Subscribe

Resources

« Yahoo-AT&T Renegotiation = Capitalism at Work | Main | You Own Your Attention! And Google's Cashing In On It... »

March 09, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451656f69e200d834eb1bbf53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference When Will the Media Stop Peeing on YouTube?:

Comments

King Troll

[Sorry, KT, edited for language... This is a family site. Ed.]


You see the list of the "hottest most powerful VC's in Business 2.0. Man, how can someone go to them for capital. They have this look about them that wants me to knock their teeth down their throats. I just want to say it's not your money its investor money. Youre not calling shots.

Also, who else is tired of Marc Cuban thinking he's the smartest man alive. I used to like you bro, thought you had some good points, but you're just a hater.

Eric Shmidt thinks he made google and he's running the internet. Google made you. Can't wait until Big Bald Balmer beats him up.

Victor

On the money again Henry. People are so obsessed with P/Es and totally forget the size of the market opportunity. The parallels drawn to the late 90s are absurdly specious.

This transactions are happening in *cash*. Money is being made. And while this may still just be an eye-ball type calculation for Google, anyone who's used the internet in the last 2 years will know that video is going to be very big, and likely very soon

Still Inside

I personally don't see how video is going to be "big" in the revenue sense. Sure, it's a fun distraction to look at what people do with Mentos and Pepsi, but I don't go to Youtube when I want to buy something, I go to Google (for the ads), eBay, Amazon, etc.

And don't even begin to try to tell me that your PC is going to replace your TV. They are two different pieces of furniture and never the twain shall meet. I can be convinced that the Internet (on your PC) will severely diminish the role of TV ads in advertising overall, but that's an argument to ignore things like video because it does not fit into anybody's purchase flow.

As I've said before here though, GOOG can afford to do a lot of puttering now that MSFT and YHOO have all but imploded in front of them.

But don't mistake the puttering of a few young billionaries for a serious money machine. I've personally been around some of these billionaires and one thing that usually escapes them is how much weight is put on their every word and their every minor move.

Henry was right to point out that the YouTube purchase was made from change in the couch, and as such, in these people's heads at least, this was an interesting dinner at Denny's, not an earth-changing bet-the-company move. The "experts" at GOOG probably certified the move as "won't-effect-paid-search-golden-goose" and they were good to go.


SI

Speaking for Everyone

Once again....VICTOR IS A HUGE LOSER!!!!

There are two demand needs in video: amateur (not referring to porn) and studio (abc, nbc etc...). Youtube has produced the network effect in amateur; a market that was largely non-existent bf broadband internet. Now, who is going to become the leader in professional....wouldn't it be great if Comcast or Timewarner used their existing relationships with the producers to make a professional video portal. It could be partly on a subscription basis that you pay for as an option just like say getting HBO and then it could eventually replace TV (10 years)

Victor...master of the obvious...what a dummy

Bob

I agree...less Victor more King Troll

pwb

Actually, this is the most insane comment: "I personally don't see how video is going to be "big" in the revenue sense."

Amen on the original post. The YouTube hate is absolutely crazy.

TallTroll

>> I personally don't see how video is going to be "big" in the revenue sense

Go talk to someone who was involved in Gs' Adsense for video trial. Then maybe you'll get a clue

raging bear

maybe when you watch the mentos and pepsi video they could put up a text link to a mentos or pepsi ad.

or a ghostriding video a text link to that car.

endless possibilities.

But SI is right search is very unique. when im searching for something im highly likely to click on a sponsored link i find helpful. when i go on youtube im probably not likely to be looking for info and to buy something.

i think its a different type of market. I think the ads that eventually will be on youtube will be about as effective as banner type ads. You just are not going to deliver as targeted a market as you are in search in my humble opine.

and screw Victor. King Troll forever.

why?

Does this all sound faintly reminiscent? Yes, that's it, way back in early part of this century, something about promised future profits, market size and being too cutting edge, important or big to care... somehow it must certainly turn into profits, you just don't "get it." Guess what they say about leopards is true.

Kris Patel

Whether video gets "big" or not is clearly not of concern. Its about who has the best toys in the web/tech biz.

+1 to SI and RB

Hardly smart to EXPECT a substantial market to grow out of YouTube. Buy it, sit back, and watch it grow. Ads, banner ads persay, may not be as effective as a company hopes but the distribution factor is astronomical.

Anders Kargaard Jensen

Henry - I totaly 2000% agree with all your points! Excellent points!

Angela Epstein

I can’t believe we are STIL discussing the acquisition of YouTube! It is like having a problem with accepting the new paradigms new technologies brought upon us, or accepting that people adopt and enjoy these new “networks, sites, communities,” etc., and are really happily and massively using them with no remorse. I agree with Henry, it is irrelevant” what Google paid for YT. These models are in their infancy but have already shown dramatic growth and an adoption never seen before. The question is what and how smart these companies, particularly YT, will be to offer products or services to seriously monetize a captured and independent audience that no one else can claim. But as it is, YouTube is already ahead of the curve.

YouTube is here to stay although it may evolve. It’s acquisition was brilliant if we consider that the new generation will probably never see a tv program as we know it, and if we factor in the massive adoption of computers and devices. Television was disrupted forever and the convergence of content and technologies made it happened thus creating new formulas; from the production of content to its delivery or sharing with the end user. When you combine the power of information(G) with the power of huge audience numbers (TY) you have a real advantage in the market.

King Troll

Hey Angela, why don't you do us a favor and fuck off. I think I speak for everyone when i say If you don't like what the bros discuss then get your own board hoe.

better yet post a link to a nude picture or shut the fuck up.

Sulzar Rubaine

" YouTube was so young it hadn't even gotten around to generating revenue yet"

Henry, thanks for the deja vu- this quote reminds me of the late 1990s, when everything is percieved to be "too young" to generate revenues. If only I can personally obtain some of that "eternal youth" medicine.

But on a serious note, I believe that it is too early for the Jury's verdict. I, for one, don't even know of utube business model for generating revenues. Maybe Google knows it, and maybe it doesnt? And the latter is the most important question to ask.

TallTroll

>> I, for one, don't even know of utube business model for generating revenues. Maybe Google knows it, and maybe it doesnt?

Well, maybe you should pay some damn attention then - in May LAST YEAR, the AdSense team posted this :

http://adsense.blogspot.com/2006/05/introducing-video-ads.html

This is hardly news... the beta was fairly successful too. See http://www.ukgimp.co.uk/2006/11/25/shoemoney-interview/ For those that don't know, Jeremy Shoemaker (Shoemoney) is one of the most successful AdSense advertisers, using a mix of methods from organic search to PPC arbitrage.

Sulzar Rubaine

>> "Well, maybe you should pay some damn attention then"

Easy tiger. :)

But thanks for the link. Something to follow I guess. However, as a technology it might work (or doesnt in real life). Yes, I might see things in a much narrowly than others - basically, does it make some dough or not. But until now, I cannot see its revenue generating capability.

The other issue, I am concerned about is that youtube does not really have a distinct proprietory technology but one hell of a library. If Google wants it for the technology (to produce video adsense), then a Real video or Quicktime soulution might have been better, and probably cheaper to license.

Again...thanks for the links, TallTroll.

Roax

google giving money for everthing and buys
chat-sohbet kanalları

Account Deleted

thanks admin good post

sohbet-askalemi
-edencity

The comments to this entry are closed.

Sponsors