Justin.tv Beats YouTube in Time Per Viewer by 2-1 Margin

I don't think having a more engaged audience is necessarily that good of a metric to look at. The more popular a website is, the more casual viewers it will attract. The fact that justin.tv has such a high viewership time may have more to do with the fact that its audience is tiny, and that viewers kind of have to consciously seek it out. As opposed to youtube, which is one of those timewasters you go to without really thinking. If/when justin.tv grows, it may find its time per viewer ratio shrink proportionally.

Of course, there is absolutely nothing bad about having an engaged viewer base. Especially if that core groups' enthusiasm can be used to help recruit more eyeballs.

This article's analysis is dross. This is purely a selection bias issue. ANY significantly smaller video site with similarly-sized content will have a higher engagement metric.

This is no different than "deep" cable television channels, or really, ANY form of niche media down to individual book authors.

FWIW, A.C. Nielsen knows this all too well and says as much in their "cultural impact" reports (Full Disclosure: I once worked on A.C. Nielsen software). A fact which is conveniently missing from this article.

Considering that YouTube now limits video uploads to 10 minutes in length, this is hardly surprising!

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en...

How much of that time is people watching illegal retransmits of live TV?

It's probably because of puppy cams.