Comments on: Viacom triggers spat with own talent over YouTube http://www.lostremote.com/2007/12/29/viacom-triggers-spat-with-own-talent-over-youtube/ Where TV Finds the Future Sun, 06 Jul 2008 09:23:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Anon http://www.lostremote.com/2007/12/29/viacom-triggers-spat-with-own-talent-over-youtube/#comment-648462 Anon Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:22:55 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/12/29/viacom-triggers-spat-with-own-talent-over-youtube/#comment-648462 Trust me I'm no fan of Perez Hilton (I think he's trash) but this is a good move for him. How can YouTube expect people to put videos up on their site and only get 5k for 25 million hits? YouTube is going to have a lot of problems moving forward if they don't change their model soon and update their video player. Trust me I’m no fan of Perez Hilton (I think he’s trash) but this is a good move for him. How can YouTube expect people to put videos up on their site and only get 5k for 25 million hits? YouTube is going to have a lot of problems moving forward if they don’t change their model soon and update their video player.

]]> By: Jeremiah http://www.lostremote.com/2007/12/29/viacom-triggers-spat-with-own-talent-over-youtube/#comment-646693 Jeremiah Sun, 30 Dec 2007 06:07:50 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/12/29/viacom-triggers-spat-with-own-talent-over-youtube/#comment-646693 I'm currently under the impression YouTube charges the same amount for a banner impression irrespective of who's video it accompanies. Under this model, there really can be no "stars" in YouTube's universe, as highly sensational videos will attract eyes no matter who uploads them. Back in 99-2000 (aka "The Precambrian" in 'net years), MP3.com (then privately owned) put up a million dollars a month that it distributed to top traffic artists on the site. For a short time, there were several emerging artists who were making a living (read: mortgage and car payments) via their MP3.com revenue. This attracted not only a bazillion bands and artists (coincidentally, I was the 100,000th to join the site....),but the ire of the major media conglomerates. Sooner or later, some company is going adopt the same model for video: serious, earning-a-living-from-this money will be ponied up in exchange for great content and promotion. Kind of like..... it should be. I’m currently under the impression YouTube charges the same amount for a banner impression irrespective of who’s video it accompanies. Under this model, there really can be no “stars” in YouTube’s universe, as highly sensational videos will attract eyes no matter who uploads them.

Back in 99-2000 (aka “The Precambrian” in ‘net years), MP3.com (then privately owned) put up a million dollars a month that it distributed to top traffic artists on the site. For a short time, there were several emerging artists who were making a living (read: mortgage and car payments) via their MP3.com revenue. This attracted not only a bazillion bands and artists (coincidentally, I was the 100,000th to join the site….),but the ire of the major media conglomerates.

Sooner or later, some company is going adopt the same model for video: serious, earning-a-living-from-this money will be ponied up in exchange for great content and promotion.

Kind of like….. it should be.

]]>