What do you think would have happened to youtube if it wasnt aquired by a
mega-company?
Sure, it would have raised multiple rounds of investment to stay alive and
figure out how to monetize.
They would have had to launch their own ad platform, probably similar as
google's auction based AdWords.
And hope for the best. And struggle.

It's interesting though.

And the evolution is clearly focused around the so-called premium content...
Where Hulu has established itself and where Youtube is moving towards as
fast as they can. That's where companies want to display their ads. With
the exception of the phenomena of culturally viral media.

Yet, in contrast, Blip.tv is surviving and they focus on independent shows.
Mostly because of new investments as they continue to work their business
models. But they are the torso (and longtail). They are banking on success
of the thousands of shows that they host and support. They support them
because that supports themselves (ads and syndication deals). Sort of like
a Talent Agent.
Great to have Blip.tv fighting the good fight. Seeing how so many companies
are now getting out of the online video business or are struggling to
survive without more blind investments... we'll see if Blip continues to
succeed. And if a shows success will influence it to move off of
blip.tvand self-serve instead... The business of success.

@sull

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote:

>
>
> No surprise here really. This research concludes that it's worth it
> for Google to pay the enormous Youtube cost's of serving free video
> since it brings so much traffic to the web. It's lile grocery stores
> losing money on eggs to get you into the store. It's a loss leader.
>
> http://www.telco2.net/blog/2009/06/google_the_internet_behemoth_a.html
>
> Jay
>
> --
> http://ryanishungry.com
> http://jaydedman.com
> http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> 917 371 6790
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]