TV Networks Discussing YouTube Rival 72
An anonymous reader writes "Reuters is carrying a story indicating that NBC, CBS, Fox, and Viacom are considering banding together to work on a competitive video-hosting site. The goal would be to provide an alternative to Google's YouTube, and presumably direct some revenue in their direction." From the article: "While a deal is still far off, the four media companies envision a jointly owned site that would be the primary Web source for videos from their television networks, the paper said in an online report on Wsj.com, citing people close to the situation. The companies aim to cash in on the fast-growing market of Web video advertising and have also discussed building a Web video player that could play clips, the Journal said. "
Whatever (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
If the networks were smart, they'd encourage viewers to submit good/funny clips from their top shows to Youtube and other video channels. CBS realized the value of posting online with their CBS YouTube channel [youtube.com], which helped to increase TV viewership as well.
Internet viewers want to quickly scan 100's of videos to find what works, most don't want to sit down in front of their 17 in monitor in the office and watch TV sitcoms with the family. The advertising model that works for TV just doesn't work on the internet, and networks won't understand this. For now, they should ditch their idea and use the internet to drive traffic to their TV shows, which has huge potential (the only reason I watch The Office is because I saw clips online first).
Re: (Score:2)
If the networks ever want to compete on the Internet, they're going to have to take the plunge and put content out there, even though most people don't have the hardware to display it on their TV yet. It's a chicken-in-egg problem, and in this case it's a lot easier for the content producers to move first.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously Capitalism is NOT working for you!
Hopefully they just use those transparent "sponsored by" splashes as the video plays, or something.
It appears that the business model of TV production is not going to be re-factored with the advent of web-based content delivery.
The internet "itself" has turned into one big "commercial." Filtering all the online ads is a test of endurance, however 'there's no free lunch'.
KEEP CONTENT FREE!! -Attention is expensive.
"I'm a honest hoe, and all my hoes is honest."
And suddenly ... (Score:2)
Exclusive content? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Presumably they'll also be selling their stuff over the net?
Re: (Score:2)
Hah.. (Score:2)
I'll say it here now.. nothing that the networks will ever develop (regardless of how many of them get involved) will ever compete with YouTube - just won't. Simple as.
The only way they'll ever beat YouTube is with litigation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The people trying to do this are the same kind of people who canned Firefly, an act for which I may never forgive them....
"and presumably direct some revenue" (Score:2)
Re:"and presumably direct some revenue" (Score:4, Interesting)
TV = Boring , predictable. (Score:2, Troll)
Should have fought the republican/red state censorship. Nope, you guys rolled over like lapdogs.
Censorship = boring television. It stifles originality. I enjoy plot and dialogue but I also enjoy nudity and real-life speech(expletives).
Anyways TV is now mainly aimed at demographics of women and teen girls.
TV=newspapers. Could be dying out.
pfft (Score:2)
House
The Colbert Report
You can get your boobs and cursing from movies. Go watch seasons 1 - 4 of The West Wing and tell me it isn't great TV.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
That said, kids(10+) should be exposed to a little violence and real life. If not, they will find it on the street, or in school, or on YouTube, and when they do their reaction will not be what the protective par
Re: (Score:2)
Revenue... (Score:5, Funny)
Competitive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, so just about the entire US broadcast industry is banding together to distribute content through a joint venture. I think the word you want is "anti-competitive", not "competitive".
Collusion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
~nog_lorp
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe someone will find a way to pay the people that MAKE the videos unlike Google and YouTube? Nah!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but...
Something to consider is that the "business" of making a television show will change dramatically in the next few years. It used to be that you'd shop around the major networks until someone gave you money for a pilot. Now, you can put together a short clip and post it on YouTube. (Remember, South Park started because of a short that was floating around the internet...)
I really believe that in 5-10 years we'll be watching shows that started as short clips on YouTube. These shows might end u
Marketing spin... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
That doesn't make your post less funny, though.
Catching up to the times (Score:2)
Wow...what a revolutionary idea...
Next they'll start putting ads on sites. Or charge for premium content. Dare I say they bring the blink tag back?
Wow, this is pretty interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you consider that **AA wants to pull the rug out from under Google et al, now MS is trying their hand at the online video thing... then along comes johnny mediagiant to try too.
Perhaps there is more to this free internet videos thing after all?
How can the MPAA continue to want to control content and then want to play in the same space as Google?
The only thing I'm certain of is that this could be very interesting...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google didn't buy a videosharing service, they bought a domain name for that 1.5B. And they are banking that it will be t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The big issue is how much content people are actually watching by going to you tube direct and creating web site loyalty and how many are just linking and are completely indifferent to the site hosting the content.
All content com
Yeah.. thanks, but no thanks (Score:2, Informative)
MusicNet (Score:2)
Competing with Apple? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think these are two different markets (if "market" is the right word); plus the networks just don't get it. They correctly see that people are watching illegal copies of their shows on YouTube; but they incorrectly assume that is what is drawing people to the site.
Apple is selling reasonably good quality, easily portable show
The follow on move is their real money-maker (Score:4, Funny)
building a Web video player that could play clips
The TV networks aren't stupid. They've got a really long-term vision for this. After they create this "video player," which I hear is going to be called something like "FastTemporalMovement," or "HurryUpNow," they're going to start making some of these clips available on a vast, distributed network they are calling, "The ConnectedLattice." Originally they were going to call it "DenseAdaptiveRegisteredPlaybackAssociationNET," but apparently that was too close to some other experimental project someone else is working on. After their new distributed network gets activated, they're going to pass their video through a series of interconnected tubes and into this distributed network, which will then allow individual users to connect via the "FastTemporalMovement" video player and watch programming on.. get this, here's where it really gets exciting... THEIR HOME COMPUTERS!!!"
Now tell me the TV networks aren't technology and business innovators! Once people start getting a taste of this "video on your computer" thing, customers will start lining up to pay the networks for quality programming like American Idol and Deal or No Deal. The only potential snag in the networks' plan is that some viewers may, and I think this is only a slim possibility, may start producing their own video content and attempting to place it on the vast distributed network the clever TV folks thought up. What a funny thought that is: consumers actually producing content. Heh heh. Too funny. It'll never happen. The networks are WAY ahead of the game, folks.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How did a giant joke get modded interesting? There is a word to describe jokes. But I already posted/don't have mod points.
Someone from one of the networks read it and thought it would be a great idea.
Why a joint site? (Score:4, Informative)
What do they need a joint site for? If all they want to do is allow limited downloads of their own content, each network can do that right now.
Also, with a Democratic Congress, anti-trust questions will be asked. Competitors aren't supposed to have joint marketing arrangements. "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court." (15 USC 2). Antitrust enforcement has been out to lunch since Bush came in, and Congress hasn't questioned this. That's going to change.
lame! (Score:3, Insightful)
There *is* a player -- it's called Flash. Why do they need another player? DRM, perhaps? No thank you.
Simple (Score:1, Offtopic)
Or maybe Google don't think it's worth their while testing on browsers other than IE.
How MySpace and News Corp fit into the picture (Score:1)
Posturing (Score:3, Interesting)
The TV networks probably aren't getting as sweet a deal as they'd like from Google/YouTube, so they're threatening to create a rival and use them exclusively. They just want Google to cave to their terms.
Chances are Google won't.
Chances are the TV networks won't be able to agree on exactly what they want for some time, will find out how hideously expensive creating a rival would be, and then realise they have to solve the problem as to how to get people to watch their rival as well. This will cost a hefty bucket of money, and there's no way they'll be able to agree how to split the cost fairly.
Then it'll be back to the negotiating table. Google will give them a token step towards their terms to protect their shattered egos, and the TV execs may or may not take it. Or, possibly, Google will give one TV network a sweet deal and refuse to budge on the others, and the others will effectively be forced to accept a crappy deal or face irrelevance.
How it works (Score:2)
Eventually some big company notices the interest in it and thinks, "We should jump in and get our cut out of this." and starts to dream talk up a 'better version' which is "improved by thier knowledge and experience".
Then Marketing, Legal and PR guys gets wind of the concept and put in th
do get it (Score:1)
They just dont get the hint
Pipe YouTube into Cable TV (Score:2)
Of course, I'm one of those nuts that wants to pipe Internet into TV Land. I've been trying to get the proper resources for a LPTV station, but it is taking me a little while to singlehandedly do this. I already record my own shows, commercials, and other TV-type content.
If the idea is to push video to users, wouldn't Cable/Satellite TV be ideal for that?
Re: (Score:1)
The quality of video is soo good that I start wondering whether its really "viewer created content"
I am too busy being a Hubster (Score:2)
(Visitors under 13 years of age, please enjoy Walmart.com with a parent or guardian.)
Not Surprising, But Mildly Impressive (Score:2, Insightful)
The 'big media' conglomerates have always been geriatric/glacial in their movements into new technology.
I'm thinking this is worthy of note on just how fast they are um... talking about this. They probably see it as targeting a key demographic (the teenager - young adult crowd), which it does and would.
*deep breath* The reason, I'm guessing, for the seemingly slow movement would be the decision makers are older, fiscal conservatives who are fearful of new technology and systems/processes that transcend
No thanks (Score:2)