I don't think YouTube will ever need to invest in it's "stars" beyond giving them a site that showcases their videos for free. I can't decide if that is good or bad, but I think it's true.
there's gotta be some precedent for this to inform us? mp3.com used to pay some of its musicians for good download-traffic, but a real competitor to mp3.com never emerged, and then the whole site died.
i think what youtube does will depend on how long it is the premier site for internet video sharing. it still has a huge advantage and momentum over the competition right now.
EDIT to add 3:01pm: jeebus, we mention fox news and suddenly bill o'reilly's mug is showing up in the banner ads (interpersed with text ads for anchors, lol). its crazy how the ads reflect what we talk about. bikinis, anyone like bikinis?
Last Edit: Feb 28, 2007 14:59:31 GMT -5 by milowent
"Can you pass me the Tampax?"
I Know More About Internet Video Than Wikipedia
Oh wow, I thought that all that seriousness and "I'm almost ready to talk about it" stuff was BS to get attention. Interestingly, he talks about how great the attention he got in the past few days lately was great, his kids teachers saw it and all that stuff. And then he announces this...
The comments look about 50/50 for supportive/disgusted people. I mean I can understand telling some people about these painful things, it sometimes helps in working through things... but telling tens of thousands of your "closest friends"? With family members, kids, kid's teachers, total strangers? It really doesn't seem right, and at the very least I hope he got his family's permission to post this as it affects all of them.
Speaking of Renetto, have you seen his latest....very moving, very revealing. I wonder if it even belongs on You Tube? . . .
moving stuff. everybody has skeletons, though most keep them in the closet. i guess he's decided it belongs on youtube, and as long as his family agrees, i guess that's ok. if someone had cancer, we don't think they need to hide it. should substance abuse really be treated so differently?
I've said before that I am generally pro-renetto. I thought this video was moving and a public service along with some of his other videos. Of course I don't agree with everything he says/does. But I give him a lot of credit. I think he does have a talent, it's being able to effortlessly communicate into a camera in a way that connects with his viewers. It's the skill of the personal-style videoblogger. A lot of people don't like those kinds of vlogs in general, so I understand if they don't like renetto. I still don't like vlogs as much as other forms of entertainment, but I like them when they're done well, and renetto does it well.
To relate this back to the topic, I think what's going to happen is these video sites are going to realize that it's worth it to pay money to get "stars," but they will stop and think, wait, if we are going to spend 100s of thousands to get somebody videoblogging, let's get celebrites from movies and TV that are more well known than any of the YouTube "stars." Not many show-business professionals, let alone movie stars, have waded into YouTube because there's nothing in it for them at this point, but if they did, I think they would be at the top of the charts.
"Every true story has an anticlimax" - John Updike
Here's a thorough airing from Variety of where things stand viz. YT, content providers, networks, etc. Appears that everything is still in flux..... Includes this chilling LG reference: "But those (major) advertisers don't want to sponsor lonelygirl15 or the two guys kicking each other in the groin." Variety's conflating LG's 150+ vlogs with a couple of groin-kickers reveals either wilful ignorance or deep bias.....(probably both) ...
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 10, 2007 17:50:55 GMT -5
That really surprised me Buckwheat... I have always thought that Tinseltown would be eagerly watching IMS style offerings to see how they could get their fingers on that market segment also. Perhaps that is just one jaded reporter's POV?
To me the comment should be taken in context of the article's main premise; that YouTube has built a business model using other folk's Creative property and could never stand on it's own with originally produced content. This contradicts the "truth" though, if you rely purely on subscriber metrics to gauge popularity on the channel. I have always been very skeptical of YT metrics in general, but at least the subscribers are an indication of popularity and LG certainly leads the pack in this metric.
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline - it helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer." - Frank Zappa
I think it's more ignorace than bias, but I get the feeling major advertisers are skeptical both of YT's meterics and the potential buying power of their audience. No one yet, as far as I know, has made big money advertising there, and I think the major buyers are simply taking a wait and see attitude. it's not clear that Google quite knows how to monetize this without risking chasing away the viewers, so I suppose the wait and see is warranted....and anyone visiting the most viewed page these days has to wonder what the fuss is about.... in fact, it's been six month since the big buy and I've yet to see any evidence on YT of any Google inspired improvements on their site, or any marked increase in advertising....
Last Edit: Mar 10, 2007 20:18:31 GMT -5 by buckwheat
But those advertisers don't want to sponsor lonelygirl15 or the two guys kicking each other in the groin.
"How can I be assured if I'm Sony or Starbucks I'm not running against illegal content that could have been directly stolen or repurposed?" asks Chas Edwards, publisher of blog network Federated Media.
Who is this Chas Edwards guy? Well, you put in the contract with who you are sponsoring--all content must be original content or otherwise used with express permission. Don't sponsor people that you can't vet out.
The fact that Variety references lonelygirl15 without any explanation of what it is shows its success. But the bias of the article reflects its readership, who fears internet video.
---------- comments on other parts of the article
Variety article said: The dialogue has grown more tense as news of deals or illegal clips or detentes hits almost hourly, causing constant shifts in strategy. NBC U has gone from ordering YouTube to take down popular "Saturday Night Live" clip "Lazy Sunday" to seeding the network with dozens of shorts, all while its legal department routinely sends threatening missives to have other content taken down.
What is so surprising about this? Bands post free mp3s of selected tracks all the time, but they do try to prevent wholesale sharing of their entire albums for free.
Dumb article said: The power brokers at all the media congloms are discussing -- and, inevitably, squabbling over -- ways to circumvent YouTube. Some have proposed an alternative to YouTube that one hopes would be more effective than the studio-backed anti-piracy downloading venture, MovieLink.
.... While stopping short of calling such a venture a YouTube killer, he said the site would allow "a number of the media companies to get together. And if they do, no doubt MySpace will be a huge beneficiary of that."
Can you say Antitrust Violation? They'll have to be very careful if they try this.
article said: "If I found part of a successful show up on YouTube today, I'd probably pull it down immediately," the TV exec admits. "If I had a show that wasn't doing so well in the ratings and could use the promotion, I wouldn't be in a rush to do that."
Well, even they admit Youtube can be good for them, huh?
"It would be in the trillions to cover damages from one show," says one exec.
Dream on. And how many people are really watching full episodes of TV shows on Youtube? I occassionally see stuff pop up, but its not common.
"The problem is that anybody can post responses and you get tons of spam that distracts from your clip," says one studio marketing exec. "I had to have a team vetting (all the responses to a trailer for a recent release). If they figured out a method for cleaning out the crap, I'd gladly pay for that."
Do these guys do any research? Turn off comments, and don't approve any video responses!!
Last Edit: Mar 10, 2007 20:18:02 GMT -5 by milowent
I like the idea of generating revenue, but I hate those little pop-up ads that invade the screen while you are watching the actual show, even if you can click to exit them. They do it on Bebo, so I've been trying to watch Kate Modern on YouTube to escape it. They have the pop up, and then an automatic stream of the ad straight after the video. I think the ads on Bebo are only Australian ads so far. I could be wrong, but so far no one else sees them, only me. ... but now there is no escape!
I wonder how this will go down with the general YT community.
ETA: I haven't seen them on YT yet, but just to show you what they are like on Bebo, and so you all don't think I'm some hobbit from Australia who makes up crap :
The ads must not pop up after the first time you watch it though, which is good. It took me a while to find a video I hadn't watched for a while that showed the ad. I hope YT does this too. Oh and also, notice how sneakily the 'x' is placed.