 |
|
Live Video Streaming Over The Internet Live streaming video for meetings,
seminars, trade shows and entertainment events seems to be the latest rage, but is it for
you? When companies put aside the hype and glamour of doing live streaming video, and
instead focus on performance and cost issues, it is extremely rare that the content of any
meeting or presentation is so time critical that it must be presented live vs. 24 to 48
hours later. Our purpose here is to examine the advantages and disadvantages of of using
live streaming video versus archived video-on-demand which can be viewed at any time.
Most companies will conclude that "live
streaming video" is nothing more than a triumph of distribution technology over
economic sense, and will instead choose to use "archived streaming video on
demand" to solve their video communication needs.
Comparison Of Live Streaming Video Vs.
Archived Video On Demand |
| Issue |
Live Video |
Archived Video On Demand |
| Video quality |
Not
as good as archived video on demand. Poor video quality usually results in bad P.R. for
the company promoting the event. |
In
most circumstances, video that is encoded for on-demand viewing results in higher quality.
Additionally, since fewer people will be watching the video at exactly the same time,
there is far less chance of the video stream being thinned out due to network bandwidth
restraints. |
| Bandwidth requirements |
Causes
disruption of existing server bandwidth and usually requires costly video hosting to meet
the additional spike in bandwidth requirements. |
Bandwidth
requirements are spread out over a longer period of time thereby preventing disruption of
other website related viewing or e-commerce transactions. Additional video hosting is
usually not required. |
| Flexibility |
Viewers
usually must watch the entire presentation, meeting or seminar resulting in additional
bandwidth requirements. |
Video
can be edited so that it can be presented in shorter segments which can be topic specific,
and can be viewed at the discretion and convenience of the viewer. |
| Maximum viewer potential |
Not
as great as video on demand. Additionally, viewers who cannot connect to the server
because of the popularity of the event can create bad P.R. for the sponsor of the event. |
Dramatically
increased since the viewer can select a time that is convenient for him or her to watch.
Viewers aren't turned away as a result of too many people watching at the same time. |
| Disruption of employees |
If
the presentation is business related, staging it live creates a disruption of work flow
within a business. |
If
your target audience is either your own employees or those of your vendors or affiliates,
business does not have to come to a stop for the entire company. By time shifting the
delivery of your broadcast, employees can watch at a time that does not disrupt their work
flow or tasks. |
| Implementation |
More
difficult. Requires additional on-site equipment, bandwidth management, training,
planning, rehearsal of technical issues, and back-up planning. |
Extremely
easy if you outsource through the right company. |
| Cost |
Much
higher than on-demand. |
Much
lower than live. |
The bottom line is that archived video-on-demand
is usually much more suitable than live streaming video for the majority of business
applications. If you'd like to discuss the particulars of your video streaming project in further detail, please call us
at 630-690-2141 or e-mail us at media@cybertechmedia.com.
|
Identity
