NBC’s new CEO Jeff Zucker didn’t waste any time before stirring things up a little. The Financial Times is reporting that he trashed YouTube, using words very similar to those chosen by Viacom a week ago when they demanded YouTube remove over 100,000 video clips. The words, in fact, are so close that the two events almost seen orchestrated:
“YouTube needs to prove that it will implement its filtering technology across its online platform. It’s proven it can do it when it wants to,” Mr Zucker said, referring to the site’s controls to block pornography and hate speech. He added: “They have the capability. The question is whether they have the will.”
It’s clear that YouTube has the ability (like their competitors) to filter out copyrighted materials right now, and they are choosing not to do so. That would gut YouTube’s core content and that isn’t going to happen without a judge getting involved. It’s also clear from all the posturing by the television networks that they want their content to appear on YouTube. It helps television ratings, and they want the online revenue.
So the question is, if both sides want it, why hasn’t it happened yet? The infamous television network joint venture to compete with YouTube hasn’t, and probably won’t, materialize. YouTube has no competitor with enough market share to argue that they are a viable alternative. These companies need each other.
The answer may lie in the amount of revenue that can realistically be generated from these clips. If users can be convinced to watch a video advertisement or two before a clip, the money may be there. But simple display ads around a video just won’t generate enough money to make the networks happy. A $1 CPM generates only a tenth of a cent per view in revenue. Multiply that by ten and you still have only a cent. Television networks are used to getting $0.30 and more in commercial advertising per viewer for a hit show.
Google obviously made promises early on that it couldn’t keep. We’re hearing off record that the TV companies’ biggest frustration with the negotiations is that Google has repeatedly made and then pulled offers. It’s clear that Google is still trying to figure out a model they can live with. That may not happen.
Back to NBC, keep an eye out for their new social networking products. It was mentioned in a different FT article on Zucker, who “noted that NBC was planning to roll out social networking applications across its internet properties in the next few weeks.” This is consistent with earlier reports on this as well – see here and here.
nbc didn’t really act on this issue before youtube got acquired by google – because youtube had no net profit. it’s not worth beating a dead horse
it’s only then – after google bought/saved youtube…that nbc started trying to throw their legal weight around because it’d be worth it with as large as greedle’s bank is
If I had kids, I’d be concerned about the pornography that sometimes shows up in unrelated keyword searches. That is unacceptable, but I don’t know how common it is (last time I saw it was when searching for “Robot Chicken”).
Also, how come there still is no system for tagging comments as offensive/hate speech? For many videos with famous asians or afro-americans, maybe one in five is deeply offensive and racist.
#1 – What’s your point?
Why sue a company with no money?
I’m with Mark Cuban all the way on this. I just don’t like how GooTube is acting. I think they feel a need and that their concept is right, but the way they deliver it is wrong. I feel for the copyright holders and I believe they need to be compensated.
It just makes my laugh that Google can so blatantly disregard the rights of copyright holders. Do no evil you say Google?
I’m totally unconvinced by this idea that they can automatically recognize copyrighted content. If the big boys like IBM and Microsoft still can’t create speech recognition to typing software that is anywhere near 100% accurate without hours of training to one individual’s voice, how on earth are YouTube meant to be able to recognize any content (out of the virually unlimited library of copyrighted material) when it is vastly more complex, diverse and disjointed than a single person carefully annunciating each word?? Its just ridiculous to think this is even possible with today’s software technology.
It can be true, They might not be filtering just as a business strategy, which is wrong.It happens with every big corporation when they attain power so much and have a control over a mass
It is very very difficult to implement a system that can determine whether a particular piece of video is copyrighted to a third party without it resulting in a significant number of false positives. I think this is a business decision on YouTube’s part, and I think it’s fair and even legal under the current interpretation of the DMCA (as long as YouTube duly removes content for which they receive notification), and this will remain legal unless and until a judge rules against YouTube and strikes down the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions. Long live YouTube.
“It’s clear that Google is still trying to figure out a model they can live with. That may not happen.” Sounds like even their business deals are “beta”
Why would anyone give a f*ck about NBC come out with a social networking platform. It will fail. It is like McDonald’s doing it.
Google’s TV chief reveals in Amsterdam YouTube is No Good and Pipes are Clogged
“”The Web infrastructure, and even Google’s (infrastructure) doesn’t scale. It’s not going to offer the quality of service that consumers expect,” Vincent Dureau, Google’s head of TV technology, said at the Cable Europe Congress.” (WOW! S.)
“One cable chief executive, Duco Sickinghe from Belgian operator Telenet (TNET.BR: Quote, Profile , Research), said it was “the best news of the day” to hear that Google could not scale for video.” (I agree, it made my day as well S.)”
http://sufiy.bl...lations-of.html
Whilst sophisticated content-recognising systems aren’t as easy as the content providers are making them sound, YouTube very clearly aren’t going after infringements at the moment. It would take a mere database search for, say, ‘the Daily Show’, and a mass delete to get rid of substantial copyright violations.
I also think it’s very insidious to say that YouTube boosts TV ratings, just because CBS has increased viewership since the site began.
While it may be true that YouTube can turn on/turn off their filtering system at will, I have yet to understand why NBC ( or any other network ) isn’t loving the exposure.
Just think what would happen if one the television networks said publicly “OK, fine — put our content on YouTube”. Every teenager, college student and entrepreneur would view Big Media differently and maybe even believe that the networks aren’t going to repeat the mistakes made by music labels in times past.
To me its always been clear. The aquisition of youtube by google was never going to break even. too many problems, not least the one of monetising youtube properly, are continuing to be unsolved. perhaps the buy of youtube was always to be just a short term way to push that google share above the 500…
I thought networks got paid $10 per 1,000 views? Where did you get $300 per 1,000 views?
I can relate to the situation NBC may be going through, but they need to realize the world has changed and they need to improve what and how they offer entertainment related services.
The first poster says “google saved youtube”.
How many companies that need “saving” get bought for $1.6 billion. Google did not “save” youtube. Google beat the competition to aquiring a top 3 destination site. Time will tell if it pays off. The latest mega aquisitions (youtube, skype, myspace) all came with huge communities, and huge issues. So far it seems to be paying off. In the end, google will reach a deal with the content providers, or the content providers will not get there content on youtube. Let the content provider suffer thru that for a while, then they will come back to the table and negotiate in earnest.
http://www.tech...runch2skype.com
Interesting the the link to my techcrunch2skype service above gets those little … inserted.
It inserts 3 dots and removes the letter c, all in all the … version is longer than the non … version, meaning in this case, the whole purpose of the … it moot.
Actually, the infamous “YouTube Killer” did happen. Just none of the other networks joined Quincy Smith in the clip+sling deal. At least not yet. The press and blogosphere missed the fact that Quincy went ahead alone and did exactly what he was planning to do: create an alternative to YouTube in online video distribution. It remains to be seen how it will work in practice but it’s brilliant in theory: croudsource the clipping, tagging and posting of your content, but retain control through by allowing posts only from the service and only to Sling Media’s site. It will be interesting to see if that model works where YouTube’s seems to be failing.
Seems that Google is building a bad reputation as the partner who welches on promises…first with MySpace and now with NBC and other studios.
Goole don’t like youtube?
Maybe Google is stalling? The longer they hold out the more entrenched YouTube becomes and the further behind the media companies get.
If I’m Google I wouldn’t be too worried about NBC’s “big social networking plans”. Ohh. Scary.
I’m sure all 12 people who watched Studio 60 will cancel their MySpace / YouTube accounts and jump over.
this just in from NY Times re financials of google / utube deal
http://www.nyti...amp;oref=slogin
Like all laws, copyrights are meant as a way to approximate justice, and justice here is a slice of the ad-revenue pie. The networks are right to threaten legal action in order to get their fair share, and yesterday’s revelation of the YouTube paychecks serves as a reminder that YouTube’s pie is – or is expected to be – big. YouTube should either remove the videos or, if their ad revenue is not big enough, embed more advertising and give the networks a decent cut. Personally, I hope they just ditch the videos, and keep the site community-generated.
http://alwayson...alink/post/9491
I heard about Zucker’s comments yesterday when I listened to NPR. I guess the newspaper didn’t print it until today’s edition.
As a frequent user of YouTube, here are some of my thoughts:
1) Hate speech and adult content, if slipped through YouTube’s filtering mechanism, are generally flagged by the users. On YouTube’s individual video page there is a prominent “Flag as Inappropriate” button you can click on to report whatever you deem “inappropriate” (including copyright infringement).
2) The assumption that all copyright holders prefer their creative works not be posted on YouTube is false. I am also a creative artist and the creative artists I know hold a diverse opinions, from those who poopoo YouTube to those who totally embrace it. I am almost certain even within “The Daily Show” production team, there is a disagreement about whether their parent company Viacom’s move to take down their clips on YouTube is smart or not.
3) We don’t live in a 100%-compliance society. A traffic cop is unlikely to go after people who drive 60 miles per hour in a 55-mile-only zone as enthusiastically as those who drive 90 miles per hour. If IRS were to go after people who cheat $100 dollars on their tax as vigorously as those who cheat $100,000 on tax, our society would be in chaos. Copyright infringement also has various degrees. On one extreme end of the spectrum is blatant offenses such as posting yet-to-be-aired TV shows on YouTube, which ought to be taken down, and the poster criminally prosecuted; nobody disagrees with that. But to go after 3-minute clips of already-aired shows is perhaps a waste of time, unless the copyright holders specifically say they don’t want them on YouTube, in which case DMCA take-down notices serve the purpose well.
It’s understandable that NBC’s new CEO talks in a scripted manner regarding YouTube, because he knows YouTube is a new reality he must learn to live with. These movie/TV studio execs are smart, they know the post-Napster lesson to learn is that they don’t want a repeat of what happened to their music-industry brethren. The aftermath of Napster is a lose-lose situation, as the music industry wakes up to the silent rage of consumers.
cuban is right this time
I guess you missed some decimal position. It seems to me that a web CPM is as you say 1 USD, while instead a TV CPM (computed on Superbowl) is 20 USD, so the ratio between the two is not 300 as you suggest but 20; anyway still meaninful, and that’s the reason most of TV is not doing right on the web, it’s a business which is too little according to their metric (the CPM), but it’s still distruptive to their business taken as a whole.
Dudes just need to get creative with it. Get info about the users, only show relevant ads, and show 1 ad for every 20 youtube clips you watched. Preroll sucks, but if it’s infrequent, but highly targeted, then people will be fine with it. Esp. if it’s unpredictable.
When are you people going to realize that copyright laws don’t work. Get over it. If I hear it, I’ll play it. If I see it, I’ll show it. You can’t stop me. Ok so I’m not allowed to sell it – fine, i don’t really care… keep your filthy money.
“1) Hate speech and adult content, if slipped through YouTube’s filtering mechanism, are generally flagged by the users. On YouTube’s individual video page there is a prominent “Flag as Inappropriate” button you can click on to report whatever you deem “inappropriate” (including copyright infringement).”
This is correct for videos. But not for the actual comments!
And comments are very visible on every individual video page. There, right in your face are comments about “50 cent” being a slackjawed n***ger or “William Hung” being fat because he has eaten too much rice (the latter being inappropiate, but maybe not racist enough.. )
There are a lot of very offensive things being said about minorities, be they ethnic groups, gay or whatever.
For some reason, the only flagging you can do for comments is “spam”, which I’ve tried to use a few times with unknown effect. But most users will not use that for inappropiate content, so why not have button named just like the one for the video?
I don’t know. Word on the street here is that NBC’s executing a strong online/new media push. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that as tv/video/entertainment migrates further on the web that big players are starting to take swipes at YouTube. Kind of like carriers blocking VoIP so that they can maintain market position.
I think we can expect lots of action in traditional media/entertainment and the web in the coming months for sure, though I think video usage/user trends and what works will shift, kind of like how social networking is more like a feature to a site versus it’s only schtick.
Google is getting deeper in hot hot water!
Wait. How does YouTube currently filter content? Manually? Is that why it takes so long for videos to be posted on the site?
They’ve pulled tons of content lately… and it sucks without it.
YouTube should switch to a Fair Use defense and eff all the tv channels. YouTube is providing lousy quality, incomplete streams of free product for people to comment on. That’s pretty much Fair Use.
IMO we all are responsible for such useless contents ; to make every social networking site a huge success there should be some sort of way from which ( we ) the contributor should be able to report for such spam/p**n content.
Yeah! Let’s get all of this free advertising off our partner’s site and get back to paying for every time we advertise! We need to get our brand out of the hands of these people who like it so much. We need a strategy to get them back in front of vacuum tube console TV’s doing what we tell them!
Brilliant old media, big corporate thinking.
The discussion appears to focus on finding the right revenue model for YouTube.com Assuming that this model is based on advertising, there is no discussion about how top destination sites such as YouTube and MySpace can deliver VIDEOs (including VIDEO advertising) to mobile phone users.
The startup ViiBlast.com has patent pending technology that overcomes this obstacle. The technology is cross-platform, carrier independent, and requires NO software download. Make your own wallpaper, ringtones, podcasts, and videos to use with your phone. The original technology created almost a year ago was built to send mms VIDEO blasts on all mobile devices. This was already tested with a political re-election in Nov 2, 2006 of about 125,000 blasts sent out. Out of this we had 10 complaints from cell phone customers that did not want the message due to they were not supporting that person.
Check out www .ViiBlast.com
I’ve got to ask if the networks need YouTube as much as TC thinks they do. We don’t have cable or antenna TV in our house. The family is now watching pretty much all the ABC shows online – Ugly Betty, Grey’s Anatomy, etc. and it works just great. Free, full current episodes – they are delayed 1 week from TV broadcast to abc.com post. They precede each show with 1 commerical and put 1 commercial at the halfway mark.
What’s the big deal? Current TV, free, online now.
A social network from NBC. Oh, yea, that’ll save them. Just because you’re a large corporation doesn’t mean you need your own social network.
This conglomerate that we keep hearing about should just go buy a player like Joost or Veoh, and kick YouTube’s ass. Without copyrighted content, they have nothing. Just a bunch of goofy videos that no one cares about.
As long as NBC and/or some of its properties are knowingly and deliberatly violating copyrights and personality rights themselves, they are in a glass house and should clean up their own act first, before starting to throw stones.
One point that you forget is that parodies are legal. How could they distinguish between parodies and copyrighted material, since parodies can in fact be all copyrighted material.
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD, %-DDD,