Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google and YouTube Continue To Struggle With Details

Posted by Zonk on from the everyone-has-got-to-be-your-best-friend dept.

An SFGate article looks at the still rocky road that Google and YouTube are traveling as they try to iron out after-merger details. Hanging in the air are things like the Viacom takedown request, competition from Joost, and deal-making with organizations like the NBA and BBC. They're also concerned about little things like, you know, making money. From the article: "Tensions [with IP holders] haven't reached lawsuit status -- yet. Such a fight could be long and costly, but with Google's backing, YouTube could afford it. And that may be why media companies have held back so far, [IP lawyer Lee] Bromberg and others said. Google and YouTube have something to gain from deal-making, too. For the company to make money from advertising -- and the potential is huge, with an estimated $70 billion to $80 billion spent in television advertising -- Google and YouTube need the premium videos. Because viewers are more likely to watch these clips than myriad user-generated ones, advertisers are willing to pay more for them. "

10 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. The internet is for... by smeagols_ghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Porn.

    1) Spin off an "adult" section of YouTube.
    2) ???
    3) Profit

    1. Re:The internet is for... by clickclickdrone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would Paris Hilton style sex tapes be premium content?
      Having seen it, no. In fact having her tape available for free would stop be subscribing in case I ran in to it accidentally. I wouldn't give her the time of day if you paid me. Seriously.
      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  2. Let's first of all find out what people watch by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Let's face it, the YT videos are usually of poor quality. So anything that would require good quality to be enjoyable will not really fly. Sound quality is ok, so it's no big surprise that a good deal of YT videos deal with some kind of music video (either the video itself, some concert bootleg, some moron lip syncing etc) or some speech, where it doesn't matter too much what the guy looks like as long as you can make out the key features or if applicable his visual material.

    I doubt that many would want to watch a documentary, a movie or pretty much anything that takes more than 5 minutes. Bandwidth is one concern (we still pay per GB transfered here). But the bigger one is that I'd feel like wasting my time if I spent more than those 5 minutes watching something in shoddy quality.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Let's first of all find out what people watch by subsonic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yes, quality is comparatively low to what you could get if you actually paid for content. And it still lags behind TV quality (though that doesn't stop channels from airing web videos as genuine content with its own merit).
      Picture quality is not, in and of itself, the real issue. There are some very interesting multi-part videos (off the top of my head: Cobbler and the Thief "director's cut") that, yes they take a while to view and the quality is low, but it is still the only place where you'll find that kind of video. Will Joost pick up these little gems and present them with better quality? No, because they are user created and as anyone can clearly agree, violate someone's intellecutal propert rights. Regardless of picture quality, people will go to whoever offers a better array of content. IMO, that site is currently Youtube.

  3. They're still thinking in the old paradigm. by ViX44 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Because viewers are more likely to watch these clips than myriad user-generated ones, advertisers are willing to pay more for them."

    Isn't the myriad the point? YOUtube, and not THEIRtube? It appears to me this is an attempt to finally define the internet's replacement for television, since past attempts to hybridize (WebTV, for example) have failed to become accepted as widely as the entertainment industry would like.

    If They were paying attention, they would realize that you need to advertise evenly. It doesn't matter if someone's watching the second episode of Who's the Boss or three fat kids on a webcam lip-syncing to The Safety Dance, someone is watching a video, give them an ad. Selling ads specifically on a given video is TV-era thinking. This is the mighty internet tube system, it doesn't work the same way.

    1. Re:They're still thinking in the old paradigm. by daigu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point of advertising is to influence someone to buy a product. There was a day in television advertising when they did what you are proposing - when there were three networks. Even then you did audience segmentation by the type of audience a particular television show had and showed ads that might be of interest to that audience. There is a reason "soap operas" are called soap operas and TV was the center piece of so-called mass media. You are right, this is a different approach, but you are essentially arguing for an even older "mass-media" approach to advertising that has been dead for at least a decade or two.

      Use your example, buying a placement for a Lexus ad to someone who is interested in and has the time to watch "three fat kids on a webcam lip-syncing to The Safety Dance" is probably a waste of money - which if you were an advertiser, you would be unlikely to buy or if you would buy it, then it would have to be real cheap. However, if you knew a particular person watching had a household income above $150,000 and recently had been doing searches for car reviews, then you have something an advertiser is interested in and would pay a premium for - privacy and other considerations aside.

      If Google is going to make enough money to cover their costs, they are going to have to offer advertising of the second, more valuable type. The model you propose would mean they would get buried - fast.

  4. Such is the end of cool things... by okinawa_hdr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...when bean counters get their hands on something, and make it all about the money.

    --
    okinawa japan
  5. YouTube is about your content fuckers by gnufied · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "because viewers are more likely to watch these clips than myriad user-generated ones, advertisers are willing to pay more for them"

    Thats a a load of bullshit. If YouTube does that, it isn't YouTube anymore. remember,"broadcast yourself". Whoever this analyst is, either he is paid by those studios or doesn't understand the point of YouTube. Its FUD against YouTube, which is a excellent thing in itself(YouTube not the FUD),whether you like it or not.

    I don't know from where all those statistcs people pull that, YouTube is mainly driven by content from those big fucking studios.I for one, disagree with that. I visit lots of technical blogs everyday and I see lots of YouTube links sticking out there and guess what most of those videos are either user generated or some other arcane stuff.

    1. Re:YouTube is about your content fuckers by gnufied · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Somebody already pointed out, YouTube is in fact, not the right tool to watch movies and series online. it would suck, that way anyways.

  6. No, they don't by petrus4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google and YouTube need the premium videos.

    The world in general needs to break the addictive, destructive relationship with the "premium content" providers. Google would do the public a far greater service if it simply put ads in the user-made vids, (assuming it absolutely has to, of course) and avoided forming any type of relationship with big media entirely.

    The film companies and record labels need to be sent a message that they cannot indefinitely push the viewing public around, bully them, sue them, and otherwise treat them like cattle, without there being deeply negative consequences for them. If someone becomes willing to do this, big media might start treating people a bit better.