Comments on: Metrics Point to Maturation of Online Video

By: Ölçülebilir set-top box reklamları

Ölçülebilir set-top box reklamları — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:07:46 +0000

[...] Screen Digest, VOD kazançlarının DVD satışlarından kaybedilenleri karşlayamayacağı ön görüsünde bulunmuştu. Bunlardan da hoşlanabilirsiniz; Şimdi söz YouTube [...]

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:52:01 +0000

David, I agree that 11% of YT users would never pay for online video, but that's due to the fact that Youtube contains little to no quality, original content that would be WORTH paying.

Other sites like Vimeo.com, which has is focused primarily on ORIGINAL creative content, is a much more compelling alternative to TV or movies, an therefor potentially worth paying for. Plus, now that they had HD, it looks just as good too.

By: DavidH

DavidH — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:32:25 +0000

Robert, I agree that there is no chance 11% of YouTube visitors would pay that much. I would guess that less than 20% of the roughly 50 million uniques even visit on a daily basis.

By: DavidH

DavidH — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:27:06 +0000

Although it's maturing, online video is barely a toddler. It might have started walking and talking, but we are nowhere near seeing its full potential.

Liz, at what life stage would you characterize online video?

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:16:02 +0000

I'd argue that the available metrics point to just how immature the platform still is. The best we can get is pretty much by going to YouTube and looking for the number of downloads. Hitwise and ComScore have lots of data but no metrics for specific videos.

There's almost zero chance that 11% of the YouTube base would pay $24.99 a year (or $9.99 a year for that matter) and even less chance that Google would offer such a service if there's only $137m in revenue.