[videoblogging] Should Google Kill Youtube?
Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't even matter. Let's face it -- the YouTube acquisition was a major blunder and regardless of how successful the company is in other areas, there's no reason to suggest advertisers are willing and ready to place ads on videos of 18-year olds shooting milk out their nose or 80-year old men mooning a parade. As far as I can tell, much of the online advertising money is going to sites like Hulu where the content is controlled, the shows are regulated, and the demographics of the audience are easily obtained. How does YouTube and its content compare? The audience is huge, but it's filled with a diverse set of people who generally view a select few of the more popular videos; the videos are barely regulated; and the content isn't controlled in the least. Why should any advertiser want to send cash to a service like that? Now I understand that Google wants to be a major part of the boom in online video advertising and I can't blame the company for it. But doesn't it understand the average company that's trying to make people want a given product? It's as if Google believes that sheer popularity is the only factor that advertisers use before they start throwing cash around. But what about perception or target audience? Did Google forget about hitting the right market segment or putting ads in the right place at the right time? Now, I should note that this doesn't mean that YouTube won't find itself advertisers. Certainly there are companies that would be more than happy to spend money on YouTube, but what kind exactly? Will YouTube become the dump of advertising where strip clubs and brothels will advertise on sexually-oriented videos and unknown politicians will sell themselves on left- or right-leaning clips? I certainly don't see Johnson and Johnson sending ad dollars to YouTube anytime soon. Lost amid the shuffle, though, is the question of ad dollars itself. How does Google monetize YouTube on videos that you create? Sure, it figured out the online business, but video is a totally different game
Re: [videoblogging] Should Google Kill Youtube?
Interesting indeed. I couldn't believe how badly they botched Google Video. They never should have had to buy Youtube in the first place. I'm surprised though that Youtube isn't bringing in much money. On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't even matter. Let's face it -- the YouTube acquisition was a major blunder and regardless of how successful the company is in other areas, there's no reason to suggest advertisers are willing and ready to place ads on videos of 18-year olds shooting milk out their nose or 80-year old men mooning a parade. As far as I can tell, much of the online advertising money is going to sites like Hulu where the content is controlled, the shows are regulated, and the demographics of the audience are easily obtained. How does YouTube and its content compare? The audience is huge, but it's filled with a diverse set of people who generally view a select few of the more popular videos; the videos are barely regulated; and the content isn't controlled in the least. Why should any advertiser want to send cash to a service like that? Now I understand that Google wants to be a major part of the boom in online video advertising and I can't blame the company for it. But doesn't it understand the average company that's trying to make people want a given product? It's as if Google believes that sheer popularity is the only factor that advertisers use before they start throwing cash around. But what about perception or target audience? Did Google forget about hitting the right market segment or putting ads in the right place at the right time? Now, I should note that this doesn't mean that YouTube won't find itself advertisers. Certainly there are companies that would be more than happy to spend money on YouTube, but what kind exactly? Will YouTube become the dump of advertising where strip clubs and brothels will advertise on sexually-oriented videos and unknown politicians will sell themselves on left- or right-leaning clips? I certainly
Re: [videoblogging] Should Google Kill Youtube?
Fascinating Heath - thank you for posting it. It may be one of the harbingers of the bursting bubble of internet video. The main thing I see different between this bubble and the first bubble, is that back then, it was the creators who got the investors all excited about their ideas. Now, it is the users who are driving demand. There still is an absence of many sustainable finance models, but to me there is a huge difference between a few geeks with cool ideas and millions of users demanding their daily fix of video. Think of the research value the political campaigns are getting from being to search all the old stuff (embarrassing speeches) that are steadily being posted online. Aloha, Rox On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting indeed. I couldn't believe how badly they botched Google Video. They never should have had to buy Youtube in the first place. I'm surprised though that Youtube isn't bringing in much money. On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]heathparks%40msn.com wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't even matter. Let's face it -- the YouTube acquisition was a major blunder and regardless of how successful the company is in other areas, there's no reason to suggest advertisers are willing and ready to place ads on videos of 18-year olds shooting milk out their nose or 80-year old men mooning a parade. As far as I can tell, much of the online advertising money is going to sites like Hulu where the content is controlled, the shows are regulated, and the demographics of the audience are easily obtained. How does YouTube and its content compare? The audience is huge, but it's filled with a diverse set of people who generally view a select few of the more popular videos; the videos are barely regulated; and the content isn't controlled in the least. Why should any advertiser want to send cash to a service like that? Now I understand that Google wants to be
Re: [videoblogging] Should Google Kill Youtube?
Interesting. To me, Youtube appears more ghetto than other video sharing services, but it's getting the most eyeballs so why isn't Youtube making money? Granted it does bleed incredibly for bandwidth / month, but Youtube does remain center of attention for more users and even mainstream media. I'd say Google should start having a subscription model in place (e.g. Youtube Pro) to resolve that problem altogether. Kevin Lim Social Media Provocateur http://theory.isthereason.com This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private email locator: ╔╗╔═╦╗ ║╚╣║║╚╗ ╚═╩═╩═╝ On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fascinating Heath - thank you for posting it. It may be one of the harbingers of the bursting bubble of internet video. The main thing I see different between this bubble and the first bubble, is that back then, it was the creators who got the investors all excited about their ideas. Now, it is the users who are driving demand. There still is an absence of many sustainable finance models, but to me there is a huge difference between a few geeks with cool ideas and millions of users demanding their daily fix of video. Think of the research value the political campaigns are getting from being to search all the old stuff (embarrassing speeches) that are steadily being posted online. Aloha, Rox On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting indeed. I couldn't believe how badly they botched Google Video. They never should have had to buy Youtube in the first place. I'm surprised though that Youtube isn't bringing in much money. On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]heathparks%40msn.com wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't even matter. Let's face it -- the YouTube acquisition was a major blunder and regardless of how successful the company is in other areas, there's no reason to suggest advertisers are willing and ready to place ads on videos of 18-year
Re: [videoblogging] Should Google Kill Youtube?
Heath - this inspired me to blog today. Thank you!http://is.gd/yDy Rox 2008/6/16 Kevin Lim [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Interesting. To me, Youtube appears more ghetto than other video sharing services, but it's getting the most eyeballs so why isn't Youtube making money? Granted it does bleed incredibly for bandwidth / month, but Youtube does remain center of attention for more users and even mainstream media. I'd say Google should start having a subscription model in place (e.g. Youtube Pro) to resolve that problem altogether. Kevin Lim Social Media Provocateur http://theory.isthereason.com This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private email locator: ¥¨¥ ¸¨ ¡«µ¡¡«¨ « » » ® On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fascinating Heath - thank you for posting it. It may be one of the harbingers of the bursting bubble of internet video. The main thing I see different between this bubble and the first bubble, is that back then, it was the creators who got the investors all excited about their ideas. Now, it is the users who are driving demand. There still is an absence of many sustainable finance models, but to me there is a huge difference between a few geeks with cool ideas and millions of users demanding their daily fix of video. Think of the research value the political campaigns are getting from being to search all the old stuff (embarrassing speeches) that are steadily being posted online. Aloha, Rox On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting indeed. I couldn't believe how badly they botched Google Video. They never should have had to buy Youtube in the first place. I'm surprised though that Youtube isn't bringing in much money. On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]heathparks%40msn.com wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't even matter. Let's
