Feature films coming to YouTube
Updated at 8:16 a.m. to include mention of ZDNet's review of YouTube's filtering system.
YouTube will begin offering feature films produced by at least one of the biggest Hollywood movie studios possibly as early as next month, according to an executive with a major entertainment company.
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."
To be sure, not all the studios are prepared to give YouTube full-length movies. Canadian film company Lionsgate agreed in July to give YouTube access to only short movie clips. At least one other studio is trying to cut a similar deal for short-form content with Google, said a separate high-level industry insider.
There's skepticism in some circles about whether enough ads can be placed into a streaming movie to make it profitable without also overloading viewers with commercials. Another sticking point with some of the film companies is Google's insistence on using a specific ad format for feature films, according to two studio sources. They declined to specify which ad unit Google prefers--whether it's prerolls or postrolls or something else--but said some of the studios want the final say on how to advertise to viewers.
Google declined to discuss specifics, but a company spokeswoman issued this statement: "We are in negotiations with a variety of entertainment companies. Our goal is to offer maximum choice for our users, partners, and advertisers."
What is certain is that YouTube's original hope of building a behemoth business exclusively around short, homemade videos is, to this point at least, a bust. The company captured the world's imagination by showcasing 10-minute long user-generated videos but the strategy hasn't yielded much in the way of profits. Three years later, the company is turning to professionally made content.
YouTube vs. Hulu
By choosing this route, YouTube must go head-to-head against the Web's reigning king of streaming long-form video: Hulu.
A showdown between Hulu and the 3-year-old YouTube was inevitable. Consider that Hulu, the joint video venture formed by NBC Universal and News Corp., attracts only a fraction of the 80 million people who visit YouTube each month, but Hulu still managed to generate nearly the same revenue in its first year in business, according to reports.
Over the past year, Hulu's advantages over YouTube have become clear. Hulu attracts more ad revenue because advertisers are more comfortable with full-length TV shows and films than they are with user-generated fare. Something else Hulu has going for it is a superior viewing experience. Hulu's player offers some of the clearest images found on the Web.
YouTube's new wide-screen player presents video in a less pixilated 16:9 format than the site's standard player, but it falls short of providing Hulu-esque quality.
But here's what YouTube offers that Hulu can't: 80 million monthly visitors. No other video site comes close to reaching an audience of that size.
"We'd love to have our long-form content in front of that audience," said an executive with a studio close to reaching an agreement with YouTube.
YouTube's move to join the growing number of competitors trying to deliver movies over the Internet isn't entirely unexpected. Last month, CBS, parent company of CNET News, announced it had agreed to post full-length TV shows on YouTube. That same month, Google rolled out a new wide-screen video player built to display long-form content.
In addition, Google has lamented publicly YouTube's inability to generate significant income. Some people, including me, predicted it was only a matter of time before Google began obtaining rights to TV shows and films.
But I didn't believe Google could manage to shore up relations with Hollywood as quickly as it did.
Kinder, gentler relations?
YouTube was supposed to be despised by the entertainment industry. Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman last summer called YouTube a "rogue company." YouTube became the Web's No. 1 video site and amassed an enormous following, partly by becoming a favorite place for people to post pirated clips of TV shows and movies. YouTube got rich on the backs of filmmakers, or so it seemed to many content owners.
It didn't help that Google often took a hard line in negotiations with the studios, according to multiple sources. Things got hostile enough for Viacom, parent company of Paramount Pictures, to file a $1 billion copyright lawsuit against Google last year. That case continues to play out in the courts.
Then, Google's approach to Hollywood changed. Google actually began wooing the studios. The search company, which has said often that it doesn't want to be a media company, won over many a bitter studio suit by developing systems that help them either thwart piracy or profit from it. Google representatives also became more flexible about sharing ad revenue, according to insiders.
How far the relationship between Hollywood and Google will go is anybody's guess. It's going to be hard for YouTube to land Universal or 20th Century Fox because each has a parent company that owns a stake in Hulu.
"Will (Google) try to get into the same space as Hulu, of course," said one studio executive. "Lots of people will."
Google also wants to deliver all the ads and this is problematic because some other companies do a better job, according to one of the executives. He singled out Auditude, which enables a content owner to insert ads into clips wherever they might appear on the Web. This means that if someone posts a pirated copy to some blog or message board, Auditude can slip an ad within the player and allow the rightful owner to turn a buck.
The one thing that Google and YouTube should be encouraged about is the growing number of Hollywood executives who believe there is plenty of interest in viewing films on PCs.
"Our movies are consumed frequently and for long periods of time on the net," said the exec whose company is in talks with Google. "We're big believers in long-form feature film content on new media platforms."
Check out ZDNet's stories on YouTube's filtering systems. You can find the stories here and here.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 



I think that requiring a valid US credit card number would be a nice idea. I won't mind giving my CC number only for identification purposes. Just a thought.
Enough said.
I also have doubts that these "feature films" on Youtube will work out for the good of everyone involved.
1. How many ads per movie will they be able to fit, without making it too obnoxious?
2. How much revenue will the film-makers gain from each person who watched the film? Will it really equal up to the price of a movie ticket, or the cost of the DVD?
3. Will these "feature films" be actual blockbusters like "Quantum of Solace" and "Twilight", or be crappy, sub-par movies that noone really wants to watch anyways?
If anyone has anything to add, leave a comment on this, and I'll make sure to read it.
Even dead Sci-Fi shows from europe would be cool to watch.
same revenue in it's first year in
should be
same revenue in its first year in
Blockbuster and "crappy, sub par" are usually the same thing.
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 receive TOKENS as well to be exchanged to watch high-quality HD movies or TV shows...
Now, these HD movies or TV shows 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, as an 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! 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. 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. 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!
Here, you have it.
Twowan,
(If Google wants more ideas like this one, they can contact me. I'm the guy behind laboratoryfilms.com)
And somehow...it does seem like it could work.
I know I'd enjoy it better than just a regular ad popping up before my short youtube video plays.
Lenin
http://cutewriting.blogspot.com
<a href="http://cutewriting.blogspot.com">Creative writing help blog</a>
Yet we don't see the studios in an uproar with our public libraries. I don't understand the studios' uproar with Google and the others who want to do the same thing as our public libraries do, with the only difference being that the net providers wish to cram ad's into the viewing experience.
- by arincrumley November 15, 2008 8:07 PM PST
- Hey there,
- Reply to this comment
-
(25 Comments)Our film Four Eyed Monsters was the first feature length film to be screened on YouTube over a year ago and we had the business model of getting people to join spout.com/foureyedmonsters with a custom message we added to the front of our film. For every person that joined we made 1 dollar and we raised $50,000 plus another $5,000 on banner revenue from getting over a million views to our film. We made more money then our entire theatrical DIY release and got way more exposure.
Complete Case Study Posted Here:
http://foureyedmonsters.com/four-eyed-monsters-diy-case-study/
In the film world they usually equate a films theatrical success to how well it will do on DVD and in foreign markets. In our case it substantially boosted our DVD sales, brought foreign deals into the picture and landed us a 100,000 IFC TV and retail DVD deal that we are still in the process of getting paid on, but except for that little detail, the experience was hugely beneficial to our film careers. We are now working on our second feature film As The Dust Settles and are definitely considering YouTube as part of the distribution strategy to this film as well.
Not only does this make sense for indie films, but I think that larger films also want to capitalize on the exposure of putting a feature film on YouTube. And if they did what Joost and Snag do which is put commercials every 10 minutes then it would be an interesting source of additional revenue for these films as well as great exposure to boost DVD and blue-ray sales.
Arin Crumley
Four Eyed MOnsters
http://foureyedmonsters.com
http://asthedustsettles.com