YouTube Is Google's Moneypit

[The_root_of_all_evil]

YouTube Is Google's Moneypit

Despite billionaire Google taking over YouTube, the company is gushing money, costing Google $470 million this year.

Why so much money? Well, YouTube simply doesn't generate money from advertisements, thanks to little programs like AdBlock [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865] and the public's general disinterest in anything that doesn't involve overly-dramatic gophers.

Now, Google is no slouch in this area, having made its billions purely through the power of advertisements. This means either one of the best advertisers can't make money, or that there is a way that just can't be found. One of the main problems is that for every Nom Nom Nom [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMWi7CLoZ2Q&feature=channel_page] there are a couple of million other videos that don't get watched by anyone other than their participants.

You may remember, or are still suffering from, the ban on the UK [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/90052-YouTube-Blocks-Music-Videos-in-UK] or Germany receiving some music videos and this is due to Google having to pay 0.22p (or a similar amount in Euros) for each video watched. And Google simply doesn't want to pay PRS (UK rights) or GEMA (German rights) that much.

Google America, that is. Google China, on the other hand, pays nearly 2p per song shown, but cross-subsidizes by letting the increased footfall flood to the rest of its pay-for site.

It's somewhat strange that a communist country seems better at making money than a capitalist country, don't you think?

Source: The Register [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/07/youtube_revenue_fail/]

Permalink

 

[Jack and Calumon]

I live in the UK and I want to watch the music videos! But I guess that it is only fair if it is gushing that much money.

Or am I reading this article wrong?

 

[SamTheBaggie]

I live in the UK and I want to watch the music videos!

From what I have seen it's only the official music videos that are being banned, if you go to the 4th or 5th (sometimes lower) video then you can usually still find the song

 

[Jack and Calumon]

True, but I have to wait for someone who downloaded the video to post it, and then they get their video taken down because it infringes rights, as usual.

 

[scarbunny]

Am I the only one who has never actually seen the point of Youtube?

In fact Ive never actually visited the site and never even watched a video from the site.

 

[fix-the-spade]

I live in the UK and I want to watch the music videos!

Actually you can, just watch the illegaly posted ones.

That's where Google have really shot themselves in the foot, they've blocked the official videos that advertising agencies would love to plaster themselves all over, but can do very little about the unofficial ones that advertisers woldn't touch with a barge pole. Doh!

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Well I suppose they have to find something to do with all that money lying about their offices.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Am I the only one who has never actually seen the point of Youtube?

In fact Ive never actually visited the site and never even watched a video from the site.

And therefore have never seen the point of Youtube.

I find it hard to believe you've not seen something from that site, since those videos are embedded everywhere. Or perhaps you're trying to be a wise crack by claiming to only watch Viddler, Vimeo, GoogleVideo, or one of the million other streams.

On a different note, I love the audio detect systems used in Google's sites. It will remove the sound out of the most arbitrary clip (I remember one guy complaining because he had a licensed song playing on a radio in the background while he talked) while leaving full copies of music videos intact.

 

[SimuLord]

YouTube is a great Internet toy and the world's best repository of copyright infringement but any sane business person looks at it and says "That's great, but how does it make money?" Google spent a billion plus at the outset and continues to sink money into the rabbit hole but bandwidth-intensive user-generated content only monetizes itself if the content is pornographic (there are in fact three porn sites using similar URLs and interfaces that I can think of just offhand.) In the pornographers' case the porn companies themselves are putting up teaser videos and driving traffic to their paysites. Good luck doing that with Google/YouTube.

 

[Brotherofwill]

One of the main problems is that for every Nom Nom Nom [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMWi7CLoZ2Q&feature=channel_page] there are a couple of million other videos that don't get watched by anyone other than their participants.

That's nothing compared to Boogie Boogie Hedgehog [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK0l2tqFDvM&feature=related]

Okay, this might have been the silliest thing I have ever seen.

It's strange to think of Youtube making a loss, but seeing the ridiculous fees attached to music videos might just explain why.

 

[dcheppy]

China is hardly a communist economy.

Google needs to find a way to to bring down bandwith costs. They can either wait it out for technology to improve or start being more selective on which videos they host. Videos that don't reach a certain viewer threshold in their first month or so could be automatically filtered out of the system. That makes it easier on the user to find good content and means google doesn't have to host content that draws enough viewers to attract advertising.

Video advertising and sponsored content needs to become a bigger part of the buisness plan as well.

 

[DigitalSushi]

all hail El Reg!.
Interesting. *Strokes Chin* (i need a shave)

Anyway, uploading a video to youtube that you have edited and made hence you are the copyright holder, which is then re edited by someone else turns them into the copyright holder.

This is the future of things to come, YouTube is way ahead of the curve.

If i'm crap at explaining above let me try again.

1. Zac Efron releases a song and is entitled to money because its his song, his copyright.
2. Douchebags (thats us), download song and remix it and put it out to the public, the remix is OUR copyright, even though it was poorly made a laughable.
3. YouTube doesn't pay Zac Efron his monies because we (the douchebags) are now the copyright holders.
4. YouTube doesn't pay us the monies were owed for our shit RickRoll/Zac Efron hybrid attempt because in order to prove its OUR remix we need our IP address, but we are canny douchebags who use dynamic IP's because we think we are hackers on steriods who downloaded "adblock".
5. Zac efron still doesn't get money and he can't keep up his dirty habbit of having incredible blue eyes ... *swoons*

Ladies and Gents, I give you Web 2.0, we create the content, they get all the profits.

 

[DigitalSushi]

I live in the UK and I want to watch the music videos! But I guess that it is only fair if it is gushing that much money.

Or am I reading this article wrong?

Apparently there's a way to sneak around the UK ban, but I don't remember what it is.

That was code for "I totally know, just dont tell the mods, meet me in PM's".

Red Squirrel lands tonight *touches nose*, I repeat Red Squirrel lands tonight.

We could always just you know, buy the Music we like, and use youtube for shit videos like its meant to be used.

 

[Shycte]

What if they close down YOuTube? What would happend then?

Imagine there's no YouTube. It's hard as shit, to do. No place to flame things Above you no Smosh

 

[300lb. Samoan]

Ladies and Gents, I give you Web 2.0, we create the content, they get all the profits.

OK, I don't see how blue eyes or dynamic IPs fit into this equation (most customers using a cable or dsl connection have dynamic IPs because of the way their ISP operates) but this statement is very true: only the strong and smart will survive Web 2.0 by becoming profiting content providers, but for the most part it's a GENIUS plan to operate a cutting edge media outlet that requires ZERO creative output on the part of the owner/operators, unlike TV and Radio.

On the other hand, I don't have any fucking clue why they would be squabbling over the moneys for playing music videos. It's a PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL, you should be handing it out like keychains and bumper stickers! The music industry is so FUCKED right now.

 

[DigitalSushi]

Ladies and Gents, I give you Web 2.0, we create the content, they get all the profits.

OK, I don't see how blue eyes or dynamic IPs fit into this equation (most customers using a cable or dsl connection have dynamic IPs because of the way their ISP operates) but this statement is very true: only the strong and smart will survive Web 2.0 by becoming profiting content providers, but for the most part it's a GENIUS plan to operate a cutting edge media outlet that requires ZERO creative output on the part of the owner/operators, unlike TV and Radio.

On the other hand, I don't have any fucking clue why they would be squabbling over the moneys for playing music videos. It's a PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL, you should be handing it out like keychains and bumper stickers! The music industry is so FUCKED right now.

Their are many other ways they wont pay DOUCHEBAGS, firstly, douchebags have PC editing programs but not PC lawyers and Credit Controllers.

the Dynamic IP thing was just a thing us hardcore hackers (with big manly pecs) could relate to what with our intellect (big manly brains).

But while I come accross as a run of the mill douchebag, I'm a shit hot accountant, and I worked with PRS when it was the British Phonographics Society, the dirtiest players in town.

In order to get music off the ground you need to market it, to restropective credits to anyone who can sell a certain amount of units, which means if they sell a CD at 2 dollars below the asking price they can get those 2 dollars back providing they sell 10,000 copies, if you sell 9,999 copies then tough luck.... BPS will still demand full royalties even though it was their incentive in the first place, and you just lost 19,998 dollars on that promo.

As for the web, the question is, can royalties be paid to a musician (I refuse to call them music artists) when the person creating it is done in good faith with not wanting to make a profit?.

Does Van Gogh get 24pence everytime a child paints "Sunflowers" in art class?.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

It's strange to think of Youtube making a loss, but seeing the ridiculous fees attached to music videos might just explain why.

Which, at the moment, they're not paying, and still gushing moulah.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

A majority of the general videos are crap.

You can find an occasional gem, but I mostly look at stand-up acts of actual working comedians, like Craig Shoemaker's "The Lovemaster" bit, because they've got to be funnier than the 12 year old boy talking to his webcam.

I'd be losing money too, if I had a site full of 98% shit.

That said, 2% of a couple billion videos is quite a bit of good stuff.