TheAge.co.uk in How YouTube became hot property in online video:
As April began, Hurley said people were posting about 35,000 new videos daily at YouTube.com, luring even more viewers to an audience that’s already watching more than 35 million videos per day, most lasting 30 seconds to 2 1/2 minutes. Just four months ago, YouTube’s visitors were posting about 8000 videos a day while viewers were seeing 3 million videos daily. The growth has been infectious, depending largely on referrals from users who alert their friends and family to a favorite video. Many of the viewers who discovered the site then decided to share their own videos, a factor that continually deepens YouTube’s pool of content. YouTube’s success also is being propelled by a steady increase in high-speed internet connections at home, making the distribution and consumption of online video more practical… In February, YouTube’s 9 million US visitors viewed 176 million pages, compared with 38 million pages at Microsoft’s MSN Video and 76 million at Google Video.
Und interessant deren Weg, mit der Urheberproblematik umzugehen:
YouTube hasn’t been sued yet and so far Hollywood studios have described the company as a „good corporate citizen“. Hurley and Chen hope to work more closely with copyright holders to convince them they can stimulate interest by sharing snippets online. Indeed, some movie studios now post clips as part of marketing campaigns.
Die große Frage wir wohl darin bestehen, wie YouTube seine Dienste finanzieren möchte. Durch Premium-Accounts? Abgestuft uU? Durch Werbegelder? Werden Filmproduzenten und Musikgruppen für die Platzierung von Videos bezahlen? Wird YouTube wie Google Video einen Bereich für paid Videos einrichten und entsprechend prozentual an den Umsätzen beteiligt? Oder wird AEG zuschlagen und einer der Dickschiffe YouTube gegen eine hübsche Kaufsumme verspeisen?
Neue Stellenangebote
|
Growth Marketing Manager:in – Social Media GOhiring GmbH in Homeoffice |
|
|
Social Media und PR Specialist (m/w/d) BeA GmbH in Ahrensburg |
|
|
Social Media Manager B2B (m/w/d) WM SE in Osnabrück |
via digg.com
A lot of possibilities:
1. Like you said: Let users pay for additional services (like Flickr does) e.g. only the latest ten videos per non-pro-user appear.
2. You can automatically add very short video ads in the beginning of the user-videos. Maybe randomly, so not every video starts with a commercial message.
Those ads can be context-sensitive (let sportswear promote sports-videos).
3. You can sell prominent positions of videos on the start page or have video ads that are context sensitive to the ones users are watching.
4. You can sell ad-space. MySpace is doing fine with that strategy.
5. Data-Mining and selling the results. Who is watching what? Which videos are popular with whom and why is that?
6. Connect marketers and video-makers and charge.
… YouTube has an awesome service and it should definitely be easy to finance that with revenues.
there comes something to my mind… what TV does and why it does it the way they do it (i mean private TV companies, not public, but at least its not that relevant). They are carriers. Visual carriers. Whoever produces the content, they carry it to the consumers. Where is the difference between YouTube and a TV company? Is there really any difference? I dont think the differences are that big. TV companies have a program. A timeline of one visual information after another. Quasi realtime. YouTube has no given program and its not realtime. But so what. Is there any problem to .. hm.. hm.. hm… im not finished with that thought yet but it seems to me, that YouTube has much more possibilities if we try to forget that its a webcompany.