Advertisements on YouTube
So YouTube started displaying advertisements on video clips in the US a week ago. Before long, this will roll out everywhere. The first question on my mind is what took them so long? Backlash be damned, I think this could be a small step towards something brilliant.
Sometimes their activities seem pretty random, but I’m going to go out on a limb and credit Google with having a Grand Plan. It doesn’t strike me as a coincidence that Adobe is adding H.264 support to Flash while YouTube is converting its entire library to H.264 (essentially for iPhone, but I digress).
Higher quality means higher operating costs (ie: storage and bandwidth), which Google will want to pay for somehow…
Google are in the business of selling advertisements
Call them what you want. Search Engine. Rival to Microsoft Office. Mapper. Google are in the business of selling advertisements. There’s a fundamental difference however with putting ads on YouTube and pay-per-click services like Adwords.
A search result is an abstract thing, a function of the engine which no one website can own. A video however, is the sole property of whoever made it. The current ad approach doesn’t seem to give due respect to the content creators.
Matt Harding, mentioned in the linked CNET article has a legitimate complaint. He should not only be able to choose whether to have adverts in his own content (even if no-ads means settling for low quality), but what adverts to allow. Existing services like Text Link Ads already provide this level of control.
Most importantly, he should get a piece of the action, damnit! His video has been viewed almost eight million times. Even if YouTube got the majority of revenue for providing the platform, as little as a $1 cut on a 1% clickthrough rate should send him almost $80,000. I think he’d feel much better about that.
A move like this could create a revolution in user created content. If an individual could make some pocket money (or even a living) from their creativity, then all sorts of new things are possible, not only in terms of variety but also production values.
Successes like Wine Library TV show us that niche audiences are the future. As Robert Llewellyn points out in his rather entertaining video blog, the missing link is how to make something self-sustaining. WLTV exists as a brand reinforcement exercise for an online wine shop, but ads may be the key for Joe Public.
When a car enthusiast can create his own Fifth Gear, when a gallery can create their own South Bank Show, that future will be here.
Recent Posts RSS
September 11th, 2007 at 2:30 am
The best of the web is still created from those with a budget, though. YouTube survives *because* of the amateur, slapdash nature of the content, not because it is the glowing embers of an erupting bush fire of common man’s TV programs.
A flick over at Acceptible.tv (VH1’s youtube) shows the majority of the good and well received content is that produced by VH1 itself. A flick through the brightest of the user submitted content shows that while this open and easily accessible web allows undiscovered and neglected talent its 5 minutes of fame, it is more often than not exactly what you’d expect from content you don’t pay for.
Not to say there aren’t the odd moments of genius, but the power is still firmly in the hands of the ‘haves’.
And isn’t Adobe’s move to HD simply a pre-emptive move to remain competitive against Silverlight? While the newcomer, it supports HD, BlueRay and HD-DVD out of the box and with companies like the MLB and FOX signed up as early adopters, if Adobe don’t have something dramatic lined up to combat the planned Framework extensions that Silverlight 1.1 will allow, you might see a rapid shift to web developers deploying on that platform instead.
September 11th, 2007 at 8:12 am
YouTube survives *because* of the amateur, slapdash nature of the content
I don’t believe that. I think YouTube survives because:
a) It makes it easy to upload your videos without understanding formats etc
b) It achieved a critical mass of users first (it is popular because it is popular)
The best of the web is still created from those with a budget, though… the power is still firmly in the hands of the ‘haves’.
I believe that was my point. If YouTube (or other sites like it) deliver some sort of revenue to content creators, then they *would* have a budget.
I’ve seen lots of “amateur” videos on the net (mainly in video podcasts) that were very impressively produced. Don’t confuse “amateur” with “bad” and “professional” with “good”.
… isn’t Adobe’s move to HD simply a pre-emptive move to remain competitive against Silverlight?
No doubt, at least in part. Flash itself has a critical mass too. I’m interested to see what Silverlight offers that is so compelling that I should use it over Flash. At the moment, the Windows-only development environment is a show-stopper. Will Microsoft never learn?
September 12th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
It makes it easy to upload your videos without understanding formats etc
Which means HD is irrelevant for most of YouTube’s content providers.. digi-cams aren’t going to capture in high def overnight, meaning it’ll come from those either looking to make a career from media or media companies who have the equipment. Either way, it is going to be people who are already financing their video enterprises currently and not those who really need kick backs from YouTube.
Besides, those who DO make popular YouTube videos ALREADY make a profit from their content… The Coke & Mintos guys, Ask a Ninja, etc..
Those content providers who aren’t popular enough to get those same kind of deals as those guys aren’t going to have enough traffic to earn much from a share of the advertising.
Don’t confuse “amateur
September 13th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I stand corrected. Last I heard, the Silverlight dev environment was Windows only. I don’t really want to get off topic - I’m not a Visual Studio developer.
you could code it all by hand in notepad, if you fancy
Haha no thanks!
Sure, the makers of popular content (love Ask a Ninja!) are making money through other means like merchandising, but I think it’s outrageous if YouTube are planning to exploit their content by advertising on it and not give them a cut.
Either way, it is going to be people who are already financing their video enterprises currently and not those who really need kick backs…
… but isn’t that exactly where revenue sharing could work? It could give the creators who’d made something popular a leg-up and the opportunity to re-invest in producing better content.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
It could give the creators who’d made something popular a leg-up and the opportunity to re-invest in producing better content.
As I mention though, that’s the vicious circle that causes the problem…
The amateurs on the whole don’t produce the majority of the ‘good’ content, so apart from helping finance the ask-a-ninjas of the world (who’ll make money anyhow) it doesn’t really help so much.
Factor in a lot of the ‘popular’ low-production content (the stuff desperately in need of better kit, writers, etc) tends to be junk like Chess Now, LonleyGirl15 or that crazy Brittney fella that is currently doing the rounds and I know I’d find the idea that people profit from that junk rather objectionable.
Popular rarely means ‘good’. Take a look at your TV guide and you’ll see what happens when we have a video medium geared around making popular content to pull in the $$ … Endless Celebrity Reality shows, junk soaps and My Family.
’nuff said.
I do agree with your fundamental point though and with a better model there might be the key to making a popular YouTube alternative.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Popular rarely means ‘good’
Well it’s no quality guarantee, but it doesn’t preclude it. Honestly, I don’t see a problem.
You might say that the public at large gets exactly what it deserves. Reality TV shows and such. All people have to do is not watch them and the networks would stop making them.
Likewise for poor quality content on the web. If users don’t watch, or more importantly act on advertising, then there is no revenue.
What other model is there, than giving the public what they appear to want?
September 14th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
What other model is there
This is what got me thinking…
flawed as it is, there really isn’t a better model.
Obviously the more popular should be rewarded and so this perpetuates the above cycle. The discussion has spurred me on to extend the youtube style project I had planned to include that model and we’ll see if we can get it off the ground and if it has legs.
The alternative is to throw in some sort of peer reviewed ‘award for artistic content’ for the unpopular gems that don’t make it.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Sounds like some sort of review panel giving out monthly “editors’ choice” awards (or similar).
You could start quite quickly, by skipping building infrastructure in the short term and aggregating content from the likes of YouTube, Google Video, Podcasts etc as a “pick of the web” magazine format.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
You could start quite quickly, by skipping building infrastructure in the short term and aggregating content from the likes of YouTube, Google Video, Podcasts etc as a “pick of the web
September 18th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
They make games for the PSP? Who knew