There have been rumors of a TV network led joint venture to compete with YouTube for months – the first time we heard it was just a couple of days after the first rumor of Google’s acquisition of the company. Since then, we’ve heard that discussions stalled as one partner or another pulled out of the group.
The rumors are now back with a vengeance. The L.A. Times is now reporting that a deal may be announced soon, and this was confirmed to us directly as well by a source close to the deal. An announcement could come as early as Thursday.
It seems clear that News Corp. and NBC are involved, with Viacom and Sony as possible players as well. This won’t be a direct YouTube competitor in that the focus will be on distribution of content to third party sites: deals may already be in place with Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL and News Corp.’s MySpace. There may or may not be a dedicated website for this content as well.
So, to sum up, here’s what we know so far: This is happening and a press release is planned for as early as Thursday. We don’t know who beyond News Corp. and NBC is involved. The actual launch of the service would be summer 2007 or later.
I think this will get a crazy amount of attention, then probably launch very late. Joint ventures are notoriously difficult to manage, and adding third party distribution partners to the mix will add complexity. And of course the technology needs to work, and these companies are not now for building web based applications. Google doesn’t seem to be particularly worried, either: execs are reportedly referring to the project as “Clown Co.”
Pretty cool, I wonder if any of the industry-sponsored efforts will get off the ground. I do hope so, it’d be nice to hear a little less about lawsuits and more about where to see the content.
It will be interesting to see if this group will try and avoid some of YouTube mistakes. I will be following this with great interest.
YouTube mistakes?
Skyrocketting traffic, macrovaluation, the most talked acquisition in years, used by millions… Even my dad knows what YouTube is (now that IS big, I tell you)…. I’m sure Chad is certainly regretting all those “mistakes”
It is nice that they are allowing distribution of content to third party sites: Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL and News Corp.’s MySpace. This looks to be a good business model. We are also a video search engine provider. How can we get involved in the distribution.
this move will only make it tougher for google’s acquisition of youtube to come out of the red
“deals may already be in place with Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL and News Corp.’s MySpace.”
Not a bad start and if it launches by this summer that means YouTube has less than 3/4 months to get their act together, good luck.
Awesome….yet another video player to have to acomodate.
I hope the embed version can shrink down to 250×300.
Bottomline – it has to be way better than existing technologies. If it is another “me too”, they would have given me the cash, I would have given them atleast 5% by putting it in savings account.
Veoh?
Let the battles begin !
If Google is indeed scoffing and calling this project “Clown Co.” – it has a bit of a problem on its hands. This project may not succeed, but if Google consistently displays this sort of arrogance (which has hurt companies such as Microsoft), someone will eventually come and knock it off its high horse.
I was kind of surprised that Google has listed the new company as Clown Co. How soon we forget. It was the arogance of other companies that gave Google an opening. But now it looks as though Google itself is quickly becoming an old arogant company. I wonder what that may spell for Googles future.
This actually spells bigger problems for Brightcove, which had positioned itself as an “on-line” syndicator of high quality (e.g. TV) content. Seems like content owners such as NBC are cutting out the middlemen and doing it themselves.
While this doesn’t help YouTube much in their monetization/legal efforts, we’ll likely see YouTube focus more on “better quality, pure UGC”, like this YouTube Awards efforts, since it does not appear that they are getting significant traction with major content owners. However, even “high-quality” UGC probably doesn’t have that much value to justify the purchase price.
Also with a competitive offering from the content owners themselves, I’m sure they will be more legally proactive in defending their new revenue streams/sales channels. More lawsuits coming? Perhaps from NBC?
Whether this venture works out or not, MONDO publicity to YouTube! Genius!
Viacom is riding 2 horses now, this thing and Joost. I think Joost will give this a run for it’s money.
Also, last sentence…
“and these companies are not now for building web based applications”
should be “not known”
To be honest; If they offer Vids with no Ads / and full epidodes! / the ability to Embed into one’s site / I would watch them probably a lot. Their business model would have to be ”off video” ads.
- Anything less is not going to work; on the level YouTube has.
- I don’t EVER watch Yahoo News Video becuause it has a 30 sec commerical…. the internet is about non invasive advertising; not forced 30 sec commericals.
- RB
It’ll be hard to change user habits, no matter how good the service. For my buck (well I guess they’re free) I prefer Youtube and http://www.cavenger.com
It’s official, according to CNBC it include NBC, Fox, AOL, MySpace, and Yahoo!, and I believe they said on TV they are in talk with Sony et al to bring in more content. Google definitely shouldn’t be scoffing at this (if that is indeed a fact). It is amazing how quickly things can change, they should know that as well as anything given their own history.
Good luck to them. It will be hard for them to overcome YouTube’s massive market share without spending millions on advertising. YouTube has become somewhat of a household name, my grandma has even heard of it!
What will happen to the user-generated content revolution? Will this kill it bc the incentives will disappear?
Take these guys who produce Firesidechats (a hilarious sketch comedy show on YouTube) for example. With YouTube, they have an audience, and therefore they have an incentive to produce. If a competitor is created that kills the YouTube userbase, these guys would be hard-pressed to produce any more of their content.
Take this awesome short for example:
http://www.yout...h?v=LnRw0-d3lJw
Dan, I respect your point regarding user generated content but is it really fair to say a competitor would kill the userbase?
Killing YouTube and killing their userbase are on opposite ends of the spectrum in my opinion. The guys behind Firesidechats and any other UGC will always have an avenue for their work.
I’ve dealt with both Google and MS. Google is far more arrogant. MS wanted people to use their platform. They were a big, lumbering giant, but they engaged their community. Google just wants us to sit back, shut up, and click their ads.
What happened to other rumours of YouTube paying will it be like googles 100$ kit.
http://www.tekn...ld.blogspot.com
I think “Clown Co.” is a pretty accurate (and humorous) description, if you ask me…
News Corp: already owns MySpace, including its video feature (#2 on the web after YT). Can anyone tell me what they’ve brought to the table over there? Nothing decipherable. The site is still the clunky piece of crap it was before they bought it.
NBC: erm, anybody checked the ratings lately….like since “Friends” went off the air?
Viacom: “ME HUNGRY! WANT OWN STUFF!”
Sony: a nice little project to get their minds off of Apple and Microsoft.
Gimme a break. This venture is just another example of the TV industrial complex (thank you, Seth Godin) dinosaurs grasping at straws and leeching onto any “hawt” trend the kiddies are into. Once again they will prove that the only thing they know how to do is to throw money at stuff and hope it works–it won’t.
I don’t see this as a problem at all. YouTube will just become what it was always supposed to be in the first place. It’s a place for user-created content, not to upload episodes of 24 that keep getting pulled and re-uploaded.
Google just doesn’t have the opportunity to expand into ad- or subscription-driven network content. It’s not the end of the world for them.
Google’s arrogance shows again. And of course, we’ll now have the Google and “new media” fanboys who typically say that big media is too backwards to “get it” dismissing this move and declaring that it can’t work, proving once again that most of the criticism directed by these people at the big media companies is driven by ideology and not logic. If big media companies don’t do anything, they’re dinosaurs. If they do something, they won’t be able to make it work. It’s amusing to watch.
The bottom line is that content is king and people will go where the content is. If Google’s arrogance limits its success in acquiring the legal rights to content and you can no longer easily obtain the free copyrighted video on YouTube that originally made it a popular draw for the mainstream user, you’ll go to the services where you can obtain it. I think it’s naive to expect that YouTube has such great brand loyalty that people will stick by it when the content they really want is available elsewhere. Crude analogy: if I have a nightclub where the most beautiful women in the world go and there’s 3 women for every man and then all the beautiful women leave and the female/male ratio goes to 1:3, is my nightclub going to be as popular? YouTube’s a nightclub and when the pretty people leave for other clubs, so will most of the patrons. Will YouTube die? Not likely. But it’s apparently going to have to face a more competitive market, and the participants in this deal are smart because they are supposedly going to strike distribution deals (or already have) with other popular and upstart online services that want their content and are willing to act reasonably in terms of compensation. It does not appear that the networks are going to build a single destination site to compete with YouTube and leave it at that. If they do build their own distribution platform/network, it’s a very smart move and Google should be a little bit more concerned about the impact on their $1.65 billion investment.
Given that YouTube, a startup founded by two young guys, beat Google Video in less than two years, I wonder if Google executives laughed at the threat YouTube posed to them when they saw YouTube for the first time. Perhaps they didn’t call it Clown Co. but I wouldn’t be surprised if they said “Those kids don’t have the resources to beat us.” Will history come back to bite Google in the arse again?
I particularly love that last sentence: “Google doesn’t seem to be particularly worried, either: execs are reportedly referring to the project as ‘Clown Co..’” Well, not only is Google like any other proper corporation–filled with greed and evil– but it also seems to be gaining one very vital attribute of an empire ripe to fall–ego and over-confidence. If you have recently stepped foot on Google campus, you probably realized that it is brimming with a sense of unsurmountable superiority. Google and most that make up Google are very diluted, in my opinion. How many times have we seen superstar companies get an ego, become complacent, and eventually fall? Why should Google be any different. After all, is Google really, truly anything more than search and AdWords?
I’m sorry, where is it reported that Google execs are referring to it as the Clown Co?
This is a slippery slope for the networks to go down. Content creation and content delivery should be separated. Content delivery is a commodity/low margin service – why spend the treasure to create it when others currently or will do it better (i.e. P2P). They need to embed harder to remove ads in the TV shows – like Heroes and that damn Nissan Versa.
Ultimately, this will be a competitor to Joost – and Joost already provides a monetary way to reimburse the studios. No one really watches feature length movies or shows on YouTube. It would be better to show low quality clips on YouTube and then have a link where you can watch the better quality clip on Joost or this new service. However, corporate greed will bog down this new service with fees and limitations and keep it from gaining any traction – IMHO.
This reminds me of a story I heard about Yahoo… (It is not verified by Yahoo, but I’m sure that many of you have heard it before)
Yahoo focused on Categories and let Google power their Search. Inktomi was also a Technology provider for Yahoo and noticed that Google was focusing on becoming a destination site and focusing on search. They warned Yahoo about Google as competition, but Yahoo was quite confident that they were the end all destination site.
Inktomi went as far as to rent a Truck with a billboard which red “Google is stealing your customers.”
Yahoo ignored Inktomi and the rest is history.
Dogtown, I’ve watched 4-part to 10-part documentaries on YouTube – some of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff, a Sam Cooke documentary and other bits that go beyond the quick clip mentality and the Youtube 10minute-video length restriction.
I’ve also been a Joost beta user for the last few months and I can tell you that Joost is a completely different animal on the user experience side (can’t tell you about the business side). It’s full-screen TV, on demand, but your choices are limited to the Joost content so far. And so far, the content is mostly youth culture-driven and not incredibly alluring to this 40-something….
I agree with Google on “Clown Co.” NBC and News Co.’s plan for a “YouTube killer” is pathetic and desperate. The big boys are afraid they’re losing their grip on the media, so they’re making a last-ditch effort to win it back. Guess what? It’s not going to happen. Community-generated content, as seen with ‘GooTube’ and MySpace, is the key to success – NOT corporate swill.
Anyone want to try to name this new tube?
hooTube?
tiedTube?
FoxTube?
payTube?
SnoozeTube?
fox.tv ?
I’ll refrain from speculating on what the impact will be, but it wouldn’t be too surprising to find this ignored by the masses, who turn out to be bored by ‘pro’ content and instead prefer random odd snippets…
Um, the “corporate-swill” is 99% of the reason for YouTube’s success — easy distribution of other people’s content.
The user-generated content part of YouTube is mostly absolute garbage, its greatest success — the lonelygirl15 saga — made Joanie Loves Chachi look like high quality viewing fare by comparison.
I’m boggled at trying to find a reason for this. Why doesn’t News Corp and NBC setout to put down some more intertubes while they are at it as the normal internet isn’t “theirs”? Oh and make their own HTTP server.
Someone else is willing to do your content distribution, why try and stop them?
They should actually call it ClownCo, so when it becomes hugely successful and crushes YouTube utterly they can rub it in Google’s face. Or alternately, when it fails that will make it twice as hilarious.
i think this is great, the media outlets finally realizing that their stuff gets on the internet whether they like it or not. it’s so much more constructive to license their products instead of filing lawsuits (RIAA) against those who will use it anyways.
Clown Co? How corny is that? And why would I change from the sites I use for entertainment (www.cavenger.com) and Yahoo to this site, anyway?
This doesn’t make any sense – at all.
get a youtube account