Thought this was pretty funny:
Showing posts with label YouTube. Show all posts
Showing posts with label YouTube. Show all posts
21/03/2008
27/04/2007
Viacom Boosts Joost: Say No To YouTube?
I blogged about this the other day when Viacom stiffed Google on an advertising deal pertaining to all of it's digital properties. I thought it was a possible response to Google's inability to curtail copyright content on YouTube which resulted in Viacom's billion dollar lawsuit against the search giant. Further I thought we'd see media firms rally against YouTube. Well folks, it's happening!
In February, Reuters reported that Viacom signed a video deal with Joost to port hundreds of hours of programming to the startup's IP TV on demand platform. As CyberNet is reporting today Viacom Turns on YouTube, now Greets Joost with Open Arms:
I'm fairly certain this will be a trend for media companies who are looking for more control over their digital content. In Fact, there are rumors on the Joost blog that CBS is jumping into the Joost mix with their premier shows: CSI, CSI Miami, CSI New York, CBS Sportsline, and Survivor.
Advertising innovators have embraced Joost and it shows with some of the big names they have sold spots to. Globally they have such clients as Coca-Cola, HP, Intel and Nike. In the USA they have signed deals with Electronic Arts, Esurance, Garnier Fructis, Kraft, Lionsgate, Microsoft Corp, Motorola Inc, Nestle Purina PetCare, Procter & Gamble, Hugo Boss Fragrances, Sony Electronics, Taco Bell, United Airlines, US Army, Visa, and the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company. Further in Europe they have deals with GM, IBM, L'Oreal Paris, Nokia Nseries, Unilever, Virgin Money, Vodafone and Warner Brothers.
"Joost has attracted partners from every major brand category because we offer an advertising platform that is similar to TV, with high-quality programming; and we're providing unparalleled user statistics and insights, as well as an unmatched level of interactivity, targetability and measurability," said David Clark, executive vice president of global advertising, Joost. "Our launch partners and their creative teams are a tremendous asset for Joost, as we work together to create inventive ads that allow them to reach and interact with consumers in new and compelling ways."
I'm sure this is where Google would have liked to take YouTube but unfortunately for them, Joost beat them to the punch. The question is, when Joost launches to the public will YouTube continue to thrive? And how will the sharing features stack up to YouTubes?
One of the huge challenges for YouTube is how to license clips exported from copyright material. These clips are only legal if the original copyright holder has granted permission for them to be uploaded. Further, the law around DMCA states no firm may reap profits (ads) off illegally posted content, and further safe harbours these copyright offenders through something called a take down request. So YouTube allows this illegal content to be posted, knowing they cannot be held liable, and when copyright owners request the content be removed, YouTube must do so ASAP or be taken to court.
There have been rumors in the mix about the big networks collaborating on a clip sharing site which would rival YouTube but have 100% high quality legal content. This is something that Joost is doing now, and it will be interesting to see if the big media companies embrace their idea, or continue to go down their own road.
Unless ALL the networks collaborate on a video application it will be very tough to take on Joost once it gains traction (and increases program availability). And again as CyberNet has reported:
Over and Out!
In February, Reuters reported that Viacom signed a video deal with Joost to port hundreds of hours of programming to the startup's IP TV on demand platform. As CyberNet is reporting today Viacom Turns on YouTube, now Greets Joost with Open Arms:
"Viacom has made a new deal that involves the licensing of hundreds of hours of programming from networks like MTV, Comedy Central, Spike, and even movies from Paramount. What makes Joost more appealing for Viacom is that users aren’t able to upload content themselves. That may not be very appealing for some users who’d like the option for uploading their content, but what is appealing is that Joost will be running full episodes, and to boot? High-quality resolution, which is something you wouldn’t find from YouTube."
I'm fairly certain this will be a trend for media companies who are looking for more control over their digital content. In Fact, there are rumors on the Joost blog that CBS is jumping into the Joost mix with their premier shows: CSI, CSI Miami, CSI New York, CBS Sportsline, and Survivor.
Advertising innovators have embraced Joost and it shows with some of the big names they have sold spots to. Globally they have such clients as Coca-Cola, HP, Intel and Nike. In the USA they have signed deals with Electronic Arts, Esurance, Garnier Fructis, Kraft, Lionsgate, Microsoft Corp, Motorola Inc, Nestle Purina PetCare, Procter & Gamble, Hugo Boss Fragrances, Sony Electronics, Taco Bell, United Airlines, US Army, Visa, and the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company. Further in Europe they have deals with GM, IBM, L'Oreal Paris, Nokia Nseries, Unilever, Virgin Money, Vodafone and Warner Brothers.
"Joost has attracted partners from every major brand category because we offer an advertising platform that is similar to TV, with high-quality programming; and we're providing unparalleled user statistics and insights, as well as an unmatched level of interactivity, targetability and measurability," said David Clark, executive vice president of global advertising, Joost. "Our launch partners and their creative teams are a tremendous asset for Joost, as we work together to create inventive ads that allow them to reach and interact with consumers in new and compelling ways."
I'm sure this is where Google would have liked to take YouTube but unfortunately for them, Joost beat them to the punch. The question is, when Joost launches to the public will YouTube continue to thrive? And how will the sharing features stack up to YouTubes?
One of the huge challenges for YouTube is how to license clips exported from copyright material. These clips are only legal if the original copyright holder has granted permission for them to be uploaded. Further, the law around DMCA states no firm may reap profits (ads) off illegally posted content, and further safe harbours these copyright offenders through something called a take down request. So YouTube allows this illegal content to be posted, knowing they cannot be held liable, and when copyright owners request the content be removed, YouTube must do so ASAP or be taken to court.
There have been rumors in the mix about the big networks collaborating on a clip sharing site which would rival YouTube but have 100% high quality legal content. This is something that Joost is doing now, and it will be interesting to see if the big media companies embrace their idea, or continue to go down their own road.
Unless ALL the networks collaborate on a video application it will be very tough to take on Joost once it gains traction (and increases program availability). And again as CyberNet has reported:
"Joost was started by Niklas Zennstrm and Janus Friis. Recognize those names? They were the two founders of file-sharing service Kazaa, and Skype. They swept up $2.69 billion when Skype was acquired by eBay, so clearly they’re not running into problems financing the Joost deal."
Over and Out!
12/04/2007
Viacom Stiffs Google, Gootube, and Yahoo! comes out on top
I read a very interesting post on Mark Cuban's blog back in late October entitled "Some intimate details on the Google YouTube Deal" where some insider comments were posted with respect to backroom deals that went on during Google's acquisition of YouTube.
The basic jest was that Google may have paid copyright holders equity in the YouTube deal so they would drop current all current legal suits, they setup a backroom fund (rumored to be around 1/2 the sale price of YouTube) to combat future copyright cases, and purchased a certain window (Q3, Q4 2006) in which the major copyright holders promised not to send take down notices or bring legal suits against YouTube while Google took the reins. At the time, several industry experts made sense of the Google YouTube deal as a means of Google purchasing the rights to control and monetize the advertising on YouTube (in some cool new video ad format including Adsense).
Well, it looks like that may just be coming back to bite them in the rear end.
Since that Q3, Q4 grace window ended in January 2007, YouTube has been in the news constantly for being served with take down notices (NBC, Viacom etc.) and it looks as though it is starting to harm Googles core business as Viacom (CBS network, MTV, Infinity broadcasting, Simon & Schuster, Blockbuster and Paramount Pict) has decided to partner with Yahoo over Google for search advertising on 33 of it’s websites.
This may also be a Viacom’s response to the search giant’s plans to enter some of the more traditional advertising spaces such as Radio and Television. This move has irked many of the big broadcasters who typically control advertising within their broadcasts. Such advertising ultimately allows TV or Radio shows to be aired or be cancelled (if the ads can’t pay the show’s contract the show is cancelled) and could significantly affect the quality of television should Google get into the mix and command a portion of each networks ad revenue (pay less for advertising on major networks)
Obviously, for a company like Viacom this represents a huge threat and no doubt is another reason why they would enter into an advertising deal with Yahoo!’s Panama platform. Terry Semel the head of Yahoo! responded, “Aligning Viacom’s popular brands, leading content and large audience with Yahoo!’s more targeted, relevant advertising, marks the beginning of a powerful and engaging partnership between our two companies.”
The increasing popularity of YouTube has enlightened experts to an industry trend of popular versus non-popular media on the site. In fact, at the height of YouTube – in its Q3, Q4 window of freedom - only 3 of the top 20 most popular videos on the site were user generated content. “Whats interesting is that Gootube has gone corporate. Its primary application is to host commercials. Commercials for TV shows. Commercials for Products. Commercials for cheesy websites. Gootube may host a bunch of user generated content, but thats not what people look at.“ - Mark Cuban. However according to a recent study, we’ve seen a steady increase in user generated content in the most popular feeds (if this is because there is less illegal video and hence user generated content is receiving higher popularity ratings is unknown - but the methodology of this study is being questioned).
Either way, if YouTube, the internet media giant, continues to hide behind the DMCA we will certainly continue to see more traditional media outfits (or their holding companies) rally against Google’s best interests. Especially if they believe YouTube is improperly profiting off the unlicensed content. One of the easiest ways these companies could seriously impact Google’s success in the traditional advertising space is simply by adopting Panama (Yahoo’s), Microsoft’s (Adcenter), or a Home Brewed platform to control advertising on their web sites (anything other than Google Adsense). I'd argue by adopting Panama they will further the success of Google's direct competition which is probably more in their best interests than going at it on a home brewed individual level even at the cost of higher profits (protect the industry & keep online - online). Google is known to be a one trick pony, they do search well, and their advertising platform keeps them a float. If their ad revenue stagnates whatsoever, investors will see this as a very bad sign and the stock will probably take a big hit and affect what new markets they may enter.
Currently only 5% of advertising dollars are spent online – this figure is expected to rise to 45% - 50% in the next decade so regardless these firms will continue to make money hand over fist.
I don’t know what type of creative measures companies like News Corporation, Time Warner, or Rogers Communications in Canada could do to prevent a hostile takeover of their advertising revenues. But I’m sure it could get really nasty akin to the Microsoft suits of the ninety’s. Today CBS said that it has launched the CBS Interactive Audience Network, which will distribute advertising-supported shows across Web properties including Time Warner Inc.'s AOL, Microsoft's MSN, CNet Networks Inc., and Joost as reported by WSJ but also includes deals with Cnet, Comcast’s Comcast.net and Fancast.com, Bebo, Brightcove.com, NetVibes, Sling Media and Veoh. The deals vary but include clips, full-length programs, remixes, library content, current shows. No doubt, CBS will expect to at least share the advertising revenue with these sites, and even possibly dictate the % depending on how successful this is. Obviously, CBS will also not be too quick to embrace the Google Adsense platform, saying they will use whatever unique ad platforms are required (EX// Joost is an IP TV company so they will probably run standard TV ads - possibly this will be the case accross their entire network).
Other Notes:
Since the Panama Ad Platform rollout in February Yahoo’s share price has increased from the $27-$28 mark to $31-$32 dollar mark nearly an 18% increase. Keeping in mind Yahoo’s stock is extremely sensitive to industry news – and that I’ve picked extreme highs and lows to prove my point (the Viacom deal happened yesterday) – over the same period, Google has seen its’ stock fall around 8 percent from the $490-$500 mark to the $460 mark (with extreme lows of the high $430’s).
YouTube, by far the most succesful video sharing site on the net, has emmerged into a sort of mobile video channel, where cell phone users, who may not necessarily have data plans, have an unlimited connection to YouTube and can view unlimited videos at no additional cost on their phone. The fact YouTube has been able to get to this point is pretty amazing and could seriously undermine any efforts from the big media firms in gaining traction in this market. Further it may eventually force the big media firms to license certain types of content to YouTube in a relationship where YouTube is the price setter.
If you have any comments please contribute.
Over and Out
The basic jest was that Google may have paid copyright holders equity in the YouTube deal so they would drop current all current legal suits, they setup a backroom fund (rumored to be around 1/2 the sale price of YouTube) to combat future copyright cases, and purchased a certain window (Q3, Q4 2006) in which the major copyright holders promised not to send take down notices or bring legal suits against YouTube while Google took the reins. At the time, several industry experts made sense of the Google YouTube deal as a means of Google purchasing the rights to control and monetize the advertising on YouTube (in some cool new video ad format including Adsense).
Well, it looks like that may just be coming back to bite them in the rear end.
Since that Q3, Q4 grace window ended in January 2007, YouTube has been in the news constantly for being served with take down notices (NBC, Viacom etc.) and it looks as though it is starting to harm Googles core business as Viacom (CBS network, MTV, Infinity broadcasting, Simon & Schuster, Blockbuster and Paramount Pict) has decided to partner with Yahoo over Google for search advertising on 33 of it’s websites.
This may also be a Viacom’s response to the search giant’s plans to enter some of the more traditional advertising spaces such as Radio and Television. This move has irked many of the big broadcasters who typically control advertising within their broadcasts. Such advertising ultimately allows TV or Radio shows to be aired or be cancelled (if the ads can’t pay the show’s contract the show is cancelled) and could significantly affect the quality of television should Google get into the mix and command a portion of each networks ad revenue (pay less for advertising on major networks)
Obviously, for a company like Viacom this represents a huge threat and no doubt is another reason why they would enter into an advertising deal with Yahoo!’s Panama platform. Terry Semel the head of Yahoo! responded, “Aligning Viacom’s popular brands, leading content and large audience with Yahoo!’s more targeted, relevant advertising, marks the beginning of a powerful and engaging partnership between our two companies.”
The increasing popularity of YouTube has enlightened experts to an industry trend of popular versus non-popular media on the site. In fact, at the height of YouTube – in its Q3, Q4 window of freedom - only 3 of the top 20 most popular videos on the site were user generated content. “Whats interesting is that Gootube has gone corporate. Its primary application is to host commercials. Commercials for TV shows. Commercials for Products. Commercials for cheesy websites. Gootube may host a bunch of user generated content, but thats not what people look at.“ - Mark Cuban. However according to a recent study, we’ve seen a steady increase in user generated content in the most popular feeds (if this is because there is less illegal video and hence user generated content is receiving higher popularity ratings is unknown - but the methodology of this study is being questioned).
Either way, if YouTube, the internet media giant, continues to hide behind the DMCA we will certainly continue to see more traditional media outfits (or their holding companies) rally against Google’s best interests. Especially if they believe YouTube is improperly profiting off the unlicensed content. One of the easiest ways these companies could seriously impact Google’s success in the traditional advertising space is simply by adopting Panama (Yahoo’s), Microsoft’s (Adcenter), or a Home Brewed platform to control advertising on their web sites (anything other than Google Adsense). I'd argue by adopting Panama they will further the success of Google's direct competition which is probably more in their best interests than going at it on a home brewed individual level even at the cost of higher profits (protect the industry & keep online - online). Google is known to be a one trick pony, they do search well, and their advertising platform keeps them a float. If their ad revenue stagnates whatsoever, investors will see this as a very bad sign and the stock will probably take a big hit and affect what new markets they may enter.
Currently only 5% of advertising dollars are spent online – this figure is expected to rise to 45% - 50% in the next decade so regardless these firms will continue to make money hand over fist.
I don’t know what type of creative measures companies like News Corporation, Time Warner, or Rogers Communications in Canada could do to prevent a hostile takeover of their advertising revenues. But I’m sure it could get really nasty akin to the Microsoft suits of the ninety’s. Today CBS said that it has launched the CBS Interactive Audience Network, which will distribute advertising-supported shows across Web properties including Time Warner Inc.'s AOL, Microsoft's MSN, CNet Networks Inc., and Joost as reported by WSJ but also includes deals with Cnet, Comcast’s Comcast.net and Fancast.com, Bebo, Brightcove.com, NetVibes, Sling Media and Veoh. The deals vary but include clips, full-length programs, remixes, library content, current shows. No doubt, CBS will expect to at least share the advertising revenue with these sites, and even possibly dictate the % depending on how successful this is. Obviously, CBS will also not be too quick to embrace the Google Adsense platform, saying they will use whatever unique ad platforms are required (EX// Joost is an IP TV company so they will probably run standard TV ads - possibly this will be the case accross their entire network).
Other Notes:
Since the Panama Ad Platform rollout in February Yahoo’s share price has increased from the $27-$28 mark to $31-$32 dollar mark nearly an 18% increase. Keeping in mind Yahoo’s stock is extremely sensitive to industry news – and that I’ve picked extreme highs and lows to prove my point (the Viacom deal happened yesterday) – over the same period, Google has seen its’ stock fall around 8 percent from the $490-$500 mark to the $460 mark (with extreme lows of the high $430’s).
YouTube, by far the most succesful video sharing site on the net, has emmerged into a sort of mobile video channel, where cell phone users, who may not necessarily have data plans, have an unlimited connection to YouTube and can view unlimited videos at no additional cost on their phone. The fact YouTube has been able to get to this point is pretty amazing and could seriously undermine any efforts from the big media firms in gaining traction in this market. Further it may eventually force the big media firms to license certain types of content to YouTube in a relationship where YouTube is the price setter.
If you have any comments please contribute.
Over and Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)