YouTube’s TV relationships going south fast
Cory Bergman February 20th, 2007
WSJ breaks the news that NBC’s general counsel demanded that YouTube remove the company’s copyrighted content last week, and CBS’ talks to expand its relationship with the video site have “unraveled.” This after Viacom yanked its content a couple weeks ago after a long negotiation that boiled down to hard cash (Google reportedly offered $500 million but Viacom wanted more) and promised “fingerprinting” technology that YouTube has yet to deliver. The tide is turning, at least for now. Reads the WSJ story, “Although the current strife might eventually prove to be no more than hard-nosed negotiating, Google’s attempt to cut deals with media companies seems to be turning into a long slog.” Lots of good information in this story, including the tidbit that Google CEO Eric Schmidt was planning to take the stage with CBS chief Les Moonves at CES to announce a multiyear deal, but Moonves balked and Schmidt canceled his trip. “I’m not in a great hurry,” says Schmidt on teaming up with TV. “It’s more important to get it right.” So the obvious question, will the networks ultimately partner with YouTube? Does YouTube need them to succeed? (WSJ sub. req.)
Adds WizKid in comments below: “Networks are in for a rude awakening if they think we’ll choose to watch commercial-riddled programming over commercial-free third parties, pirate or not.”
Adds discreet_chaos in comments: “We all may sit around and protest that the networks are trying to protect their copyrights, but other than LonelyGirl and a couple of others, how many people are watching the stuff that’s not ganked from cable?”
Adds Joe in comments: “Most of YouTube’s traffic comes from the long tail of clips that aren’t in the ‘most viewed’ list. So without the tv clips, YouTube would still have a large and likely growing audience.”
19 Comments Add your own
1. Richard Warner | February 21st, 2007 at 7:36 am
I say Google will buy NBC.
2. wizkid | February 21st, 2007 at 7:58 am
Networks are in for a rude awakening if they think we’ll choose to watch commercial rittled programming over commercial free 3rd parties; pirate or not.
3. invitedmedia | February 21st, 2007 at 8:20 am
great.
more free publicity for google/youtube.
don’t they realize the flap over lazysunday was what put youtube on the map?
forgive me if you’ve read this elsewhere:
“leave poor $150 billion google alone you 2 & 3 billion dollar bullies.”
4. invitedmedia | February 21st, 2007 at 8:32 am
and another thing:
i’ve read somewhere that all google has to do is steal their ADVERTISERS.
i noticed mcD’s there the other night.
5. Terry Heaton | February 21st, 2007 at 8:51 am
Cory, why do you give link love to the WSJ when they obviously don’t want anybody reading their material? I think those of us in the media observation world need to stop ourselves when the link leads to a pay wall. Why should we do their recruiting for them?
6. Cory | February 21st, 2007 at 10:19 am
Terry, I read WSJ.com at midnight ET every night and post stories when they’re significant and exclusive to WSJ.
I guess I could go back and swap out the links later in the day with copycat stories that follow on free sites. But hey, if the Journal keeps enterprising big stories that are unavailable elsewhere, then I’ll keep linking them.
7. discreet_chaos | February 21st, 2007 at 10:49 am
In my opinion, without the professionally-produced materials, YouTube is nothing more than a moving Flickr. Sure, there’s some pretty pictures if you’re willing to hunt, but there’s also a whole lot of stuff that’d only mean something to the folks in the photos and their mothers.
IOW: We all may sit around and protest that the networks are trying to protect their copyrights, but other than LonelyGirl and a couple of others, how many people are watching the stuff that’s not ganked from cable?
8. Rocker | February 21st, 2007 at 10:52 am
Wizkid: You’re in for a rude awakening if you think there’s a free lunch. Millions of people watch Lost, American Idol, the SuperBowl, etc. because they like the programming. Said programming cannot be produced if it’s not paid for…either via advertising, or cash. Unless you believe that USC (free) content can really supplant professionally-produced material, which I happen to doubt.
9. wizkid | February 21st, 2007 at 11:18 am
I didn’t say corporate programming was bad, I said that given the choice of Lost + commerical or Lost - commercials, which do you think the people will choose to watch? It’s not about what worked in the past it’s about what will work now.
10. invitedmedia | February 21st, 2007 at 11:19 am
and the latest from the major networks is they can’t agree on their own free-standing web channel.
if there’s one thing youtube has exposed is the audience will find the content not matter where it’s HIDDEN.
11. Charles | February 21st, 2007 at 11:49 am
YouTube has a big problem. If they become chums with media companies, they’ve have to implement software that would forcefully remove illegally-uploaded content to the web. If they don’t, they lose sponsorship and risk lawsuits for allowing illegal content on their website. However, if they remove that content, lots of YouTube’rs will find the “next best thing,” like GoFish or someplace, to pirate their wares.
There’s really no way they can please everyone. At least, not yet.
12. invitedmedia | February 21st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
ooops.
budweiser is another advertiser willing to “give it a whirl”.
13. Zlombie | February 21st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Any capitalist can see the solution to this problem. For 50 years the major networks have conveniently taken a profit off of the “professionals” who make the content we REALLY watch on Youtube. So, sign the “professionals” over to Youtube by buying companies and signing new talent and hiring whoever wants to jump ship. Still one television but infinite, equal competition for the public eye. without network style 2 minute advertisements. The Reason Youtube doesnt want to make a deal is because they don’t need to. If the networks havent figured out a way for me to view their content for free online by now they are TRULY LIVING IN A FANTASY.
14. joe | February 21st, 2007 at 2:09 pm
responding to discreet chaos: most of YouTube’s traffic comes from the long tail of clips that aren’t in the “most viewed” list. so without the tv clips, YouTube would still have a large and likely growing audience.
15. Rob | February 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
So, to recap, the legacy companies don’t like how the new upstart is conducting business, so they’re going to try and beat the upstart at its own game? Whatever.
That’s par for the course for old media because they don’t get the Internet, and by the time they do get it we’ll have the GBC - formerly ABC - World News Tonight with Amanda Congdon.
16. Anonymous | February 21st, 2007 at 6:24 pm
and wait for the assault on slingbox to start.
you just cannot screw around with owned content and not expect the owner to get really leaked off.
fire away now all you pure-but-the-web-is-free thinkers…but business is business and youtube is learning the lesson and fast.
17. discreet_chaos | February 21st, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Joe - I realize that’s the company line and it may be true, just as if you were to add-up a hundred pennies, you’d get a dollar. (IOW: There’s just a lot more of the long tail, so if you add them all together…)
As an example; Way back toward the beginning of YouTube, I “favorited” a video of some strangers on vacation in Aculpulco. It was uploaded on 11/5/05 and if you’re interested, it’s video p5qyZOIcoEo
Thus far, by this point in history, this fine example of non-famous people having fun has been viewed 1,457 times. While the clip of Jim Carrey from last night’s Letterman has been played 32,492 times in less than 24 hours.
Of course, I may not have helped things by linking the Letterman clip (glvGfQnx3DI) from a comment to Defamer this morning, but it’s still a good example of the disparity between the long tail and the stuff that people want to see. IMHO
18. discreet_chaos | February 21st, 2007 at 8:03 pm
You’d think I could spell, especially since it was on my screen. (Acapulco)
And BTW: I just watched it again for the first time in about a year, so the Acapulco count has gone up by one and before somebody hits me; I “favorited” it for the music and because I was playing with the YouTube interface, not because of the bikinis.
(Yeah… That’s the ticket)
19. Anonymous | March 20th, 2008 at 9:06 am
gay
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed