August 23, 2006

20 Comments »

1. Apple.

   Comment by William Beem — August 23, 2006 @ 11:49 am

2. Apple doesn’t have an advertising sales force like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo (or traditional video networks like Fox/ABC/CBS/CNN) have. So, that wouldn’t make sense.

   Comment by Robert Scoble — August 23, 2006 @ 11:50 am

3. He’s reffering to this: http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=6578

   Subscribe to TUAW! :)

   Comment by jonas — August 23, 2006 @ 12:03 pm

4. jonas: ahhh, yeah, I missed that.

   We all know Steve Jobs is working at Disney. Now BUYING YouTube makes sense for Apple for that reason. I wasn’t thinking of ownership in this post.

   YouTube is still an awesome advertising distribution site. So, it’d make sense that someone would want to lock up an exclusive contract with YouTube to sell advertising there.

   Comment by Robert Scoble — August 23, 2006 @ 12:12 pm

5. Paris Hilton.

   Comment by Slava — August 23, 2006 @ 12:14 pm

6. Well it has to be AOL, right? Oh, wait, that’s Google too…

   Comment by Joel — August 23, 2006 @ 12:33 pm

7. Hasn’t YouTube said they want to be their own ad distribution platform, and that they’ll be selling branding ads in house?

   Comment by Chris — August 23, 2006 @ 1:29 pm

8. YouTube isn’t going to partner, they’re creating an ad distribution network in house.

   See http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=47113

   “The company is rolling out a new ad platform that offers two main features-brand channels, where companies can create their own programming, and what YouTube is calling “participatory video ads,” some of which direct users to the new brand channels.”

   Comment by Chris — August 23, 2006 @ 1:31 pm

9. I’ll do that deal.

   Comment by Jeremy Wright — August 23, 2006 @ 1:37 pm

10. YouTube gets YouTube. Why does nobody understand YouTube? Nobody will ever buy YouTube. YouTube will continue to chart its own unique course and will continue to invent itself. They are exploring groundbreaking revenue/ad deals (celebrity channels being only the latest) and doing things no other service is doing.

    In a few years, we’ll be asking “will YouTube buy __________?”

    Comment by Michael Martine — August 23, 2006 @ 1:59 pm

11. NBC already has, weird seeing the content providers not sue and actually take advantage of that market. Prison Break Season 2 was a breakout, and YouTube played a part…

    How typical of Web 2.0 nutheads thinking who will grab it up, the better model for YouTube is to have everyone slice off a part…and if they can tame the copyright violational beast, it’s on solid footing.

    Comment by Christopher Coulter — August 23, 2006 @ 3:02 pm

12. No one will buy YouTube. Seen their expenses lately? Way too much money lost to bandwidth.

    Yes, it’s an unavoidable expense (especially for a video serving service), but it also can’t be overcome with advertising revenue.

    Buying it would be for novelty, not for business.

    Comment by Scott Perry — August 23, 2006 @ 3:35 pm

13. Scott: why can’t advertising pay for the bandwidth?

    One minute on the SuperBowl is millions of dollars. Last I heard YouTube was spending about a million per month on bandwidth.

    Comment by Robert Scoble — August 23, 2006 @ 5:02 pm

14. From Writingforfilm.com’s 6/28/06 post “How Will Hollywood Incorporate User Generated Content”:

    Yesterday, on June 27, 2006, it was announced that NBC (the television network, for those of you who don’t bother to watch the small screen formerly referred to as “television” which is not yet primarly shown on your computer) announced that it will create an official NBC channel on YouTube that would include a “Fall Preview” area. In addition to marketing each others products, the channel would be used to promote other programming, such as “Saturday Night Live,” >”The Office,” etc. . . . . . But the most interesting aspect of this announcement was that NBC will launch a promotional contest for the “The Office, . . .”

    Robert, I’ve been blogging about this for 2 months from the point that I first learned the term “User Generated Content” from you blog-

    BTW-In one of your less controversial posts, you asked what your readers thought you should cover at PodCast.net-You might want to occasionally report on the intersection . . . convergence . . . (whatever you want to call it) between new media and old media (or Hollywood and Northern California Start-ups), as everything . . . (including I assume in the not to distant future, PodCast.net) is being bought by an “old media” (and publically traded) companies.

    Right?

    Also, it might be interesting for you to report on how these new distribution platforms are or will pay off for the talent guilds . . . or any talent which does not have an ownership interest in the platforms or distribution venue.

    Comment by Brooke A. Wharton — August 23, 2006 @ 5:34 pm

15. @!3 Er..um.. please tell me you aren’t comparing the value of a Super Bowl ad to the value of an ad on YouTube, are you? Setting aside the actual cost justification, I rather doubt an ad on YouTube reaches the number of eyeballs a SuperBowl ad does. So, that might be one reason advertising will not pay for YouTube’s bandwidth costs. Advertisers likely won’t pay enough for the ads to cover YouTube’s costs. I could be wrong.

    Comment by LayZ — August 23, 2006 @ 9:44 pm

16. Brooke, repeat after me… PodTech is not interested in talent or quality. They appear to more interested in format, distribution, and most important, the number of ads they can get to help keep the afloat. You are asking Scoble to comment on something that seems almost anathema to their business model.

    Until the audience, the bandwidth is there, and for that matter, it is as easy as popping in a dvd or turning on the television, I don’t see this “new media” being that much of a threat to “Hollywood” anytime soon. There are still not enough people that want to sit in front of their laptops or computer screens to consume this crap and hope to be entertained or informed. Perhaps once cable companies get in on the act and see the value in offer vblogs as part of their “on demand” service we MIGHT be close to convergence. But, cable companies will have to see how they can monetize it. Again, util Joe Sixpack sees the value in it and can consume it as easily as he can a TV show or a rented DVD, Hollywood has little(I didn’t say ‘nothing) to worry about.

    Comment by LayZ — August 23, 2006 @ 9:52 pm

17. LayZ: you might be suprised by the talent we’re hiring. But I won’t go into that until we have something to ship. I learned SOMETHINGS while I was getting slammed for hyping up Vista at Microsoft! :-)

    Comment by Robert Scoble — August 23, 2006 @ 11:26 pm

18. Opps,

    Re: #14-PodCast.net=PodTech.net. Sorry . . .

    But Robert, I’m still interested in the answer to my question: How will the new distribution platforms (such as PodTech.net) pay for WGA, SAG, or DGA talent . . . or any talent which does not have an ownership interest in the platforms or distribution venue?

    How will you ensure that the talent/content creators don’t get “screwed”?

    Also, it might be interesting for you to interview Patric Verrone, the president of the WGAwest (or antoher Guild Pres./Executive Director) on one of your PodTech.net . . . podcasts/episodes/moments.

    Comment by Brooke A. Wharton — August 24, 2006 @ 11:56 am

19. Yahoo! - who else - they have to catchup somehow.

    Comment by Thyaga — August 24, 2006 @ 3:36 pm

20. Brooke brings up some very important points, indeed the most important points for content companies, but WGA, SAG, DGA real talent, won’t play in these waters until it’s worth their while, and by the time it’s worth the effort, the Guilds will have something on the board, well, they sorta already have…

    http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=2174

    But for now the primordial-soup New Media’ites will just cull up non-repped geek-level talent, going extreme niche, slapping ads on it…tinker-toying with the Amanda’s and the Frank Ze’s and the C List off-Hollywoods, all the while playing bandwidth distributional codec games and eternally whining about HD and other techie shop talk and how the masses “just don’t get it”.

    All set to go into more detail, but well, it’s already been said. From now on out, whatever LayZ says, I ditto endorse…without even looking, well maybe a few escape clauses, but yet to find any. Sorta like an actor committing to a Coen Brothers or Christopher Guest script, doesn’t matter, don’t even have to read it…sign, sign… :)

    VH1 has “Web Junk”, so in a way Cable is already there, MTV buying up iFilm, just America’s Funniest Web Slop…and I could see YouTube the TV Show. But it’s all so much hobbled-yarn SpikeTV fare, (well minus the most-excellently scripted Blade)…

    Comment by Christopher Coulter — August 24, 2006 @ 7:45 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment