I wrote about this last June. I don't understand why they are so hesitant to open it up to the business/marketing community for $$$. My entire post lays it out.
http://www.jimkukral.com/how-youtube-is-missing-out-on-12-billion-a-year-by-not-having-a-business-channel/ I figure they can make 1.2 Billion a year if they did. And if you're worried about the marketing content ruining the mainstream videos. Wall it off into its own zone. Anyway, I think it's stupid of them to not do this. They have some grand master plan, and that plan might be to fail. Jim Kukral 2220 Superior Viaduct, Suite 3 Cleveland, OH 44113 [email protected] http://www.jimkukral.com http://www.connectwithjim.com (schedule an appointment with me) http://www.twitter.com/jimkukral (follow my every thought!) http://www.TheBizWebCoach.com (coaching & consulting) http://www.BlendthisBook.com (i'm writing a book) On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Rupert <[email protected]> wrote: > This is from the Seattle Times last week. Credit Suisse analyst says > YouTube will cost Google $470m. Bandwidth costs them $360m, content > rights cost them $252m, but sales from advertising are only $240m (um, > "only"). > > Oops. > > If YouTube and Google can't make it work, how the hell is anybody else > supposed to? > > Google is actually hurting the whole online video market by providing > video as a free 'loss leader'? While they can afford to prop up > YouTube's failed business model by subsidizing their massive losses to > the tune of half a billion a year, how can anybody else innovate > sensible revenue models for online video? The "Free" internet is a > massive illusion. > > http://tinyurl.com/c2akgl > > *YouTube set to lose $470M; most ad spots going unsold* > > According to a Credit Suisse analyst, the most popular video Web site > owned by the richest Web site Google will lose $470 million this > year because it sells advertising only on a fraction of its pages. > > For a site that generates as much online traffic as YouTube, it would > seem a no-brainer that profit is streaming in. > > But according to a Credit Suisse analyst, the most popular video Web > site owned by the richest Web site Google will lose $470 million > this year because it sells advertising only on a fraction of its pages. > > YouTube sells ads on less than 3 percent of the Web pages that could > carry commercial messages, analyst Spencer Wang wrote Friday in a note > to clients. To boost that percentage, Google needs to standardize ad > formats and better demonstrate that ads on YouTube help sell products, > he wrote. > > Weakness at YouTube led Wang to cut his 2009 profit estimate for > Google to $4.68 a share from $4.83, according to the report. > > Google stock has fallen more than a third from its 52-week high last > May, hurt by slowing growth in the online-ad market and by the decline > in the broader stock market. > > "Despite the growth of YouTube's user base, there is little evidence > to suggest Google has been able to materially monetize this usage," > Wang wrote. "In light of the current ad recession, experimental > budgets are being trimmed." > > YouTube's sales will rise about 20 percent to $240.9 million this > year, Wang estimated. > > The company may spend $360.4 million for bandwidth to distribute its > video, and $252.9 million to pay content owners for the rights to show > their material, he wrote. > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[email protected] mailto:[email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
