Great. But if you look at the YouTube videos, the links are in the info panel, not in banners or overlays, so I don't know whether it's really a proper display of the effectiveness of annoying Click To Buy text overlays popping up over someone's home video containing a Britney Spears song.
Also, I love 'sales of one DVD box set soared by 23,000 percent'. Classic marketing use of statistics to blur meaning, being (dead) parroted by Mashable from YouTube's blog. Especially with no reference to how many sold before, or over what period this was. If they sold one copy per week of the box set before the channel launched, it'd mean the next week they sold 230. If they sold 100 a day before the channel, it'd mean they sold 230,000 copies the next day. Big difference. On 9-Apr-09, at 9:22 AM, Adam Quirk wrote: > > > It's still early in the game. They're rolling out new revenue models > all the > time. This one seems to be doing well: > > > > > http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/04/09/youtube-launches-click-to-buy-in-eight-new-countries > > > > > Credit Suisse analysts may have to revisit their estimate that > YouTube will > lose $470 million this year. The site has rolled out its Click-to-Buy > program - which is intended to result in quite a lot of revenue- > sharing - in > eight new countries. > > Click-to-Buy's best success > story<http://mashable.com/2009/01/22/youtube-boost-sales/> so > far has probably been that of Monty Python. After the comedy troupe > launched a YouTube channel with links to Amazon, sales of one DVD > boxed set > soared by about 23,000 percent. Not bad for content that's a couple of > decades old, right? > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:09 PM, J. Rhett Aultman > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> ads don't work with ephemeral content. > > > > > > Surely that's exactly where they do work? Most of the media we > > > consume is ephemeral - TV, newspapers, online news, we see adverts > > > alongside those things as they stream into our lives. On-demand > > > video is largely different from that, isn't it? it's short and > self- > > > contained and chosen individually and unlike TV and news, it's not > > > time-sensitive - it's actually less ephemeral. > > > > No; it's actually more ephemeral when you consider it from a > position of > > total impact. The overwhelming majority of YouTube videos reach tiny > > numbers of viewers who consume it once. This bears no comparison > to, say, > > TV or newspapers, which reach much larger audiences. It also bears > no > > comparison to media where there are smaller audiences that accept > repeat > > exposure. Such media are ripe for targeted product placement. > > > > But most YouTube videos simply don't make good raw material for an > ad. > > The audience is small and not defined, the video will be seen once > per > > viewer (who may not even make it the majority of the way through), > the > > producer isn't available to exploit their relationship with the > viewer to > > endorse things...it's basically an advertising void. > > > > > But most of it - 97% apparently - is unmonetizable with > advertising, > > > because individual videos' viewing figures are too low - and maybe > > > it's all too fragmented and uncategorizable, and perhaps > advertisers > > > are not prepared to see their adverts up against every little home > > > video and copyright-infringing clip. Even if those things > eventually > > > collectively gather millions of views and last for a lot longer > than > > > most ephemeral advertising-funded media. > > > > Again, consider "ephemeral" from a standpoint of overall cultural > staying > > power, and not just from how long something is on a screen once, and > > you'll see that the YouTube videos are culturally ephemeral. You > actually > > touch on that issue in your above paragraph. > > > > > According to Credit Suisse, YouTube seems to be making $50-100m > from > > > ads in videos, adjacent banners and sponsored videos. That's as > good > > > as they can do all year, and they have 40% of the total online > video > > > market worldwide, at a time when online video is booming? > > > > Right, and this is because they're monetizing wrong. Let's say > that 40% > > of the car market, in terms of cars on the road, was GM's, and GM > was > > found to be losing money badly. In reality, it's because GM loses > $1 per > > car they sell because they do everything wrong. Is it valid to ask > if > > cars as we know them will be viable? No. It's not that cars aren't > > viable. It's that GM is doing it wrong. > > > > > Sure, online viewership is tiny compared to TV, but the gap > between TV > > > and online video advertising seems to be disproportionately large. > > > > This could have everything to do with a casual numbers game not > showing > > the real details. > > > > > Especially when you'd imagine that online video would provide > greater > > > opportunities for more targeted "addressable" advertising, > supposedly > > > the holy grail. > > > > Imagination isn't reality, though, and presupposition gets you > nowhere. > > If YouTube isn't doing this sufficiently, then they're losing money. > > > > > But the TV ad industry in the US alone is worth $80 billion, 60% > of > > > total advertising spend. Superbowl ads this year earned NBC over > > > $200m - that alone is perhaps between 2 and 4 times as much as > > > Google's making all year from YouTube video ads. > > > > Of course, it's distorting to use the SuperBowl in a good > comparison here, > > because it's well known that the SuperBowl is basically tulip > season for > > advertisers. People spend on those ads because they exist. It's > similar > > to how city after city hosts an Olympic Games but never profits on > the > > venture. > > > > That said, I understand where you're trying to go with this, but > you keep > > treating this as a problem with online video when, in fact, it's a > problem > > with YouTube. Your assumption is that, if YouTube can't do it, > nobody > > can. That itself only makes sense if you can prove that the only > people > > capable of doing it are YouTube and what supporting engineers > Google gives > > them. > > > > > Is online video really that unattractive to advertisers? How is > that > > > going to change? It seems to me that at the moment, short on- > demand > > > online videos are more attractive to the viewers than the > advertisers, > > > and therefore that viewers are likely to pay more for them > directly > > > than advertisers would. > > > > Again, it's not about online video. It's about different classes > of video > > requiring different monetization processes. A huge class of online > video, > > which I'd estimate as the overwhelming majority of YouTube videos, > is > > completely worthless at making money. > > > > As for why micropayments won't work, I'll defer that to Clay > Shirky, who > > said it far better than I ever could: > > > > http://www.shirky.com/writings/fame_vs_fortune.html > > > > > At the moment, they don't have to make the choice, because 40% > of the > > > market is being subsidized by Google at a cost of $500m. No other > > > business could sustain that kind of loss. That's what I mean > about it > > > distorting the market. And if that subsidy disappeared tomorrow, > > > surely something would have to pay for the huge costs of > bandwidth and > > > content in delivering all this video to people? Will that be > > > advertising? Or pay per view? Judging by the stats so far, my > money > > > would be on pay per view, not advertising. > > > > My money would be on an option that you don't seem to consider-- > that > > YouTube would just end, and that people interested in delivering > online > > video would have to pay their own hosting. The end result will be > that we > > will still have the artists, producers, video bloggers, etc, but > what > > we'll lose is the endless archives of cellphone videos of > someone's drunk > > friend falling down or of some random person in London getting > stoned and > > lecturing everyone on history...then getting all the facts wrong. > > > > > But again, that's just a broad personal impression from very > little > > > knowledge or experience. I am just a layman. > > > > I'm just a layman, too, but I just trying to impress on you that > there may > > be more options out there than the handful you're bringing to the > table. > > To wit: > > > > * Online video can sometimes be monetized and sometimes not, just > like > > online text. > > * YouTube has a model that doesn't maximize money over time. > > * If Google doesn't want YouTube to be a loss leader, a possible > outcome > > is that YouTube will end but that online video, as a medium, will > survive. > > Plenty of good video already survives without YouTube. In fact, > some of > > the best and most ready-to-monetize content isn't on YouTube. > > > > -- > > Rhett. > > http://www.weatherlight.com > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
