Well, if you didn't figure it out by now, there is no longer any uncertainty about where Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt wants to take YouTube, it's the licensed content route; another way of saying "professionally created" content.
At an investor conference in San Francisco Monday, he said that "Our strategy is first and foremost to get as much licensed content on YouTube as possible, index everything, and develop the advertising tools that will allow people to make money."
Schmidt used the opportunity to try to sell traditional media companies on allowing people to view content on YouTube doesn't take away from the value of their content, even if it's not being seen on their own Web sites. He said, "You can monetize them, you can get them excited, you can sell things to them."
While a lot of the issue is of course over control of content, another important issue has to do with branding. Google is trying to brand itself as the video content 
place to go concerning online video. The traditional media outlets are resisting that.
It's not only about monetizing, that's something Google figured out a long time ago online. It's about branding, something that could be commoditized if Google gets its complete way in this.
I don't think it's about control of content as much anymore, as about where it will be viewed now. That's another way of saying: what will people think of when they view the video content? Will they think CBS (CBS-A), NBC (GE), ABC (DIS) etc., or will they think YouTube and Google? The answer to the question will determine who wins the branding war. In that sense, monetization and control of content becomes secondary factors.
Now from GooTubes way of looking at it, I think they now realize that monetizing amateur video, overall isn't going to work too well. There are just too many things out there where advertisers can't or won't risk putting their products or services beside.
So this leaves YouTube needing predictable video content, which for the most part is created professionally. It leaves the traditional media companies that have that content, in the place of risking losing the powerful branding that comes with their content.
Yet there has been some benefit to putting stuff up on YouTube as some TV shows have received boosts from online clips like the David Letterman Show. But studios are looking over the long-term and don't like what they see concerning what they would lose with branding.
If they become commoditized any more, they could become marginalized to the point of irrelevancy. The reason why is that tools are being made that can bring the amateur created material close to the levels of professional. And there are always the independent artists out there creating good stuff that is highly competitive.
What the professional stuff has going for it at this time is restraints on what they offer which can work with companies and advertising agencies in a way that can be trusted. No matter what tools are used to create higher-quality video, that's something that will be one of the keys going ahead into the future.
There's no way of knowing how this will all work out. It seems to be going the way of some agreements that will be limited in nature between video sites and traditional media companies. Some big companies may go their own way for several years to see if they need Web sites like YouTube at all; that really hasn't been proven yet, in spite of all the hype.
Stay tuned, this story is really only just getting started.
Comment Preview