Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Won't Sell For Less Than $1.5 Billion
Joel from Sydney writes "According to a report in the New York Post, YouTube has informed potential buyers it won't be sold for anything less than $1.5 billion. The report lists Viacom, Disney, AOL, eBay and News Corp as potential buyers. Given that News Corp purchased MySpace last year for $580 million, is this a realistic figure?" From the article: "YouTube's stated business model is to 'pursue advertising,' but potential advertisers might be skittish considering industry estimates that roughly 90 percent of the content viewed on its site violates copyright laws. And at least one giant, Universal Music, is threatening to sue the company if its artists' songs keep appearing there. As it tries to focus on videos that don't use content owned by media companies, it yesterday launched the YouTube Underground, a contest to 'discover the most talented unsigned bands and musicians on YouTube,' backed by Cingular Wireless, Gibson Guitar and ABC's 'Good Morning America.'"
When you've gotten so big that people are afraid you're controlling free speech and the press, then I don't think $1.5 billion is too much to ask.
Remember, the CEO of News Corp is Rupert Murdoch. Everything you see with the Fox logo is his. Its yearly revenue is around $24 billion. "News Corp" is a nice generic name that no one remembers while it's holdings grow out of control. Whenever you see Fox or Myspace or anything listed in the link above, you should be thinking one thing: "It's all News Corp under the direction of one man."
Pretty scary when you think about it.
My work here is dung.
Let's see... Internet company... flaky business model... outrageous amounts of money... well, my time machine works -- I must be back in 1998!
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
for about $2B, then it's not so much. And Broadcast.com (Mark Cuban's "invention") didn't really work yet. And I'll bet he's grousing that his current HD venture can't get that figure because it's not as evolved, and certainly not as popular as YouTube.
The price is huge, but it's not out of line with web-based social properties. Not that it's fair.... but the future revenues if it's managed well could be very big.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
They want their business model back.
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
Really, enjoy it while you can, because the record companies will sue YouTube into the ground. Soon.
So this company will not be worth anything in a year.
True, but isn't the price difference Content vs Distribution?
I'd assume that content would always surpass the value of distribution, but maybe that's what's changing.
"If A equals success, then the formua is A=X+Y+Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut" - A Einstein.
....pay for the bandwidth. How do they manage to pay for it now? I'd love to see some figures on their revenue vs costs.
I'd love to believe that. But given the fact that Yahoo just tendered $900 million for Facebook while leaving much of the company's structure unruffled, one billion or more isn't out of the question for a notorious web service. At least it's getting closer to the $2 billion they really desire.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
Can I borrow your chicken for a while...?
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Or, to put it another way, I think there are better alternatives to suing and the record companies have figured this out. When they sued Napster, Kazaa & eDonkey and then started suing users, I don't think their profits went up. I mean, they might have gotten a few million from the companies and a few thousand from the users that year. But they destroyed something that they could have taken advantage of. Most industries would kill for an infrastructure of people acting as their own marketing tools spreading their product around. Now, it was illegal because the product was being copied illegally. But if the record companies could have taken a look at the business model and adapted it to suit their needs and sued for the ability to call the shots instead of just pure cash, I think they would have come out further ahead in the long run.
You see, if the record companies looked at YouTube and tried to drive them in the ground, they'd only be trying to suppress something that has come about naturally. Why don't they just claim what is theirs and demand all the copyrighted material ad revenue goes straight to them? Why don't they try to work something out with YouTube in an attempt to generate a recurring income? I mean, surely YouTube can keep the quality down on the work or restrict it to certain songs so that people will feel compelled to purchase CDs/DVDs, can't they?
I think YouTube is like a wild stallion and the record industry is afraid of it. They can either shoot it dead (but that will just spawn more) or tame it and generate a steady income from it.
My work here is dung.
If someone is insane enough to offer that much, well hot damn! Take the cash and run! Otherwise, they get to go about their business, with a bit more buzz-implied value than before.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Wow, now its a 5 step plan, pretty soon 12
Yeah, we all laughed at the sock puppet and the Superbowl ads, but there is still mega-profit in the
The coolest thing is that I heard on the news the other day where people at the other megacorps are realizing that there is profit in copyright infringement. Madonna's people are OK for uploaded stuff on youtube because they realize its free advertising. Much like the bands that allow taping of their concerts (we are looking at you Bob Weir). Who knows, maybe we can soon buy music in unencumbered digital formats at real market value. Maybe.
What, exactly, does youtube have that can't be easily copied?
Popularity?
OK, besides roads, aqueducts, public education and popularity, what, exactly does youtube have that can't be easily copied?
steampunk web design
Mark parent "informative" .I just imagined 1.5 bill worth of chicken shit... and how it smells. - I do not want repeat the experience
The Internet Archive, which is a nonprofit, is also in the free video archiving business. Their main concern has been storage, of which they now have petabytes. Making the system friendly to the casual user has been a lower priority, and the Archive has a tiny staff. But you can get an Archive account and upload your video right now. If you have anything of historical significance, please do so.
The Archive has had some problems with bandwidth, but they just moved to a new data center, and that's improving. Last year, they obtained an archive of Greatful Dead recordings, which can be played out as streaming audio. The Deadheads, with their short-term memory loss problems, would play the same stuff over and over again. This was sucking up most of the outgoing bandwidth and interfering with video playback.
The Archive will probably be around long after YouTube is gone. Among other things, there's a duplicate of the Internet Archive in Egypt.