Coop's Corner

YouTube may be a loss leader for Google, though with some 80 million viewers, that's still one hell of a loss leader.

On the strength of the thousands of short-form content uploaded by members, YouTube has grown exponentially since its 2006 acquisition by Google. But how much of a business is there in dumb cat videos? As always, the challenge for management has been how to make YouTube's $1.65 billion purchase price pay for itself.

(Credit: CNET News)

Now Google is considering a different tack to answer at least part of that question. As my colleague Greg Sandoval reported earlier Thursday, YouTube will begin offering feature films produced by at least one of the biggest Hollywood movie studios, possibly as early as next month.

"For months, Google, YouTube's parent company, has been talking to the major film companies about launching an ad-supported, streaming movie service, two execs with knowledge of the negotiations told CNET News. "It's not imminent," said one of the executives. "But it's going to happen. I would say you can expect to see it, if all goes well, sometime within the next 30 to 90 days."

Among other things, this would put YouTube on a more competitive footing in long-form video versus Hulu, the joint video venture formed by NBC Universal and News Corp. The shift also underscores a recognition that the big spenders increasingly are getting picky. Despite the viral growth in user-generated content, advertisers would much rather spend their money on the professionally created stuff.

That's hardly an epiphany. What's surprising is that it took management so long to reach this conclusion. I'm not going to nitpick but what's more surprising is that even with an improved wide-screen video player, YouTube still lags Hulu in terms of picture quality. Maybe that doesn't matter for wonder-of-me moments shot with my home video recorder. It matters a lot when you're sitting down with prospective advertisers, freaked out by a disastrous economy, about where to put their money.

So it is that MG Siegler of VentureBeat correctly asks whether any of Google's exertions to date are enough to really matter.

Of course, there is still no real proof that Google has figured out an effective way to monetize these or any other videos on YouTube. So a large question would have to be if feature film content would be any different? Another question is if users will be willing to watch feature films in YouTube's often less-than-stellar video quality. It's one thing to watch short clips in low resolution, but sitting through an entire 90-minute to 2-hour feature may be a bit much to ask.

Technically, that doesn't sound like a very tall order. But the longer Google takes to figure out a fix, the more YouTube risks losing its status as a pop culture phenom.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt is on record wondering how YouTube will make money for Google. I doubt that the elections video search gadget unveiled today is the immediate answer, but it offers an intriguingly possible answer.

Google's speech experts from the company's research center came up with the gadget. Here's how it works:

Videos from YouTube's Politicians channels are automatically transcribed from speech to text and indexed. Using the gadget, you can search not only the titles and descriptions of the videos, but also their spoken content. Additionally, since speech recognition tells us exactly when words are spoken in the video, you can jump right to the most relevant parts of the videos you find.

The catch is that the gadget can search only videos people upload to YouTube's Politicians channels. It's a good start, though. I'm waiting for Google to expand this beyond the proof-of-concept stage.

This is hard stuff, and Google acknowledges that a lot of work remains in refining algorithms and making sure that the transcriptions are accurate. But if Google can do this with political videos on YouTube, there's not much to prevent the indexing of all the videos found in its expansive library. If Google's able to incorporate the technology into desktop search, that would be hugely attractive.

In the meantime, suffice it to say that Google has developed what's likely to be remembered as the most scorned technology on Capitol Hill. And for good reason: we'll be able to catch the lying bastards who claim that they never said what they really said.

First YouTube, now Twitter.

In 2006, George Allen destroyed his political future after his infamous "Macaca" crack on the campaign trail made the rounds on YouTube.

Now it turns out that John McCain's campaign has suspended one of its Internet communications operatives for spreading links to a video mashup smearing Barack Obama.

Soren Dayton had used his Twitter account to spread the news. His Twitter page has since vanished.

Pressed by a reporter from Politico, a former producer for "The Laura Ingraham Show" took responsibility for its creation, saying, "I'm trying to join the YouTube generation and have some fun."

So it goes. Unfortunately, you knew it was only a matter of time before we got to this point. Still, it marks another step in the recognition of Twitter as a useful communications tool.

Twitter's come a long way, especially when compared against the skepticism that prevailed a year ago, just as it started going viral. Twitter also played a prominent role in the mini soap opera that took place at the South by Southwest conference, when attendees at the keynote used it to savage Sarah Lacy's interview of Mark Zuckerberg.

Twitter still has a way to go before it rivals YouTube in the popular lexicon. In particular, the mainstream media is going through its own awkward introduction. Here's how Politico describes it: "Twitter is an online device that allows users to send out short messages and links en masse through computers or PDAs."

OK, close enough.

Google has been caught up in a controversy over anti-Semitic videos that have been circulating on YouTube.

The Central Council of Jews in Germany has gone to court to force the video-sharing site to permanently purge the files, according to the Israeli daily Haaretz. The paper quotes Stephan Kramer, secretary general of the Central Council, saying he believes Google was culpable for "aiding and abetting racial hatred and discrimination."

Should there be limits to what can be found on YouTube?

This question is especially freighted with extra historical baggage in Germany, where the Holocaust occupies a front row in the nation's historical consciousness. And as much as it breaks my heart to say, I think the Central Council is making a mistake.

In the U.S., hate groups figured among the earliest of the early adopters. They quickly figured out how to exploit the Internet to spread their message and use the medium to raise money. More than half a century after the Holocaust, one might have hoped for better. Then again, people don't really change that much from one generation to the next. The only difference is the quality of the technology at their disposal.

But in Germany, incitement to racial hatred crosses the legal red line. And that's why YouTube finds itself in the cross hairs. German television last year carried a report in which it was stated that, among other racist works, Internet viewers could watch a Nazi propaganda film called Jud Suess on YouTube. I watched Jud Suess years ago in college. The Nazis intended the movie to reveal the depravity of Jews. Instead, the paradox is that Jud Suess is a powerful weapon against racism. It offers compelling video testimony about that particularly insane mix of evil and absurdity that characterized the narrative of the Third Reich between 1933 and 1945.

If other, more current and more graphically horrifying videos have begun circulating on YouTube, would that really surprise you? Not me. When racists get their hands on high technology, you wind up with a high-tech-savvy racist.

But Google shouldn't get hung out to dry. Instead of being on the receiving end of a lawsuit, aren't there more sensible, if not more calibrated ways to figure out the next step? I don't have any quick answer to the question. Let's get a conversation going and let me know how you think the sides should proceed.

The decision to expand YouTube's application programming interfaces is the smartest move by management since it agreed to lighten Eric Schmidt's wallet to the tune of $1.6 billion in 2006.

With the announcement, developers get more direct access to the service while it also facilitates the proliferation of so-called "chromeless" players without the traditional YouTube interface and branding.

Eric Schmidt: YouTube everywhere? Why not?

(Credit: Dan Farber)

I don't want to get all giddy on you but this is a big deal. Instead of promoting YouTube as a destination site, this lays the groundwork for YouTube's transformation into a video service. If it goes according to plan, the world starts building gobs more video products using YouTube's infrastructure. YouTube's corporate parent, Google, thus becomes the host for that much more of the world's video. (Think about what that suggests in terms of indexing and monetizing potential.)

YouTube's not alone in thinking about how it can reinvent itself as a technology platform. Steve Rubel, who writes the Micro Persuasion blog, nails it:

The leading players on the Web all see the train coming. They are wisely creating APIs and turning themselves into plug-and-play services, not just big destinations. YouTube is just the latest to do so today. Amazon has S3. Google has OpenSocial and an extensive library of APIs. As does Microsoft. Facebook is allowing its applications to live outside the site. Twitter is an API first and (eventually) a business model second. Finally, the booming widget economy shows the promise of small content that can go anywhere.

Dan Frommer over at Silicon Valley Insider has it right when he writes:

If you work YouTube's new services into your Web site, your visitors can upload video directly to YouTube without leaving your site. You keep the page views--and their attention--and don't have to pay for video hosting. Google, in turn, can presumably sell ads on your content. (Today's announcement doesn't say anything about ads/revenue sharing, so we're assuming Google keeps all of the ad revenue in exchange for the free service.)

So what could screw this up? I can think of only one potential hitch. There are still a lot of bad feelings dividing content creators from Google/YouTube over copyright violation disputes. And don't forget that Viacom's $1 billion lawsuit hasn't even entered the discovery stage.

Call it an educated hunch but I'm betting Google will try to cut a deal before that lawsuit ever gets close to going before a judge. After it reached a settlement in its antitrust case with the government, Microsoft spent billions to resolve lingering litigation against archenemies. That was coin well spent and it allowed Microsoft to get on with its business.

YouTube's a social phenomenon that's only getting bigger. Google knows what's at stake.

Mark Zuckerberg and new No. 2 Sheryl Sandberg

Newly appointed COO Sheryl Sandberg obviously believes Facebook has miles to go before she rests. But more than a few people out there apparently share another opinion.

There's a hilarious video now making the rounds on YouTube--"I'm getting bored of Facebook" set to the Billy Joel tune, "We didn't start the fire." (You knew it was only a matter of time, didn't you?)

All good fun and such, but does the satire reflect a real turning point in the service's popularity? Let's keep some perspective. Facebook's getting the same treatment dished out to every frontrunner--be it in technology, politics, or some other sphere. (How long before we start reading about Obama-mania morphing into Obama fatigue?) Anyway, former Goldman Sachs analyst turned blogger Michael Parekh doesn't think the malaise--if that's the right word--will last:

"Any near-term fatigue by some in all things Facebook may soon be reversed as Facebook and it's application partners gin up innovative ways for us to enjoy Facebook anew."

Parekh's a smart guy and his analysis of tech currents has always been sensible. Enjoy the video, but I wouldn't nail the coffin shut on the Facebook phenomenon just yet.

I've read a bunch of blogs where the authors contend the video is even a harbinger of the social network's coming demise. If they really believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to offer for sale. Cheap, too.