Saving YouTube Part II, part deux
After writing a less-than-friendly response to an article on engadget.com, I received a comment from the author of that post. Please check the comments to my previous post to see the response. Had I known the author of the article would actually read my post and respond in a serious manner, I certainly would have used a more cordial tone. My apologies, Steve. And so, after looking up the meaning of ‘ad hominem’, I write…
The charge per upload certainly isn’t a final solution for YouTube, but it is one way to regulate uploads. And, sure, it might not cost much for upload and storage of clips, but it comes back to being able to find the good stuff. (As an aside, it relies on a personal definition of “good stuff”. I like being able to watch the opening credits of the A-Team, but it might not be the most viral of videos.)
Regarding TV money numbers, do they need an estimate of how popular a video will be before buying the ad time? How can they guess which clips will be wildly popular and which will be mildly popular? I know Rocket Boom guaranteed a certain number of views in order to get bids for the ad time. Would YouTube spread this guarantee over many clips until the number of views were met? I guess these are details that don’t relate to the theoretical solutions, but I would be interested in seeing how YouTube approaches these questions.
Anyway, thanks for reading the weblog, and I don’t necessarily disagree with advertising; I’m sure ads are a smart solution. I suppose the ads might not be placed with a clip until it reached a certain number of views or something. I’m just reluctant to the idea of sitting through a 30-second ad to watch a clip that ends up sucking. I guess I’m more willing to bear a burden uploading the material than being burdened with ads while skimming for the “good stuff”.