Comments on: Analysts Claim YouTube On Course For Massive Loss In 2009 | The Site Impossible To Monetize? http://www.webtvwire.com/analysts-claim-youtube-on-course-for-massive-loss-in-2009-the-site-impossible-to-monetize/ The Business of Internet Television and Video Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:46:31 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Chris Tew http://www.webtvwire.com/analysts-claim-youtube-on-course-for-massive-loss-in-2009-the-site-impossible-to-monetize/comment-page-1/#comment-108579 Chris Tew Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:56:06 +0000 http://www.webtvwire.com/?p=4991#comment-108579 If YouTube is only making money off 3% of the videos then it seems to me there is plenty of room for YouTube to make a profit. As technology improves and rights holders open up to this new medium (which is gradually happening) YouTube will be in a much stronger position to monetize. - Their biggest cost looks to be bandwidth - technology will only reduce that cost. - Identifying pirated content is both hard because of grey areas in the law, and because technology that does this is in its infancy. Over time copyright law will be more clarified and technology will be better at identifying pirate free conent, allowing Google to monetize more Youube videos. Also advertising in online video still has a long way to go and can only get better, more targeted and be adopted by more advertisers. In 2008 Google made over $4 billion in profit so it can handle YouTube's loss, if it has future potential, which I think it certainly does. Undoubtedly it is facing problems, and these aren't going to disappear overnight. But I think YouTube's potential failure is being over-hyped. That said Google probably did pay too much for the site as Google was really one of few companies that could move YouTube forward due to its leverage in Search, online media and Advertising. If YouTube is only making money off 3% of the videos then it seems to me there is plenty of room for YouTube to make a profit.

As technology improves and rights holders open up to this new medium (which is gradually happening) YouTube will be in a much stronger position to monetize.

- Their biggest cost looks to be bandwidth – technology will only reduce that cost.
- Identifying pirated content is both hard because of grey areas in the law, and because technology that does this is in its infancy. Over time copyright law will be more clarified and technology will be better at identifying pirate free conent, allowing Google to monetize more Youube videos.

Also advertising in online video still has a long way to go and can only get better, more targeted and be adopted by more advertisers.

In 2008 Google made over $4 billion in profit so it can handle YouTube’s loss, if it has future potential, which I think it certainly does.

Undoubtedly it is facing problems, and these aren’t going to disappear overnight. But I think YouTube’s potential failure is being over-hyped.

That said Google probably did pay too much for the site as Google was really one of few companies that could move YouTube forward due to its leverage in Search, online media and Advertising.

]]>
By: Dave Parrack http://www.webtvwire.com/analysts-claim-youtube-on-course-for-massive-loss-in-2009-the-site-impossible-to-monetize/comment-page-1/#comment-107564 Dave Parrack Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:41:15 +0000 http://www.webtvwire.com/?p=4991#comment-107564 Troy, although I've differentiated between premium content and UGC in the article, I never mentioned quality as being a factor in that. Of course UGC can be of a good standard. Premium content is more about professionally made content or content bought in from media companies. It's important because that is the type of content that can be advertised against and is likely to draw regular viewers in. Troy, although I’ve differentiated between premium content and UGC in the article, I never mentioned quality as being a factor in that. Of course UGC can be of a good standard.

Premium content is more about professionally made content or content bought in from media companies. It’s important because that is the type of content that can be advertised against and is likely to draw regular viewers in.

]]>
By: Troy McConaghy http://www.webtvwire.com/analysts-claim-youtube-on-course-for-massive-loss-in-2009-the-site-impossible-to-monetize/comment-page-1/#comment-107548 Troy McConaghy Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:44:22 +0000 http://www.webtvwire.com/?p=4991#comment-107548 The division into "user-generated content" and "premium content" is misleading because anyone can make premium-quality content, given enough resources (even "users"). A better way to distinguish the two types of content would be "Safe to put ads beside" and "Not safe to put ads beside." Safe means that the copyrights and licenses are all cleared in a verifiable way. In principle, anyone can make copyright-cleared videos. In summary, the difference is between copyright-cleared and not-copyright-cleared (not between premium-quality and low-quality). The division into “user-generated content” and “premium content” is misleading because anyone can make premium-quality content, given enough resources (even “users”).

A better way to distinguish the two types of content would be “Safe to put ads beside” and “Not safe to put ads beside.” Safe means that the copyrights and licenses are all cleared in a verifiable way. In principle, anyone can make copyright-cleared videos.

In summary, the difference is between copyright-cleared and not-copyright-cleared (not between premium-quality and low-quality).

]]>