Google goes after video, forgets about YouTube

In an important announcement that could have a major impact on Google's future in video, the New York Times is reporting that Seth MacFarlane, the creator of "Family Guy," will start "Seth MacFarlane's Cavalcade of Cartoon Comedy", which Google will syndicate (using AdSense) to thousands of Web sites that fit with MacFarlane's target audience. Instead of a static ad, Google will place the video clip on the site.

Interesting, huh? Not only has the company found a way to bring video to the Web and finally make some money on it, but it has nothing to do with YouTube.

Am I missing something here?

Did Google just happen to forget that YouTube is still hanging around with no prospects for revenue and no advertising platform? I commend Google on forming this deal with the world's most popular cartoonist, but why wouldn't it try to do something on the YouTube front?

Ostensibly, Google believes this idea will yield better revenue, but it still doesn't solve the one problem it can't figure out: YouTube is becoming the company's albatross. And if you ask me, this "Cavalcade" would be best served on YouTube.

Then again, maybe Google doesn't want to play the traditional advertising game with Seth MacFarlane. Instead, the company seems to be under the impression that by using it on its AdSense platform, it'll use the video to its advantage, while helping customers add some entertainment to their sites and hopefully increase their own ad revenue.

But I'm not sold on that.

Regardless of the fact that Google can probably make more money on ad revenue through this distribution scheme, I don't think it's the best way to go about it. Instead of tying MacFarlane's income to a portion of advertising revenue, and thus forcing itself into this distribution deal, Google should have paid MacFarlane a flat fee for his services and added this show as an exclusive on YouTube.

Upon doing so, Google solves two problems: it solves the issue of controlling content, thus ensuring that more advertisers would be willing to spend cash on the show, and finally turns YouTube into a destination for high-quality content and advertising dollars, instead of a toilet for the worst videos on the Web.

This deal strikes me as nothing more than a cash grab. Sure, it's a big step for online video and it could have a major impact on the industry, but let's not forget that it does nothing for YouTube -- the one place Google needs all the help.

From a purely financial standpoint, this deal makes sense, but finances should be the least of Google's troubles right now if it can't turn YouTube around. It's already a company with solid financial health, but its looming issue with video has yet to be solved. If it can't turn things around with YouTube soon, all the money it's making with MacFarlane could be lost at the hands of its video albatross.

Tread lightly, Google, you never know when YouTube may come up and bite you.

For more on what Don is up to, follow him on Twitter by clicking here!

Update1: I had the opportunity to speak with Google today to clarify a few sticking points with YouTube and this deal. According to the company, MacFarlane's content will be featured on a dedicated YouTube channel and some revenue will be shared between him and YouTube. The New York Times has yet to update its article with this integral fact, but it should be noted that YouTube will get a cut of this deal.

The videos themselves are YouTube videos, and they will live on a YouTube brand channel," Daniel Rubin at Google told me. "The syndication across the Google Content Network of this content operates identically to the way in which we syndicate other YouTube videos as AdSense video units. So, just as other YT content creators generate revenue from their content by having their videos bundled with ads, so too will MacFarlane generate revenue from the branded manner in which his videos are placed on AdSense publisher sites." "What's interesting about this deal is that it is branded entertainment: a deal that connects Seth's content with a specific brand advertiser. Further, this deal demonstrates how YouTube partners can generate revenue and increase distribution of their content via the Google Content Network."

I've asked Google to come on my CNET Digital Home podcast to discuss this deal and YouTube itself to give it the opportunity to tell us about its plans for the future and turning this important business segment around. I'm waiting on confirmation. If/when I get that, look for another update here.

[cporpheus]

I think Google is creating two classes of video through this deal: the "high-quality" Hulu type of videos that can be sold in this fashion using adsense and the viral, home-made videos on youtube that have yet to give Google anything. Yahoo bought <insert favorite web site/service here> and can't find a way of profiting from it and Google is like Yahoo in this sense with youtube.

[onlyauser]

yawn

[make_or_break]

Didn't you guys rant about this (YouTube tubed) already? You what they say about spur of the moment purchases...

[theroyalspeaker]

whoa. really?

Well, i think google is just doing the right thing.

guys, care to xlinks?

pls add my new blog to your blog roll.

http://theroyalspeaker.blogspot.com

thanks.

[meenoo5]

Don, you just might be the most under qualified moron to have ever worked at CNet. Before you start suggesting and company strategy-and mind you, just not any company, but google!- you would be well advised to take a course in marketing a learn a little about brand dilution. If google does not want to integrate this into YouTube, perhaps its because one series or cartoon will confuse consumers into identifying with what the brand is actually doing.

It seems like all your articles simply stem from stupid childish curiosities that somebody at CNET should answer for you. I cant believe you get a column to write about this stuff. Wouldnt be surprised if they fired you soon with all the frustration CNET users are feeling these days.

[meenoo5]

Don, you just might be the most under qualified moron to have ever worked at CNet. Before you start suggesting and company strategy-and mind you, just not any company, but google!- you would be well advised to take a course in marketing a learn a little about brand dilution. If google does not want to integrate this into YouTube, perhaps its because one series or cartoon will confuse consumers into identifying with what the brand is actually doing.

It seems like all your articles simply stem from stupid childish curiosities that somebody at CNET should answer for you. I cant believe you get a column to write about this stuff. Wouldnt be surprised if they fired you soon with all the frustration CNET users are feeling these days.

[meenoo5]

Don, you just might be the most under qualified moron to have ever worked at CNet. Before you start suggesting and company strategy-and mind you, just not any company, but google!- you would be well advised to take a course in marketing a learn a little about brand dilution. If google does not want to integrate this into YouTube, perhaps its because one series or cartoon will confuse consumers into identifying with what the brand is actually doing.

It seems like all your articles simply stem from stupid childish curiosities that somebody at CNET should answer for you. I cant believe you get a column to write about this stuff. Wouldnt be surprised if they fired you soon with all the frustration CNET users are feeling these days.

[just_a_reader]

Besides that of making products or services, the sole purspose of a company is to profit from those goods or services it supplies. This deal, is perhaps one of many different ways in which Google is attempting to monetizing Internet traffic. What this moves suggests is that Internet, as a medium will end up developing much like TV as a medium...

The only distinction is that Internet content will develop more freely due to the lack of regulations inherrent with TV broadcasting. That is, Internet contenct is not subject to a spectrum controlled throgh government auction. Accordingly, We are now seeing the Internet develop much like the early days of Television in a market more free of market distortions. As a result, content is less conducive to control by Networks granted monopolistic power by the government.

Google is probably learning that YouTube and other such sites are much like Public Access channels.

[make_or_break]

Hmmm....looks like the Google/YouTube shills have been visiting your posting, Don old boy...

[gubatron]

"is still hanging around with no prospects for revenue and no advertising platform"

I find it funny when people say youtube makes no money, when video that don't have even a 2% of the market share google has, are already making millions of dollars every month, charging CPM higher than $22 and selling ad campaigns in the hundreds of thousands of dollars... why do you think google doesn't make money? it's ridiculous to say it doesn't with such a huge audience, it's a mass media, it doesn't need to put explicit ads to be making money... try to create a video and place it on their home page, and ask how much it costs to have a featured video in there.

[cporpheus]

@meenoo5 Dude, Don isn't an employee of CNET, so he can't get fired. CNET features his articles for his opinions, not to be agreeable.

[podcomics]

We think this is fantastic for short form animated Web series. We believe we have the world's first daily animated series on the internet called "Traveling Gringos". Our shorts are around 30 seconds each and come out Monday-Friday. We have been releasing daily episodes since February of 2008.
www.podcomics.com

[blabtech]

So youtube was a bad investment for google, it seems... I think they have a strategy for it... after all Google is a search king..

http://blabtech.blogspot.com

[xnowimcoolx]

nice, the update that defeats the entire purpose of your blog is placed conveniently at the very bottom.