jump to navigation

Definition of a Viral Video June 16, 2012

Posted by joinchoir in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
3 comments

Here is the updated definition of “Viral Video”:

A video is considered to have gone viral if it is on track to receive 10,000 or more views in the span of 30 days. Therefore a video that receives at least 333 views in one day is viral. Unless a viral video is at least “moderately viral” (see below), using the term viral to describe it is purely academic.

There are levels of viral:
A video is considered mildly viral if it is on track to receive 10,000 views in 30 days.(333 views/day)
A video is considered somewhat viral if it is on track to receive 300,000 views in 30 days.(10,000 views/day)
A video is considered moderately viral if it is on track to receive 1,000,000 views in 30 days. (33,333 views/day)
A video is considered fully viral if it is on track to receive 3,000,000 views in 30 days. (100,000 views/day) Once a video reaches this level or higher adverbs describing degrees of viral are redundant.

It is likely that most viral videos do not sustain the daily view counts for the entire 30 days. A video may be viral for one or more days without actually achieving 10,000 views. The monthly counts are most useful for talking about what has happened in the past. You can say “last March the video went moderately viral, receiving 1,200,000 views.” Of course you can just say “viral” without the adverb. One can talk about a video that receives more than 333 views in consecutive days as “continuing to go viral” or continuing to go fully viral if it continues to receive daily view counts over 100,000.

This definition is based on looking at view counts of videos such as Double Rainbow, the Anton Dodson video and hundreds of others.

This is a website for choral musicians. There are few videos of choirs that receive 333 views in a single day. There are few ensembles that have ever achieved 100,000 views in one day.

This is an incomplete list of amateur choirs who have achieved viral status without singing with a celebrity or on a TV show and using an actual video of the choir (no slide shows or stills):
PS22 Chorus (Repeatedly have gone viral)
Perpetuum Jazzile
Kearsney College Choir
Noteworthy
Unknown Choir
UC Men’s Octet
Eric Whitacre’s Virtual Choir
Soweto Gospel Choir
Miami U. Cheezies
Innsbruck Capellknabe
Military Wives Choir
DaCadence U.C. Berkley NSFW
Ambassadors of Harmony
Scala NSFW
Canvas
Russian Red Army Choir
Libera
Straight No Chaser
Liberty University Choir
Gifford Children’s Choir
On The Rocks University of Oregon
Voices of Heaven Gospel Choir

St. Thomas Boys Choir
Helsinki Complaints Choir
AppleChor

Add your choir by commenting below with link and view count within time frame. Self-promotion and corrections welcome.

Advertisements

YouTube Videos And This Site September 28, 2010

Posted by joinchoir in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

I have been chasing down the info available on the web and through email conversations with the powers that be. It is very clear to me that YouTube has a public performance license from both BMI and ASCAP. The typical fare that we choir directors produce (and is put on YouTube by us or the parents of our singers) is covered by those licenses. If we make a video that uses prerecorded music or video that is another ball game. Please only send me links of music that is either a cappella or is accompanied by live musicians.

On the question of can ASCAP or BMI expect a site that embeds videos from YouTube to also have a license, it seems pretty clear that no further license is needed. ASCAP has stated that they are not going after not for profit blogs (like this one) that embed YouTube content. However, they have made several attempts to force for profit sites to pay up. YouTube has asked those sites to refer ASCAP to YouTube in such cases.