YouTube took a step towards monetization by allowing partners to charge users for downloads. In this “test” initiative, selected YouTube partners can offer their video downloads for free or for a fee (determined by the partner) paid through Google Checkout. Most videos in the test are currently charging about $1 each. The partner can also decide how the downloadable video will be licensed to the user – whether it will be restricted to a private non-commercial use video, or whether it can be used under Creative Commons.
YouTube’s university partners, which include Stanford, Duke and UC Berkeley, are also testing free downloads of lectures and events. And a small group of YouTube partners (YouTube mentioned partners khanacademy, householdhacker and pogobat in their blog post) are using the test offer as a revenue generation and distribution tool. This initiative would also allow users to access videos offline.
YouTube is a innovative product but very expensive and not profitable. Everyone knows that Google has been looking for ways to make money from YouTube, especially in a struggling economy, and it looks like as thought they are flirting with this option as a revenue generator. Google has rolled out several ways to generate revenue, including through YouTubevertorials, selling search results, and ad revenues from big content partners. Google hasn’t indicated how much YouTube would be making from this partnership but we assume that they are hoping to make some cut from this down the line. YouTube is soliciting applications from partners to collaborate on the pilot partnership, but it is restricted to US-based partners only.
Will this work? We have a huge amount of traffic to our YouTube download tool so that may be an indication that this new venture could work out to Google’s advantage.
lol you have to pay for them. Thats lame as all get up! Looks like I will never be using that feature. Waste of money.
But nice post TechCrunch I am a daily reader!
agreed.
this idea is stupid. i cannot imagine myself ever using this. i rarely watch youtube videos multiple times anyway.
… which probably means that you have not perused the technology or education parts of youtube.
Some of those lectures are _deep_ and require 2-3 listenings to grok. Those are the ones that are really substituting for lectures and offering solid educational value.
Yeah! Totally lame that content providers might want to make money off their content!
Do you whine about iTunes charging for downloads? Same thing, different application.
Why do morons always compare ideas like this to itunes?
Newsflash – they are NOT the same.
Songs are heard multiple times. Videos are watches maybe a couple times at best.
p.s. all you have to do to download ANY youtube vid is get the ‘flashgot’ extension for firefox. One click and BAM! – the vid is urs. Granted its in .flv format, but no biggie, head to zamzar.com to change to whichever format you want for free.
Not only is it lame, but it’s already freely offered by like 10 websites….
Okay but isnt it screwed up to charge someone for videos that are uploaded by another user.
What i mean is, we are giving them the videos to play on their site and they want to charge us for them now?!?! Make money off OUR stuff? I understand they are providing a service, a service that without US wouldnt exist to begin with and hell the advertising has got to make them money already.
This is exactly opposite of what’s needed. No one wants an “personal copy” or “archive” of cloud data.
And grabbing an .flv has never been a challenge.
WTF YouTube? Is this all you got?
if you feel like paying, you can and make them feel good about it. if you like the artist’s work, you have a way to compensate him. This is going to be VERY useful for people who have time and expertise but no jobs – I think I hear something like “unemployment” quite often… And people WILL NOT do things if they think they cannot get revenue. If they think they can, they participate and thus usage grows. They’re introducing currency on the highway and you can expect a lot of traffic – since the video goes from consumer to producer – screw the mafiAA. What great stuff it will be if mafiAA employees resign to start their own paid-viewing channels!!
Note that M$ is going the full length in junking the Partner/Channel distribution chain and going direct to customer and they’re going to out shitty DRM in that. This is DRM free and modest. Not the loot that M$ engages in. This is not M$ bashing – theyre starting retail. That is a big move. This is probably the counter to that. Meanwhile, God save the distribution channels – the real f**kers who made electronics and computers so expensive. Actually, open source can save them, but the f**kers need to think beyond margins and actually do something more than watching bottomlines, tops and bottoms.
I can not believe that this business model will work. Why downloading?
You already have CBS offering some shows for free to be streamed from Youtube, is it so hard to believe that the ability to charge might attract even more partners?
This isn’t about charging users to stream videos (not yet at least), simply charging for people to download videos, what exactly is the difference here between this and the iTunes store?
I think charging to allow embed partners videos on other websites will be a better option for youtube and its partners.
I am already able to download videos now with real player plugin so why bother paying. More-ever, if i had so much disk space to waste, i will waste in other ways.
That actually would be extremely interesting. This would make YouTube a content distribution platform, much like that stock photo initiative that Flickr talked about (which I think was shelved).
Well couldn’t this also work with related media? Like watch the trailer on YouTube, buy the full movie via a link. or with things other than video like a music video that lets you buy the album or even (and this one would be a bit of a stretch) a commercial that lets you buy the product. If this is done right, the full experience could be executed inside a flash embed too. Google already has the checkout product and a shopping product, so this isn’t a massive departure from some components they already have. and it only needs to work in a small percentage of cases to be “worth their time”
GOOG has Checkout? That’s like saying “Google has a paypal interface.”
Name 5 people who want this product.
(and your idea for “trailer-> feature film” is not this product. Your much better, but GOOG won’t license anything or it’d have to admit to YT’s lack of the same.)
Isn’t Google Checkout pretty much a service similar to PayPal?
youtube-dl is a free script that already does this
why don’t my comments show up?
Download? download? Isn’t the whole point of YouTube that you don’t need to download videos anymore? Why would you want to store videos on your PC when you can just leave them in the cloud and watch them?
Somebody is still living in 1990.
Think mobile devices like iPhone/iPod Touch/Zune.
Think the ONLY reason youtube became so popular was it’s use of illegal copyrighted material. No one is going to PAY for that now.
OK I’m biased as I make my living off the Internet. But some people here clearly are not thinking it through. Maybe they are too young to realise that nothing in life is free.
Firstly Google have to pay a hosting bill to keep Youtube running, plus staff to maintain it. Without those costs met Youtube disappears. The idea is to make profits off the traffic the site gets and clearly that is not working. Youtube cost money and lakes a loss.
So all those who think it’s good to get it all for free had best realise that in todays economic climate some accountant at Google might just say to the board “This is costing us money and is never likely to work, so lets pull it.”
So you won’t have Youtube and please don’t say you will go watch it elsewhere. Because 10 million people watching something for no cost to them is 10 million people you can do without.
As for no one paying for “illegal copyrighted material” that again shows how little people understand the situation. Hundreds of lawyers would love Youtube to charge for them. None working for Google.
“Somebody is still living in 1990.”
And somebody is still living in 2000. Who will pay for the free services is the question you need to ask in 2009.
check out my youtube video’s
name= boneyboy3000
Probably just iPod and Zune as well as other mobile devices and video players. iTouches and iPhones have a Youtube application.
youtube is like TV, no one wants to pay for it.
I think you guys are missing one important side of this announcement: Youtube is testing a way for video creators to embed licenses on their work in an official manner, a way for creators to give permissions to their fans! In a way that machines can understand and that developers using the APIs can take advantage of.
The Flickr support for Creative Commons licenses as part of the official user interface was a great landmark for free culture and I believe this move by YT will have a similar impact, it will raise awareness of Creative Commons licenses to the general public and let people *search*, *find* and know who are the creative artists that are supporting remixes and other fair uses by their fans and who are the people trying to treat them like criminals.
When the people start doing their creative works using free(as in freedom) videos and soundtracks as the basis for their derivatives instead of copyright material owned by stupid companies and associations, then we will be in a better web, and being able to *find* free material is the first step to this progress.
So kudos Youtube for embracing CC!
i call BS on the “creative Commons” crap. Its just a way to justify a bad business decision cause they are not making money.
who is not making money? are you trying to make a point here or just throwing a flamebait?
They already tried this.
Google Video previously allowed you to buy and download videos from that site. They pulled teh plug. May work this time around though.
True I remember Google Video was doing something like this,
Exact Philippe
You already have CBS offering some shows for free to be streamed from Youtube, is it so hard to believe that the ability to charge might attract even more partners?
I’m not sure why so many people have a problem with this. It’s true that using one of the many tools you can unofficially download or convert the FLV file, but this is essentially about giving back to the producers of great content.
Even if just 1% of viewers of a hot video with a 1,000,000 hits pay $1 (and the author still only gets 50% of that or something), that would still be a fair bit of money and likely be a profit for that video’s producer.
Of course this is never going to work with super long-form commercial content charging more than a couple of dollars, but if the price is right for the video and for that money you receive a high quality version, then hopefully the honest users willing to pay for it will be enough to keep that producer making great content.
And it keeps Youtube running. what a lot of people don’t understand is the simple economics of this. Not you Alex.
Youtube is not free, it costs money and the bill is paid by Yahoo, sorry for the confusion before, to get the traffic to the site. All this costs money even if all the content is given for free or stolen from the rightful owners. Putting up content you own in the hope of getting attention is also costing money.
All of the expenses are paid for be SALES, either sales in advertising or sales in people thinking they would like to subscribe to the service or site. If those sales don’t come the opportunity people have to view videos for free is in danger of disappearing.
As for the people who think Torrents will be the answer, even Pirate Bay needs to make money. You have to buy something off the advertisers for them to keep advertising on PT or sites like it.
The problem with some people is they don’t realise nothing is for free.
I still use a dial-up modem. I never got into the download thing yet. I still buy music CDs also.
There is obviously something to come for video downloads nothing is for free, there is a purpose behind the scene. In the meantime, yeh sure I like the free downloads for times when i want to watch something without having to be on the internet…
Can’t blame them for trying. They are constantly tinkering to figure out a way to monetize it and I don’t envy them-it won’t be easy. If I paid 1,ooo,ooo times 1,650 in cash for a business, I’d want some profits out of it asap as well. Plus how would we pay this $1 charge? Paypal? Who does it go to, Google or the provider? Even with the google brand I’d be checking This digital security site before getting too involved in those transactions.
This could be a step in the direction of “do you like this trailer? download the movie”, or anyway, in the direction of selling extended/complimentary content with youtube promo/sample videos.
Imagine all those companies selling all kinds of video lessons or other content on DVD coming to youtube and filling it up with sample content. I think this is Google’s way of inviting them in.
Interesting, but also shows how helpless Google is in the web3.0 arena. For authors who want to publish higher quality and earn money with it, platforms like http://www.klatcher.com are far superior in terms of ROI and ease of use. Google check out? Not convincing.
Interesting, but also shows how helpless Google is in the web3.0 arena. For authors who want to publish higher quality and earn money with it, platforms like http://www.klatcher.com are far superior in terms of ROI and ease of use. Google check out? Not convincing.
Klatcher has no content on the site! How could it possibly be better?
Eventually, you will be able to download all movies in DivX DVD quality off of Youtube for $0.99 per movie, legally, without DRM, and as full speed.
Also, watching full HD quality versions of video at a rate of about $0.10 per GB, thus at a bitrate of 2mbit/s it could start at about $0.10 per hour, or about $0.01 per 6 minutes of 1280×720 HD quality ads-free Youtube full screen streaming.
I’d definitely pay for it if I can get HD 1280×720 without ads, in full screen streamed to a special version of the VLC software instead of the low quality youtube in Flash embedded player and with overlay advertising and pre- post-roll and mid-roll advertisments.
At $0.01 per 6 minutes of HD streaming, there is plenty of profit margin for both content providers and for Youtube to make more money then just doing overlay advertising on all videos.
Ewwww…
Sounds like a great idea. I am sure a % of people will pay to download some of the videos, especially if they are in DIVX format and are over 10mins.
Being able to pay to stream all of the vids in high def also sounds like another viable model.
Another model would be for them to act as a media hosting platform and let uploader’s host videos on youtube, but have them show through their own unique branded player (paying per view etc) or elsewhere with the video linking to the url they specify.
It is other mode for Google to generate revenue during this recession period.
come and see
This doesn’t sound that bad of an idea. They can’t beat Hulu with the premium videos so they must seek other revenue sources since funny videos of kids and cats can only go so far. They should have their own TV show on Sunday night.
For the download monetization to work, YT will have to have some form of DRM in place (this will destroy the brand image) because once someone has downloaded the content, this content will just show up on Piratebay as a torrent.
This download method for monetization seems good for attracting content providers (tutorial presentations) but not really practical as a business model.
I think this post is just a way for YT to research avenues that might work from a monetization point of view, so far all posts have not really helped in that regard.
Ugh, nobody likes DRM except the company licensing it. If YT does use DRM, it better be compatible with iPods as well as MTP devices. It also better be Linux compatible.
Kind of ironic if it happens like that. Someone who thinks ownership does not apply if others upload it gets its idea to create revenue screwed by others who don’t think ownership applies to them.
Youtube have lived off of other people uploading content they don’t own. Yes I know lots of people upload content of their cats but the main scenes viewed are not those, they’re copyright scenes that get the huge hits.
So here they are trying to monetize their site and one person pays and gives it to 10,000 for free. LOL
Maybe YT will not mind if the download is seeded to a torrent site because they will earn per $0.50 revenues from each new item of content, times that by the million or so original downloades across the YT site, this will earn YT revenues, but what about the content providers, what do they get?
The fact that YT has provided a screen shot of this trial shows me from an investor perspective, that YT is in trouble first from a net neutrality view of the cache within ISP’s, but also from the fact that the whole DRM monetization thing is so 2008.
See how google starts everythingas free and slowly making the change… good in marketting and making the people addict to it the make money of it…
GOOGLE are the people who first blamed Microsoft … but now they are………
Google startted to taste money……
Same old Google greed! The more money they have the more greedy they get!
No need to pay.
Why not download a Free YouTube Downloader.
http://www.flas...loader.html#124
Actually this shoudl have been expected when Google took over Youtube.
See Google was struggling to get it’s content providers the much promised “revenue” for viewing short and feature length films.
Google Video was a great idea, but when you charge for something that most people in the net expect or pirate for free, then people aren’t going to pay.
No doubt the clips that will be charged for are from people who think they will make money in selling the content.
I don’t agree with piracy at all. Being a content creator, I can’t feed my kids and pay my rent, yet alone pay teams of people to make content, if we never sell any – and currently our costs of production are in the millions and our sales are in the thousands. Subsequently although we know our content is pirated al over the place – people have even sent me links, or “Hey you seen this video” and shown me their iPhone playing my $1m production not even realising I own it!
We just can’t create more content, especially in a credit crunch – which is really a depression. So all the actors and crew who have worked and given much of their time on the prospects of future revenue are not working retail jobs!
Instead we’ll make crappy cheap low cost reality TV style content that costs nothing more than “Hey guys we’ve got a few hours, grab a camera lets shoot some birds in the park!”
Must be time to move to the porn industry. Mainstream Hollywood movies make $8billion in Box office and DVD sales, the Porn Industry makes $48 billion a year in just DVD sales.
Will we put our content on the net – well porn sure! People will pay for it, it’s cheap to make and there are no shortage of willing people who want to be paid $500 for sex! Production qualities are low cost and cheap. And with people growing up and entering their teens and wanting psychological stimulation all the time, maybe utopia will be reliaased and Pixar will go broke trying to convince us that Race Cars are people too!
(I love Pixar BTW! I have all the DVDs! Nothing like an Original Retail Package! one for the Kids to trash and one for the Collection behind glass!)
Anyway, I do agree with the ‘litter’ comment too
Youtube is not a site I go to often because trying to find anything useful is often more frustrating than using google to find something interesting.
very good,i will try it.
Google can monetize the site by offering Pro accounts. One feature could be – when embedding videos on websites the Youtube watermark would not be visible.
If it’s streamable, it’s copyable by screen capture and other processes and downloadable via add-ons, scripts, bookmarklets, third party download software, saving .flv file in cache and etc. This is a lame way, youtube..Btw, one person can buy and give it to 10000 people which gives to 1 million people and etc. DRM-videos? lol..
youtube is like TV, no one wants to pay for it.