What does Twitter mean for the online video industry?

I'll be honest: Up until about, oh, three weeks ago, I was not a fan of Twitter. And that's really putting it lightly; I found it vapid and reductive, I was baffled by the utility and enjoyment so many others found in Twitter, and I generally thought it was a huge waste of time and venture capital. The media storm around the microblogging platform and the celebrity hawking of the site only increased my aversion to it.

But after reading several takes on "the right way" to use Twitter, and exploring its functionality, I quickly changed my mind on the value of The Twitterverse. I also started thinking about what Twitter could mean for online video companies and online video discovery, and, more broadly, about the many companies attempting to recreate Twitter's success within the video medium.

I thought about presenting my thoughts on the subject to you in less than 140 characters, but that would just be vapid and reductive, right?

First, Twitter helps companies stay in the real-time conversation with their core market. I've talked to several companies that told me they have landed customers through conversations started on Twitter, and while I don't have hard data to back up their claims, it may well be true. Open searches on industry-related terms have helped me get stories up faster, as companies and individuals push the latest happenings out through tweets, RTs and DMs (re-tweets and direct messages for the happily un-Twitter savvy).

Second, any company or production house distributing online video has a real-time way to alert users to new content, and to have that content proliferate through sharing and linking. As Twitter grows in popularity and users become more interconnected, I imagine the service will only increase the virality of online videos, and more importantly, it should alert the owners/controllers of that content of its popularity. Take the Susan Boyle video: If the production company had been more aware of the video's booming view rate, it could have started monetization discussions with YouTube and others much more quickly--and perhaps would not have made $0 from one of the top five most widely viewed online videos in history.

Finally, I'm interested to see what comes of the companies attempting to create a similar update/status business around or through online video.

There's Bubbletweet, which provides a separate Twitter page with personalized video. I think the lack of integration with users' original Twitter page will certainly hurt adoption, and if you think Twitter doesn't have a viable business model, then Bubbletweet is really doomed, because uploads are free and it intends to archive the video uploads indefinitely.

Then there's Gawkk, which is competing with other online video recommendation and discovery sites by being "the Twitter for videos." Gawkk allows users to follow other users--like Twitter does--and also searches the Web for embeddable video, which it places into feeds that users can subscribe to. The site's tag line is a direct Twitter rip, "What are you watching?" and it's going to be an uphill battle for the company to convince people that they really need niche microblogging applications when they can get much of the same benefits from Twitter itself.

12 Seconds aims to be the Twitter of video, letting users upload 12-second video clips they capture, which can then be broadcast to Twitter. While Twitter and Facebook users seem to have no trouble posting personal information, I'm not so sure as many will feel comfortable going on camera with such comments. It's also dubious that users will want to go through the trouble of shooting and uploading video updates when they could just type them on Twitter and not have to worry about hair and makeup.

Anyway, let me know what you think about Twitter's relevance to online video, where else, but on Twitter @fierceonlinevid. 

- Pete