Google Video R.I.P.
Google Video service to go black
By Dawn C. Chmielewski and Alex Pham, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
"Google Video was a failure," said Charlene Li, an analyst with Forrester Research. "They focused on video while YouTube focused on the community around video."That's why Google is doubling down on YouTube, the free video-sharing site it acquired in November for $1.65 billion. YouTube is exploring ways to generate advertising revenue without driving away viewers.
Mountain View, Calif.-based Google alerted customers by e-mail Friday that it would stop selling and renting movie downloads Wednesday. It will offer refunds or online shopping vouchers for previously purchased videos, which won't be viewable anymore.
Google sought to portray the move not as a failure but rather as an experiment that revealed how best to approach online video.
In the months after its YouTube acquisition, Google said its two video offerings would coexist -- Google Video would become a tool to search for video across the Web, while YouTube would be the place people would go to post videos, watch them and talk about them.
Google spokesman Gabriel Stricker said the effort to sell and rent videos was "an important test" for Google Video, which is still in beta mode -- geek speak for "not finished yet" -- long after it launched at the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2006.
"The current change is a reaffirmation of our commitment to building out our ad-supported monetization models for video," Stricker said.
Here's the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-video11aug11,0,6721486.story?coll=la-home-center
Google Video service to go black
Its movie and TV download store isn't catching on with users who prefer free viewing -- even with the ads.
By Dawn C. Chmielewski and Alex Pham, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
August 11, 2007
Google Inc. has seen the video future, and it is YouTube.
The search giant is pulling the plug on its video-download store, which Google only last year said would become a vibrant marketplace for video producers to sell or rent their work to customers. Early partners included CBS and the National Basketball Assn.
But instead of offering an online alternative to the Hollywood machine, Google Video showed that people prefer to get their online video free -- even if that means watching some ads.
"Google Video was a failure," said Charlene Li, an analyst with Forrester Research. "They focused on video while YouTube focused on the community around video."
That's why Google is doubling down on YouTube, the free video-sharing site it acquired in November for $1.65 billion. YouTube is exploring ways to generate advertising revenue without driving away viewers.
Mountain View, Calif.-based Google alerted customers by e-mail Friday that it would stop selling and renting movie downloads Wednesday. It will offer refunds or online shopping vouchers for previously purchased videos, which won't be viewable anymore.
Google sought to portray the move not as a failure but rather as an experiment that revealed how best to approach online video.
In the months after its YouTube acquisition, Google said its two video offerings would coexist -- Google Video would become a tool to search for video across the Web, while YouTube would be the place people would go to post videos, watch them and talk about them.
Google spokesman Gabriel Stricker said the effort to sell and rent videos was "an important test" for Google Video, which is still in beta mode -- geek speak for "not finished yet" -- long after it launched at the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2006.
"The current change is a reaffirmation of our commitment to building out our ad-supported monetization models for video," Stricker said.
One of CBS Corp.'s first online deals was to rent shows such as "CSI" and "The Brady Bunch" through Google Video.
At the time, Apple Inc.'s iTunes was the only online video store that had showed any momentum. And CBS didn't know whether an online audience would tolerate watching ads before videos on their computers.
But when CBS put its shows on its website for free, audiences proved much more willing to watch them along with the ads than they were to pay $1.99 an episode at Google Video.
"It was no comparison," said Larry Kramer, former president of CBS Digital Media and now an investment advisor. "It was just clear the audience was more interested in free. But they were also willing to watch ads. Nobody knew that was going to be the case."
CBS isn't the only one making that discovery. Consumers spent about $29 million to buy or rent downloaded movies and shows in 2006, according to Adams Media Research in Carmel.
But online commercials, known as in-stream advertising, generated $402 million in revenue last year and were projected to reach $700 million this year, he said.
That hasn't stopped major players from trying to crack the digital download puzzle. Most think the missing piece involves letting people buy videos on their computers but watch them on TV or hand-held devices.
Amazon.com Inc. unveiled its Unbox download service last fall and lets TiVo subscribers watch the movies and TV shows they've rented or purchased on their TV.
Video gamers can watch movies or television shows through Xbox Live, an online service connected to Microsoft Corp.'s Xbox 360 game console.
And Apple's iTunes store has sold millions of TV shows and movies that can be viewed on the iPod.
Google Video downloads can be watched on a computer but not on an iPod or TV.
Google never disclosed how many videos it sold. But the failure of its video service came as no surprise to Ben Rekhi, a 28-year-old Santa Monica filmmaker whose movie, "Waterborne," was highly touted when Google Video launched.
Rekhi had turned down a six-figure theater and DVD distribution deal to distribute his film through Google.
"The online video revolution was in full swing," Rekhi said. "We had this opportunity to make history."
His gamble turned out badly. Although 80,000 viewers streamed his movie when it was available for free in the first week, just 300 people bought it in the following months.
Rekhi eventually pulled the film, which was selling for $3.99 a copy, off Google in July 2006.
"It was an exciting opportunity and amazing experience to be a pioneer in the digital distribution realm," he said. "But with any new technology, there's going to be a few lambs that get slaughtered. We just happen to be that."
dawn.chmielewski@ latimes.com
alex.pham@latimes.com
Steve Woolf twittered about this today -- and I'm with him, as he asks "what the hell is it with people lately?"
Well first of all, we're just talking about one guy over at the Hollywood Reporter, so let's not just write off the whole industry with one stupid article...
(Sidenote: And I'm not saying Steve was doing that - I'm mentioning that because that was kinda my own first response to this article. Kind of like a "fuck hollywood anyway if they don't get it" kinda thing. And that's not fair, because more and more people in Hollywood do get it lately -- so after a few deep breaths. I realized what was wrong with "people" lately -- making these kinds of comments about how videoblogging hasn't met some kind of corporate expectations...)
It's not that there's something wrong with this writer or people thinking like him. They just don't get it, and frankly, they're sick of trying. Things shouldn't be this complicated in the Entertainment industry. They haven't been before, right? It's not like the transition from radio to television displaced any entertainers or anything...or from silent pictures to the talkies...
The point is, they just can't wrap their heads around the videoblogging community. They don't get us. They don't get why we do why we do? Why we want to make money, sure, but we're kinda not willing to do stupid shit for it. And we need not just prefer to be creative - which means one episode of our vlog might be totally different than the last one, or the one coming next - and that's part of the beauty of it -- and that leads to more viewers, not less, in the long run, and provides a richer base for more content of better quality for biz to then pilfer from in the long run.
Even this guy contradicts himself in his own article a little - showing that he is starting to understand a little about what it's all about - when he says: "What we didn't understand about UGC is that it usually isn't entertainment, but communication. The average Joe isn't trying to outdo JibJab; he is simply expressing himself to his friends via video."
Hey dude, what about expressing yourself to your friends in an entertaining video that actually does build on some common joke or theme from the last episode of somebody else's Show Xyz? (which was, of course, a remix parody of something else.)
It is precisely these types of interlocking narrative storylines that weave their way through the videoblogging community that at first inspire before ultimately perplexing the current batch of entertainment moguls. When one or two of them figure it out and come around - providing a model for the others - the transition will take place.
Oh yeah - and we've even been reduced to an ackronym now: "UGC" (User Generated Content).
You know it's a good thing this article sets it all straight for me. When I saw Tyson, the skateboarding dog, on the iPhone commercial last week, I almost thought user generated content had made it into the mainstream!
(Update - oh wow - it's tillman the skateboarding dog -- no wonder he didn't look as snazzy as Tyson usually does.)
Ok here's the article by By Andrew Wallenstein for the Hollywood Reporter:
Net's Amateur Hour Lasted About That Long
Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to mourn the passing of user-generated content as a phenomenon.There was a time not that long ago when UGC seemed poised to topple Hollywood, as if anyone with a video camera and a Web connection was deemed a budding Steven Spielberg. But ask yourself this: When was the last time an amateur viral video actually reached viral status?
Remember Lonelygirl15, the Diet Coke and Mentos Experiments and Ask a Ninja? It's not easy to forget the Web darlings of yesteryear because few homemade videos have taken their place. Although the soda has long fizzled from those carbonated geysers, these videos still are regarded as the standard bearers for UGC, which is telling.
This past week, there were a few developments that amounted to multiple nails getting pounded into UGC's coffin...
Now that the bloom is off the rose of amateur online video, what might have struck millions as a novelty last year doesn't feel as fresh anymore. Videos that once commanded the attention of thousands or millions likely will just be sampled by hundreds.
The main reason the UGC boom went bust so quickly is that advertisers never embraced it. Few brands are going to associate their products with one-off sensations in the Wild West of the Internet...
On a volume basis, UGC may well outnumber its professional counterpart. But while more people are consuming online video -- three out of four Internet users did so in May, according to new data from comScore Video Metrix -- they likely are consuming infinitely more videos, as opposed to gravitating to a select few.
What we didn't understand about UGC is that it usually isn't entertainment, but communication. The average Joe isn't trying to outdo JibJab; he is simply expressing himself to his friends via video.
The paucity of Internet-bred hits has taught us something obvious: Talent isn't as pervasive as it might seem. Although so-called new-media experts fell in love with the notion that the Hollywood elite would have the playing field leveled by the consumers they so poorly serve, that hasn't happened.
In retrospect, 2006 feels less like a changing of the guard and more like a brief moment when Hollywood and Madison Avenue were caught flat-footed by the opportunities for Internet distribution and regular folks stepped into the vacuum. But a year later, UGC has slunk back to obscurity. UGC hasn't left the Internet, but it isn't as popular as it was when it had the playground to itself.
Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003612987
Net's amateur hour lasted about that long
By Andrew Wallenstein
July 18, 2007
Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to mourn the passing of user-generated content as a phenomenon.
There was a time not that long ago when UGC seemed poised to topple Hollywood, as if anyone with a video camera and a Web connection was deemed a budding Steven Spielberg. But ask yourself this: When was the last time an amateur viral video actually reached viral status?
Remember Lonelygirl15, the Diet Coke and Mentos Experiments and Ask a Ninja? It's not easy to forget the Web darlings of yesteryear because few homemade videos have taken their place. Although the soda has long fizzled from those carbonated geysers, these videos still are regarded as the standard bearers for UGC, which is telling.
This past week, there were a few developments that amounted to multiple nails getting pounded into UGC's coffin.
Look at the fate of leading viral outposts like Break.com, which Lionsgate took an unspecified stake in July 11, or Grouper, which Sony Corp. acquired and rebranded this week as Crackle with a new arm for in-house original content creation. These sites saw their financial future in strapping on the feedbag of professional studio product, not the free buffet that is UGC.
Or look at the July 12 launch of 60Frames Entertainment, a venture dedicated to linking professional content creators with online opportunities linked to advertising and syndication. Its new CEO is Brett Weinstein, the former digital chief at UTA, where he made his mark scouring the Internet for new talent, even setting up a channel on Veoh Networks for just that purpose. The fruits of those efforts have yet to be made apparent.
Now that the bloom is off the rose of amateur online video, what might have struck millions as a novelty last year doesn't feel as fresh anymore. Videos that once commanded the attention of thousands or millions likely will just be sampled by hundreds.
The main reason the UGC boom went bust so quickly is that advertisers never embraced it. Few brands are going to associate their products with one-off sensations in the Wild West of the Internet.
Ask yourself what was the most viral online video that graced your monitor in past months? The only candidate that comes to mind is "The Landlord," Will Ferrell's hilarious foray into online video via new site FunnyorDie.com. "Landlord" couldn't offer a bigger example of how the tide has turned away from the amateurs to the same forces that dominate film and television.
On a volume basis, UGC may well outnumber its professional counterpart. But while more people are consuming online video -- three out of four Internet users did so in May, according to new data from comScore Video Metrix -- they likely are consuming infinitely more videos, as opposed to gravitating to a select few.
What we didn't understand about UGC is that it usually isn't entertainment, but communication. The average Joe isn't trying to outdo JibJab; he is simply expressing himself to his friends via video.
The paucity of Internet-bred hits has taught us something obvious: Talent isn't as pervasive as it might seem. Although so-called new-media experts fell in love with the notion that the Hollywood elite would have the playing field leveled by the consumers they so poorly serve, that hasn't happened.
In retrospect, 2006 feels less like a changing of the guard and more like a brief moment when Hollywood and Madison Avenue were caught flat-footed by the opportunities for Internet distribution and regular folks stepped into the vacuum. But a year later, UGC has slunk back to obscurity. UGC hasn't left the Internet, but it isn't as popular as it was when it had the playground to itself.
