Reel Pop

I'm working on a review of Bud.tv for the dead tree version of the Hollywood Reporter. Below are some of my notes.

Overall: Bud.tv fails because it inserts too much friction into the online viewing process which, due to the accessibility of video-sharing sites, has become a frictionless experience for the end user. Although Anhesuer-Busch's intent is not to compete directly with sites like YouTube, Bud.tv nevertheless competes indirectly for users' time and attention. If I have five minutes to waste, I'm not going to Bud.tv. I'd rather check my Tailrank or Digg RSS feeds for funny videos, or surf easily (easily!) through one of any hundreds of video-sharing (sharing!) sites.

Here are my top ten gripes:

1. The design of the site is incompatible with accessible viewing.
   Screen space is valuable real estate. Who made the decision to a) put the content in a pop-up window, and b) only show five clickable videos per page? Plus, what's up with the Flash wrapper? Even though Flash accessibility has come a long way since I programmed it (Flash 5), it's still easier for everyone if you build your site with HTML.
2. The actual content is too many clicks away.
   First I have to login. Then I have to scroll through the videos to find a video I want to watch. There's no list of all available videos, and there's little additional info to tell me if I want to actually click a video. For example: When I see the little rectangle for "Afterworld," I hover over it with my mouse. But what does the pop-up box say? Nothing. It just repeats the title (that I already knew) and gives me the length of the clip. Ugh.
3. The login screen is both useless and annoying.
   This problem has been covered ad nauseum. I understand A-B didn't want to do this. But they better find a way around it, and fast.
4. You can't embed videos elsewhere.
   Like listing a house for sale in the newspaper but not providing a photo.
5. Even when you send a direct link to a friend, your friend has to login to view the content.
   If I have five minutes to waste, I'm not going to waste it filling out a form.
6. The content is mostly advertisements for other content.
   I understand and enjoy the rapidly diminishing distinction between content and advertising. However. I do not enjoy logging in with the expectation of watching original programming and finding only commercials. This feels like playing Super Mario Bros. and finding out the princess is in another castle.
7. A-B undermined the initial traffic bump by not having the most accessible parts of the site -- i.e. the desktop client -- ready for use.
   Maybe I should just subscribe to the site's RSS feed so I'll know when the desktop client is ready. Oh wait, there is no RSS feed. Good thing I enjoy logging into useless sites to keep tabs on them.
8. The content is funny, but not funnier than what you can see on more accessible video-sharing sites.
   I like Tim Meadows. I like him more here, here and here. It's easier to get to, see.
9. There are not enough hot girls.
   WTF?
10. Anheuser-Busch did not set correct expectations.
    I understand that Bud.tv represents the return of corporate content, a la early television programming. But when you announce to the world via the New York Times magazine that you've hired the best writers and spent $30 million dollars creating content, I better break my diaphragm with elephant-sized guffaws. Or, failing that, at least logon to the thing without having to use my dad's ID.

I trust Bud.tv will get better, and I'm looking forward to seeing the new series that they will show on the site -- that will certainly be content with big name actors and writers that you can't find elsewhere. But boy howdy, for now, they flubbed their debut.