Another reminder of why I stopped reading Techcrunch:
"And how exactly is YouTube going to tweak the site’s user experience as it looks to shift users from funny cat videos toward these shows (which advertisers will be able to more effectively monetize)?"
Really, funny cat videos? When was the last time this writer visited YouTube?
These aren't the channels any regular person is interested in watching. This is basically the list of video podcasts that are already on iTunes/TiVo/etc. These are popular:
People complaining that these channels don't have broad appeal are missing the point.
The cheap economics of Youtube broadcasting make producing content for micro-market segments economically viable, in exactly the same way that many niche blogs are profitable in segments that would have struggled to support a print magazine
Too many partners in my opinion. MTV blew up not only because of the subject matter but also because it was one of the only channels that had a youth market at all. It was like the internet as a TV channel - metaphorically-speaking.
It's very telling that as cable TV became a fractured medium with 100s of 'extra' channels, channels like MTV had to turn to the me-too and less-expensive/higher-margin programming of reality shows and also to the proliferation-per-channel idea as well - where there are now - what - 6 MTV channels. 1980's MTV literally gave us a music movement; 2011 version is mostly Jersey Shore and Teenage Mom . . .
It seems an odd choice for Youtube/Google to set up an old format of business as the straw man they're 'disrupting'. If one really wanted to disrupt the endless seas of mediocre, center-of-the-bell-curve content, they'd have to focus much more narrowly, invest much more heavily, and share the proceeds much more generously. I'm not saying I know the numbers, but none of these are a characteristic of Youtube or Google when it comes to content - that's for sure. The sheer volume of their partnership agreements implies a see-which-spaghetti-sticks approach.
The article would like to imply that Youtube is going to move [nobly] beyond it's root essentially as a distribution system. Distributors, as a business, care about 'good enough'; they rarely bother with 'great'. In my opinion, Youtube/Google have had a long free ride on the content of others - both user-generated and the kind that 'fell off the back of a truck'. I hardly see them as a capable partner for truly creative content production.
MTV blew up because of a very specific set of circumstances.
First, radio stations were dying. They were being sucked up into nationwide conglomerates and changing from independent DJs with free reign to play whatever they thought was interesting to being forced into playing whatever generated the most revenue at the least cost with the least risk while cramming as many commercials into every hour as possible. In short, becoming soulless, disenfranchising people with interest in niche or innovative music, and most especially abdicating their former prominent role of being a place where people found new music.
Second, MTV happened to be launched at a time when there were very few music videos. Since they had no budget for any other programming they had to play a very eclectic mix of music, they couldn't afford to pick and choose much. They thus became one of the most avant garde radio stations in the entire US and became one of the only conduits between a lot of innovate new music (metal, punk, etc.) and a ravenous demographic (teens) who were otherwise cut off from that music due to the diminution of radio.
Once MTV had significant revenue they fell into the trap of thinking they needed "real" programming instead of just music videos, and that thinking persisted until almost all of their music content was driven away. MTV is now about as relevant as the average irrelevant pseudo-local radio station.
You don't recognize the channels, but a lot of these are existing production companies. TV channels are just distributors, only the biggest ones commission content. Most just want to buy something aimed at a demographic in between two other shows they already have.
Funnily enough, one of my first posts on HN a few years ago was a pitch for a cooking show and related business plan for someone who was trying to get a second series off the ground. I just could not persuade him to build his audience on social media or treat online video as anything more than a shout-out to his regular viewers. He was absolutely set on broadcast TV at all costs and wanted high-end sponsorship from the food/lifestyle sector, while being completely unwilling to share profits/rights/ownership.
Too bad; he was great on screen, and he could be partnered with Google right now if he wasn't so obsessed with broadcast.
I've worked in local tv production for a long time actually, so I completely get what you're saying. But I honestly feared it would be a lame partnering with existing channels to share old product. But then, I'm something of a pessimist.
That said, sorry to hear about that guy. I often wish I had camera presence, just to make one-man-banding a reasonable option. Then again, now that I have time, it's funny how the ideas don't flow as easy. I'm sure once I lose time/resources they'll start back up. Ain't that always the way?
I find it amusing that people hate on regular TV for being brainless junk, even going as far as to sell the TV they own...then as a replacement they watch youtube videos for hours a day. Ridiculous and shows people just don't get the concept of why to get rid of the TV in the first place.
