
Rumor: Google spending $150M to launch 25+ professional YouTube channels - ortusdux
http://www.deadline.com/2011/10/youtube-wrapping-up-groundbreaking-deals-to-launch-channels-with-professionally-produced-video/
======
DevX101
This is a REAL potential game changer and I've been patiently waiting to see
how long it would take before a major internet video streaming company made
this move.

The underlying reason for Netflix's current woes is because CONTENT producers
are squeezing it to them and will be increasing their prices significantly in
the next year. The reason Hulu wasn't acquired even though many companies
considered it, was because the CONTENT producers (who also happen to currently
own Hulu) planned on increasing their prices to anyone who was dumb enough to
buy Hulu without long term costs locked in contractually.

With this move, Google is moving to consolidate distribution as well as
content production into Youtube. The significance of this can't be
underestimated. If YouTube can produce a hit show, there's no middle man to
step in and charge them arbitrary licensing fees to host the show.

I don't see any reason why youtube couldn't produce a show like MythBusters or
the Jersey Shore. And in a few years, maybe even a show like Breaking Bad.

Once this ball get's rolling traditional cable will be in for a rough ride.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Indeed! Especially now since there aren't any practical limits on youtube
video size, duration, or quality.

There is already a lot of pretty high quality original content on youtube.
Some of that content is more popular than some cable content. There are
youtube channels which have weekly updates and see millions of viewers on
every episode. They are under the traditional media radar though since they
don't have a promotional budget and they don't appear in a program lineup
anywhere.

This trend can only accelerate from here. Producing a "show" or a "movie"
requires a teeny, tiny amount of effort and resources these days, and can be
done without spending more than 4 figures on equipment and whatnot.

We are nearing an inflection point in this process, soon there will be a
critical mass of shows and viewers such that word-of-mouth recommendations
start exploding viewership and more importantly that it begins to become
cemented in the zeitgeist that making an "internet tv show" is a perfectly
acceptable thing to do, regardless of how talented you are, and more so is a
quite feasible thing to do. That will lead to a spiraling increase in both
content and viewership which will likely catch a lot of the traditional media
folks off guard. I don't think they realize that there is a bubbling cauldron
out there which is poised to spew forth the equivalent of hundreds of channels
of content. Content that people will watch. And talk about. And value at the
same level as traditional TV content.

~~~
hugh3
The biggest potential danger I see is to Google's brand image. Google is
respected as producing high-quality... stuff. Television networks aren't
respected because they produce... an awful lot of garbage. If google starts
being directly responsible for the Jersey Shores of the world then surely
their brand image takes a hit.

 _Producing a "show" or a "movie" requires a teeny, tiny amount of effort and
resources these days, and can be done without spending more than 4 figures on
equipment and whatnot._

Though it must be said that the only way you can produce a movie _really_
cheaply is if you can persuade folks to work for peanuts in the hope of
breaking into the industry.

But if low-budget stuff _becomes_ the industry, then the supply of folks
willing to work for nothing in the hopes of being the next George Clooney will
die up when George Clooney starts taking home five hundred bucks a film.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Good point, that is a concern. Maybe google should create a subsidiary brand
for just that purpose.

As far as low-budget productions, I think you're looking at it from the wrong
perspective. The key is lowering the cost of entry. What this enables is not
just "low-budget" productions but also "start-ups" with members who have
decided to defer compensation in exchange for equity in the "start-up". This
is the dominant way that bands get started, for example.

------
positr0n
From the comment section:

"Welcome to the end of middle class jobs in the entertainment industry. These
shows will be non-union with corporations using shell corporations to produce
them for Google. Everyone (directors, writers, actors, and crew) will be paid
pennies on the dollar.

People who think the Entertainment Industry is full of fat cats don’t realize
that show business is just like the rest the US economy right now. One percent
earns a huge share of the profit, while the rest fight for crumbs, and this is
another strong move in that direction. This isn’t a screed to support unions,
it’s a screed about the reality of the loss of America’s middle class. It’s
been going on for thirty years and it gets worse every day."

Are good directors/writers/actors/etc that easy to find that you can pay them
"pennies on the dollar" and still produce a high quality product?

~~~
jeffool
All it takes is for some of them to be out of work and be willing to work for
the offered amount. It's like Huffington Post firing everyone, getting people
to write for free, and offering to let old writers interview for their old
jobs at no pay.

Your product doesn't have to be good, just good enough. The viewers will
follow, and soon a new standard is set for wages.

I'm reminded of video game programming, which has lower wages than other
fields for programmers. Why? More people want to do it. They're willing to
work for less. Now consider how many people want to be famous actors and
directors.

------
xd
The very best of youtube for me as a wannabe, spareroom, hacker is the
independent channels. You just can not beat them. For instance, the Geekgroup
(great channel) which as far as I can make out is very well funded just
doesn't hold a candle to the likes of Photonicinduction, bkraz333,
Afrotechmods, jeriellsworth, UnknownLobster, et al when it comes to raw
talent.

If I was the head of this google project I'd get in bed with the raw talent.

~~~
losvedir
Wow, thanks for listing all those interesting channels. I've been looking at
some of them and they're great! One I'd add is called "Smarter Every Day" by a
destinws2. He's an aeronautics engineer, I think, but mostly shoots guns with
a high speed camera. He always includes interesting science, though, too.

------
patrickod
I'm really interested to see what level of audience interaction these
"professional" channels will use. TV is by its nature a one-way medium.
YouTube allows for much greater feedback from your audience, and it's that
sense of community coupled with content that has made hugely popular YouTube
channels and celebs.

Will traditional, professional channels simply try to move the content online
and not take advantage of the new features that they'll have access to ?

------
chrischen
One of the differences between tv and Internet is that tv channels have an
oligopoly on your attention. There's a small limited number of channels
competing for attention across all tv viewers. YouTube has to compete not only
against millions of Other things on the net bit also millions of other videos
on YouTube itself. It'll be interesting to see if the tv model of taking large
million dollar bets on unproven shows works here.

~~~
vaksel
there is also attention lockin, once you start watching a show, there are a
lot fewer distraction.

------
jeffool
I think many of you have severely misread this article.

This isn't about Google creating content, this is about Google partnering with
production companies who will provide the content.

Now, don't be surprised if you see Google make more company related content,
but it won't be Google-owned and ran soap operas or anything. At most I expect
more meta content, say a promotional guide channel like many stations offer.

------
ams6110
Great, 25 more channels of the like that makes up 90% of cable television.

Please, Google, give us ESPN. People will literally throw money at you.

~~~
mattmiller
Sports are keeping the traditional cable model alive. I would love to see
somebody negotiate streaming deals with the NFL.

------
vectorpush
I think when more traditional celebrities inevitably begin to transition over
to content targeted specifically at internet audiences, the revolution will
begin. Google has the power to nurture raw talent, as well as attract artists
who have already been vetted by traditional media into the new media sphere.

------
jasontan
Yep, this is true. A friend of mine is producing one of their channels (deal
has been signed). Exciting!

~~~
jeffool
Very! What I wouldn't give to be in a production company entering into this!

I'm sure there will be some original problems, but by far and large the
problems of production are solved ones. I bet it would be like being in a
startup with a quarter of the unknowns.

------
rokhayakebe
As a fan of Thisweekin I would like to see how they respond to this move.

~~~
rilkeanheart
I'm also a fan and I expect (and hope) they are vying to be a part of it. I
watch a significant proportion of my Theisweekin content straight from
YouTube. Above all else, this announcement (even a the rumor stage) is a huge
validation of the internet as a distribution channel for professionally
produced original content. I believe Jason Calacanis bought off on that a
while ago with the investment in ThisWeekIn.

------
Aloisius
Google producing creative content? What could possibly go wrong?

It will be entertaining to see how they A/B test the color of the clothing the
actors wear for maximum effectiveness.

~~~
leviathant
You joke, but I watched "How Did They Ever Make a Movie of Facebook?" (a
making-of doc about The Social Network) and it blew my mind a little bit
seeing the process of test-shooting the wardrobes and makeup.

Ah, here's a clip online: <http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1594268185/>
...skip to 6:45

There's a quick cut in there where there's a table with what looks like a
hundred pairs of watches.

~~~
MikeCapone
Thanks for mentioning that. I didn't know about it. Ended up watching the
whole thing tonight. I found it fascinating. Great to see what goes on behind
the scenes..

If anyone else has documentaries about film-making that they can recommend,
I'd love to hear your picks. Thanks.

~~~
leviathant
The entire second disc of The Social Network is filled to the brim with
making-of stuff of similar caliber. I know I'm never going to be a filmmaker,
but I really get sucked into that sort of thing.

The super mega edition of Blade Runner (with the three or four different cuts)
also has a very, very expansive set of documentaries, which cover not only the
making of the film (hiring writers, chasing down financing, creating the
effects, etc.) but the arduous task of making the re-release. The range of
people involved that they talk to goes from the riggers and everyday film crew
to the financiers who seemingly didn't much care what it was about so long as
it made money.

------
goodweeds
How will Google be able to stick to their the "Do no evil" mission statement
when trying to dip into Hollywood's koolaid?

