I like YouTube, the social video hosting Web site. But why would anyone upload their video work to YouTube when there’s Revver? Revver shares advertising revenue with the owner of the work, and YouTube does not, as far as I know. The only reason I would justify uploading my personal work to YouTube is if I didn’t care about generating any revenues, only populariy. YouTube is certainly a more popular standalone destination, but I’m not sure if that necessarily equates to greater potential popularity for a standalone video (considering syndication, other social news and bookmarking sites, and other means by which videos and content spread).
I wish Flickr would extend its photo-sharing site to video. I’m already engrained in Flickr.