Google lost money due YouTube

For me is interesting to talk about the artical i have seen in our major news paper called "El Pais" (artical). It's "Google lost 365 mill € or 470 mill $".

In the article reference an study of The register. In this study we can read "....Which means Google's failure to "monetize" YouTube is down to one of two things. Either there's potential ad revenue for online video, and Google can't capture it yet...or there isn't, and the economics of YouTube means it will always be a liability on the wrong half of the balance sheet.....".

 In the Spanish news paper also references this in news CNET that Youtube look for an agreement with Sony to distribute their movies, but it seems complex due Sony has already signed an agreement with Hulu.

 In my point of view that is the topic "Google lost money due YouTube is not so many profitable". But what is the background of this? "Internet content freedom and legal right about content".

  Are we able to look for a new comercial model for contents? I think content providers (movies, songs, tv, even books....) are hard chain to this oldest comercial way to make business and they are not able to look for new free ways to do it. It the world we are living today they must look for an Open Content way to make business or they will die sooner or later.

  Why, if i'm a singer for example, can not play my music in concerts, record that music and share it free in internet. Maybe i, customer, has to connect throw advertising web page, maybe i have to register in some page, maybe i have to fill a survey in advance, or many other ideas.... Or in other case, you make the song for a movie or a tv comercial but then it could be free download for everybody (it just remenber everybody the comercial. why should it be bad? it should be really good for the comercial brand).

With books, for instance it could include advertisments into the cover page or back cover page, or if you are going to write about Paris you should be paid for Paris city council due you contribute the city recognition, or if you write about love for instance the restaurant, the wine and so many other things can be write them down with brand names and you will be paid for it. Then your book could be free.

  In summary, my opinion is, content is great, content is power and content is a brand itself you must to sell your content itself to make it profitable and then share the content as much as you can freely. When the consumer selects a content he consumes the feel, the brands, the cities and whole atmosphere you create for it.

 Has anybody think how many money has cathedrals won and will win thanks to Davincci Code? (even if it is not catholic at all). Should cathedrals pay for it? Should catholic pay every sunday when they go in the church? I think first answer is Yes, second is clearly No. I mean, the religion wins money with goverment, with museums, with weddings and many other activities; but it doesn't with content.

 Many movies works as religion. So many songs or singers work as religion. Win money with t-shirts, concerts, commercials, but your content should be free.

Please, debate on this, it's for sure a big topic.

Enjoy !!!


Thank you for nice text

Posted by Komik Video on April 11, 2009 at 02:12 PM CEST #

i invested money into mutal funds in 1998 and i would like to know what happened to my money

Posted by collette parham on October 13, 2009 at 10:35 PM CEST #

i invested money into mutal funds in 1998 and i would like to know what happened to my money

Posted by collette parham on October 13, 2009 at 10:37 PM CEST #

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: NOT allowed

General discussion in English and/or Spanish mainly about life in a new feeling and SOA, JES components and Java in general in the software arena.


« February 2016