Comments on: Between a rock and YouTube, video execs see promise

Internet video executives say that advertisers are staying far away from so-called user-generated videos like those on YouTube. So where's the money going?

[jamalystic]

It's a difficult and frustrating for the likes of Youtube, who despite all the mammoth following is still having dificulties translating that to cash. The case could be said of social networks like facebook and myspace. Social media is an avenue that marketers have to tread cautiously and for now it seems no one has deviced a model to monetize it: How to Monetize Social Media? Nobody Knows(http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=466&doc_id=155826&F_src=flftwo)

[jlleventon]

it's the repertoire that one builds with these "video clips" that detemines one's future self worth. . .
not all funny videos get the $10,000
not all motion pictures break box office records
mabey after we die our efforts will be noticed

[gmh_in_mclean_va]

Much of the stuff on YouTube is crap. Some of it is really cool. Although YouTube is owned by someone, the "video" execs mentioned in the article seem to be missing something very important. That being the way corporations and users see the internet. Corporations see it as something that exists as an advertising medium or a means to sell products and services by directly reaching the broadest market possible. Users, although they may use it as a market place, also see it as a community. Not everything that happens in a community is commerce. Sometimes people are making art for the shear joy of it. Sometimes they just want to hang out with friends, make new ones, argue with strangers, or call each other names. Sometimes they want to make social commentary, discuss politics, or religion. Others (for some reason I can't fathom) simply get a kick out of lighting a fart on fire and hoping someone else will think it's funny.

Even in a capitalist society, things exist that have nothing to do with corporate profit margins. Its kind of like going to a dinner party with the most eclectic assembly of guests you can imagine and part way through, "the man" jumps out of a closet in a suit and tie and says, "This dinner party is brought to you by Nike...Just Do It" and then spends the evening walking around behind the guests and gesturing at a shoe he's holding like the models do with items on, "The Price Is Right". He may not sell a shoe, but he'll bug the crap out of the dinner guests and he'll probably leave deeming the party to have had no real worth because no one bought or sold anything while he was there. The guests will ask each other, "Who was that creepy dude in the suit, and why was he walking around fondling that shoe?"

[sherrib123]

Your analogy is probably the best I have ever read! I own Google stock and really want them to make money on Youtube and I didn't even know before this article that they were actually spending an an additional $356 million a year in bandwidth fees on top of the 1.6 billion they paid to buy Youtube. I love Youtube and think its great free entertainment. I am sure one day someone will figure out how to make money from it without alienating all of the userbase but for right now your analogy really sums up the whole problem with trying to apply the traditional advertising model to a new media like Youtube.

[steve_rosenbaum]

There are two words in the article and comments, both of which need to be put in context:

first, UGC.
second, CRAP.

In 24 months there will be no such thing as UGC. "User" Generated Content is made up distinction. There is no 'pro' and no 'amateur' content in the future. Professional used to be be defined by the earning of money (think 'amateur' college sports and pro-sports). But in the future, everyone who wants to make money will be able to get paid. Maybe micro-payments, maybe insignificant payments. But there will be rev share for content makers. So the "Pro" and "amateur" distinction will blur.

Now lets look at CRAP. No such thing. One man's junk is another man's treasure. Consider television. Lot's of 'crap' on TV. But it is pro-crap.

So, if you're a Beagle owner (I am) than Beagle videos are fun to watch. Home video, amateur, glossy, Animal Planet, etc... I'll watch 'em all. Poodle videos - not so much.

Context, Personal taste, Niches, Passion - will drive individual interest in video from all sources.

And - advertisers will love it. It will be a huge new way to reach consumers who express intent by the clips they watch, and the video communities they participate in. Heck, i just bough puppy training pads and a dog carrier after watch 5 videos of 'frisbee dogs'. Tell me that isn't the future of advertising!

[badasscat]

Interesting definition of the word "professional". I think you're a little confused.

"Professional" content is not content that makes money, it's content made by those who are themselves professionals (the word "professional" is derived from "profession" - the content itself doesn't have a profession). That generally means they're paid for it, but it also means they were good enough at what they do to be hired by somebody to pay them for it. The upshot being that professional content has a certain level of skill and craft involved that amateur content doesn't, or at least not usually. By definition, anyone can make amateur content (even professionals). But not anyone can make professional content - only those judged good enough to be hired by someone else can make professional content. There is a built-in level of quality control in professional content that doesn't exist in amateur content.

Does that mean all pro content is better than all amateur content? No, but the overall signal to noise ratio is certainly a lot better.

It also means that yes, there will *always* be a distinction between professional content and amateur content, just as there will always be a distinction between professional and amateur pilots or professional and amateur race car drivers or professional and amateur porn stars. The distinction is whether or not somebody thought a person's work was worth paying them to do on a continuing basis. That's not a judgment call on quality and it's not a distinction that will ever disappear. Either something is your profession or it isn't.

[hunter_jc]

Actually i think the Ad support model will work on quality website. Not those youtube site but sites like nytimes.com . I think the nytimes.com is the only quality site that is worth clicking the ad to support.

[steve_rosenbaum]

really? the ONLY site that you think is worth supporting is the NY Times.

[patriciahandschiegel]

It's just VERY early for video. User driven content isn't about advertisers not being able to control the brand alone - it's also that publishers would have to figure out how they'd compensate their content creators. Google may have bought YouTube for its technology, reach, etc. It may play a big enough part of something else to make sense to them.

Professional content will be the way of the future not because user driven is hard to monetize but because the internet is designed to converge channels, and one of those channels is TV.