Google Discovers -- Again, Though No One Remembers -- That People Don't Like Paying For Video Online
from the didn't-we-do-this-before dept
I have to say that I'm a bit perplexed at what appears like worldwide amnesia over the fact that when Google launched its Google Video platform, its main focus was on charging people to "rent" videos on its platform. There was a ton of press and excitement over it, with lots of people claiming that Google was going to remake the video market online, and lots of money would be made. And then... nope. People didn't pay. Instead, they all jumped over to an up-and-coming site called YouTube that didn't charge and Google eventually bought them out while quietly shutting down its pay-for-video efforts, which no one missed. And I guess because no one missed it, everyone seems to forget it exists, even though we try to remind people that Google tried this and failed.But, instead, we get those professional journalists at the NY Times pointing out that this latest very poorly received pay-for-video trials are the company's "first forays" into charging for video content. Apparently the new test brought in a whopping $10,709.16 over the course of 10 days (and five movies). Google is trying to spin this as "exceeding expectations," but it's hard to see how that's the case. There may be models that get people to pay (Netflix's subscription model seems to get people to pay simply for the convenience factor), but I think direct charging like this is unlikely to get very far, and Google, of all companies, should know that, even if everyone else has forgotten.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: google video, paying, video, youtube
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I wish I made $1000 a day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wish I made $1000 a day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that it would've made any difference at any rate. Living in Australia - a country where we're relatively very limited to how much we can download - I'm not (what is effectively) paying twice for something I can only watch once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that it would've made any difference at any rate. Living in Australia - a country where we're relatively very limited to how much we can download - I'm not (what is effectively) paying twice for something I can only watch once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyways, agreed that users don't like paywalls.
But if Netflix can be successful renting online video, why can't Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the sole reason I have a Netflix account. I get one DVD at a time, which is usually hard-to-find stuff. Mostly I view videos on-line or through the PS3. Netflix's on-line video offering is closer to a "paywall" than Google's with YouTube rentals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But why are people looking at youtube/google. Amazon is almost as big of a name, and most people (people who are internet savvy enough to stream video anyway) already have an account there. And they already have their online PPV service on set-top boxes like the Roku.
I'd think if you want to get an idea of the sort of success online PPV could have, you'd check Amazon out. I don't have those numbers, but since Netflix can do unlimited videos for $9 a month and youtube can do it for ads, I'd guess costs are low. So if we assume it's 90%+ profit on a streamed movie, I'm surprised Hollywood isn't all over this.
I think google should figure out a way to give me movies for free for personal information other than my CC number.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In Youtube's case, there is absolutely no indication that they are even within shooting distance of being profitable, even with the amazing cost advantages of Google internal bandwidth prices and Google's distributed data center network. Netflix, as they are mixing business models together, may not give us any indication if online movie business is working, as they are offering it for the moment as a value added service as they work to position themselves in that market. Netflix is working hard to have hardware installs on DVD players and TVs that point to them, and in the long run, I am sure the online model will work out for them.
The questions will always remain the same: What rates are companies like this paying for content? That will define the true price point of the industry.
As for this Google test, I would say there are a bunch of things in play here. First, the 5 movies are not mainstream films, but rather entrants into the Sundance Films festival. The price wasn't cheap ($3.99 per movie), I didn't see a bunch of promotion, and the time frame was very short. I suspect Google is pleased with the results because they worked with unknown movies, with no real ad budget, and probably netted about $1 per viewing. That is a very good margin, and something that could likely be ramped up with increased volume and turned into a very profitable part of their business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20091028/0348476705#c368
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, I would guess that's not true, honestly, seeing as our net was greater than their gross, but hey.... But the thing is, even if it were accurate, most people recognize that we're starting from a base that is not even a rounding error on Google's daily traffic. I'm wondering why you would ignore that. Apples and oranges comparisons (or, really, mountains and dust mite comparisons) are beneath you. I really thought you were above the ridiculous cheapshot, but apparently not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
BTW, I agree with you on this one generally, Mike. I do think that Google needs to try something at a bit of a bigger scale with mainstream films and widely advertise it. I think the results will be much better. Whether they will be good enough to spawn a profitable service offering, who knows. You were definitely right to point out that the media has it wrong that this is Google's first try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google promoted the heck out of this
We have Google Adsense ads on our movie-related site. We were flooded with ads for these rentals over the past week. My guess is that Google paid a lot more than $10K to promote the offering. Oh well, at least we made a profit off of Google's rentals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google promoted the heck out of this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google promoted the heck out of this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Normally..
I'm normally behind much of Techdirt's obvious agenda, but this is just scrapping the bottom of the barrel. There is better arguments to make and cases to analyze.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
exceeding expectations?
Whether or not Google can make a profit on that income is another question. Any simple online movie watching service with a non zero income is exceeding the income level I would expect it to have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay For This Stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube does not compare
There are no commercially recorded videos on the site with the exception of some that violated policy that Google has done an exceptional job of removing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Edit: Youtube does not compare
I was speaking of Youtube.com in this line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Youtube does not compare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets put this in perspective ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google and Pay per View
I think that anyone criticizing Google's Pay Per View efforts is just looking for any publicity. There is no question that Google can be successful with an on demand online offering. The only issue is Google's commitment to the program. Given that the studios release all the movies to most everyone at once (or will do that shortly), its going to come down to the marketing, business model and promotion to determine success.
One great advantage Google has is its technical prowess. They truly have the strongest and most reliable video platform on the net.
I look forward to lots of great choices online!
Roy Weissman
Octopus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not willing to pay the freight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GV
O.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]