Yesterday, YouTube posted an update to its Biz Blog in which it detailed and attempted to dispel some of the oft-spoken myths about the world’s most popular video portal. The blogosphere’s reception to the post was generally skeptical, with a number of reporters complaining that it was overly vague and lacking any concrete numbers about YouTube’s monetization efforts. But it seems that everyone missed a few nuggets of gold in that post that actually reveal quite a bit about YouTube’s performance. Like the fact that the site is likely monetizing at least 12% of all videos streamed in the United States — a huge jump over the numbers that had previously been reported.
You see, a little math and some reading between the lines reveals that things actually are going quite well for YouTube, even if the site isn’t willing to explicitly say so. Up until now, YouTube’s standard line about its monetized views has been that it was selling ads against “hundreds of millions of views each month”. But the post yesterday had a subtle change: YouTube is now monetizing “hundreds of millions of views each week“. That one change is very significant, and given that the post was written by two members of YouTube’s PR team, you can be quite sure it was deliberately worded.
“Hundreds of millions” can generally be taken as a minimum of 200 million views per week, or 800 million per month. We can further support that stat by turning back to the Biz Blog post, which says that “monetized views have more than tripled in the past year”. Last summer, it was reported that YouTube was monetizing approximately 3-5% of its videos, or around 250 million monetized views out of a total of 5 billion in July 2008. Multiply that 250 million figure by three, and we arrive at at least 750 million monetized views currently.
From there, it’s a simple matter of determining how these monetized views compare to those that aren’t monetized. Last April, AdAge reported that YouTube was placing ads against at least 8.7% of its US video streams after a YouTube spokesman confirmed that the site was monetizing more views than the total number of videos streamed (both monetized and not) by Fox Interactive. Based on that month’s ComScore data, Fox Interactive had 463 million views, while YouTube had a total of 5.3 billion views. By dividing the former by the latter, we arrive at the 8.7% figure AdAge derived.
Using similar calculations to those above, we can see how YouTube’s monetized videos have grown: ComScore’s latest report states that YouTube is now seeing 6.8 billion views overall. If YouTube is monetizing 800 million of those, that would mean that the site is now monetizing 11.8% of its views — a marked increase over the 8.7% statistic from April, and more than double the 3-5% stat that the YouTube ‘mythbusters’ were hoping to dispel. YouTube’s Biz Blog post also offers some explanation as to where the growth is coming from, stating that “as we’re adding partner content very quickly and doing a better job of promoting their videos across the site.”
YouTube declined to comment on this story, but given that the original “hundreds of millions” quote came from the horse’s mouth, we’re confident about these stats. And remember, these numbers are all based on the minimum amount of 200 million views per week — the actual numbers could be significantly higher.
Good to see you guys are using math in a relevant manner today. Nice work
heh? about 20% of youtube’s views are in the US. implies that youtube is monetizing under 3% of global views.
which is exactly the numbers cited by analysts. nothing has changed.
article revolves around this non-verified statement
““Hundreds of millions” can generally be taken as a minimum of 200 million views per week, or 800 million per month.”
it could easily be 100.1 million views per week
seeing more ads on youtube videos? All 6 videos I watched last night were running ads.
gg youtube.
Jason – any idea what their revenue per “monetized view” is? And how much it costs to serve all that video? Would love to know YouTube’s profit (or loss) margins.
Gabor
Same here.
Well said Herb Jones. That’s how they monetize Youtube. So simple, isn’t it?
similar question to @gabor: why is 12% significant? how much closer are they to becoming profitable?
Do investors need to be mathamatic magicians to get the numbers or can youtube just put them out there?
“the site is likely monetizing at least 12% of all videos streamed in the United States”
Likely!
It would be good to get the numbers even with youtubes stream delivery structure, might throw some light to the opensource community as to the market cost of streaming,
You know for the opensource community, just for charity…………
I really hate YouTube’s ads. These days I’m more into niche video sites than a big mix of videos on a big site.
oh jason…
http://www.tech...p-1-billionday/
Was about to say the same thing. lol this post is based off numbers we know are wrong?
Will they ease requirements for YouTube partnerships?
So what is YouTube’s CPM rate? Are they getting something like $5-$10 per thousand?
If they serve up ads to 10 billion per year and got $7.50 CPM, I think it means they are making around $75 million/year and growing, right?
I think youtube increase the ads and sometimes these are really annoying
Are you trying to imply YouTube’s financial position has significantly improved because 12% of YouTube’s American video stock is now monetized? If so you may be a bit hasty. Even with this significant increase in income you cannot be sure how much YouTube can keep. YouTube pays for content now. It is likely that the largest share of videos that have been monetized are the videos YouTube must pay their owners for. How much of its video inventory comes from large rights holders? What is the revenue sharing deal with them for their content? Until we have answers to questions like these it is unwise to conclude YouTube’s financial position is improving significantly. Slightly, perhaps. Significantly, unlikely.
What exactly is a monatized view guys?
If I run a bunch of CPC ads on 12% of my inventory, I can say ‘I’m monatizing on 12% of my views’. When in reality I’m only really getting PAID if someone clicks the ads…
Over watching bloody you tube videos with ad’s there has to be a less annoying way for them to make money. I would prefer to pay a annual fee to not have to watch ads!
Hum.. sounded to me like a Pandora’s box: nothing really important disclosed. But, in times where marketing represents more than the real life..
Are they trying to attract more investments?
Are they trying to present themselves to the media as a healthy company so “you” can deal with them?
They are making ads of themselves. Clever, hum?
Should be something $200-$500 million per in revenues?
Per year
i hate the ads on youtube. i understand they need to make money…but i don’t want to see ads streaming before i see the video i clicked on…sometimes instead of watching the ad i just give up and go google another way i can see the same video aside from on youtube.