Original Content Coming To YouTube?

itwbennett writes "Rumors of original, professionally-produced content channels coming to YouTube are heating up. Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported on it, invoking pro skateboarder Tony Hawk as one of the star attractions. Now The Hollywood Reporter is saying the channels may be launched early next year, with an official announcement coming later this month. 'Originally the story was that YouTube was going to invest $100 million in this content, but now that number has been bumped up to $150 million,' says blogger Peter Smith. 'Does that sound like a lot? Consider Netflix is rumored to be spending $100 million on House of Cards, a single original series that the company is backing. YouTube is said to be delivering 24 channels of original content.'"

Comments

Can we PLEASE get Firefly back?

[dreadlord76]

nuf said

Re:Can we PLEASE get Firefly back?

[ackthpt]

nuf said

I feel for ya, but you're more likely to see the Slashdot Channel first.

Re:Can we PLEASE get Firefly back?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh... It always sounds like a good idea to bring a really great series like "Firefly" (Or "Arrested Development" - which is why I am not as excited as I ought to be about it actually coming back) back... But when it is brought back it's never quite the same and is almost always disappointing.

Re:Can we PLEASE get Firefly back?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because it is usually brought back by a different group of people who just bought the rights. If you can't get a huge chuck of both the creatives and the cast it's almost always a flop. On the other hand if you get those folks or if you "reimagine" it in a really well done way alla BSG then sometimes there is gold in them there hills.

Re:Can we PLEASE get Firefly back?

[bill_mcgonigle]

These guys think it's a viable product for Netflix.

Apparently 'cult' now means 'profitable in the long-tail'.

Re:Can we PLEASE get Firefly back?

[EdIII]

There is no way a revival could tarnish that show, if all the original writers and cast come back.

Of course, you would need to completely ignore the movie entirely, or just accept that the characters magically came back to life. Shepherd is dead, but remember that Wash died too. Wash really helped bring some comedy to the show.

All of the characters in that show have gone in to do pretty well in other TV shows and movies, so I think they could only be better as actors. It's only been 10 years, so everybody pretty much looks the same. At least the last time I saw them in anything.

Unless there is a really serious commitment with money behind it, the production value was fantastic, it will fail... again.

Best probably to leave this one alone in the past. You know ... so there is no "Fat Elvis" deal with it.

So many shows are like that. Faulty Towers, Space 2.0, etc. All wonderful shows that died before their time.

No original content?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean there's currently no original content on YouTube? That means they are stealing 48hrs of video per minute! And they said they weren't evil!

Re:No original content?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it isn't made by big corporations, it doesn't count. Sure there is lots of "stuff" by hobbyists, small companies or - even worse - people who do stuff for free. But they're all just pirates, communists, socialists and terrorists.

Self-publication

[internerdj]

Interesting, a few articles down it says Amazon is chasing writers. I'm glad to get the old greedy distribution systems out of the way, but how long before these become our new content hoarding overlords?

Re:Self-publication

[gman003]

I don't think it will be as bad. Look, for example, at an industry that's already moving quickly to all-digital distribution: PC video games.

There is, currently, one clear winner as far as platforms go: Steam. However, that has not stopped others (Direct2Drive, Desura, GameTap, GOG, Impulse, Origin) from existing and being profitable.

Most crucially, however, many games are available on multiple. For one example, the indie game "VVVVVV" (yes, that's a real title) is available on Steam, Desura, Direct2Drive and Impulse. The big-name "Crysis" can be found on Origin, Impulse and Steam. The exceptions tend to be cases of the developer and the publisher being one and the same (see: Battlefield 3).

It would seem that, for whatever reason, when an industry moves online, it tends to lose retailer exclusivity. I won't speculate as to why, but it definitely seems to be the case, at least from that one data point.

When comparing to Netflix...

[trunicated]

Remember, YouTube has been going with the quantity over quality argument since its inception. No reason why $150 million tossed at a number of different, smaller projects wouldn't be better for the audience that YouTube already pulls in. While I'm excited for Netflix new series, I'm interested to see what YouTube can pull together. There is a good chance that I will at least find some of the things they put on their site amusing, which isn't that hard to repeat a few hundred million times, and would lead to repayment via advertising revenue, whereas Netflix is going to need to either bump prices, increase subscriptions, or cut back other purchases.

Re:When comparing to Netflix...

[Wescotte]

They should buy up indy content. Sure, they can't buy content in nice big packages but they won't be forced content they don't want in these bundles like Netflix seems to suffer from. For every good show/fiilm they stream there is 100 more they got because it was in a bundle. The production value on non studio tv/film is getting really high really fast. This could be a great outlet for original content made outside the normal channels.

Maybe it's time to reward everyone who helped make YouTube what it is today by giving them an outlet for producing higher quality content that will never see the light of day on current TV/Film distribution methods.

Define professional?

[Daetrin]

As has already been pointed out (sarcastically) there's plenty of original content on YouTube already, so what's new about this is that it's professional? How exactly are they defining professional though?

I expect what they really mean is "content produced by people associated with Hollywood who have been paid upfront by a sponsor." Because to the extent of people creating content as a part time or full time job for which they get paid (either directly or through advertising, merchandising, or some other secondary deal) there's already quite a lot of professional content on YouTube.

Re:Define professional?

[sprins]

As has already been pointed out (sarcastically) there's plenty of original content on YouTube already, so what's new about this is that it's professional? How exactly are they defining professional though?

The article means original content BY YouTube themselve as I read it. YouTube is going to compete with the producers you talk about.

Or see what Journey Quest is doing with $60k

[RingDev]

Really, $100 million for a retred of yet another generic format TV program? Where the only thing that entertains anymore is putting extreme gore/fear/violence/sex into the content.

We have tons of small-house production studios that are doing amazing work on a shoe-string budget comparitively.

For $100M we could have a dozens full length Journey Quest seasons, or a bunch of new Dorkness Rising movies with even better production quality.

Instead it's "Hey look, Jack Bower disembowls a terrorist and feeds his intestins to a 5 year old to get him to admit that he hid his keys!"

-Rick

Re:Or see what Journey Quest is doing with $60k

[Zorque]

There's a pretty big audience gap between a show about some geeks doing stuff nobody cares about and famous people (admittedly still doing stuff nobody cares about).

Re:Or see what Journey Quest is doing with $60k

[iluvcapra]

Really, $100 million for a retred of yet another generic format TV program?

Most of the money is going to Kevin Spacey merely to appear and have his name at the front of each episode. People are generally drawn to stars, that's where the value is. The "generic format" is just a substrate.

We have tons of small-house production studios that are doing amazing work on a shoe-string budget comparitively. (sic)

Red vs. Blue doesn't have the sort of audience reach they're looking for. Now I can't speak for the demographics of "Dorkness Rising," but...

Existing original channels?

[Enderandrew]

YouTube already has tons of existing channels of original content. I'm particularly fond o:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Blendtec
http://www.youtube.com/user/MyHarto
http://www.youtube.com/user/EpicMealTime

The difference is that they do this on their own dime, and get money from YouTube after the fact with revenue sharing. I guess this new model would be YouTube sponsoring the production of video to begin with. But YouTube does actually have tons of original content for all kinds of tastes. But I wouldn't say any of it has the production values of what you see on major networks.

Re:Not original content?

[MightyMartian]

And of course coverage of protests in undemocratic countries

Like Vermont?

Re:How many will be about cats?

[todrules]

So 23 hours of reality shows then?

House of Cards

[fiannaFailMan]

House of Cards, a single original series that the company is backing

Au contraire.

Need to Fix their TV Apps First

[Maltheus]

This gels nice with the fact that most new TVs include a youtube app, but I've yet to see one of those apps let me access my favorites or subscriptions, instead preferring to show me the same top 10 list (with the same people on it), month after month.

Not a huge fan of their mobile apps either since buffering seems to be a concept beyond youtube's comprehension. Get the software out of beta mode and then worry about the content.

Original my ass

[PopeRatzo]

This isn't about "original" content, it's about professional Hollywood content. In other words: "Television".

And there hasn't been anything original on television since...um...well, let me get back to you on that.

This is about the amazing success of amateur-produced material on Youtube making the big corporations livid because it means they're not getting paid. They don't want you to draw a single breath that does not in some way take money out of your pocket and put it in theirs.

Do any of you really feel the need to "fix" Youtube by adding more "professionally produced Hollywood content"?

This is just another example of the corporate world being caught flat-footed by the Internet. It should remind us that if the Internet had been started by the corporate world, all it would be is cable television on your computer. Every single corporate incursion into the Internet makes it less of what people want and more of what the corporations want, which is an endless siphon of wealth from us to them.

Re:Original my ass

[iluvcapra]

This is just another example of the corporate world being caught flat-footed by the Internet.

If that were true, then Netflix would be dictating Kevin Spacey and David Fincher's price, not the other way around. Do you really believe executives at Columbia and 20th Century-Fox are being caught "flat-footed" by Lolcats, 40 minute reviews of Star Wars movies and time-lapse photography of flowers blooming on Vimeo?

Do any of you really feel the need to "fix" Youtube by adding more "professionally produced Hollywood content"?

The problem is you're thinking of Youtube as a content producer when it's really just a distribution medium. You'll still have the same people making movies that have always been making them, you just will be seeing it streaming on your Roku box instead of buying a DVD pressed by Buena Vista Pictures Distribution.

Youtube's problem is that they've now been stuck with the stigma of a bargain-bin distributor-- "Youtube" is a garbage brand, in the same way the $2 DVDs in the Walgreen's bin are garbage, and that takes more and more of a cut from ad revenues while the established distributors form themselves around Hulu and Apple and Netflix at the top of the value hierarchy. People actually pay money to watch movies on iTunes and Hulu, and now Youtube wants in on that action.

Re:How many will be about cats?

[kelemvor4]

It says professionally produced original content.

You read the summary (or even the article)? I am pretty sure that's a no-no around here.
1. Misinterpret headline.
2. Post rant.
This is how it's normally done.

How about fixing the interface first?

[grumbel]

Original content is surely interesting, but how about fixing the interface to bring it closer to a regular TV viewing experience or just improving it in general? One thing for example currently completely missing for no good reasons are user created channels, i.e. content of similar topic, but from different creators. What Youtube currently calls channels is all just content from the same creator, running on a single account. Want to merge the work of multiple people into a single channel? Not possible. Want to run multiple regular channels from a single account? Can't do that either. The subscription system is also rather terrible, as it allows no grouping sorting or prioritizing, thus a high traffic channel will completely flood the subscription list and make it way to easy to missing new content on low traffic channels. Even something that should be completly trivial like watching a multi part video on Youtube is a complete clusterfuck, as you end up having to manually search for all the other parts as Youtubes doesn't really provide good ways to group videos together.

I do like the random user created content on Youtube quite a bit, but viewing it is far harder then it should be.