TV and Movies On YouTube?

CNet is running a story speculating on the potential for full-length television shows and movies on YouTube. Google has been looking for ways to improve the popular but unprofitable video-sharing site, including some experiments with movies that exceed the typical 10-minute limit. Incorporating a system similar to Hulu could draw the interest of more advertisers. "[Mark Cuban] wrote that Hulu is crushing YouTube in revenue per video and revenue per user primarily because 'Hulu has the right to sell advertising in and around every single video on its site,' Cuban wrote. 'It can package and sell any way that might make its customers happy.' YouTube doesn't have the same luxury because it can advertise only 'on the small percentage of videos on its site that it has a licensing deal with.'"

Comments

This could work

[jaxtherat]

There is nothing stopping the traditional advertising model working in this distribution model. Show say a tiny Coca Cola (or whatever) logo in the top left corner of episode or movie that you are showing, and the advertiser would be happy!

I think this could be a win win situation for everyone, and could also spill over into the p2p distribution market en masse.

That's my hope anyway, as I'm sick and tired of internet distribution channels being demonised as for pirates only... meh

Re:This could work

[PetoskeyGuy]

As long the ads are in a sidebar or something and not on top of the entertainment. Or some other kind of overlay that could be removed.

I can't seem to watch normal broadcast stations any more without a quarter of the screen having this stupid animations on top. I'm not completely adphobic but that's like someone standing in front of the screen at a theater.

TV Overlays, telemarketing and spam... there is no way I would ever buy from companies who resort to being annoying.

Hulu? No thanks!

[PontifexPrimus]

I'm sorry, but I can't comment on Hulu's model; the reason? Their overzealous country-restrictions: none of their clips are available outside of the US. I guess I could trick the server by using a proxy, but if a site makes me jump through hoops like this I go to the competition; especially since this sort of country-selective blocking is something I can't remember seing on YouTube, Revver or any of the other streaming video sites.
Why have an internationally accessible website at all, if you won't even show (short, low-quality, low resolution) videos except for US-Americans? Why should, say, bloggers even bother to embed those videos on the world-wide web, if they can't reach an world-wide audience?
Although I guess it could make embedding targeted ads easier, since you know your audience...

Re:ok who's clicking these f'n ads people?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxpayers haven't paid any money towards content creation. And good content is expensive. If you are happy watching things like the Phil DeFranco show or Hot for Words, good for you. But if you want something like Battlestar Galactica or Heroes, then *every episode* has to bring in millions of dollars somehow. That's hard to manage. This is not a solved problem.

Re:one suggestion

[Yvan256]

Oh yeah. One site will use Windows Media with DRM (everyone uses Windows Vista, right?), one site will use RealMedia (who uses THAT anymore?!) and another one will use Quicktime with an obscure CODEC that won't even work on intel Macs (or something).

Forget Flash, Windows Media, Real Media and DivX... Give us non-DRM'ed H.264/AAC video files, not everyone has the bandwidth to stream that stuff in real-time and not everyone wants to be tethered to their computer to be able to watch TV shows and movies.

Yeah...but

[lilfields]

Yeah, but Mark Cuban is an idiot that puts his interest before anyone Else's, so why should Google listen to him? I think this is the same Cuban who said the internet is "dead and boring" and that "We have reached the point of diminishing returns with today's internet." Really Mark? That's why you blog among other things and try to give advice to Google about making money on...the internet? This just in Mark: No one cares what you think, you've burned out...and you're now dead and boring, if you were ever anything else.

Re:Improve the player

[SendBot]

Okay, that makes sense - but why can't the player just interpolate these things internally on the client side? Like I mentioned, it seems like every other flash video player out there (break, hulu, revver) handles this just fine.

Re:The Cognitive Surplus is where it's at

[tacocat]

I would hate to see it all mucked up with revenue dollars on advertisement. What would prevent YouTube from becoming exactly as broadcast television? Broadcast has been working under this model for 50 years and they have become so impotent, immaterial, and outright painful to watch that I don't think they, or anyone who emulates their business model has long for this world.

Re:Why doesn't Google just produce their own shows

[proxima]

Google has more than enough money to develop their own shows, or just outright purchase an existing major show like House or The Office.

Google does not want to get into the business of "content creation". They make their money being the access portal (one way or another) to other people's content. Whether that's through Google Search/News/etc.

As soon as they enter the content market (whether that be for entertainment television, news of any sort, books, or music), they will make competitors out of other content companies. These companies will fight (or fight harder) Google's push to get all content indexed. The current fight for this is with Google books, scanning the entire book to make it searchable and allowing a reasonable portion of the book to be viewed "free".

As Google pushes the limits of fair use (which, IMHO, I think is a good thing), the last thing they want to do is antagonize the content producers. That means sticking with the script of, "Look, we can help bring more consumers to your products by having them find you through us". Becoming a competitor to these companies weakens that argument substantially; they think Google will give preferential treatment to their own content (which they probably would).