Re: [videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
I make an effort to keep the Internet Archive updated - I reckon that should outlast us all.. joly At 12:39 2008-06-28, Jay dedman wrote: some videobloggers are building a library of their work...and working hard to build an audience/community/resume. some people are having a lot of fun uploading videos of the moment...not worrying if the videos exist next week. --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
I do need to care because if all the video sharing sites go away, then where am I going to put my video's? Upload to my host? Still learning how to do that, I use the other services because they are easy and I don't have to figure MORE stuff out we've discussed this from time to time: How important are video hosting sites? Yes, they make it easy for beginners to get a video hosted. But i dont think it'd be too difficult to create a system that let you upload to your own server easily. The new wordpress has an open video uploader that could probably handle a built in system as easy as Youtube. Also, when using something like vPIP.org, the player gives you the self-generated embed code and other cool share features. I would love for an embedded player to look like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/2368813105/ Add a support link and you're golden. Yes, video hosting sites handle any bandwidth overloads if your video gets seen ten of thousands of times. A standard hosting package already gives me an incredible amount of storage and bandwidth. More than I now what to do with. But how many videos actually go viral? I'd love to figure out how many views of a 20mb video my $50 annual hosting package could handle each month. Using Amazon S3 lets you scale up easily and affordably on the fly. yes, video hosting sites also offer community. many people go to youtube or blip, do a search, and find your videos on their systemnot on your site. this is really the Youtube draw right now. its a destination site. But this is also why Tubemogul.com is cooljust upload videos to all the free hosting sites. throw a big net. I think i'm just mining the professional vs amateur argument. some videobloggers are building a library of their work...and working hard to build an audience/community/resume. some people are having a lot of fun uploading videos of the moment...not worrying if the videos exist next week. I still upload my videos to blip.tv. i like the guys that made the service, they make it easy for me, they allow really good quality videos, and I buy the blip pro to support their site. I do have my eye on how to host my own videos as easily. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
My concern with youtube is that they don't really seem to want to take it out of the bedroom. I am based in Australia, and I really can't believe the crap that is promoted. Let me give you some examples of three recently promoted videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwvLns2uEhE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRpCWvo7UdU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtx-hT7zFNU So there you three promoted videos that have a go at children, old people and gays. Maybe some of the blame lays with Australian youtube community manager, Damien Estreich http://www.youtube.com/user/YourTubeNEWS, but youtube employ him, so surely have some say in what he chooses to be featured. Is youtube really just the 'revenge of the nerds' giving losers the chance to air their grievances with the world! If so, I think their is room for an online video portal that deals with anything other than vloggers ranting in their bedrooms - documentary, travel, how to, etc etc Mark Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that is really one of the greatest failures of YouTube, how to deal with all those really nasty comments. I will be honest, I can't for the life of me understand why more people don't do something about it. Some of the stuff left as comments are vile, just vilemaybe it really is just a small percentage, but it doesn't seem like it. Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great point. But I'm not sure they'd continue elsewhere - it hasn't happened so far. I think the only reason the haters are so prolific on Youtube is that it's so easy to comment. There's just The Box under every video. You write your shit and press send. You'd think that that ease *should* translate into great community discussion, but it doesn't. Make people do one more thing before they press send - like add their email or URL or a subject line, or have some kind of traceable identity profile - and it becomes too much effort to slap someone and run away. That's my opinion. I have comments approval turned on by default on all my videos on YouTube. If anyone writes anything hateful, I block them AND mark them as spammers AND report them. They should all be hunted and killed. On 16-Jun-08, at 3:28 PM, Clintus wrote: 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 heathparks@ 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
[videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People want: - Professional content - Viral content - Important content Most user-gen content does not fit within these constructs. At least not on a consistent basis. And most people should not care. The Audience of 10. If you do care about how large of an audience you have and you do want to try and monetize, then you will need to output professional and/or important content. You'll have to fill in the blanks here. sull I do need to care because if all the video sharing sites go away, then where am I going to put my video's? Upload to my host? Still learning how to do that, I use the other services because they are easy and I don't have to figure MORE stuff out Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com
[videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
I think that is really one of the greatest failures of YouTube, how to deal with all those really nasty comments. I will be honest, I can't for the life of me understand why more people don't do something about it. Some of the stuff left as comments are vile, just vilemaybe it really is just a small percentage, but it doesn't seem like it. Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great point. But I'm not sure they'd continue elsewhere - it hasn't happened so far. I think the only reason the haters are so prolific on Youtube is that it's so easy to comment. There's just The Box under every video. You write your shit and press send. You'd think that that ease *should* translate into great community discussion, but it doesn't. Make people do one more thing before they press send - like add their email or URL or a subject line, or have some kind of traceable identity profile - and it becomes too much effort to slap someone and run away. That's my opinion. I have comments approval turned on by default on all my videos on YouTube. If anyone writes anything hateful, I block them AND mark them as spammers AND report them. They should all be hunted and killed. On 16-Jun-08, at 3:28 PM, Clintus wrote: 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 heathparks@ 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
[videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
Unfortunately, the way to deal with comments on YouTube is to turn them off. :) Unfortunately, as we've mentioned on this group several times, a lot of the so-called hits on youtube are from people that DON'T like the videos. If a video gets featured, there are a lot of hits from people that will click any image they see on the front page of a web site, especially if there's an attractive female on that thumbnail. Some people show up specifically to be griefers, so the only way around that is to have some system where the content creator has to specifically approve people to comment on their videos, or turn off commenting altogether. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that is really one of the greatest failures of YouTube, how to deal with all those really nasty comments. I will be honest, I can't for the life of me understand why more people don't do something about it. Some of the stuff left as comments are vile, just vilemaybe it really is just a small percentage, but it doesn't seem like it. Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: Great point. But I'm not sure they'd continue elsewhere - it hasn't happened so far. I think the only reason the haters are so prolific on Youtube is that it's so easy to comment. There's just The Box under every video. You write your shit and press send. You'd think that that ease *should* translate into great community discussion, but it doesn't. Make people do one more thing before they press send - like add their email or URL or a subject line, or have some kind of traceable identity profile - and it becomes too much effort to slap someone and run away. That's my opinion. I have comments approval turned on by default on all my videos on YouTube. If anyone writes anything hateful, I block them AND mark them as spammers AND report them. They should all be hunted and killed. On 16-Jun-08, at 3:28 PM, Clintus wrote: 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 heathparks@ 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
[videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
But here is the interesting thing, at least for me, is that most people seem to be willing to take all the crap, just in the HOPES that their video does go viral. It's like some kind of badge or something. It's weird... Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, the way to deal with comments on YouTube is to turn them off. :) Unfortunately, as we've mentioned on this group several times, a lot of the so-called hits on youtube are from people that DON'T like the videos. If a video gets featured, there are a lot of hits from people that will click any image they see on the front page of a web site, especially if there's an attractive female on that thumbnail. Some people show up specifically to be griefers, so the only way around that is to have some system where the content creator has to specifically approve people to comment on their videos, or turn off commenting altogether. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: I think that is really one of the greatest failures of YouTube, how to deal with all those really nasty comments. I will be honest, I can't for the life of me understand why more people don't do something about it. Some of the stuff left as comments are vile, just vilemaybe it really is just a small percentage, but it doesn't seem like it. Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: Great point. But I'm not sure they'd continue elsewhere - it hasn't happened so far. I think the only reason the haters are so prolific on Youtube is that it's so easy to comment. There's just The Box under every video. You write your shit and press send. You'd think that that ease *should* translate into great community discussion, but it doesn't. Make people do one more thing before they press send - like add their email or URL or a subject line, or have some kind of traceable identity profile - and it becomes too much effort to slap someone and run away. That's my opinion. I have comments approval turned on by default on all my videos on YouTube. If anyone writes anything hateful, I block them AND mark them as spammers AND report them. They should all be hunted and killed. On 16-Jun-08, at 3:28 PM, Clintus wrote: 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 heathparks@ 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
[videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
I think that yes, there are more users of online video than ever, I just wonder how many of those people though are really interested in user generated content, on a mass adoption level. I mean let's face it, if Google can't figure out a way to make money off YouTube, then all the VC money with these other companies are going to dry up. It will happen. I think most of the people who are online watching video's want to see professional contentI hope I am wrong, but I fear that I'm not Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
People want: - Professional content - Viral content - Important content Most user-gen content does not fit within these constructs. At least not on a consistent basis. And most people should not care. The Audience of 10. If you do care about how large of an audience you have and you do want to try and monetize, then you will need to output professional and/or important content. You'll have to fill in the blanks here. sull On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that yes, there are more users of online video than ever, I just wonder how many of those people though are really interested in user generated content, on a mass adoption level. I mean let's face it, if Google can't figure out a way to make money off YouTube, then all the VC money with these other companies are going to dry up. It will happen. I think most of the people who are online watching video's want to see professional contentI hope I am wrong, but I fear that I'm not Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
Time to make sure you still have your own copies of all the videos you've uploaded to sharing sites. I still can't get past YouTube's quality. I don't mean content quality - I mean Basic Picture Quality. I mean COME ON. It's three years since they officially launched and they *still* can't raise the quality of their Flash codec? What seemed a smart move to begin with - allowing maximum viewership with no requirements to upgrade Flash Player - has turned into a tired-looking mess. Apart from being unattractive to content producers, who the hell is going to want to spend millions of dollars putting their beautifully made adverts on something so shitty? Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 16-Jun-08, at 1:36 PM, Sull wrote: People want: - Professional content - Viral content - Important content Most user-gen content does not fit within these constructs. At least not on a consistent basis. And most people should not care. The Audience of 10. If you do care about how large of an audience you have and you do want to try and monetize, then you will need to output professional and/or important content. You'll have to fill in the blanks here. sull On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that yes, there are more users of online video than ever, I just wonder how many of those people though are really interested in user generated content, on a mass adoption level. I mean let's face it, if Google can't figure out a way to make money off YouTube, then all the VC money with these other companies are going to dry up. It will happen. I think most of the people who are online watching video's want to see professional contentI hope I am wrong, but I fear that I'm not Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, 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
[videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
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 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
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
Great point. But I'm not sure they'd continue elsewhere - it hasn't happened so far. I think the only reason the haters are so prolific on Youtube is that it's so easy to comment. There's just The Box under every video. You write your shit and press send. You'd think that that ease *should* translate into great community discussion, but it doesn't. Make people do one more thing before they press send - like add their email or URL or a subject line, or have some kind of traceable identity profile - and it becomes too much effort to slap someone and run away. That's my opinion. I have comments approval turned on by default on all my videos on YouTube. If anyone writes anything hateful, I block them AND mark them as spammers AND report them. They should all be hunted and killed. On 16-Jun-08, at 3:28 PM, Clintus wrote: 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 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
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
For sure Beach Walks is an oddity but we actually get nice comments on YT. Only rarely do we get spammy ones, and I do the same thing Rupert does with no feelings of guilt whatsoever. There are so many uses of YT now - incredible archives there - enter any topic and you will find videos about it (try surgery...) And there are also many smart and caring users there too. We all share the same space with each other in theory but actually there are lots of sub-communities happening that could be more discoverable and useful potentially. That's the 2 cents department. Rox On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great point. But I'm not sure they'd continue elsewhere - it hasn't happened so far. I think the only reason the haters are so prolific on Youtube is that it's so easy to comment. There's just The Box under every video. You write your shit and press send. You'd think that that ease *should* translate into great community discussion, but it doesn't. Make people do one more thing before they press send - like add their email or URL or a subject line, or have some kind of traceable identity profile - and it becomes too much effort to slap someone and run away. That's my opinion. I have comments approval turned on by default on all my videos on YouTube. If anyone writes anything hateful, I block them AND mark them as spammers AND report them. They should all be hunted and killed. On 16-Jun-08, at 3:28 PM, Clintus wrote: 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 videoblogging%40yahoogroups.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 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
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Should Google Kill Youtube?
I'm glad my comment about hunting and killing people was followed up by Rox. I feel better now. On 16-Jun-08, at 6:15 PM, Roxanne Darling wrote: For sure Beach Walks is an oddity but we actually get nice comments on YT. Only rarely do we get spammy ones, and I do the same thing Rupert does with no feelings of guilt whatsoever. There are so many uses of YT now - incredible archives there - enter any topic and you will find videos about it (try surgery...) And there are also many smart and caring users there too. We all share the same space with each other in theory but actually there are lots of sub-communities happening that could be more discoverable and useful potentially. That's the 2 cents department. Rox On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great point. But I'm not sure they'd continue elsewhere - it hasn't happened so far. I think the only reason the haters are so prolific on Youtube is that it's so easy to comment. There's just The Box under every video. You write your shit and press send. You'd think that that ease *should* translate into great community discussion, but it doesn't. Make people do one more thing before they press send - like add their email or URL or a subject line, or have some kind of traceable identity profile - and it becomes too much effort to slap someone and run away. That's my opinion. I have comments approval turned on by default on all my videos on YouTube. If anyone writes anything hateful, I block them AND mark them as spammers AND report them. They should all be hunted and killed. On 16-Jun-08, at 3:28 PM, Clintus wrote: 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 videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.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 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,
