The article provides an in-depth analysis of why brands should consider posting video to video sharing sites as opposed to *exclusively* hosting video themselves (or using a proprietary video platform). Based on 19 criteria, accompanied with my somewhat biased explanation, readers can create a balanced scoring card. By giving plusses (and perhaps some minuses) on either side of the table (hosting versus posting) readers can decide what best meets their needs.

The idea behind the article came to fruition after reading other posts on the topic of video marketing strategy. I noticed a tendency among video platform proponents to dismiss video sharing sites as “UGC-communities” and point brand owners to fears for advertising, image association, poor branding, loss of clip control, aggregate statistics, et cetera. Although some of these arguments do have some validity to them, many of these acclaimed negative features are in fact either outdated, exaggerated or simply untrue. Why video platform buffs employ such tactics in their sales-pitches is something that wonders me still. Now, at least, as a brand owner, you can make up your own mind.

Judging from the response, hosted versus posted video really is a key question to marketers. Thanks to Bit.ly (gotta love those open social statistics!), you can see that more than 500 have taken the time to click the link through Twitter, Twitter Apps or other social networks.

The ReTweets made it clear that the topic struck a cord with those involved in video marketing.

I am curious to learn how you feel about it. That’s why I created the following poll:

In the article, Richard discusses why Google should enable advertisers to start building traffic from their own content on YouTube back to their own site. Currently, this is not possible. With an estimated 3-15% of views currently being monetized on YouTube, Google could easily increase this value by allowing advertisers to buy ads against their own content on YouTube.