Prompt's TechBlog
Google and YouTube Redux
20 October 2006
Posted by Fiona Campbell-HowesWould just like to counter your assertion that the viewing of broadcast advertising is going down. In fact it has never been higher. [...]
[But] with so many more channels, growing all the time, the viewing to any individual transmitted programme or spot is likely to decline, hence your MTV example. For instance there are about five opportunities to watch Lost, via C4 and E4,within the first week following its initial transmission so the total audience is split 5-ways.
Tess then sent some statistics from BARB showing that people in the UK still watch over four hours of television a day, and that advertising-driven commercial TV is watched by over 90% of the population each week.
So we accept that plenty of people are still watching television, and seeing television advertising. But the emergence of non-traditional multimedia channels like YouTube is still creating additional challenges for broadcasters who are already suffering financially from the effects of the television audience fragmenting into smaller niche audiences.
The wholesale 'flight to the internet' imagined by some of TV's detractors may be illusory, but there's no denying that broadcasters and advertisers need to embrace the 'new television' if they're to continue making money. If it starts making broadcast content available by paid download, for example, GooTube may shift the balance of power in the television industry in the same way Apple's iTunes did for the music industry.
The signs are already there. In July, US broadcaster NBC commissioned a sitcom whose pilot had been rejected by the networks, but which attracted an audience of 300,000 when it was uploaded to YouTube. In the UK, Google has already secured distribution rights for content from ITN and Talkback Thames, as well as tennis from Wimbledon and English Test cricket, among others.
Victor Keegan writes in today's Guardian that "the [YouTube] revolution is well underway: it just needs to be monetised." He envisages GooTube achieving this by putting ads on the home videos uploaded by its users. I'll imagine a different scenario: GooTube ditches its piratical DIY user base and turns itself into a subscription provider of professional broadcast content. The iTunes of downloadable television? I wouldn't be surprised.
Comments:
Interesting idea, although I think there's a big difference between getting people to view stuff for free and getting them to pay for it. Youtube has a lot of baggage as a giveaway site and most of the existing content they couldn't hope to sell. It's fun to watch, but not worth owning or even paying to view.
Even with more professional content, selling downloads is tricky: iTunes still represents a tiny proportion of music sales and amateur bands have been trying and mostly failing to sell downloads for nearly ten years. Decent quality video downloads have a limited market because of the size of files. Poor quality files would cannibalise the DVD market (where available).
By contrast, advertising is well-tested and doesn't require users to gamble on the quality of content by paying for it. There's not even much of a gamble for advertisers, since their adverts are seen before the content. They get ad exposure when someone is interested in viewing a film, before they've even seen it. The advertising model also scales nicely as people embed content from Youtube in other websites.
It will be interesting to see what happens. Now there's money at stake, we're seeing some copyright holders filing lawsuits and others striking deals with Google. Youtube is a potentially valuable channel, but charging subscriptions could kill it. Using advertising to support its free content seems a more natural evolution.
I'm certainly not going to disagree with you over that one, Fi. YouTube is telly, just not broadcast telly. And its use is not (currently) displacing broadcast commercial telly. But as for your personal viewing habits, you know you are in a universe of one (or a few) and frankly plain weird as far as I'm concerned. But then I've told you that already.
x
: Friday, October 27, 2006 3:35:00 PM << Home