YouTube Hopes To Boost Revenue With Video Downloads

[buzzsaw]

http://www.techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/youtube2.pngYouTube took a step towards monetization by allowing partners to charge users for downloads. In this "test" initiative, selected YouTube partners can offer their video downloads for free or for a fee (determined by the partner) paid through Google Checkout. Most videos in the test are currently charging about $1 each. The partner can also decide how the downloadable video will be licensed to the user - whether it will be restricted to a private non-commercial use video, or whether it can be used under Creative Commons.YouTube's university partners, which include Stanford, Duke and UC Berkeley, are also testing free downloads of lectures and events. And a small group of YouTube partners (YouTube mentioned partners khanacademy, householdhacker and pogobat in their blog post) are using the test offer as a revenue generation and distribution tool. This initiative would also allow users to access videos offline.

More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/3nnZ5UWRjyw/)

[Paul Markham]

This is actually very interesting and needs a comment. Will people pay for a hi quality video scene for $1 if the option is a free FL in low quality?

Will the idea of Tubes sites and traffic disintegrate in these financial times?

Very interesting, Youtube have realised that traffic is not King unless it spends money.

[RawAlex]

YouTube is discovering that they have nothing they can sell enough of to make money on free video - the only thing that truly has value is the video itself. Yet, youtube and all the tube style sites out there have spent the last few years teaching people that video is worthless, mindless free entertainment that shouldn't be hindered by anything, not even the traditional advertising model that broadcast TV has used for years (and that many websites including CNN use very well to their benefit).

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free?currentPage=all

The stupidity of free - why it sounds like a great business model unless you are the person producing what has been given away for free. It's an amusing story (and certainly one that will be changed by the time it makes it to print in July). The entire "free" marketing campaign always assumes that enough people will buy whatever you are pushing to make all the freeness worth while.

Where does it fall down? Bands give away music to sell concert tickets. What would happen if some bands started to do free concerts in order to sell t-shirts and other merchandise? Next some bands start doing free concerts and giving away t-shirts to sell, I dunno, cars. Each step of the process, the object of value (CDs, concerts, T-shirts) is dropped in the mind of consumer to that value of zero, which makes it very difficult in the future to re-establish actual value.

Youtube (and many of the Web2.0 properties out there) are hitting the wall now. Some of them were heading towards potential profitablility based mostly around online ad sales, but the recession is pushing that off to long into the future. While traffic is king, the reality is that traffic without income is a drain, nothing more.

(As a side note, Facebook turned 5 recently, and there is little or no chance that they will find a way to profitablilty any time soon. They have only kept going basically by selling a small part of the company to Microsoft for a hyped up valuation that they were not able to justify in a court of law).

[gonzo]

I put this up for comments.

Im seeing that people will pay for content for download if it is interesting to them and is inexpensively priced.

As I posted last week AEBN is in the middle of repositioning ClipClinic to take advantage of this.

There are some advantages of using this both as a revenue stream and a traffic builder to paysites.

I assure you there will be a lot more information on this in the coming weeks.

[gonzo]

While traffic is king, the reality is that traffic without income is a drain, nothing more.



:-pearl:

[tony404]

YouTube is discovering that they have nothing they can sell enough of to make money on free video - the only thing that truly has value is the video itself. Yet, youtube and all the tube style sites out there have spent the last few years teaching people that video is worthless, mindless free entertainment that shouldn't be hindered by anything, not even the traditional advertising model that broadcast TV has used for years (and that many websites including CNN use very well to their benefit).

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free?currentPage=all

The stupidity of free - why it sounds like a great business model unless you are the person producing what has been given away for free. It's an amusing story (and certainly one that will be changed by the time it makes it to print in July). The entire "free" marketing campaign always assumes that enough people will buy whatever you are pushing to make all the freeness worth while.

Where does it fall down? Bands give away music to sell concert tickets. What would happen if some bands started to do free concerts in order to sell t-shirts and other merchandise? Next some bands start doing free concerts and giving away t-shirts to sell, I dunno, cars. Each step of the process, the object of value (CDs, concerts, T-shirts) is dropped in the mind of consumer to that value of zero, which makes it very difficult in the future to re-establish actual value.

Youtube (and many of the Web2.0 properties out there) are hitting the wall now. Some of them were heading towards potential profitablility based mostly around online ad sales, but the recession is pushing that off to long into the future. While traffic is king, the reality is that traffic without income is a drain, nothing more.

(As a side note, Facebook turned 5 recently, and there is little or no chance that they will find a way to profitablilty any time soon. They have only kept going basically by selling a small part of the company to Microsoft for a hyped up valuation that they were not able to justify in a court of law).

great post and its like people forget they tried anything on the net will be free and ads will pay for it all. It didnt work. Things can get all high tech but in the end basic business principles really dont change. That's why they have worked for 100's of years.

[miz_wright]

great post and its like people forget they tried anything on the net will be free and ads will pay for it all. It didnt work. </snip>

Gee, didn't we try that 10 years ago? Wasn't that the backing cause of the original dot.com bust?

[tony404]

Gee, didn't we try that 10 years ago? Wasn't that the backing cause of the original dot.com bust?

most have seemed to forget this for some reason that's beyond me.

[RawAlex]

Meanwhile, Twitter says they have enough cash for "years", so they have no need to have a business model:

http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/02/twitter-still-l.html

These investors are the same ones that always bet on the 1000:1 underdog at the horse race. I guess they win just often enough to make themselves look smart.

[Paul Markham]

YouTube is discovering that they have nothing they can sell enough of to make money on free video - the only thing that truly has value is the video itself. Yet, youtube and all the tube style sites out there have spent the last few years teaching people that video is worthless, mindless free entertainment that shouldn't be hindered by anything, not even the traditional advertising model that broadcast TV has used for years (and that many websites including CNN use very well to their benefit).

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free?currentPage=all

The stupidity of free - why it sounds like a great business model unless you are the person producing what has been given away for free. It's an amusing story (and certainly one that will be changed by the time it makes it to print in July). The entire "free" marketing campaign always assumes that enough people will buy whatever you are pushing to make all the freeness worth while.

Where does it fall down? Bands give away music to sell concert tickets. What would happen if some bands started to do free concerts in order to sell t-shirts and other merchandise? Next some bands start doing free concerts and giving away t-shirts to sell, I dunno, cars. Each step of the process, the object of value (CDs, concerts, T-shirts) is dropped in the mind of consumer to that value of zero, which makes it very difficult in the future to re-establish actual value.

Youtube (and many of the Web2.0 properties out there) are hitting the wall now. Some of them were heading towards potential profitablility based mostly around online ad sales, but the recession is pushing that off to long into the future. While traffic is king, the reality is that traffic without income is a drain, nothing more.

(As a side note, Facebook turned 5 recently, and there is little or no chance that they will find a way to profitablilty any time soon. They have only kept going basically by selling a small part of the company to Microsoft for a hyped up valuation that they were not able to justify in a court of law).

Great post. The problem with giving things away for free is it teaches the consumer that it should all be free, even advertising is not going to work as well if the user thinks it should be free.

I am old enough to remember when TV was free in the UK, after you paid the license fee for BBC. ITV was paid for by advertising and it was full of anything that would viewers, the lowest common denominator ruled. It was all about traffic and it worked.

Because they gave away TV entertainment and advertised soap powder, washing up liquid, cigarettes, booze, cars and other basic items that people use every day. It worked to a fashion and we had a few stations start up. We had breaks in the programs every 15 minutes to show us what would improve our life.

Then I went to the US and saw how it worked with 12 stations and adverts every 10 minutes.

Then the Cable service started and people were more than willing to pay $80 a month to get free movies, sport, education and more channels without advertising.

Then the Internet started and we thought we could give away a product for free to get traffic to make them buy that product. And not we're getting people giving away the shop to get 1 in 1,000 to buy a $30 dating membership. !!!!!