Articles on YouTube-lovin' media companies

I did a LexisNexis search for articles about big media companies who have signed deals with YouTube to feature their content. Below are my findings. I think it's mandatory for newspaper.coms to syndicate video online so we can reach the disbursed Web audience. But I think it may be smarter for us to post videos on the sharing sites that offer some compensation. YouTube has said it is going to compensate creators, but so far, it's only worked out deals with huge media companies like NBC, CBS and some recording companies. Could newspaper.coms ride that donkey?

The most interesting article I found was "When will viral video become viable?" (PDF link) published in AdWeek. The main idea is that regardless of how popular online video has become, still no one has figured out how to make money.

This is such an interesting question: "To truly leverage the distribution possibilities of the Internet, do content producers have to unleash their content broadly, with little regard to where it shows up, which viral permits? ... Or can there be models that, more akin to syndication, distribute content selectively?"

YouTube (with the potential of more than 30 million views per month) is undoubtedly a viral syndication model. This article (like almost all the ones below) talks about NBC. An exec says the company wants its programs to have a large market reach, and it can't do that with content on its site alone because the Web audience is so widely disbursed.

So, it's mandatory to spread your content around the Web, but content owners can still benefit from some policing. For example, CBS will test drive YouTube's new content identification system which will identify CBS copyrighted material, and either remove it or pay CBS a portion of the ad revenue for it. Other video sharing sites like Revver actually do pay a video's creator a portion of ad revenue for their videos (but you'd have to get A LOT of clicks to make any real money). Brightcove is also interested in compensating content creators...Media companies can embed their own brightcove videos on their site, and sell advertising there. Then Brightcove will syndicate the videos, sell their own advertising on those, but give you a portion of the ad revenue.

Here's a very interesting point from the article: LonelyGirl15 became so popular on YouTube, where there was no system to pay her for her work. Later her agents created her own web site and also posted her videos on Revver (which DOES pay content creators). Too late though! Think of if she would have gotten all those YouTube hits on Revver instead...She'd be rich! According to the article, "the message is nonetheless clear: the price you pay for pursuing online fame for fame's sake means you could end up leaving money on the table."

I think the most interesting points from this article is that content creators MUST synicate videos to reach the disbursed Web audience, but the jury is still out over viral or more constrained syndication. There's no money from YouTube, but it has quite an audience, and it may create revenue sharing models soon. There's already money from other video sharing sites like Revver and Brightcove.

CBS signed a deal in Oct. 2006, and a PRNewswire article ("After One Month, CBS Content Among Most Viewed Videos on YouTube") in November said CBS videos had "become some of the most widely viewed content on the site." The article says that back then the company had uploaded about 300 videos, and gotten a total of 29.2 million views on them.

Quincy Smith, President of CBS Interactive, had an interesting quote: "... what's most exciting here is the extent to which CBS is learning about its audience as never before ... YouTube and allows an open dialogue between established media players and a new set of viewers." This article paints a really good picture of good consequences of CBS posting on YouTube. To keep it in perspective, remember that CBS was posting entertainment shows, which are more popular online than news videos.

I think the most interesting tidbit from this article is that the company thought it was getting "A NEW SET OF VIEWERS."

Washington Post article "To the Media, YouTube Is a Threat and a Tool." The premise of the article is that media companies were trying to decide whether YouTube would threaten their ad dollars, or act as a "powerful promotion machine" for their content. An NBC executive is quoted saying he thinks a couple (entertainment) shows have benefited significantly from online attention.

This article talks about the copyright threats that big media companies face from YouTube--Which is mainly that users are recording shows at home and illegally posting them on the site. However, the article also points out that most YouTube users don't care a flip about that copyrighted material because they're going on YouTube for videos posted by other users in their online communities.

I think the one interesting point from this article is that attention from YouTube can benefit the parent product (i.e. Your own Web site). Another point is that I don't think newspaper.coms would face copyright threats from users...I don't think our content inspires users to record it at home and illegally upload it. Besides, if we post it ourselves on YouTube, there's no reason for someone to go to the trouble of illegally copying it.

Boston Globe article "YouTube deals hint of new era for Net media." This article talks about music recording companies like Universal and BMG signing deals with YouTube. Seems against character, right? The companies decided to post all their music videos on YouTube and also allow YouTube users to produce videos using their artists music.

The article says the recording companies want to declare a truce and that "far from seeing YouTube and Google as havens for digital pirates, the media companies are coming to regard them as rich new sources of revenue."

I think the interesting point in this article is media companies think sharing videos can provide sources of revenue and that YouTube is willing to negotiate deals to allow that to happen. But would they only do that for the big dogs like CBS? Or also a newspaper? What is the point where it becomes worth it for YouTube?