of interest... this is a good podcast with Dina_Kaplan:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Michael Sullivan <sulleleven@...>wrote:
> What do you think would have happened to youtube if it wasnt aquired by a
> Sure, it would have raised multiple rounds of investment to stay alive and
> figure out how to monetize.
> They would have had to launch their own ad platform, probably similar as
> google's auction based AdWords.
> And hope for the best. And struggle.
> It's interesting though.
> And the evolution is clearly focused around the so-called premium
> content... Where Hulu has established itself and where Youtube is moving
> towards as fast as they can. That's where companies want to display their
> ads. With the exception of the phenomena of culturally viral media.
> Yet, in contrast, Blip.tv is surviving and they focus on independent
> shows. Mostly because of new investments as they continue to work their
> business models. But they are the torso (and longtail). They are banking
> on success of the thousands of shows that they host and support. They
> support them because that supports themselves (ads and syndication deals).
> Sort of like a Talent Agent.
> Great to have Blip.tv fighting the good fight. Seeing how so many
> companies are now getting out of the online video business or are struggling
> to survive without more blind investments... we'll see if Blip continues to
> succeed. And if a shows success will influence it to move off of blip.tvand self-serve instead... The business of success.
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote:
>> No surprise here really. This research concludes that it's worth it
>> for Google to pay the enormous Youtube cost's of serving free video
>> since it brings so much traffic to the web. It's lile grocery stores
>> losing money on eggs to get you into the store. It's a loss leader.
>> 917 371 6790
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]