At long last Google has taken a major step toward monetizing it's $1.65 billion YouTube acquisition. The search giant announced this morning the launch of "video units," a program that allows websites to embed relevant video content from YouTube in customizable players and get paid in AdSense revenue. Both video providers and AdSense partners will get to share in the ads that Google sells, although just what the splits will be are still unknown.
Unfortunately, someone forget to tell the relevant engineers about this breakthrough product. My attempts to create "video units" for this blog were a bust this morning because the option to select "video units" from the AdSense set-up page was nowhere to be found on my account, even though I "linked" my YouTube account and AdSense account by using the same email address.
Nevertheless, I assume once Google works out the kinks, video units will be a big hit and a gushing new revenue stream for the company. But, and it's a big caveat, the success of video units will depend on the number of video providers that participate and the scope of videos they provide.
Google claims it has lined up 100 media companies to distribute their videos this way, but none of them are the biggies. Among the content providers named are Expert Village, a DIY video company, Ford Models, Extreme Elements, which creates videos about extreme sports.
Once the program gets into full swing, I suspect that thousands of companies will want to participate and content selection will mushroom. Google won't need Viacom or NBC-U or any other major entertainment company to participate in order for it to generate revenue.
There are countless organizations, companies and even government agencies probably eager to monetize content sitting in the vaults. News outlets, for example, are probably itching to make money off of video content that quickly gathers dust and Google is reportedly working on a plan with Dow Jones, as well as Conde Nast, BMG Music and others.
It's a smart move. No wonder Google's share price has now topped $600.
Update: Wow, the chorus of naysayers on this is almost deafening, and it makes me wonder why, although I can't even hazard a guess. Om calls the new program "AdSnore" and complains that the list of content suppliers is too short and predicts that the relevancy of the videos will miss the mark. Nick Carr offers an even more dismissive take, suggesting that what he suspects will be code-heavy videos might even cost somebody his or her life (picking up on an early Google contention that text ads saves lives).
I wonder how many people in the throes of a medical emergency have rushed to a health care information site only to find themselves helplessly waiting for some big animated AdSense ad to load (and, as well, the Google Analytics code to run). Now, these poor souls are also going to have to endure the loading of YouTube videos and their accompanying ads. I can only hope that they've kept up with their life insurance premiums.
John Paczkowski repeats the warning about the code-heavy videos calling them "behemoth video ads."
Google Blogoscoped and several other commenters complain about the flashy, obtrusive nature of the new offering.
In short, a lot of people are predicting that this will be a flop. Is there something in the water? Assuming that Google doesn't gum up the ads with so much code that it slows down web page loading, and assuming that Google lines up a lot more content providers (which it will), enough to provide a steady stream of relevant videos, why wouldn't this service take off? Why won't users want to watch a relevant video, or even one that is mildly irrelevant?
After all, videos are compelling, much more so, at times, than the written word or still images. A news report from CNN, let's say, on Gary Forsee's ouster at Sprint-Nextel would be perfect and probably much-watched on a site dealing in telecom matters. The site gains, CNN gains and Google gains.
Cynthia Brumfield at 7:52 AM|Comments(0)
Blogs We Read
