Why live (video)?
APRIL 8TH, 2016 — POST 095
Facebook is making big moves in live video. Will Oremus of Slate yesterday reported on changes the company is making to how live video features in its feed, as well as supercharging the tools with which users can discover, create, and share live video. The recently introduced Reactions (a building out of the iconic ‘Like’ function) sits as a core piece of the watching experience — angry, sad, laughing emoji cascading across the screen in real-time similar to the stream of love hearts on Periscope. Periscope itself is obviously has a lot of points of parody to this reinvigorated live video experience, from the world map interface that displays a bunch of live feeds to the after-the-fact rewatching that preserves the display of the Reactions as they happened.
But Facebook has a lot more to play with than Periscope could. Live video can now be streamed just to the members of a Facebook group or those who are invited to an event. The sheer volume of users Facebook has is something that the Twitter-owned Periscope could only dream of. Facebook is making a real play for this market and its leveraging its gargantuan strength and its rich feature built over the last decade.
Oremus himself is sceptical, however. This scepticism is based upon a scepticism of people’s willingness to share live. Essentially, the public broadcast (even if confined to a group or event) is not something most of Facebook’s users would feel comfortable, as he posits parenthetically “I’d guess it’s a subset of the 20 percent or so who feel comfortable tweeting on Twitter”. Whatever population this 20% refers to (Twitter’s install base or the world population?), size of a potential group of users is something Facebook just doesn’t have to worry about. With more than 1.5 billion users, its impossible to imagine a world in which anything they do isn’t considered successful by any reasonable, comparative metric. They’re just that big.
I do agree with Oremus partially though. No, I don’t think live video is a fad, Twitch should stand as a testament to that. But I am yet to be convinced of its necessity to my life and by extension the lives of others in contexts beyond gaming. Nothing that I have come across has yet unlocked social live video in a way that is anything more than utilitarian like Periscope and Facebook have already. It was horrifically gripping to flick through Periscope streams on the night of the Paris terror attacks. It was enlightening to be able to watch hands-on tech videos through The Verge and others on Facebook during this year’s CES. I just haven’t yet seen live as social.
In this I share a kernal of Oremus’ scepticism: despite its size, I don’t think Facebook is poised to unlock live video. Oremus eludes in his piece to Snapchat and its success with #teens. Like many others, Oremus points to this as partially born out of a cynicism that Facebook is filled with Aunts who’re constantly Liking inspirational quote pictures and Uncles who share videos from the Australian Defence League (look them up) that are just a little too White Supremecist for my liking. But the hesitance to engage with Facebook extends beyond The Teens. I would argue that large part of Facebook’s audience just put up with the social network like a benign (but really a little scary and weird looking) mole. Facebook is like a watering hole in a town with running water: somewhere you come to when you’re desperate (like selling furniture or trying to contact someone you probably shouldn’t) but for the most part steer clear of. I have no doubt Facebook’s invigorated implementation of live video will be good, just like Reactions are good and instant articles (from the perspective of the reader) are good. I just don’t think a lot of people will ever get to the point of seeing it, and as such using it.
Because first you’ll have to click on that ugly blue icon.
—
