In one hand I would love for it to burn to the ground. I hate that place. On the other hand though, the "haters" that have made a home for themselves there would need to seek a new place to spread their shit and that means into the truly great communities out there that are virtually hate free. That would be a sad day.
So yeah, not sure where I stand on this. Great post though. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 community....In 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 entirely and without creative control over the content, ads may > be found on videos that could leave a bad taste in Google's mouth and > yours. > > Beyond that, YouTube costs Google millions each month and I'm just > not sure how long the company really wants to maintain that loss > until it follows a new course. > > Killing YouTube would obviously be the last resort and I think there > are a few options Google has before it's forced to pull the plug. But > if it can't find a way to regulate some of the content that will host > ads and it doesn't attract high-paying advertisers, it's sitting on a > billion dollar mistake that keeps draining cash from its coffers with > each passing day. > > YouTube was the greatest blunder Goolge has ever committed and it > better act quickly if it wants to turn it around. But if it can't > right the ship over the next few years and advertisers start spending > more cash elsewhere, YouTube will be nothing but a repository for > people to upload crappy videos that have no commercial viability. And > for Google, that's unacceptable. > > Google is trying to run a business that is responsible to > shareholders. And while it may have the cash to keep one of the > world's most popular sites running now, popularity of a website, in > and of itself, should not justify its operation. If the company is > losing millions each quarter, I simply don't see why it should keep > it up. > > It may sound ludicrous to shut down such a popular site, but we're > entering a new generation of entertainment in the online space and > pageviews don't always mean success any longer. Especially if a > company is spending millions just trying to keep a website alive. > > I would love to see YouTube survive, but business is business, and if > Google can't turn things around, I simply don't see any other option > for Schmidt and company. > > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > http://heathparks.com >
