Slashdot Mirror
Google Losing Up To $1.65M a Day On YouTube
An anonymous reader writes "The average visitor to YouTube is costing Google between one and two dollars, according to new research that shows Google losing up to $1.65 million per day on the video site. More than two years after Google acquired YouTube, income from premium offers and other revenue generators don't offset YouTube's expenses of content acquisition, bandwidth, and storage. YouTube is expected to serve 75 billion video streams to 375 million unique visitors in 2009, costing Google up to $2,064,054 a day, or $753 million annualized. Revenue projections for YouTube fall between $90 million and $240 million."
Maybe this is in part because, as Al writes, "Researchers from HP Palo Alto studied videos uploaded to YouTube and found that popularity has little to do with quality or persistence."
Content Acquisition - $710,000
Revenue Sharing - $66,000
Administrative Costs - $252,000
I might be able to see the bandwidth costing a million dollars a day but could someone explain how Credit Suisse and comScore came up with these numbers?
My work here is dung.
While much has been made of Google's amazing ability to make money with online advertisements, the cracks in the dike are beginning to leak.
Youtube is only the first domino in Google's house of cards. As Google increases server-side requirements to support their growing portfolio of online products, they will reach a point where advertising simply won't be profitable anymore. Youtube with its heavy server-side requirements (even running on lighttpd!) just isn't cost effective considering the number of pages they need to serve and the direct links to media they provide.
As someone who likes services that are free, I will mourn the loss of advertiser-paid services, but in terms of the viability of the web this day was inevitable.
"Researchers from HP Palo Alto studied videos uploaded to YouTube and found that popularity has little to do with quality or persistence." Let me be the first to say "I told you so."
The researchers found some very useful information though--like the fact that a man getting kicked in the testicles is just as funny or maybe even more funny in grainy home video than in high definition. After performing principal component analysis on several testicle injury clips rated across thousands of users, they found--surprisingly--that the most important variables are (1) how wide the victim's eyes opened upon impact, (2) how loud of a scream the victim emitted upon impact and (3) how long the victim lay motionless on the ground after initial agony.
My work here is dung.
Content Acquisition - $710,000
Revenue Sharing - $66,000
Administrative Costs - $252,000
Being the number 1 video site on the internet.... Priceless
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Youtube is failing because all of the stuff worth watching was coincidentally all the stuff they removed for DMCA-related reasons.
And how exactly did they generate revenue before the DMCA takedowns?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sweet sweet irony.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No they wouldn't. Google has an estimated $15.85B cash on hand, at least as of Dec 31, 2008. (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=Goog) At a rate of $2M a day, they have enough cash to last them more than 21 years, and that's if they don't bring in a single dollar in the meantime.
Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
And is that based on what google pays for the bandwidth, or what anyone else would have to pay for it? Considering google with their size and scope basically get bandwidth for free because it's in everyone's interest to peer with them.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Youtube isn't failing at all. It has become the number one video site.
Sure, it is loosing money today. But tomorrow, bandwidth and storage will be cheaper, and Youtube will still be number one. They got in early and conquered the market.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So stuff that a big huge corporation put together and protects with draconian copywrite a DMCA is only worth it? Individuals can't come up with good ideas and offer them for free?
Here are 2 examples that completely blow that out of the water:
http://www.youtube.com/user/davidspates
http://www.youtube.com/user/Peacer
And the second guy recently got a job with some major media group because of the talent he showed on youtube!
Here's another example, but it may not be to everyone's entertainment tastes but you can't dispute the quality of the actual animation is great:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MondoMedia
And here's some "big media" content actually provided without those draconian restrictions:
http://www.youtube.com/user/BritainsSoTalented
http://www.youtube.com/user/JanisDigitalMedia
The first one is the most subscribed channel on youtube. The second is content for a local radio station in philly. I find both of these sub par compared to the previous links, but hey people want to subscribe to them, and the owners must be leveraging some kind of success out of them.
So I directly challenge that the assertion that the only good stuff on youtube is the stuff taken down by DMCA. I think the only stuff you ever bothered to look for was stuff you already saw on TV.
Oh... and did you forget the Monty Python channel? If you don't think that's worth it, then I demand Taco ban your IP immediately for proclaiming such heresy!
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
There is no other organization in the world that cares more about Google's expenses than Google. If Google was in fact drowning itself in expenses that it couldn't possibly recoup then it would never implemented youtube's support for high definition clips. I mean, why would they implement a feature that in the end is nothing more than implementing the exact same service while spending about 4 times the bandwidth?
Moreover, it's somewhat amusing how someone can proudly claim that someone is spending millions while at the same time confessing that it is basing his calculations on absolutely zero hard facts or figures. They don't know how much google earns from youtube, they don't even know the order of magnitude Google's bandwidth expense is in. Yet, they try to calculate things.
It starts to get really silly when their calculations, based on nothing more than whims and assumptions taken out of thin air, are presented as $1,406,720 or $1,659,945. That means that they present a result which is the fruit of pure imagination in the form of a number with 7 significant digits. I can't measure anything with that kind of exactness even if I'm holding it in my very hands. Impressive.
To sum things up, nothing to see here.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Google's strategy is not simply about creating or acquiring ubiquitous online services regardless of profitability. A lot of comments so far have missed the forest for the trees. You want to know why Google beats its competitors in advertising? It's not just brand presence or market domination. It's the way in which they cross-analyze data collected from ALL their services in order to increase the accuracy of their advertising.
I mean, hasn't anyone noticed this yet? Your GMail, Blogger, Calendar, Picasa, and YouTube accounts are all linked. Even the original search that Google started out with provides valuable analytics that are still trade secrets. Users of these services leave a data trail that provides Google with all kinds of information about the user's preferences. That information then gets analyzed and targeted ads are served that increase the likelihood that they'll be clicked. And that's how Google gets the business. Their biggest fear is not whether a product is losing money; it is that nobody is using it and therefore there is no data to mine. All these serivces are just carrots they dangle for the end-user. Their true customers are those who pay for the data they collect from us.
One service does not have to turn a direct profit in order to increase the value of the overall business model.
It is hard to switch if you are one of the people uploading the videos. At the very least it means you need to re-upload them, along with all the metadata like description and tags, and then re-organise them. Even then, you loose all the comments, links to friends and similar videos, playlists etc.
While the causal viewer may not care much, anyone who uploads or is involved in any way with the community aspects (even if just leaving the odd comment or keeping some favourites lists) is pretty heavily invested.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Time is on Google's side. Look ten years down the road. Hosting costs and bandwidth costs will be greatly reduced, as is the trend. (Think how far web technology has come since 1999.) Advertising models will have matured, and YouTube will have profitable deals with specific content providers.
The most important thing to have is users. People use Google for searches because it is familiar and it is a habit. The same is now true for videos and YouTube. Despite the fact that other video sites exist, most people think of YouTube by default. Google is willing to lose money now in order to encourage this habit, so that when it does become profitable they will be in prime position.