One Defamer writer, DroppedCall, dropped the ball, as he lamented the fact that Hulu did so well on the Web in its first month of operations.
It quickly knocked Google Video out of the top ten video Web sites to garner the No. 10 position with 63 million streams in April.
The bizarre conclusion of DroppedCall was that Scott Collins' column in the LA Times was "an embarrassing display of old media-ness," because he likes the Hulu Web site. Evidently poor DroppedCall hasn't or can't read much, as numerous bloggers across the Web have touted Hulu as a great experience.
What DroppedCall doesn't understand is what it means for the Internet to be democratized. A democracy means people can vote on what they like, not just put up what they like. Evidently DroppedCall doesn't like or doesn't understand the voting aspect of the democratization of the Web, just the putting up of content side of it. That's where his logic fails.
It seems that the writer doesn't like the fact that people voted the Hulu site to the No. 10 position through means of casting their ballots by clicking on the streaming video they desired to watch. Sounds like Rupert Murdoch derangement syndrome to me.
What's strangest to me about the post in the headline itself, which asserts Rupert Murdoch has triumphed over the people. The fact that "the people" voted through their clicks on what they wanted shows DroppedCall has no idea what he's talking about.
He even attempts to bring the founder of VEOH in to confirm his assertions. Here's what he cites Dmitry Shapiro saying concerning Hulu:
"That's how the Internet was built; everyone participates. "That is really the complete opposite of what Hulu is based on. Closed systems don't work on the Internet."
If anybody really thought that the faltering and increasingly meaningless YouTube was going to replace professional video content they were being self deceived. That was never going to happen. Rather, what's happening is a growing number of options and locations people can watch video when and how they want.
People aren't so much concerned about anybody being able to put up content on the Internet, but are more concerned about content they want to consume. That has nothing to do with professional or amateur, but the specific content offered within the video.
Google (Nasdaq:GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt has admitted that he and the company aren't able to figure out how to monetize YouTube, so is now using the disingenuous and ambiguous argument that Google is attempting to change the world, not make money off the site. I hate to break it to Eric, but putting up videos of your cat or family reunion isn't going to change the world anytime soon.
What seems to be really happening is there's beginning to be a leveling off of interest in YouTube and sites like that, and that is bothering those that wrongly projected the Internet was primarily an amateur wild west show. While that element will remain part of it, it's far from the whole story.
Concerning YouTube, there are some that are even saying Google should fold the Web site up if it isn't able to make money from it. That's the reason why Schmidt used the "change the world" mantra in order to deflect these types of ideas and keep them from spreading.
The truth is there have been a growing number of rumblings from Google shareholders that are starting to take on the look and feel of Time Warner (NYSE:TWX) shareholders who want to get rid of AOL. But with AOL, as least they have a revenue model.
What is really happening here is there is a socialist, not democratic element working on sites like YouTube, where most users think they should continue to get everything for free at the cost of other people. That's why the site won't work until a business model is implemented.
If I were Google, I would just start doing it and get rid of the deadbeats who want everything for free. From there they could build a more engaged community and attract users who understand the privilege, not entitlement, of using the site. That's the problem YouTube and others like it are facing.
Part of it is their fault for launching the site and marketing it in a way that made users feel it will be this way for ever. Facebook will soon have to deal with this problem as well; with costs rising and not able to generate a profit.
If YouTube isn't able to make a profit, in the long run what company would want to buy Facebook, or something like it, with no way to retain the audience if they choose to monetize the site?
I've heard some people say that if YouTube were to go this route that other sites would simply emerge and take their place. My question would be - How? Who's going to underwrite the costs? How will it be any different from the existing YouTube? How will it be monetized?
What's good about Hulu, is they're building the Web site from the start on a business model, and it looks like those who want everything for free are resenting its success.
The more these types of models are introduced, the weaker Web sites like YouTube look. That's the reason Eric Schmidt has been on the defensive lately, as the soft underbelly of his video behemoth has been exposed, and he's trying to get people's attention away from that reality.
In the end, much of this is the fault of these types of sites that say they want to build up a huge audience, and figure out how to monetize it later. That is increasingly looking like a fallacy that will sometime soon come to an end.
Everyone will soon learn that there's never anything like a free lunch. The sooner that's accepted, the better.
Related Articles:
Google: we don't know how to make money from YouTube
Google admits it still can't make money from YouTube
Hulu Breaks Into Nielsen's Top-10 Video Sites, Knocks Out Google Video
Comment Preview