One of the largest concerns for online video content is the problem with revenue generation, and developing the business model to support royalties. HULU is looking into just this. It is a website competing with YouTube, but it only shows professionally developed content with advertisements playing at the beginning and end of the video. This appeals to advertisers, who don’t want to be associated with content they cannot control (which is the risk that keeps advertisers from being willing advertise around YouTube content).
Will Video IDs be Google’s answer to win over Media Companies? VideoID is technology developed by Google which allows copyright content to be identified no matter who uploads it? It is already being used by over 300 groups from CBS to Sony. This may content owners can elect to
Block the content
Generate Advertising Revenue
Track their popularity
Google says 90% of the claims are to place ads against the content… not to block it. But some companies still see this as copy write infringement.
Will other websites begin to compete with YouTube or will they continue to dominate this space? If companies like Hulu gain mass appeal, video producers will not have to concede to Google’s attempt at controlling piracy with VideoID. But if YouTube remains the dominant player, content producers will have to learn how to play along with Google. Not everyone is willing to come out and play. Viacom has a lawsuit against YouTube for $1Bn.
(All content above was developed from Thomas Bradshaw and Matthew Garrahan, “Start Up to match YouTube in Advertising” and “High Hopes for online Fingerprint”, The Financial Times, 17 November 2008.)
Other content:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6744325.stm
http://adage.com/article?article_id=132409
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
In August 2006, Business Week in an article titled 'You Tube- Me Watch' looked at YouTube's rapidly growing imitators and questioned the site's long-term viability. It notes that YouTube's own challengers are advancing at a rapid rate. AOL is re-engineering its video site to mirror YouTube's success, and CNN is launching CNN Exchange, which will house user-contributed video features. Then there are sites like Eefoof.com, Panjea.com, Revver and Blip.TV, which share up to 50 percent of ad page revenue with the creator of the videos. Others like Dabble.com (currently in beta) sort through all video hosting sites (like YouTube and its competition) for search content, while specialty video sites like Pornotube concentrate on one point of interest.
Having said that, in 2006 Revver was supposedly the answer to Youtube. Revver landed an intriguing partnership with a new UK TV station called FameTV. The users were able to opt-in for TV broadcast and those [clips] selected will be shown on FameTV. Viewers voted for their favorites by SMS [just like erm 'real' reality TV] and revenue sent to Revver was split 50/50 with the video publishers.
Although from a revenue point of view, Revver seemed to have an answer, it has yet to build the crucial critical mass that has made YouTube so huge.
Post a Comment