wow Youtube monetizes horribly....

[Cool1g]

"Google is great at search but it’s terrible at monetizing content. It’s text ads for example, require massive amounts of traffic to be effective. And contextual advertising is a red herring. It still takes massive numbers of views before a text-ad gets a click from a viewer. This is an incredibly inefficient system.

Google is great at search, but it is terrible at advertising.
Here is an extreme example: The UK Guardian recently reported that the co-writer of the Rick Astley song “Never give you up” was expecting a fat royalty check from YouTube for more than 154 million views of the video. Google sent him a check for 11 pounds ($15).

This is a massive failure by Google to monetize 154 million views.

Google has a lousy value recovery mechanism for content. It’s good enough for Google because it has a low cost server-and-software business model; but it’s a disaster for a media business that has to create original content instead of harvesting it for free."


GOOG's dirty little secret . . . | Tom Foremski: IMHO | ZDNet.com


geez. that's nuts....154 million people got Rick Rolled and it paid out $15???

 

[aeisn]

Google is terrible at monetizing video, not that the rest of the internet is doing much better.

On the other hand they clean up on search ads.

 

[airforcematt]

You gotta take into account too how many of those 154 million were clicking the back button furiously.

 

[aeromonkey]

Ok google is terrible in monetizing their website but aren't you trying to monetize your website through google traffic or social sites at least where they are also sux in monetizing?

 

[kingofsp]

Astley is lucky to have received a dime as he didn't write the song. Also, the publishing rights to the song are shared by Sony and others.

 

[PurePursuit]

I don't understand why they don't just do what hulu does, force play advertisements before people can view the videos and sell the time slots. Would suck for us viewers but that has to open up a lot more revenue.

 

[kblessinggr]

I don't understand why they don't just do what hulu does, force play advertisements before people can view the videos and sell the time slots. Would suck for us viewers but that has to open up a lot more revenue.

I actually don't mind hulu method. However note that hulu doesn't put the same kind of method on their video 'clips', which would be what most youtube videos are. What I think is a nice touch however is allowing the viewers to rate the ads, which invites them to pay more attention in order to be 'involved' in the spite/praise of an ad.

 

[BrynYoungblut]

Apparently the annoying whatthebuck guy makes a decent amount of cash from youtube adsense revshare.

 

[EvanCPC]

The simple fact is that video, social media, etc does not 'monetize' well because it's near-worthless. As creatures accustomed to luxury and excess, we are spoiled by the 'free' access to all of the bullish available on the web. . .that doesn't really provide a value. Thus, when a monetary value is assigned, we feign surprise and turn and run the other way (napster, anyone? even though ironically that was a real product). What is worthless will forever have no worth. Recognize the 'new economy' and move on.


Ev

 

[guerilla]

What is worthless will forever have no worth. Recognize the 'new economy' and move on.

Unbelievable.

It is worthless because there is no scarcity. Value is a function of supply and demand.

There is no "new economy" just people without any understanding of economics reveling in their ignorance.

 

[AdExhibitJason]

I think in order to moneitze youtube or "make" money from them you need to get the users away from that site. To your site where you have your monetization methods.

If the Rick Astley or WTF ever made a site to post in the description and pop-ups to go to. For maybe a ringtone or downloadable rick astly vid then the money would have been nice.