New York Magazine published a fantastic article this morning titled: “What is Live Video For?” You can find the complete article here:

The summary paragraph states the dilemma well. In specific, the very last sentence which we bolded:

As long as Facebook pays them, media companies will keep creating live video, and as long as Facebook keeps pushing live video, so will its smaller rivals. But “because of Facebook” has never been a good answer to “why” questions in digital publishing, and unless publishers start thinking about what live video is actually for, and what its strengths are, it’s just going to be another expensive trend.

Do we think there is a place for Live? Possibly! If Facebook is dedicating this much time and effort, they certainly believe there is something there and they’re a smart team. They are a media company and you can’t fault them for trying to grow their brand, reach and revenue. We’re constantly looking at sources for more compelling content, including live. Right now however, despite all the hype, our customers are telling us they want to control the production process. They want to make that process more cost effective while not reducing the volume of compelling content. In short: they don’t want the danger of “watching water boil” in a live stream or endanger inappropriate content that disenfranchises an advertiser. Stay tuned for some exciting announcements coming next week about how Burst has packaged its platform to enable Producers and Editors to produce compelling content, at a reduced cost, get to market faster and enable their sales team to attract more brands and advertisers…



Matt McGinty
VP, Sales & Marketing