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 content....I 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 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Roxanne Darling > > "o ke kai" means "of the sea" in hawaiian > > Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more > > http://reef.beachwalks.tv > > 808-384-5554 > > Video --> http://www.beachwalks.tv > > Company -- > http://www.barefeetstudios.com > > Twitter--> http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
