of sense. There aren’t many companies that would be willing to take on the legal copyright challenges that are already in the post to You Tube. Copyright violation has never stopped Google from ‘organising the worlds information’.