Darian, good post -
Granted, I understand the IT Risk in UGC and viral content on the Internet (YouTube Worldwide), but I understand the concept of YtfE a little differently - I want to start by clarifying the confusion between YouTube Worldwide and YouTube for the Enterprise - when you specify "for the Enterprise" that indicates that the YouTube type application would be situated literally within the "Enterprise cloud" and therefor the existing controls are applied to the application known as "YouTubefE" and this platform exists solely within the confines of an Enterprise cloud and is only accessible to validated users of said Enterprise Network, even if UGC content is "shared" with a user outside of the Enterprise, the video will not be accessible to them - only other internal Enterprise users are able to access that content.
That distinction made, it is easier for a disgruntled employee to up-load a confidential/harmful video from home to the official YouTube Worldwide and share with the world than it would be for an Employee to do so from their office. So what do these webcasters actually hate, YouTube Worldwide - or YTfE?
The Top Ten Things F500 Webcasters Hate about YouTube for the Enterprise
1. Bandwidth: Unchecked growth and use of video chokes the network
--> What in the Enterprise ever goes "un-checked"? Throttle number of clips a user can upload and simply don't do HD, go low bandwdith (set the transcoder to create smaller files at lower bandwidth - ideally, the content of the clip holds the key message or some kind of "value" to the Enterprise where "quality" of the video doesn't need to be up to today's HD YouTube experience.)
2. Storage: Unchecked growth and use of video devours storage --> Storage has gotten much less expensive and probably costs less than paper and people still take notes in meetings - I wonder if anyone has ever done a cost to cost comparison on that. Also, in most all Enterprise organizations that would have enough employees to generate a whole lot of content, you can simply search the network for deprecated systems that are still active on the Network, consuming resources without any purpose that could easily be re-purposed as simple storage devices for this purpose. It is "Earth Friendly" to recycle and saves the Enterprise serious coin.
3. Quality: CEO webcasts go from TV-quality to looking like hostage videos. Everyone else's desktop creations are much worse. Or even scary. -- Answer: So what? The GOAL of having UGC content in an Enterprise environment is to enhance communications, establish an organic voice for the corporate culture to give employees a platform to have an identity while they are also able to support, nurter and teach other over GREAT DISTANCES, to give a large organization the feeling of a real "community". This is usually impossible in the Enterprise since they are often global with small pockets of presence throughout the world. Think about how the lone trader in Ukraine feels when he has no one to talk to about the weather, UGC and community sites can be monitored AND can be very powerful building bonds between employees across great distances.
4. Branding: C-level, do-it-yourself webcasts where a key executive looks silly or uninformed -- again, so what? Moderation of the content could be enforced but I am suspicious of companies that need to coddle their key executives to keep them from looking "human" (or "humane") - Especially during times where the "Holier than thou" attitude of certain "key executives" in Corporate America is distasteful and totally politically opposed to the struggle we as a nation are facing economically and culturally.
5. Intellectual Property: Naïve tech types unwittingly broadcast proprietary information - moderate content and educate users, very simple.
6. PR: Rank-and-file suggestions for how the company can correct a stupid strategy or eliminate a bad product - I am not sure what this means, but across the board, if a sales force as a community disowns a product because it is BAD, enough said. But, on a higher level, YTfE would be accessible to the internal users of said company and not accessible to the public, by definition if it is IN the Enterprise then it is not public and can only effect INTERNAL PR, which is the same argument often used for removing water coolers from corporate offices, but if no one communicates how effective can a company be and who would want to work there anyway?
7. Liability: Someone creates a broadcast that mentions a client, a partner or a project that's under NDA - Enterprise only access and moderation is simple - back that up with a very clear disclaimer on every Up Load video page that reinforces that No content can be uploaded that releases any confidential information message. And, to make sure the Users are educated, like on eLance.com, make every user take a "webinar" and pass a test that ensures, prior to use of the system, they understand the terms of use. Done.
8. Governance: Legions of video censors dedicated to tracking down, reviewing and/or quarantining videos that can cause harm to the company - If someone has a video that can harm the company, again, they can do that on the consumer Youtube, they can post it in France or Austria - if Governance is a key "thing" holding back YTfE, than what are these companies doing to govern YouTube Worldwide - take ANY f500 and do a quick search on google's YouTube and see what you get.
9. Utility: Instead of information sharing, video becomes a star vehicle for self-promoters. Quality is poor, quantity is overwhelming and the initiative loses credibility in the organization. --> I would love to know where that has actually happened, at JPMChase we had PWP's (personal web pages) where we could create a human profile of who we are, where we came from and what we do for the company. I used the profile as a tool for fellow employees to identify my role as useful to their internal initiatives - I can't imagine an onslaught of employees posting porn or video content that is so offensive to the Enterprise, in such mass that the Network would fall to it's knees. Limit the number of videos, have very specific categories and I believe you will see that Employees who want to keep their job will probably up-load videos of training sessions, weekly up-dates, professional messages to their peers and the like. If an employee is so off track with what they post that it is offensive, wouldn't it be helpful to identify that individual or group and get rid of them?
10. Control: Any of the above going public and becoming a viral sensation on YouTube -- again, desktops and notebooks are locked down in the enterprise (Or are supposed to be) and so a FLV ripper would be hard to install, and if it is truly within the Enterprise, they aren't able to send attachments nor will anyone outside the firewall be able to see the videos.
Hi Darian,
I couldn't disagree more with the prior post regarding the ability to stop YouTube in its tracks.
1.Of course IT Depts. can and do restrict YouTube viewership from within a company, especially in secure companies such as aerospace--blocking the use of all streaming media and this includes links to YouTube. Unfortunately, this can stop the good from coming through too.
2. Besides security, it is a very serious branding issue. As a former PR Manager for a public company, image and unsolicited postings by employees was strictly forbidden and strongly enforced. That said, with the ubiquitous and viral nature of video, control may not be so easy.
I agree that the Enterprise should be concerned.
2. I believe you said it best when you mentioned "
2.