How Can YouTube Survive? It's Believed To Lose Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars A Year

The Independent:

It's wildly popular - and thought to be losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Now questions are being asked about the future of YouTube. Rhodri Marsden investigates a mystery of digital-age 'freeconomics'

Read the whole story: The Independent

Comments

[idiompost]

It needs to stop that 10 minute only video limit, I use to watch a lot of shows and documentary's on there but when I watch something I do not want to get up from the couch and find part 2 of 8 after and every ten minutes. And now all that is left is old video's,videos in 8 parts, and kids picking there nose or dogs sleep running head first in to walls. And for the money part, google owns the internet, take the good with the bad

[sonnybrakes]

YouTube's product is your eyes and ears sitting in front of a screen. YouTube is my go to destination on the internet. I do not consider myself a consumer simply because even if the producers of most products on the internet were to give me their products outright, I still won't want most of them.

[frantaylor]

It's just a part of google. Maybe it loses money on its own, but from here we cannot tell how it contributes to google's total picture.

Microsoft only has two divisions that make money: Windows and Office. Every other part of Microsoft loses money, and yet there are no calls to shut down XBox or MSDN or Live or Hotmail.

[gfs5541]

True, but YouTube never had a business model to begin with. It's only now begun to display advertisments on video clips. A lot of these "Web 2.0" outfits are without a business model and they are burning thru venture capitalist cash.

[Liberal2]

It's a hoot how venture capitalists pick their investments. The new company--Andreessen Horowitz--declares they only invest in computer technologies (aka: apps such as YouTube and Twitter). Problem is really new concepts are few and far between. The present computer designs (Von Neuman architecture) is pretty much mature. A/H is simply funding the next new guy (twitter versus older Youtube) and selling the old application to fools. The auto industry had the same strategy; it's called planned obsolence.

[frantaylor]

Sure they did! Their business model was "get bought by google"

[pastpartisan]

youtbe is overrated? maybe

hat tip to http://www.alexandria.lib.va.us/link/redir.pxe?www.iamned.com

[dthom403]

Charging youtube users is the surest way to permanently dry up traffic. People would stop their daily, sort of passive youtube visits and would pay only if they really needed to see a video (how-to videos and such, ), which would be rare considering they are likely to find similar videos elsewhere before having to go through the youtube payment hassle.

Also, the amount of videos would decrease drastically overall as millions would stop using youtube altogether. . They're asking me to pay for less content than before? I don't see that happening.

And to suggest that fewer videos equal better content overall, is ridiculous. Just because someone refuses to go through the youtube payment hassle doesn't mean they don't have valuable information.

It would be strictly an adult site as most kids under 18 don't have a bank card or credit cards. Good luck getting a kids' parent to give up the credit card number for an online site.

Then you have the legal hassle of youtube profiting from the original content of it's users. Are you telling me that people will pay to watch my videos and I will never see a dime from it? I understand youtube currently has a partnership program that pays some of it's users but they'd have to pay all of the users at this point.

These are just a few of the potential roadblocks.

There's no way youtube starts charging; it'd be the surest and quickest route to death.

[lhoop]

I agree. Once people become accustomed to having a service for free they will stop paying for it. Just look at print media or the porn industry. People won't buy a newspaper if they know they can read the same material online and they won't buy porn if they can watch user-generated videos at no cost. Now it seems youtube (the biggest database and generator of free content) has an unsustainable business model. Is it possible there is no viable internet product? I'm not sure there is money to be made when there is unlimited, free information. When everyone can be a blogger or a porn store, we have no real need for the real thing.
Leah
FICRY.com

[fcsakes]

Everybody is trying to make a buck off the internet, already most sites are so filled with ads that move, talk, sing, and interact that it takes forever for them to load. The people who are anxious to make tons of money forget that the internet is a habit and habits can be broken. Sure there would be withdrawal symptoms, but the internet is not a necessity by any stretch of the imagination. The powers that be would certainly like everyone to believe it is though, so they try to make it as much like a narcotic as they can.

[kappa08]

well put...not to mention people get bored real fast. Just ask MySpace. There will always a younger prettier face.

[imsosure]

Try Googling that question, perhaps it'll have a clue.

[RobinSeattle]

The Washington Times loses $100 million a year and has a circulation that barely gets to around 100,000, but that has been in business for 30 years because the Reverend Moon sees the influence he obtains as worth the financial loss.

In a screwy way, that is also true for You Tube, though You Tube's user base is huge. It is another platform for Google to keep its brand before the public in a tangible way and while it may not have the kind of tv episode menu that Hulu does, it remains an influential outlet that the public pays attention to. So the influence and cachet may be worth the losses for Google.

[ron ray]

and hey, mayve the scientologistswould fund youtube.

[RobinSeattle]

Nah. Scientology will start its own video outlet, Xenu-Tube.

[donbrown]

Got it! Construct You-Tube consumption like cell phone use.

Restrict use of the network to those willing to pay $5/month at a penny/view.

After 500 views per month, you either go into overtime or stop.

Those with higher usage pay more ($10 for 1500 views, for example...

or $20 for unlimited use.

Unpopular, for something everyone gets for free now. But you have to admit there is a lot of junk out there, and this might clear some of the useless (and illegal) stuff out.

[oldcliche]

Goodbye youtube, hello Hulu.

[donbrown]

I know this will be viewed as unpopular, but it is such a valuable service, perhaps it might be time to charge a penny or even a nickel per view (is that even possible?)

It would certainly clear out some of the detritus on the network.

It can't sustain itself as it is,

[CaptainHowdy2]

Do any modern companies make money?

I don't think that Amazon.com has made any profit yet either. Then again, that doesn't stop CEOs from taking money from investors.­.. 'till they bankrupt the companies and walk away rich.

It's the modern capitalism.

[TheLastWallStreeter]

Amazon makes money, as does Google whichis YouTube's parent company. In fact, they make a LOT of money. Worth looking into and eading an annual report one of these days...

[David Wise]

Say it ain't so. I rather give up Facebook than Youtube. I'm for a government bailout.

[neocon666]

The only way that YouTube will survive is if it sells something to someone -like any other business. In their case it can be either advertising (most likely) or subscriptions. Otherwise, they might as well call themselves a not for profit organization.

[jsarets]

Non-profits generate revenue, they just allocate any surplus value to their employees instead of to a separate group of owners. Profit is just a redistribution of wealth from labor to capital. Non-profits are motivated by their employees' desire to earn more income.

What you're describing is a charity.

[Bluejay00234]

Google, and Viacom ruined YouTube. The "You" is laughable.

[jwill9981]

The copyright lawyers are already ruining it just like they did Napster. Enjoy it while you can.