And so, it seems like this latest YouTube development is going to answer the million dollar question of how its going to substain itself financially. Having gone through several rounds of VC funding and with a high monthly burn rate for their bandwidth, tech pundits waited on the edge of their seats to see what this major media player would do to turn in some revenue.
And the answer to all this – to make users agree to give it the rights to all the uploaded media from its million of users. Its no secret that they have a wide range of users ranging from teenagers posting up home videos which they then link elsewhere to indie artistes who upload their original music in hopes of gaining greater recognition and a shot at the big time.
This would mean, in terms of music alone, YouTube could transform itself into becoming the home to the largest and most diverse pool of artists. The possibilities for other types of media monetization are equally mind-boggling.
And while this move have strung up a line of controversial commentaries, I would feel that YouTube has successfully gained enough traction from its user base while maintaining a reputation as a site which respects copyright holders. These two factor may just be the edge that it need to pull this one off.
[via : Boing Boing ]
2 comments:
Most web 2.0 video has no ideas on how to make money. Most will ride to generate interest and money through publicity. Therefore, it only increase the hype that there is a money to be made.
Yes, the trend now is now to get money is to become popular and generate press interest so that more VC will dump money at it.
Publicity = business model.
I won't think these geek know how to generate $$$$. They can generate technology but definitely not business profitability.
Advertising is not sustainable.
The only smart geek I know that can generate profitability is Bill Gate.
I couldn't agree more. In most cases, advertising cannot be substained over long run. Some sites manage to pull a advertising based model off because of the niche audience they can command. But that's not possible for most video sites due to their (1)large bandwidth requirements and (2) mass, diverse range of audience.
From what I see, the only video site with a different revenue model is Revver. What they claim to do is slap an advertisement to at the end of all user-submitted videos and dish out shared ad revenues every time that video is played.
This may just work out for them.
Post a Comment