Youtube sold too cheap  sold too cheap. The numbers work better for Google then anyone else. Google just did a $900MM deal for MySpace. Besides what are all these companies going to do with all that excess cash keep buying T bills with their 5% yield?

Direct is it. Content owners will partner with or they will go the way of other media which forgets to understand what’s their business. Their business is content, ad supported or otherwise, and you go to where the eyeballs are. If they cant do it themselves, I know there are a lot of those in control who cant wait to retire and let someone else make those hard decision, they partner.

Youtube is future of tv in direct advt model. Google has the platform to do it. I think.

Google has a lot of leverage here. So what happens if 100,000 people see a film on and then it gets removed. If its any good it will generate demand from others who missed it.  I think can be the new TV. TV when you want it, where you want it. And think, with google ads, textural or otherwise, its the big advertising killer. What a great testing medium for television programming. Something has to be done to allow programs to find their audience. Why not put the pilot up on for free, forever without commercials with a little link or tag telling user program day and time on conventional broadcast tv.
Advertising has gotten too expensive not to know who your audience is. And I don’t mean surveys, I mean email addresses, names, etc.

You number crunchers do the numbers, its cheap anyway you slice it.

Why not sell those content providers their own youtube channels and then the copyright problems go away.



Filed under Uncategorized

3 responses to “Youtube sold too cheap

  1. Rich S

    I’m not convinced that the Google juggernaut is what it’s cracked up to be. Sure I like YouTube as much as the next guy, but $1.6 billion? That’s a lot of clams.

  2. Jeff

    Of course Google underpaid for YouTube – people think the price represents what you “get” in apparent assets, but they don’t take into account:

    You get those eyeballs now, not next year. And on the web, where a year is a long time, now is everything. You start owning the market now.

    You get to take YouTube out of play so anyone else wanting to compete has to buy someone else or do it themselves, buying you even more time.

    Google has already gotten a huge amount of publicity, repositioning of its image, leverage in other deals – simply by making this deal.

    Google has the ability to market YouTube on its higher traffic platform. They can scale its eyeballs up very quickly.

    In the case of YouTube the “asset” is the asset’s ability, with brand identification to scale up quickly, not simply the number of eyeballs or infrastructure. Google is clearly paying for potential, as Murdoch paid for MySpace’s potential. Whether they can achieve that is a different question.

    Look at it this way. Google is now the biggest internet Television network. Couldn’t have bought NBC or HBO for 1.6.

    Overpaid? If they don’t know what to do with it. Underpaid by an order of magnitude – if Google ends up owning the first position in internet video in perpetuity.

  3. Sander

    Came across a very interesting article on why google needed to buy youtube.

    In short:
    – youtube was about to get sued by many
    – a youtube loss in court (e.g. because of
    lack of money) would create a dangerous
    precedent that might taint google’s business

    I like that thought.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s