Comments on: YouTube’s TV relationships going south fast

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:06:17 +0000

gay

By: discreet_chaos

discreet_chaos — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:03:28 +0000

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)

By: discreet_chaos

discreet_chaos — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:57:17 +0000

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

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:24:13 +0000

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.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:36:29 +0000

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.

By: joe

joe — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:09:47 +0000

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.

By: Zlombie

Zlombie — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:46:27 +0000

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.

By: invitedmedia

invitedmedia — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:26:21 +0000

ooops.

budweiser is another advertiser willing to “give it a whirl”.

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:49:15 +0000

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.

By: invitedmedia

invitedmedia — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:19:33 +0000

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.

By: wizkid

wizkid — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:18:36 +0000

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.

By: Rocker

Rocker — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:52:38 +0000

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.

By: discreet_chaos

discreet_chaos — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:49:05 +0000

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?

By: Cory

Cory — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:19:53 +0000

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.

By: Terry Heaton

Terry Heaton — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:51:35 +0000

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?