Comments on: If it can't find a solution, Google should kill YouTube

Don Reisinger thinks Google needs to move quickly to fix YouTube. If it doesn't, it better kill it before it gets out of hand.

[aerosky1229]

Your point is not entirely wrong, but, as many readers here mentioned, the value of Youtube does not come from the revenue it is generating. Youtube is like an asset to Google. When the "Youtube Symdrom" started in 2005, Google was developing its own video service on "video.google.com." But the service was terrible, and I bet no one other than active Googler heard anything about it and everyone was watching the videos on Youtube. If Google did not purchase the Youtube at the time, some other company like Microsoft would purchase the service -- and Google could not allow that. Although the Youtube might not make a direct revenue, it reaches to the people all around the world. Since the Google is a web company that is relying on the advertisement, establishing the presence in the internet is a priority to them. And the employees at Google need to have something to work on. Very important resource to the company is the team of smart employees, especially true for the internet company like Google where the innovation can mean the death or triumph. By acquiring the Youtube, the supervisors at the Google can create more team and more assignments to work on for the newly hired employees. And even if the Youtube dies out as you say, it creates the practical training opportunities for them. Sure, the Google has different teams like Google map, Gmail, Google Desktop, Google ad, etc. But not everyone wants to work on the same thing or assign to few teams, not to mention doing so would be very unproductive. And if the Google decides to give up on the Youtube, there will be a potential buyer out there right now who can be the Google competitor. But since the Google is making so much revenue, it is better to explore and to hold on to Youtube with the money it has than giving up the Youtube. That means "bad image of Google as a loser" leading to "less people wanting to work in Google" and "losing the presence on the internet."

[Grenzmann]

Youtube is the SHIZ. I just watched The Last Unicorn and the first season of Sailor Moon in its entirety. If google attempted to murder youtube, the users would track google down and annihilate it with our divine copyright-infringing Usagi power.
The death of youtube via google would not mean that youtube is not generating enough money, it would mean the google does not have the BALLS to be the master of youtube.
Grow some Schmidt and company.

[Pard68]

It is about time Google took a hit. They have been sitting high on the horse, everything they do seems to profit. They have the golden touch, or so it seems. Than came along YouTube. I am glad it is failing for them, goes to show that even Google makes mistakes and it should teach them to go about their business with a little more caution.

[nartin86]

Thanks to all the hypes

[Emmanuel_von_Angst]

While I agree that Google is mishandling Youtube, I think the author misunderstands online ads a bit. Every blog on Blogger has Adwords so advertisers aren't exactly SUPER picky about where their ads appears since 90% of the cost from advertising is based on clicks not views.
If they would put Adwords on Youtube pages, they would easily make a million a month.
I guess they are doing it for page design reasons, which I respect, but I think a banner at the top of everypage in addition to their little popover ads on some videos would go a long way to make the sight at least pay for itself.

[techmulticast]

When I first encountered the main page of Google, I was abit stunned, especially since I used Yahoo prior to that. There is nothing at their site, juz a text box, few links on top corner and 2 buttons. I wonder how can a website earn money with that.......Well as all of us know now. They are earning tons of money, they are better off then Yahoo.
There might be strong under current beneath a calm surface. It is a matter of having the know-how, in tapping into those current. Recently.....in Apr 2008, Youtube rickrolled alot of their own user. Is it juz a April Fool joke....hmmm? Why do people watch youtube....is it better then their free-to-air channels? Is it juz for video that violate copyrights? What are they searching for? Why are they watching those stuff? If alot of user are searching for old Nike advertisement.....will Nike come in and pay Youtube to host an event?...will companies paid Youtube to deliver HD commercial or a commercial that is more then 10 minutes or 1024 MB...having link at the related video? Youtube has potential, their business model has to be creative. If those people making business plan at Google, really have no idea then they should start hiring some better businessmen. Pls do not juz think of 'killing'.... leave the killing part remain in the domain of violent video game and action movies. Cheers.

[Muhammad I.]

If YouTube actually dies due to this sort of tomfoolery.... well, I'm gonna have to bash some heads.

[robfrankel]

Yup. This is exactly what i wrote in 2006, when this whole stupid deal was put together:

http://robfrankel.blogspot.com/search?q=Google%2C+You+Tube+%26+the+Next+Bubble

Rob Frankel
http://www.robfrankel.com

[coolingoutofhabit]

Okay, just a few things.

About the Article: Google believes in more than just gaining profit. Sure it is necessary, but it isn't the point. And thats not the point of Google. They believe in providing something that is essentially free and they reap profit off it in the most non-intrusive way possible--without limiting creativity or progression. Google knew what it was getting into because the lawsuit was pending when they bought YouTube. I think they bought it, in part, just to have the fight. If anyone can conquer this simple thing, Google are the people to do it. Just give'em a minute!

About the Author: Dude, did you read your own article from yesterday, Gene Simons shows his Age (Ignorance)?!?! The premise is basically the same, except you were on the opposite side of the fence. I think you're starting to show your age (ignorance) as well. Be consistent and think before you dilute the Internet with your drivel and double speak. Who hired you?

[MSSlayer]

If it is making a profit, no matter how small, why shut it down? That is a guaranteed way to lose money. I guess this is what happens when a site that truly is controlled by the people come into contact with conservative, boring corporations.

[Benf]

In my opinion YouTube has always been a veritable junkyard for all the crap people would make videos of, a wasteland of usless junk and bandwidth.

[ceddy937]

"You guys lack vision. Their acquisition was about a lot more than cha-ching! They understand convergence yet they cannot monetize off of it without turning off consumers as of yet. NOONE is making money off of streaming. NOONE. Why should Google destroy a company because its not profitable at the moment. How many other companies have unprofitable pieces. Grow up, shut up or face up."

Yea like GM!!

[make_or_break]

It wasn't all that long ago that Google painted itself as the Ultimate Repository of Information. Deals with libraries to digitize their stacks, never mind little things like copyrights. Google bots scouring the web for anything and everything, peeking in places that, however insecure, were places that it had no real, justifiable business peeking into. Positively Scary Stuff, this megalomania of data gathering. So if you're gonna gather up information, that's going to have to include video data as well. And when it came to video, what indeed was the largest independent (i.e., not in control by a multinational) library of video online--good, bad, legal or otherwise? YouTube, natch, and lo and behold it indeed wasn't owned by anyone with major capital in the bank that could fend off any mega bid from an up and comer like Google.

.

Never mind the copyrighted content. Never mind the stupid, lamebrained garbage...this was a REAL library (or toilet, depending upon your point of view) of video on the internet, ready for the buying. And of course Google stepped right in it when they bought YouTube. Darn all those legit calls to nuke all that copyrighted content; this was supposed to be the video version of Napster, only with the POWER of Google behind it. How were they supposed to know that legal system around the world was even more potent than Google itself? This is the definitive search machine, capable of mowing down all enemies and governments and agencies and of course Microsoft, by gawd, and no measly intellectual rights lawyer is going to spoil this sweet deal. We bought calculable TRAFFIC! We can plunder the ad budgets of the Fortune 500! We can rule the digital video universe!

.

And so goes another pipe dream...maybe they can talk Yahoo! into taking YouTube off their hands. After all, it's not like Yahoo! is smart itself these days, anyways.

[iff2mastamatt]

I want Stage6 back! That video website was somewhat useful!

[phpdood]

in economics its called a dead weight loss; an unrecoverable amount of resources that cannot be recovered. I have a feeling youtube was sort of a "in the moment" purchase. I myself am interested to see what Google can do to turn it around.

[bbberrey]

How about that old "fake" (i pretty sure but hopefully not) Google Tv, how about combining google video and youtube better and adding a section of registered business's or companies, or studios for that matter, with there own documentories, and movies, and tv shows like hulu with adds but make it up to the google standards (if you know what i mean), so you can have your own search engine for junk, movies, and tv and some adds my 2cnets(cents)

[johnnydugs]

I think you hit the nail on the head Don. It is difficult to imagine YouTube existing without a viable future revenue stream(s). I completely agree that YouTube's attempt to capitalize off a growing market for video ad dollars is and will continue to be faced with some massive obstacles, namely its content. Understaning that YouTube is a place where "true expression can be heard" as 143diamante said is important, but having a business model that can grow... or at least sustain company at present is for more important than some idealistic vision of true expression. If YouTube was put to rest I agree that another site would spring up just as fast, but it would go under far faster.

[twowan]

To make money with YouTube, this is what Google has to do...

On the most viewed clips (clips with, let say, at least 1000 views) (doesn't matter who posted them) you implement a 5 seconds overlay ad, that appears over the player and blocks out (darkens) everything else. (It gives a bit of time for the clip to load in the background as well).

This overlay is a 5 seconds spot (can't be longer than that and it doesn't link to a company website if you click on it. It's like a really, really short TV spot. It can be a still picture for outfits with very little budgets...)

Now, people don't like ads... but they like GAMES and they like to COLLECT stuff.

Each overlay ad is a mini 5 seconds GAME. You have three colored dots on the overlay. The viewer clicks on ONE of them. One is a winner, two are duds. If you're lucky to pick the winner (you only have one chance) during the 5 secs, you receive a TOKEN that is automatically added to your YouTube account. (It encourages you to stay registered...)

Now, you COLLECT these tokens. If you win a certain number of similar tokens, you can EXCHANGE them against full-length HD Hollywood Films or TV shows on YouTube. The fun part could be that you have different categorires of tokens. (Some would be for specific film genres or just for one TV show and some could be really hard to find, worth maybe ten tokens, etc.) (Tokens are generated randomly by the system.)

Now, you have the problem of guys posting shows and seeing Google make money off their film. Well, they need to be rewarded too. For a succesful posting (ie lots of viewers) they also receive TOKENS... to be exchanged to watch high-quality HD movies or TV shows.

Now, these HD movies or TV shows in the "HD Theatre section of YouTube" can also be sponsored with a longer lead-in spot... That's even more money for Google.

Now, we have the problem of big brand names not wanting to have their spots stuck on "Jimmy and his weird cat"... Well, they could "control" where their 5 Secs. spots go by teaming with content suppliers through YouTube. Example, a Coca-Cola campaign with Viacom clips... Viacom takes all the succesful shows they own like, for example, "Spongebob". They cut out little "gems" (two to three minute clips) and they post them on YouTube to watch for free... Viacom via Google sell their 5 second spots to Coca-cola. Everybody is happy. The viewer, who enjoys these mini-clips, can even link to the full episode of Spongebob on YouTube. He can pay by redeeming TOKENS or he can pay with a CC for the full episode or combine both. (It's all streaming anyway! It's like TV a la carte.)

Now, what about the "Jim and his weird cat" clips. Who pays for these 5 secs ads? Well, it's like Google's Adsense, it's small outfits who purchase so many spots. You can buy a thousand spots or ten thousand spots to be randomly placed on clips or based on the clip's TAGS and on the clip's number of viewers. The outfit supplies the spot or the still and pays Google directly up front.

A system like this is not that difficult to implement. It's fun for all involved and all get something out of it. Everybody is a winner especially Google who makes tons of money from the big guys but also... most importantly...from the long, long tail of all the little guys. Viewers are hooked to YouTube forever! Even if they're just there to click on ads and forget about the clips... the most important is done. Money!

Here, you have it.

Twowan,

(If Google wants more ideas like this one, they can contact me. I'm the guy behind laboratoryfilms.com)

[willyblackmore]

Google likes to talk a lot about YouTube not making any money, hence articles like this. But some people are starting to say that things are a bit more complicated that they may seem--which is most likely why google is holding on to YouTube rather than just cutting it loose. This post on GigaOM makes it sound like some of the numbers re: YouTube are kind of missleading: http://gigaom.com/2009/06/16/youtube-infrastructure-costs-vastly-overestimated-report/