I don't think they realise who has the real bargaining power in this negotiation. VEVO needs YouTube - YouTube no longer needs VEVO.
Google will be more than happy to let them walk away and allow remixes and user posted content to fill that hole (it's how YouTube started). VEVO will just come crawling back.
YouTube has a monopoly on online video and they may just turn out to be one of Google's most valuable acquisitions (along with DoubleClick/Android).
> Morris: If Justin Bieber and Adele are somewhere else, that will be where people will go. If you don't have the content, no one will come
YouTube has the people now (daily standing subscriber audience + network effects) - the content comes to YouTube not the other way around. People pay/share video revenue on YouTube by posting via Machinma/IGN just to get exposure.
Are you sure about that? If facebook got the rights for the music videos and would integrate them tightly with the rest of their site, chances are that youtube would start becoming irrelevant. You're right that right now youtube has got the users, but facebook does, too, and they especially have the users who are interested in music videos. That makes them especially attractive for remixers etc. too.
Are you sure about that? If facebook got the rights for the music videos and would integrate them tightly with the rest of their site, chances are that youtube would start becoming irrelevant.
Not even slightly. Music videos are a market, but YouTube has hundreds of other reasons it is successful. It could lose music videos without breaking it's stride.
I very much doubt it. 90% of YouTube users post under aliases, some of which are an important part of their video identity. Posting to Facebook would ruin that.
Simply put, Facebook is (in theory) for people you already know in real life. YouTube most definitely is not, and is an entirely different beast. Facebook is never going to have a 'VidCon' event.
Global instantaneous video hosting infrastructure is a very tough nut to crack and is subject to economies of scale.
My experience with Facebook video has been disappointing (improper caching/not enough resources) and at no fault of their own. Pushing Tbits of video each second around the world is much - much harder than hosting pictures and comments (which is what Fb does admirably).
If Fb cracks video infrastructure - perhaps. But YouTube remains the king of video and anyone who wants to run content needs to be on YouTube (at least for the time being - subject to change at any time).
I've wondered before if Vevo does some sort of CDN style hosting outside of Youtube. Their videos seem to load at a different speed from the rest of the stuff on Youtube.
I've got no evidence other than my own sketchy observation, but the though has crossed my mind several times.
VEVO is a highly viewed channel - hence probabilistically their videos are going to be viewed more often and use more bandwith.
Hence, YouTube caches them more heavily (and distributes them closer to viewers) as a result to probabilistically reduce video latency and cost of hosting.
Same with any highly viewed channel - they all load faster than say something new with ~1000 views which hits a foreign data centre hard disk instead of a localised CDN server's RAM.
I don't think you realize the power Rio has with a JV with Universal. Nor the power that Lucien Grange has with the UMG roster and catalog. Plus YouTube is the only Google property with licensing deals for all four majors, but not all four are in Vevo.
I'm popping popcorn. These Youtube/Google/Music negotiations are always entertaining (if not consumer friendly).
You'll also notice that many of these artists launched (and sustain) their careers thanks to YouTube and channel those views towards live concerts and merchandise sales from fans.
The artists rely on YouTube a hell of a lot more than YouTube relies on them - they come to YouTube now (not true in the past though!).
VEVO is separate from the artists - the artists will drop VEVO if their exposure is unnecessarily limited.
VEVO can play this game if they wish - but I doubt the artists care either way.
PS: Bieber and Gaga owe their careers to YouTube - they don't care if it's via VEVO or their own channel - they have absolutely 0 reason to get off the YouTube train. They'd drop VEVO in a heart beat if VEVO hampered their fan base growth and reach.
Google's own top 10 searches are usually populated with music stars. Taking just last years Zeitgeist we have Rebecca Black and Adele in 1st and 7th place respectively.
Sure it could be people hunting for nude pics and news, but given it's Rebecca Black and Adele, it might be safe to say that it's people looking for their music/music videos.
In short, music is a big deal and if a user is hunting for music they're not going to be loyal to any particular site.
I get that this site(HN) has a lot of google fans, to the point that often completely illogical arguments are painfully maintained by characters that would rather gush loyalty than have an honest discussion.
But to those that think youtube is holding all the cards here need to look at what has undone so many other sites.
This is youtube's largest channel, and it's a large source of referral traffic, especially social sites like facebook.
It's google's prerogative to keep this kind of referral traffic, not only to maintain relevance, but also to be perceived as the first choice in online video. If the average teenager begins to associate another site as the first choice in video that would have follow on consequences as google would not be able to control the user experience. (Or tout Google+) Users will hunt around for the right video, they're not so loyal as to abstain from watching a music video because it comes from vimeo etc.
Youtube has been effective at shutting outtheir competition with exclusivity deals like these, a competitor could do the same to youtube - and this is a pretty desirable catalog that appeals to a very active online demographic, it would instantly make a competitor relevant, elevating them above the pool of B-grade youtube competitors.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Both Google and Vevo benefit from the current arrangement. As someone who works at a video-based startup, I can tell you that for a large majority of people online, YouTube = online video. Getting sites (like, say, Tumblr, Reddit, etc) to accept video embeds from you is a huge pain. Grafting on a layer of social networking similar to YouTube's and getting people to actually like, comment, etc. is incredibly difficult.
I don't think it'll be the undoing of youtube - not at all. Youtube offers much to their audience, this certainly won't dramatically change their business.
It does however give any competitor a much better standing to compete against youtube, giving the competitor relevance and a bucket load of traffic from consumers seeking desirable content. (The top 10 searches every year involve one or more music celebrities.)
It'll be interesting how it plays out anyway, now that google has announced it will discontinue video search altogether (in favour of youtube only.)
Your argument about Youtube's relative power in this relationship is fine, but your comment attacking HN "google fans" as arguing illogically and not willing to carrying out honest discussion is uncalled for. If you want to make such assertions, do it in response to a relevant comment, not as a random potshot.
However you should note that I did not make the argument that all "google fans" were of this type of illogical character, rather that some do and have already begun filing responses of this kind in this thread, making it futile to reply to each, especially when this kind of fanboyism is immune to any contradicting realities presented to them.
Finally my "potshot" makes up a relevant piece of my argument, more specifically the argument that "being a fan of google doesn't invalidate vevos importance or clout".
I am a YouTube/Google fan with great reason - they provide 2 critical infrastructure services (instantaneous global video distribution/search) at little to no cost for the vast majority of the world.
VEVO is a middle-man who is only as strong as his grip over the conduit between 2 parties.
The artists require exposure and YouTube requires the content. However, as YouTube now has a daily standing audience (network effects/sticky subscribers), the artists want YouTube more than YouTube will want any one artist (for channelling views towards live concerts/creating new fans/selling merchandise offsite). It is to any one artist's detriment if they reduce their YouTube exposure - as their artistic competition will be happy to take their views for themselves (time per person per day is the limiting resource).
VEVO's strength is their subscriber funnel that pushes massive numbers of views towards new/existing artistic content. This is thanks to Metacalf's law and a strength that will be lost if they drop off YouTube.
If VEVO falls off YouTube someone else will take the mantle - and YouTube will extract their pound of flesh.
YouTube used to be weak. They aren't any more. They are the 800 pound gorilla now.
It would - the artists would either start their own channels or others would fill the void (YouTube has insane numbers of uploads a day). Artists care more for exposure (and converting views to sales) than they care about VEVO.
VEVO's hold is tenuous - they are no stronger than Freddie Wong/Corridor Digital/Smosh - they all rely on YouTube more than YouTube relies on them for traffic flow (nowadays anyway) - there's always someone there ready to fill audience needs if they went off YouTube.
Media distribution rights are held by the studio, the artist can continue to produce other content that their contract allows for(many have active twitter accounts/facebooks & behind the scenes clips.)
The music video clips in question are exclusive to the studio for the contracted period, and it's this which vevo are willing to shop around. It's an exclusive product without substitution. I'm yet to find a convincing argument that a consumer will be satisfied with a home remixed version with custom graphics when they're looking for the original clip. (Or rather that they'd choose such a clip when the original is available elsewhere for free.)
As for unlicensed copies, youtube's own system is very good at taking down illegitimate versions. Additionally the studios are lighting fast with DMCA take down notices (within hours) for clips that sneak past one way or another. The system is geared heavily to copyright holders, automatically denying clips that would normally construe as 'fair use' in the USA.
I won't comment on traffic flow, since that's not publicly revealed, however it is reported to be youtube's most watched "channel", that on its own indicates that the traffic result is not due to a unique "youtube experience", but rather the result of being the only place online where the videos can be viewed for free.
This is something Vevo can shop around, I suppose what I'm conveying here is that ultimately they don't need youtube. Youtube to vevo is a commodity video service, it's network was once unique, but now other sites could handle the level of traffic that the catalogue would generate. In another thread I've listed simple examples where it could be better leveraged, possibly producing a better outcome for the studio than what youtube provides.
Is it just me, but threatining to pull all "Justin Bieber" video's from youtube as a threat is perhaps not the strongest point to win a argument. I'd pay Google to do that.
Also reading the article, Vevo in effect created this situation and to complain publicly does seem in bad taste as I see it as Vevo stole a opertunity from Universal, created a new monoply with the help of Googles youtube and then now that has been established are trying to bully more money from them. This is ontop of the aspect that Vevo said they would control/do the adverts and in that they are perhaps at fault for there own shortcommings and blaming Google for it in a way that is mearly showboating.
But again a youtube without Justin Bieber is one I realy have no issues with at all, were do I sign?
Makes sense to me. Maybe Google should lower the rates a little. I'm sure Google would prefer to earn $10 with reduced fees from $15 than earn 0$ and create a competitor.
26 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 61.7 ms ] threadGoogle will be more than happy to let them walk away and allow remixes and user posted content to fill that hole (it's how YouTube started). VEVO will just come crawling back.
YouTube has a monopoly on online video and they may just turn out to be one of Google's most valuable acquisitions (along with DoubleClick/Android).
> Morris: If Justin Bieber and Adele are somewhere else, that will be where people will go. If you don't have the content, no one will come
YouTube has the people now (daily standing subscriber audience + network effects) - the content comes to YouTube not the other way around. People pay/share video revenue on YouTube by posting via Machinma/IGN just to get exposure.
Not even slightly. Music videos are a market, but YouTube has hundreds of other reasons it is successful. It could lose music videos without breaking it's stride.
Simply put, Facebook is (in theory) for people you already know in real life. YouTube most definitely is not, and is an entirely different beast. Facebook is never going to have a 'VidCon' event.
My experience with Facebook video has been disappointing (improper caching/not enough resources) and at no fault of their own. Pushing Tbits of video each second around the world is much - much harder than hosting pictures and comments (which is what Fb does admirably).
If Fb cracks video infrastructure - perhaps. But YouTube remains the king of video and anyone who wants to run content needs to be on YouTube (at least for the time being - subject to change at any time).
I've got no evidence other than my own sketchy observation, but the though has crossed my mind several times.
Hence, YouTube caches them more heavily (and distributes them closer to viewers) as a result to probabilistically reduce video latency and cost of hosting.
Same with any highly viewed channel - they all load faster than say something new with ~1000 views which hits a foreign data centre hard disk instead of a localised CDN server's RAM.
I'm popping popcorn. These Youtube/Google/Music negotiations are always entertaining (if not consumer friendly).
Vevo is not without leverage here.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/top_10_youtube_videos_o...
The artists rely on YouTube a hell of a lot more than YouTube relies on them - they come to YouTube now (not true in the past though!).
VEVO is separate from the artists - the artists will drop VEVO if their exposure is unnecessarily limited.
VEVO can play this game if they wish - but I doubt the artists care either way.
PS: Bieber and Gaga owe their careers to YouTube - they don't care if it's via VEVO or their own channel - they have absolutely 0 reason to get off the YouTube train. They'd drop VEVO in a heart beat if VEVO hampered their fan base growth and reach.
Sure it could be people hunting for nude pics and news, but given it's Rebecca Black and Adele, it might be safe to say that it's people looking for their music/music videos.
In short, music is a big deal and if a user is hunting for music they're not going to be loyal to any particular site.
But to those that think youtube is holding all the cards here need to look at what has undone so many other sites.
This is youtube's largest channel, and it's a large source of referral traffic, especially social sites like facebook.
It's google's prerogative to keep this kind of referral traffic, not only to maintain relevance, but also to be perceived as the first choice in online video. If the average teenager begins to associate another site as the first choice in video that would have follow on consequences as google would not be able to control the user experience. (Or tout Google+) Users will hunt around for the right video, they're not so loyal as to abstain from watching a music video because it comes from vimeo etc.
Youtube has been effective at shutting outtheir competition with exclusivity deals like these, a competitor could do the same to youtube - and this is a pretty desirable catalog that appeals to a very active online demographic, it would instantly make a competitor relevant, elevating them above the pool of B-grade youtube competitors.
YouTube works, for good reasons.
It'll be interesting how it plays out anyway, now that google has announced it will discontinue video search altogether (in favour of youtube only.)
However you should note that I did not make the argument that all "google fans" were of this type of illogical character, rather that some do and have already begun filing responses of this kind in this thread, making it futile to reply to each, especially when this kind of fanboyism is immune to any contradicting realities presented to them.
Finally my "potshot" makes up a relevant piece of my argument, more specifically the argument that "being a fan of google doesn't invalidate vevos importance or clout".
VEVO is a middle-man who is only as strong as his grip over the conduit between 2 parties.
The artists require exposure and YouTube requires the content. However, as YouTube now has a daily standing audience (network effects/sticky subscribers), the artists want YouTube more than YouTube will want any one artist (for channelling views towards live concerts/creating new fans/selling merchandise offsite). It is to any one artist's detriment if they reduce their YouTube exposure - as their artistic competition will be happy to take their views for themselves (time per person per day is the limiting resource).
VEVO's strength is their subscriber funnel that pushes massive numbers of views towards new/existing artistic content. This is thanks to Metacalf's law and a strength that will be lost if they drop off YouTube.
If VEVO falls off YouTube someone else will take the mantle - and YouTube will extract their pound of flesh.
YouTube used to be weak. They aren't any more. They are the 800 pound gorilla now.
I think a competitor could do more with vevo than the commoditising approach of youtube.
Imagine if vevo were incorporated into facebook for example. It would be a larger audience with highly targeted ad & opportunity to sell network.
VEVO's hold is tenuous - they are no stronger than Freddie Wong/Corridor Digital/Smosh - they all rely on YouTube more than YouTube relies on them for traffic flow (nowadays anyway) - there's always someone there ready to fill audience needs if they went off YouTube.
The music video clips in question are exclusive to the studio for the contracted period, and it's this which vevo are willing to shop around. It's an exclusive product without substitution. I'm yet to find a convincing argument that a consumer will be satisfied with a home remixed version with custom graphics when they're looking for the original clip. (Or rather that they'd choose such a clip when the original is available elsewhere for free.)
As for unlicensed copies, youtube's own system is very good at taking down illegitimate versions. Additionally the studios are lighting fast with DMCA take down notices (within hours) for clips that sneak past one way or another. The system is geared heavily to copyright holders, automatically denying clips that would normally construe as 'fair use' in the USA.
I won't comment on traffic flow, since that's not publicly revealed, however it is reported to be youtube's most watched "channel", that on its own indicates that the traffic result is not due to a unique "youtube experience", but rather the result of being the only place online where the videos can be viewed for free.
This is something Vevo can shop around, I suppose what I'm conveying here is that ultimately they don't need youtube. Youtube to vevo is a commodity video service, it's network was once unique, but now other sites could handle the level of traffic that the catalogue would generate. In another thread I've listed simple examples where it could be better leveraged, possibly producing a better outcome for the studio than what youtube provides.
Also reading the article, Vevo in effect created this situation and to complain publicly does seem in bad taste as I see it as Vevo stole a opertunity from Universal, created a new monoply with the help of Googles youtube and then now that has been established are trying to bully more money from them. This is ontop of the aspect that Vevo said they would control/do the adverts and in that they are perhaps at fault for there own shortcommings and blaming Google for it in a way that is mearly showboating.
But again a youtube without Justin Bieber is one I realy have no issues with at all, were do I sign?