Talk:Vevo/Archive 1

Launch

We are excited to tell you that VEVO will launch the evening of Tuesday, December 8! (Pavelow235 (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

VEVO logo red highlighting: VEvo or veVo?

The logo used in the article highlights the V and E in red, but the actual logo on Vevo.com only highlights the second V. Did they change it? Shouldn't Wikipedia change to match? There are logos here: Official Vevo Logos -- but I guess SVG is the most desirable format, no? Should we forgo that until someone can make an SVG of the revised logo? (Also, for future reference -- should I have put this on the picture talk page instead of here?) Tophtucker (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll update the coloration when I get a chance. I think they changed it. Anyways, non-free images are never displayed anywhere other than its designated article, according to fair use guidelines. So you did the correct thing :) --ZooFari 22:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed. --ZooFari 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Name

Vevo's slogan is "VEVO | Music Evolution Revolution!" At a guess, the name is a portmanteau of "video" and "evolution/revolution". This seems to make sense, but it was not added to the article because of the original research issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Vevo on YouTube

At the moment, the Vevo artist channels are available on YouTube. This seems to be a promotion for the new service, which is not currently available worldwide (eg Rihanna's Vevo channel is on YouTube here). The Vevo channels have been picking up criticism on the technical front, with some users saying that they keep freezing and rebuffering.[1] This may be because the picture size is 850 x 480px, which requires a better quality Internet connection and computer than standard quality YouTube videos. Some of the videos have pre-roll adverts, which has also led to criticism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The part about the videos having RTMPE was removed due to a lack of sourcing. Unlike YouTube videos, Vevo videos cannot be downloaded, but it is unclear why. The most likely reason is that they are streaming without buffering, which means that they do not cache to the local hard drive. When a Vevo video starts playing, the buffer bar (which is pink) is full immediately, unlike a YouTube video which takes a while for the buffer to fill up. This would also account for the freeze-prone performance that numerous people have reported with Vevo videos.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

During the first month after its launch, Vevo generated a lot of complaints about slow video loading and picture freezing. Unfortunately, since most of this was in the tech forums (eg here it is unsuitable for the article. It looks like Vevo may have changed the system on the YouTube channels, because the videos are now buffering, which they were apparently not doing at the launch.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to this edit, it is true that some Vevo videos on YouTube are producing the message: "This video contains content from Vevo, who has decided to block it in your country." For example, I am in the UK and get this message when trying to access "Gwen Stefani - The Sweet Escape ft. Akon". However, most of the Vevo videos seem to work on YouTube, and there are original research issues here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to this edit, This page reads like an advertisment. It couldn't be more positive and it is rather obvious who wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.82.245 (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What's not to like? There is not much information about Vevo at the moment, but the article does not read like an advertisement. The article also stresses that the www.vevo.com website is not available worldwide.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconding 96.227.82.245's comment, here. This entire article seems to be nothing but praise for VEVO, with users like IanMacM removing all possible criticism. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.144.123.103 (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed criticism of VEVO from the article on many occasions, mainly because it was unsourced POV, or sourced to a blog or forum comment which would not meet WP:V. It would be fair to say that not everyone likes VEVO, but criticism needs to be reliably sourced. Find some reliably sourced criticism, and it can go in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No personal feelings of dislike towards vevo, but just a few minutes of browsing youtube videos makes it quite clear that public opinion is very, very anti-VEVO. The fact that this hasn't been sourced is well enough, but the criticism against VEVO needs to be documented somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.147.201 (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it would be worthwhile to have some reliably sourced criticism of VEVO, which has not gone down a treat with all YouTube users. The problem is that unsourced or blog sourced comments have to be removed per WP:V.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

How about Justin Bieber's criticism of VEVO taking down his post of his own song? http://www.beatweek.com/uncategorized/7649-justin-bieber-lashes-at-youtube-vevo-over-pray-video-copyright-fail/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhults7791 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this is an example of the copyright controversies that have been a feature of VEVO. What happened here was that Justin Bieber uploaded the video of Pray to YouTube in November 2010, but it was blocked by Universal (UMG) on copyright grounds.[2] If a record company blocks the use of its own content, there is nothing that YouTube or VEVO can do about it, so it is not strictly speaking their fault. This example relates to VEVO, but in a somewhat indirect way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if the example is somewhat less than ideal, it would be worth including in order to fix the neutrality issues surrounding this article, at least until a better example is offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhults7791 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I did consider adding this, but felt that it was related to VEVO too indirectly. The issue was that UMG blocked the use of its own content, so it is more a criticism of UMG than VEVO.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Availability in Japan

There has been remarkably little about the launch of Vevo in the media, but the sources agree that the launch was on 8 December 2009 in the USA and Canada.[3][4] Japan may have been added to the article in good faith, but would require a reliable source, so it has been removed for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Availability in Andorra

On 10 January 2010 vevo is also available on Andorra, so might be convenient to update the countries in which vevo is allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.227.133 (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, see above. Vevo's publicity says that it is due to go worldwide in 2010, but availability in individual countries should have a reliable source. According to the sources, Vevo is available only in the US and Canada at the moment. I am in the UK and get the "sorry" message for www.vevo.com.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Relationship to "Vivio"

The design of both the company "Vivio" and "Vevo" are very similar. There is also a relationship between them and the design that goes into "Verizon". Red, Grey, and an emphasis on the letter "V". Either they are trying to replicate eachother's characteristics, or these are branches of the same company. Brewing monopoly if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.44.214 (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I could not find the Vivio logo and the similarity to the Verizon logo is only passing. Companies are usually careful about names and logos in case they set off claims of plagiarism. There is no sourcing at the moment to suggest a link between Verizon and Vevo.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Vivio= http://www.vivio.co.uk/

Vevo= http://www.vevo.com/

Verizon= http://www22.verizon.com/?CMP=KNC-CONSBRAND —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.44.214 (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As this article points out:

Draw a blue circle on the screen and you’ve just stolen the Blaupunkt logo. Draw a yellow line and you’re copying Visa. Draw a black swoosh and you’re ripping off Nike. The less intricacies involved in creating your masterpiece, the more likely it is that someone has already created it.

Even if there are similarities, it does not necessarily mean that the companies are linked in some way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I call that the "duh" or "easy anti-thesis" argument, which provides you the illusion of intellectual progress. The superior response is "I don't know, but it is interesting to note." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.44.214 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is wandering off into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. If you have any reliable sourcing that these companies are linked in some way, please provide it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Availability in Russia

Vevo works very well in Russia. No "sorry" message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.243.254.62 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the problems facing the article at the moment. In the UK, I am still getting the "Sorry" message. The info about Russia may be correct, but it needs reliable sourcing. Vevo has not been picking up much media coverage, and the official launch publicity said that the site is available only in the US and Canada.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

misc

Isn't it contradictory stating that one of the reasons of Vevo existance is because high end publishers don't want to be hosted side-by-side with user-generated videos although this is considered a possibility in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.244.24 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done The wording here was a bit confusing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Vevo in the UK

Vevo was launched in the US and Canada in December 2009, and is scheduled to go worldwide in 2010. However, when I try to access www.vevo.com in the UK, (with a UK IP address), I get the following message: [5]. If anyone has accessed Vevo in the UK, please explain how you did it, or provide a reliable source for the UK launch, which does not seem to have happened yet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's because it's not available yet in yout country.I think users now have access to Vevo in the UK.--Damirgraffiti (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Vevo in Australia

Vevo is NOT available currently in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.5.237 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, although the site is due for worldwide rollout in 2010, any additions need reliable sourcing. For a fact, I cannot access www.vevo.com in the UK at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Max Player Size Wrong

"Like YouTube, Vevo uses the Flash video format for its content. The player size is up to 850 x 480 pixels,"

I don't see how that's true with Lady Gaga's Telephone or Miley Cyrus's Can't be Tamed are offered in 1080. Psilocybin (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This was true when Vevo was launched, but things have moved on. There are now some 720p and 1080p videos on Vevo. The usual sizes are 640x360 and 850x480. There are no videos smaller than this, which means that a modern computer and broadband connection are needed to enjoy the site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the article

Re: the expand template. It has proved difficult to find reliable sources for much beyond what the article currently says. Vevo may have decided to delay/drop its plans for a worldwide launch, just as Hulu dropped its plans for a promised UK version in April 2010.[6] Is there anything that is reliably sourced and not too promotional that the article should include?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

VEVO channel on YouTube

The number of views for videos in the VEVO channel on YouTube is currently over 18 Billion (short scale), which is over 14 times that of the runner up. Not sure if this information should be added to the article. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

UK launch

The Vevo coming soon page hints at a December 2010 launch for the vevo.com site in the UK, but there is a strong element of WP:CRYSTAL. Vevo seems to have become bogged down in licensing issues with the Big Four record companies. The wording of the "coming soon" notice is "VEVO is actively working with our international publishers to obtain the proper public performance licenses, which differ widely country-to-country. As it stands, it is our plan to expand globally with the launch of VEVO UK (United Kingdom) by December 2010." On the basis of this wording, a December 2010 launch for Vevo UK still looks speculative.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing the intro paragraphs.

I feel like something needs to be editing in the intro paragraphs. It seems to be based on opinion? Thoughts please.--Redsox42311 (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Censorship of videos

The article cited for the claim that Vevo themselves censors the videos has been duplicated on several other websites, which leads me to believe that it's not reliable. This is exacerbated by the fact that the example shown in the article and its clones ("I'm on a Boat" by the Lonely Island) has an uncut version on the same channel. Virtually all of the censored videos I've seen on Vevo were created prior to YouTube taking off and were therefore probably never uncensored in the first place so that they could be shown on television. The fan-uploaded versions of these videos that do have the swearing were probably the result of them dubbing over the explicit version of the song before they posted it. 70.112.76.206 (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The article cites the censorship issue to this report. Removal of inappropriate material has been a persistent complaint about VEVO, but even in the days when the videos were on YouTube, some bad language was removed, for example Avril Lavigne singing "I'm the mother****ing princess" in Girlfriend. Lady Gaga's "Telephone" has an "Official Explicit Version" as well as the "clean" version. Some of the criticism of VEVO on this issue may be overdone, but it should be noted that all of the versions of videos on VEVO are officially approved by the record company, and are not fan made uploads as often happens on YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether the brands want to post their ads next to necessarily censored vids. I'd rather suppose the record labels don't want users to download the explicit versions for free (from the browser cache or using some service on the Net).

Well wait, you posted the same rough comment twice... VEVO is owned by the record companies, so their official approval is meaningless as it's a distinction without a difference. Your posts on this make you sound like a shill. 75.85.48.138 (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not work for VEVO. If I have said the same thing twice, it is because people have asked about this more than once.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Vevo sometimes names the vids incorrectly (deliberately?). Check out this so called "explicit" video for DMX's "Get It On The Floor": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvofs3n2ZmY It actually censors 40% of the words! And also pay attention to the highest rated comment.:-) 21:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

They censored "pistol" in Saliva's Always. They replaced it with "anger", which actually makes no sense in the context in which the word was used.

The censorship is so ridiculous as to be borderline idiotic. It merits a mention in the article. 68.48.209.127 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, VEVO does not censor videos, as it screens "official" videos approved by the record companies involved. This has been a common criticism of VEVO, but it needs to be reliably sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly why I have stopped making edits or adding content on Wikipedia. Nowadays it seems like all articles are written by lawyers. No information is ever adequate, no matter how obvious it is, unless it is "properly sourced". I'm sure pretty soon you won't be able to write a statement like "You need air to breathe" without someone asking for a reliable source. Giuseppe86 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

♦IanMacM♦ do you work for VEVO, an affiliate of theirs or a PR firm?

If you do work for them, perhaps in the interests of neutrality, you could take yourself off of "defending" this page. This page should include a criticism's section. Most of the comments in on Youtube about Vevo are overwhelmingly negative. Stating this fact would not be against neutral point of view. Do I need to quote an academic article to prove that the sky is blue?

The section could read:

"Vevo has been criticized by users of Youtube.com for poor video and sound quality as well as slow download times."

A sentence like this would state the fact, that it is criticized by many people, while at the same time it would remain neutral.

For example. I do not need to quote a reliable source to prove that WW2 happened or Julius Caesar was murdered. These are facts. Certain details about these events do need references.

However, if I was to quote a statistic like "99% of Youtube users say that they do not like Vevo." This would obviously require a reliable source.

I expect this post to be deleted. That is how PR firms quash descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.24.205 (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't work for Vevo or have any links to it. The article has been semi-protected on several occasions because of unsourced commentary and soapboxing. Yes, there has been criticism of VEVO, including lack of availability of videos in certain countries, "official" versions of videos with swear words removed, and too many adverts. However, Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable, which is why unsourced or blog sourced criticism is removed. There has been a problem here, because there has not been a great deal of mainstream media coverage of VEVO. I'm not disputing that there are umpteen "VEVO sucks" comments on YouTube, but message board comments are not a reliable source. Another point to bear in mind is that criticism/controversy sections are not considered to be good Wikipedia writing style, as they lead to issues with WP:NPOV. Having a separate section for criticism/controversy in an article may lead to it being tagged with Template:Criticism section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

But Ian it fits wikipedia guidelines to make a non-specific statement about a widely accepted fact without a need for a source- as 207.6.24.205 so tactlessly put it

Vevo is Evol

It is a well known fact that Vevo is evil.

Hence, there should be a section in the article titled "Vevo is evol" (misspelling for the rhyme).

While we have no reliable sources yet, there will be soon. I am currently working on an essay which will be published in the highly-acclaimed journal, American archivist.

So get started on it and you will have your citations up and ready to go soon enough!

Best Wishes, My IP address —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.143.129 (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree, Vevo is pure evil! everyone should sabotage them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.119.43.30 (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Availability in Ireland

The problem is sourcing per WP:V, because the recent news stories said that the launch was in the UK and none of them mentioned the Republic of Ireland. It is mentioned here, but a message board is not a reliable source. The edit here mentions a TwitPic image which I couldn't find, but this would be WP:OR. VEVO may be available in Ireland, but there needs to be a reliable source mentioning this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Official VEVO Twitter page gives Ireland, so this is OK. Did no reliable source in Ireland mention the launch? Anyway, compared to YouTube, the www.vevo.com site is still far from internationally available, as promised at the launch in December 2009.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Vevo in Bulgaria

Works just fine in Bulgaria. No error and copyright infrigment messages whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.162.215 (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Bulgaria may have access to Vevo, but a reliable source is needed to verify this. 86.41.37.234 (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Appearance of Vevo

I'm not sure how best to include it or in what section, whether a general section about the mechanics of Vevo on youtube etc. is warranted, but it seems a notable component of Vevo that should be included to mention that vevo videos, unlike videos from other uploaders, have massive banners either side of the video promoting the latest musician or whatever. In fact, the fact that vevo's videos on youtube have a different player and format to other videos on youtube, a service which no other video provider on youtube yet has, isn't mentioned at all in the article- to me it seems notable. Perhaps a screenshot of the player on youtube itself hasa helpful place in the article. Thoughts? Veggieburgerfish (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)--

VEVO was originally conceived as a standalone website, but at the moment it is operating primarily as an offshoot of YouTube. The best example of this is that VEVO view counts are included in the YouTube charts, as though they were official YouTube videos. The worldwide launch of VEVO promised for 2010 did not materialize, and VEVO is now a curious hybrid with YouTube as the main host. At the moment, there is no screenshot of the site in the infobox. The main issue with screenshots is WP:NFCC and whether they convey information that cannot be expressed otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Name of article - VEVO or Vevo?

WP:MOSTM is clear on this issue, and says avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS, instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss. The "move warring" is the result of a single editor ignoring this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Facebook to host Vevo?

Facebook in talks to replace YouTube as Vevo's host is on CNET today. It has not been added to the article, because the phrase "the discussions are very preliminary" creates too much WP:CRYSTALBALL on the basis of a news story at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Vevo and swear words

This issue has caused some confusion in the past. YouTube was created in 2005 as a platform for home videos. It soon became clear that members of the public were uploading pop videos, even though they did not own the copyright and were not supposed to do this. The big record companies never liked YouTube, and wanted a separate platform along the lines of MTV. The versions of videos on Vevo are intended to be broadly in line with MTV policies, although they are not bound by FCC guidelines such as the classic Seven dirty words, which were supposed to be "banned".

The claim that there are no swear words in Vevo videos is incorrect; check out Big Sean - Dance (A$$) Remix ft. Nicki Minaj (NSFW). Big Sean and Nicki Minaj may qualify for a bar of soap in the mouth each after this performance.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

VEVOCertified Awards

Although the information in the table is correct as of today, it will require constant updates. Past attempts at adding viewing figure charts to YouTube have been reverted for this reason. If the table goes out of date quickly, it would be better not to have it at all.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Gangnam Style and Ai Se Eu Te Pego

I don't think they should be in the VevoCertified list as they have no relationship with Vevo. That would make the list as follows:

1. Baby - Justin Bieber featuring Ludacris

2. On the Floor - Jennifer Lopez featuring Pitbull

3. Love the Way You Lie - Eminem featuring Rihanna

4. Party Rock Anthem - LMFAO featuring Lauren Bennett and GoonRock

5. Waka Waka (This Time For Africa) - Shakira featuring Freshlyground

6. Bad Romance - Lady Gaga

7. Danza Kuduro - Don Omar featuring Lucenzo

8. Not Afraid - Eminem

9. Rain Over Me - Pitbull featuring Marc Anthony

10. Rolling in the Deep - Adele --187.7.103.16 (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Explanation

Check this: Gangnam Style on VEVO.com It is on the official VEVO site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UPS Salla (talk • contribs) 19:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

For hopefully the last time, this is not hosted on Vevo. It is on the officialpsy channel on YouTube. It does not feature the word Vevo anywhere in the branding (screenshot). Compare this to Justin Bieber - Baby ft. Ludacris (screenshot). End of.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ai Se Eu Te Pego is not on Vevo either, as previously mentioned above (screenshot).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting because this New York Times story from 13 December 2012 says that Gangnam Style was not originally on Vevo, which is undoubtedly correct.[7]. The song was added to YouTube on 15 July 2012, and its views there are not strictly Vevo views, which is why it does not feature in the year end charts of Vevo.[8] For this reason, I am still not happy about saying that Gangnam Style has 971 million Vevo views, as Vevo itself does not claim this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues with saying that Gangnam Style is the most viewed video on Vevo. This is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The Official YouTube Blog for 17 December 2012 says that Gangnam Style is the most viewed YouTube video of 2012 [9] but it has been excluded from the Vevo 2012 charts because it was not on Vevo for much of the year. The problem is that YouTube and Vevo have never been fully separate organizations. Vevo is still showing Gangnam Style as 0 views on the site, which is bizarre. Vevo seems to be in a tizzy over this, as adding the YouTube views of Gangnam Style to Vevo would automatically make it the most viewed video on Vevo, possibly upsetting performers like Carly Rae Jepsen in the process. It is now very hard to say what is the most viewed video on Vevo, because the site has hosted the video without giving it a view count.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Re this edit. Gangnam Style is still showing as 0 views on Vevo.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

New logo?

Pressjennif has changed the logo, saying "I work for VEVO. This is our current and correct logo. Please do not change". The problem is that the font does not appear to have changed on http://www.vevo.com , or on the Twitter feed at https://twitter.com/VEVO . Nor could I find any recent news article saying that Vevo has changed its logo. Until this happens, the current logo should stay.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• As of today (12 March 2013) the logo has changed on the site and the Twitter feed, so the article has been changed accordingly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Vevo TV Repetitive

The current edits on Vevo TV being repetitive should stand. Trying to pressure vevo to increase their variety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.36.151 (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox! Its an encyclopedia, and any attempts at misusing Wikipedia as a soapbox should be treated as clear cut vandalism. Sitethief~_{talk to me}~ 21:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should also say the pros and cons of certain things and this is most definitely a con and a big one at that. Wikipedia does this in other articles, how the hell is this any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.36.151 (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It may well be true that Vevo TV is playing the same videos over and over again, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Unless a reliable source picks up on this, it cannot be mentioned in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

--Watch the channel, there's your source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.36.150 (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Vevo TV playlist March 2013

Currently the playlist on Vevo TV is heavily repetitive, with the top 10 videos on their site airing throughout the day. Some videos even are aired twice per hour, − − Current videos in extremely heavy rotation on Vevo TV − − Lil Wayne- Love me − Lil Wayne- mirror − French Montana - Pop that − Rick Ross - Diced Pineapples − Drake- Started from the bottom − Rihanna- Stay − Pink- Just Give me a reason − A$ap Rocky- F***in problems − 2 Chainz - no lie − Justin Timberlake- Suit and Tie (live on SNL) − August Alsina- I love This − Kelly Clarkson) Catch my breath − Aviicii - X You -New Kids on the block- Remix (I like this) these videos air in a typical hour on Vevo TV and occupy most of it's rotation.

It is disappointing that this was added again without any sourcing. It is classic original research and would need a source to provide verifiability and notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_activity_from_IP_range_at_Vevo_article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ownership

Someone recently changed the ownership of Vevo from Sony/Universal to E1 Entertainment, can someone provide a reference for this? All news articles seem to indicate the Sony/Universal are the majority owners, with possible stakes held by Google, Facebook or Abu Dhabi Media! It seems suspicious that no recent article mentions E1 as an investor!

Also, regardless of current ownership, the fact that it was originally founded by the record companies should remain in the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungAndFoolish (talk • contribs) 09:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this was reverted per WP:V. At the moment, I cannot find any reliable sourcing to the effect that Vevo is now a subsidiary of E1 Entertainment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 August 2013

Lady Gaga's Applause needs to be removed from the "Previous Records" List. It has never broke the 24 hour record, it did not even come close to it and the Tweet Figures have also yet to be verified. Thank You

Lady Gaga have now 8 videos with "Paparazzi" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.157.159.240 (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be Already done. BryanG (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2013

Taylor Swift should also be in the Artists with most certified videos category. She just got her 6th Vevo Certification for her music video 22 . Source: Official Vevo Twitter Account https://twitter.com/VEVO/status/379747374807019521

Anticore22 (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This page is no longer protected, so anyone may make this change, as long as it is supported by WP:RS. I'm not sure if Twitter is one. RudolfRed (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Request of Edition: Vevo certified video

Lady Gaga has the third record of the fastest vevo certified video with 38 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.234.207.196 (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 November 2013

One Direction's "Story of My Life" should be added to "Videos with most views in first 24 hours". They beat themselves with 12.5 million views, putting them at #2 on the list. Source: VEVO Twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.171.40 (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be Already done.

Most Viewed VEVO Videos in 24 Hours

fuck you all one direction midnight memories are gonna break the vevo record ya shower of cunts 121.127.207.215 (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be Already done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgeforyou101 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Most Views in 24 hours

This list needs to be updated. Adore You by Miley Cyrus has broken into the top 8 most views in 24 hours, with I believe 5.8 million, which would set the video in 7th, knocking Stupid Hoe by Nicki Minaj off the list. You can clearly see by looking at the music video's statistics on YouTube that it's views in 24 hours are about 6 million. The dates would be December 26-27. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.157.147 (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2014

Please change

|- |9 |"Wrecking Ball" | Miley Cyrus | 458.132.657 |- |10 |"Not Afraid" | Eminem | 471.980.287 |}

to

|- |9 |"Not Afraid" | Eminem | 472.547.684 |- |10 |"What Makes You Beautiful" | / One Direction | 469.084.199 |}

because as seen on the YouTube pages for the videos, Eminem's "Not Afraid" video has 472,547,684 views, One Direction's "What Makes You Beautiful" has 469,084,199 views and Miley Cyrus' "Wrecking Ball" has only 460,703,463 views as of 4th January 2014 which would put Not Afraid in 9th place, What Makes You Beautiful in 10th place and would put Wrecking Ball into 11th.

Snoildnasregitdnasraeb (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This could be done, but it does illustrate the problem with WP:NOTSTATS and WP:RECENTISM that this section has. It would be necessary to update the table on an almost daily basis to prevent this sort of thing from happening.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the play counts are changing constantly and this makes it difficult to keep up to date. I was originally going to report that despite the view count for Not Afraid being higher, it's still listed below Wrecking Ball in the table. I checked the view counts for Wrecking Ball and Not Afraid to see which had more, not necessarily paying attention to the exact count and happened to notice that What Makes You Beautiful also had more than Wrecking Ball. Since Wrecking Ball being listed above Not Afraid is an actual error, it has fewer views, rather than a case of being out of date, surely this could be corrected and at the same time, the fact that Wrecking Ball is listed above What Makes You Beautiful could also be corrected. Also, since What Makes You Beautiful is a much older video than Wrecking Ball, it seems unlikely that it being not on the list is due to the list not being updated frequently and more likely due to an error by someone editing the page. Snoildnasregitdnasraeb (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but are you going off the YouTube videos rather than the actual Vevo videos posted on the actual Vevo website? Because the view counts are quite different in some cases. On Vevo.com What Makes You Beautiful by One Direction has 479.13 million views while Wrecking Ball has 481.63 million views. I think it's much more appropriate to use numbers off the Vevo website than YouTube. 74.51.157.147 (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Do not restore the "Certified" list.

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"

Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2012, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely.

The list is a questionable industry metric, and does not provide a significant aid in navigation to the articles listed per Wikipedia:Lists. Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vevo Certified music videos.

Thank you, ViperSnake151  Talk  18:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I said the same thing in the section above. However, it was restored almost as soon as it was deleted. The lists and charts have reached unencyclopedic proportions. This article is about Vevo as a company, not long lists which fail WP:NOTSTATS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2014

BoStyles (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Informations aren't real.Numbers are wrong,please let me edit. Thanks,

• It is precisely because of recent irresponsible editing and vandalism, perhaps introducing errors, that this article is currently protected. Please identify any specific issues with the article and/or recommended sources for the correct information below, and one or more confirmed editors will consider making the changes you would recommend. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed before; it would take daily editing and checking to ensure that all of the figures were correct. This is one of the reasons why the statistics sections are unsatisfactory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014

I think the statistics should be restored, at least on a different article. The statistics are the reason I bothered to check this page once in a while, and they were compelling. They provide information concerning the VEVO videos, which is now completely gone.

Please change the statistics back. Coacado (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What matters here is Wikipedia policy, in particular WP:NOTSTATS and WP:RECENTISM. The charts have grown to unnecessary size in relation to the rest of the text in the article, and need constant updating.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, i agree with user:ianmacm, but i want make a question, Are the rankings deleted in vevo portal?. Connie (A.K) (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Vevo does not maintain an ongoing list of most viewed videos in the style of the Billboard Hot 100, so the charts given by Wikipedia were a form of original research. YouTube once had charts at http://www.youtube.com/charts but has stopped doing this.[10] In December 2013, Vevo published a list of the ten most viewed videos of the year.[11]. The article List of most viewed YouTube videos is similar to the Vevo charts. There are third party sites, such as Vidstatsx which list the Vevo channels with the most subscribers and Videotrine for YouTube/Vevo. These are unofficial charts, not endorsed by the sites concerned..--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. So, the list are unnecessary. original research. I agree. Connie (A.K) (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section?

Problem:

Article does not explain simply and clearly what VEVO actually does. Does it own those videos? How does it actually contribute? Does it do anything at all? Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.237.178 (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of criticism of Vevo by different sources, on issues such as it pushing home user videos out of the spotlight (I saw a TON of this when "Bad Romance" hit more total views than "Charlie Bit My Finger") and its publishing of only censored versions of videos. It seems to have a lot of critics of its recent influence on YouTube. Many of the highest rated user comments on several videos are statements like "FUCK VEVO" as well. I've heard people claim that Vevo is likely inflating the view counts on its videos in one way or another too. I feel like someone should maybe compile a section covering this type of information.Josh (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Separate criticism sections are not usually good writing style, as they can become magnets for soapboxing and WP:COATRACK edits. Vevo has picked up a fair amount of criticism from regular YouTube users, but criticism needs to be reliably sourced rather than unsourced personal opinion. The charts on Vevo are a puzzle, because it seems odd that some of the videos on Vevo have managed to achieve more views in a few months than Charlie Bit My Finger or Evolution of Dance did in several years. However, it is hard to comment on the ratings system without proper sourcing. Vevo has also been criticized for showing censored versions of videos, but even in the days of YouTube, Avril Lavigne was blanked in Girlfriend when she sang "I'm the mother****ing princess". Some pop videos have NSFW content, and they tend to be toned down for Vevo. There are a lot of comments on Vevo videos criticizing the service, but they are not a reliable source that could be used in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

<http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2009/12/how_vevo_makes_google_more_lik.html> Critique of Vevo appearing in the Harvard Business Review. 06:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

i agree there should be a criticism section added because vevo has received a lot criticism from youtube users.

I second that, Vevo is the target of a lot of criticism from the Youtube community, this should be mentioned. Some reasons include removal of other user's videos, often lyrics videos, on copyright ground, the message of the video not being available in "your country," and the ads. The lack of national availability is the source of a lot of hate towards Vevo, I know I was personally irked that the video for Piano Man, by Billy Joel, is not available to me for this reason despite residency in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent1994 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. Not talking about the heavy criticism (found on all of their videos on YouTube) means ignoring an important fact.--Athaba (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. I see an incredible number of "*$#%@ VEVO" comments on YT - and came here wondering why everyone seems to hate it. They do censor some content apparently - but so do lots of other media sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.143.128 (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to add a criticism section twice but the User: ianmacm keeps removing them because he for claims they are "Unsourced" like ian mate if you don't believe vevo is criticized by youtube users check out the vevo videos on youtube there are always many criticizing comments on them everyday — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent1994 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is WP:SPS. I'm not disputing that there are numerous critical comments about Vevo posted on the videos, but since people can say whatever they like on message boards, they are not considered to be a reliable source. This is an ongoing problem, because it would be useful to have some criticism of Vevo in the article, but an anonymous message board posting would not be suitable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps someone could make a request to VEVO that they "respond to criticism of their service"? If only for the SOLE purpose of generating a "reliable reference" (a statement from the company would I suppose technically be a press release, but I don't know what else WOULD be a reliable source.. That says something like, "people have criticized the VEVO service for its alleged censorship of some small bits (like individual single words) content, alleged questions as to whether we can count, as well as <whatever else people seem to hate about it.." I don't know what that is - that's why I typed "Vevo wikipedia" into Google in the first place.. 216.9.142.231 (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Jim

I myself have many criticism for vevo and have to object to the censorship you yourself are creating here Ian... I have to ask you if you can offer proof of these complaints being solely based on 'message boards'

you sir are making post without reliable sourcing... Also sir no where in your articles or responses have you listed a link to define reliable sources...

Please provide those sources otherwise you are doing exactly what you are claiming others here are doing....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.144.232 (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not how it works: The burden of proof is on you.--Matija (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is also on Ian to prove everything else that is written about Vevo on here. Herm... I don't seem to see too many citations for any of this stuff... Oh... is Vevo's website a reliable source? Is Vevo's website more reliable than a personal blog? Just as biased! It is a fact that on nearly every Vevo video the highest rated comment is "Vevo Sucks." I have a feeling that if I was to do a study and select 100 random Vevo videos and determine the number of them that has a Vevo sucks comment on them - and then published my study in a respected academic journal - Ian would still end up deleting the addition to this page! Ian probably works for Vevo. He has been hired to defend them on the internet. But, stopping people from including a criticism section on wikipedia is like putting your finger in a dam. It's a losing battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.166.37 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ian does not work for Vevo. Wikipedia articles should avoid separate "Criticism/Controversy" sections because they are WP:COATRACKs. Saying "Vevo sucks" is easy, but what the article needs is some reliably sourced criticism. The media has said very little about Vevo as a whole, this is an ongoing problem for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's because "the media" does not see things the same way we (the users) do. Professional media sources all all pro-VEVO because they don't understand the whole idea of the criticism. It's a whole conflict-of-interest to rely on these people for information when it comes to the opinions of the users themselves. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{06:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)}

Some of you need to realize that most people on Youtube are saying "Fuck VEVO" because they hate Justin Bieber ads. That's purely personal opinion.

I think that having absolutely no criticism section by citing WP:COATRACK preemptively is an incorrect use of the spirit of this rule and is hindering the WP:NPOV perspective of this article. If the criticism has been reported by a reliable source or by at least a large number of less-than reliable sources, then it should be mentioned here with the appropriate precautions and responses (if citations exist). Let the editors work on the article freely and then discuss how the content should be edited to maintain Wikipedia standards. We must assume good faith WP:AGF. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The page is in desperate need of a criticism section, VeVo viewers are reliable sources imho 82.41.107.218 (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I love how it is claimed youtube users original statements does not constitute a good source for what youtube users are saying. Would it really be more reliable to cite a newspaper article that has nothing but hearsay in it? Obviously youtube users statements are the best sources for their statements. 37.191.220.111 (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

But that's not how wikipedia operates. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means it generally tries to aggregate its citations from secondary sources. 71.93.199.169 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

List of music videos?

What is this list exactly? There should be some introductory text explaining it. Unless there is something notable about the videos in this list, it seems like it is a large, ever-growing, and unsourced list of trivia. ;) 173.172.70.38 (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, as said above, there is a problem with WP:NOTSTATS and WP:RECENTISM here. I am tempted to remove the section, but some people might put it back.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok guys this is easy: Vevo themselves need to have a link on their site of what they consider certified. Once we get an official list (somewhere on the internet) that link can be shared here without messing up the format of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.30.239 (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

lead is too recursive

The lede is logically recursive, and hence very confusing:

Vevo (stylized vevo) is a video hosting service owned and operated by a joint venture of Universal Music Group (UMG), Google, Sony Music Entertainment (SME) and Abu Dhabi Media. It launched on December 8, 2009. The videos on Vevo are syndicated across the web, with Google and Vevo sharing the advertising revenue.

You can't partition X into A, B, C, and D, and then say that revenue from X is shared by B and X. This is a form of infinite regression. It's logically impossible to figure where X revenue goes if it goes to itself and a component of itself. Just the 3rd sentence alone is recursive. Unless Vevo gives all its revenue to charity, it obviously shares its own revenue with itself. It would make a bit more sense if "videos on Vevo" were just a portion of Vevo, but Vevo is defined as being a video hosting service, so "the revenue from videos on Vevo" reduces to "Vevo revenue", hence the clause "Vevo revenue goes to Vevo" is recursive, and worse when we replace "Vevo" with what "Vevo" is defined to be. We ultimately have: "Vevo revenue goes to Vevu, Google, UMG, Google, Sony, and Abu Dhabi". I can't fix it because I'm not familiar enough with the topic to know what the sentences is ultimately trying to say, but someone should do it. Squish7 (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)