Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Google Shares Ad Wealth With Videographers 75

Posted by kdawson
from the shaking-it-up dept.
Rockgod writes to let us know that Google has begun sharing advertising revenue with the makers of a popular video clip. From the article: "[This] is a groundbreaking deal that could drive up the costs of competing in the fledgling video-sharing sector. The search company has agreed to turn over most advertising revenue generated by the latest video from Fritz Grobe and Stephen Voltz, creators of 'The Diet Coke & Mentos Experiment,' according to Peter Chane, a senior product manager for Google Video."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Shares Ad Wealth With Videographers

Comments Filter:
  • Their new video [eepybird.com] is awesome. So much time must have gone into creating the videos, they deserve a bit of coin for their efforts.
    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Perhaps it would make more sense to link to google video, since they might hold up a bit longer to the /. effect.

      shockwave player link [google.com]
      • by diersing (679767)
        Thank you
      • Thank you for the correct link!!! Now I need to go clean up my desk... in a moment of stupidity, I decided that dropping a mentos into my diet coke would be funny....... Damn.
  • Brilliant... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sirgallihad (846850)

    Congrats google, you've set the stage for a new era in digital video on the web. If the creators have the monetary incentive to produce their film, then there's a good chance that they start producing higher quality videos more often. Now, we just have to ask ourselves, why didn't youtube think of this in the first place?!?

    • Re:Brilliant... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by joe 155 (937621) on Tuesday October 31, 2006 @04:28PM (#16663689) Journal
      almost... but you made one crucial error; "there's a good chance that they start producing higher quality videos more often"

      Elephant Dreams did ok, a full length film made in that way could do really well and could make a little money, but it won't get as many hits as someone just making a really cheap video of themselves lighting a fart (...if anyone has a video of this, do post a link), not to mention the fact that I could make about 3000 of the really low quality type videos in the time really talented people could make another ED.
      What I'm trying to say is that I think this will lead to more really low quality videos which try and caputre a "funny" moment and then just send out thousands of links to it
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Firehed (942385)
        I doubt that Google is too down with the idea of hosting a full-length film released in 1080p. A multi-gig viral video of sorts (or even not that viral, but something not distributed via Bit-torrent) is basically about the same as slashdotting a server running a P1 with a 56k connection. Call it a PII on a T1 in Google's case.

        That said, even funny viral videos tend to lose their humor when it's been converted to such low-bitrate flash that you can't even make out the above mentioned anal explosion. I cer
      • What I'm trying to say is that I think this will lead to more really low quality videos which try and caputre a "funny" moment and then just send out thousands of links to it

        That could be fixed by a simple Review board, videos could be selected to send to the Board by something akin to Slashdot's moderation system with emphasis given to meta-moderation by the board to downgrade the value of those who vote for 'fart lighting' videos.
      • by bogjobber (880402)
        Is this really an either/or proposition? Right now most of the videos on youtube are crap, but there is some really good stuff (granted they are few and far between). The same crappy videos will be getting lots of views, but now there will be the incentive for people to put forth the effort towards making really high quality stuff (in addition to the shit). In the worst case scenario most of the videos will still be awkward-looking people embarrassing themselves, so from my standpoint it's a good move.
      • by kthejoker (931838)
        But there is a happy medium out there, and people will flock to the next level up.

        For less than $10,000, you could have a high-quality, professional 1080p HD camera with great lenses, a nice professional lighting setup, a sound mixer, wireless microhpones, a high-quality editing bay, some good software, and one of those fancy French berets directors used to wear. And of course, if you know how to cut corners (or are willing to sacrifice some quality), that number could easily move down to $5 - $6,000.

        You co
        • In my own self whoredom, I was thinking of doing a series of very short (maybe 30 second) sketches that would be posted to Youtube/ Google video , featuring a character I produced for a project back in Uni. I'd tag it with my multimedia design company's logo and website address in order to attract business.

          Here's a pic of my character [chrisdidthis.com] , I'd add a couple of more guys like him and start to come up with some scripts. I was thinking of making JimBob (the guy in the pic) really clean cut, and having two oth
    • Did you not read the numerous Slashdot articles where people were wondering how YouTube was paying for it's bandwidth? YouTube didn't have a revenue stream before now. The real question is why didn't Google's competitors who had more money than YouTube do this as an incentive with their own video websites...
    • "Congrats google, you've set the stage for a new era in digital video on the web" um...this has already existed, it's called Revver
      • by Threni (635302)
        > "Congrats google, you've set the stage for a new era in digital video on
        > the web" um...this has already existed, it's called Revver

        Um..it's not about doing stuff first, it's about marketing - making it noticable and available to the general public. Who the hells has heard of Revver?

        "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats"
        -Howard Aiken
    • http://revver.com/ [revver.com] thought of it...
    • by supabeast! (84658)

      If the creators have the monetary incentive to produce their film, then there's a good chance that they start producing higher quality videos more often.

      Not only that, they'll be likely to limit the content to Google, whose massive advertiser base is likely to generate more income than all the YouTube knockoffs that have popped up.

      ...why didn't youtube think of this in the first place?!

      Because YouTube never had any interest in turning a profit, only in being bought out a larger, less agile companies that wa

    • by lilfields (961485)
      I predicted this a long time ago, even before the YouTube purchase, it only makes sense. Google launches Video Ads a few quarters back, Google Video is moved to the home page of Google. Google purchases YouTube for a large sum of money, Google has to "figure out" how to make advertisements less intrusive. Well this is a no brainer; Google introduces an adsense for video of sorts, even if there are no video advertisements (videos tied to textual ads can work too). Now even if the advertisements are somewhat
    • by rolfwind (528248)
      Indeed, for all the (justified) naysaying about the youtube deal, what some people forget is that Google may possibly now own the central TV distribution channel of the future. Putting economic incentive to create content for it is just another step for them down this path.

      If Google's bet pays off eventually, they're in for another big pay day in the future.
    • by shmlco (594907)
      New era in video is... advertising?
  • Now that this precedent has been set, every idiot with a camera is going to make even more crappy videos hoping to be noticed by Google and the like and cash in.
    • by JymmyZ (655273)
      And surely a few diamonds will be found among the huge pile of crap that gets submitted. And it'll give kids something better to do than sit on a WoW server every day.
    • by thewils (463314)
      Not necessarily...

      Check out Naked Britney [google.com]

      I'm sure you get the picture.
  • by HarryCaul (25943) on Tuesday October 31, 2006 @04:28PM (#16663681)

    In the numerous other places it's been tried (google is far from the first here), is that there's nothing stopping 500 people from uploading the same popular video.

    Then Google gets to become arbitrator and try to pin down who the video really belongs to.

    This should be fun.
    • Who negotiated with The Coca-Cola Company and Perfetti Van Melle Corporation?
    • by symes (835608)
      But! We could see a whole of talented animators start putting some really neat little pieces on YouTube - there's a hole bunch of them who have to rely on funny little small art council grants to keep ticking over. This could spark a renaissance in short films - YouTube doesn't have to be all about spotty teenagers lighting farts!
  • by Firehed (942385)
    I bet the Motion Picture industry will be thrilled with this one. Someone other than them getting paid for creating video content, and now it's not copyrighted material that *they* own. Though it'll be interesting to see how, if at all, this affects the EULA for google video with regards to your copyright or possible release of it.
    • by suggsjc (726146)
      Simple answer for the MPAA. Start patenting plots and situational humor. Then whenever people produce this non-sense content they can come after them with lawyers...that will keep them at bay.

      As sarcastic as I was trying to seem, I bet there is probably someone sitting there thinking...man, that is a *great idea.
  • by ackthpt (218170) *

    Time to get those Rob and Kath honeymoon vids up on Google Video! =)

    "uh! uh! uh! uh! uh! uh! UH! UH! UH! UH! UHHHHH!! AAAAHHHHH!!"

    "Oh that was awesome, Babe!"

    "Uhhhhhh huhhh huh-uhhhhhh..."

    "So many cool electronic gadgets and anime vids in one place, at such prices! Thanks for carrying them up the stairs, Babe."

    • I don't think that you realize the full import [google.com] of that comment.

      Of course, Rob did submit the same story, but apparently it was rejected corporate sponsorship. Oh, that the world would be modeled after Slashdot!
  • Okay - on one hand we have a bit of commercial news that Google are starting to share revenue. Interesting, I'm sure, but not groundbreaking. I expect a few more changes in the online video market in the next 3-5 years.

    On the other hand, we have a couple of geeks who set up a cascade of diet-coke fountains and made a video from it! This is Slashdot! It's meant to be "news for nerds, stuff that matters"! What could be more important than violent chemical reactions?
    • What could be more important than violent chemical reactions?

      Physical reactions, involving members of the opposite sex.
  • My story was rejected earlier but this apppears to be real story and this story is somewhat tied into it.

    A lot of the more Famous YT'ers have been getting revenue for thier work from various places. One of those a vlogger called littleloca.

    In a recent video [youtube.com] littleloca was complaining that too many people where cheating and pushing her down off the popular pages (most viewed/most discussed/etc).

    Another vlogger posted a video [youtube.com] about how littleloca herself had cheated for some time and was still cheating. In fa
  • There are definitely a few problems I can see with this, that have already been pointed out. And of course this is really cool for people making new content from their home (which has already been pointed out). But I wonder what affect this will have on the media industry. Will media that's previously been forced off the site by the copyright owner now be posted to the site by the copyright owner? Does this mean Comedy Central will post clips of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report now that they can make m
  • Looks like Stephen Colbert wasn't so far off [youtube.com] after all!
  • This also creates an incentive for amateur/student/independent filmmakers to host their films on youtube.
    Prior to this my film group has been holding out and hosting the videos ourselves because of the crappy quality of the flash videos. But with this we might actually be able to make some money so our next film could have a budget. As of now everything comes out of our pockets. We just made a tv pilot on ten dollars.

    /Shameless plug for said tv comedy about a new AD's first day at a tv station.
    Affil [chamber525.com]

    • try putting up something besides embedded WMV. It doesn't play well with others.
      • Add a shower scene
        Remove the odd camera angle coffee mug shot
        what's with all the "sweetie", is that the only way of addressing anyone you all know?
        Connie Chung was from China. Not Japan. And Buddha?
        Well, I've given you enough help, and there is still no shower scene yet. Sorry but this is obviously written by people that haven't had real jobs yet so your people speak like amateur actors. I'd recommend watching more TV and get some volunteers that have been around other people besides drama geeks. At
        • by Darthmalt (775250)
          Thanks for the comments to the parent post we are working under strict file size limitations. We are way over our allotted amount of space on the school server and wmv give us the best file size to quality. I'm trying to find a way to use quicktime as it looks a lot better but I can't get the filesize down far enough. The Connie Chung and Buddha were deliberate mistakes. As for the acting, you work with what is available and willing and the drama geeks overactors that they are fit the over the top roles w
  • didn't MythBusters do the coke/mentos thing like a year ago?
  • A lot of great content providers host their own data so that they can milk the advertising potential of it. Once it gets out on youtube it is out of their hands. Now Google is certainly dominant in the ad market, so in reality they would have been paying money out to the people who didn't want their data on google-video (now youtube). This is a very clever way to change the model with which money changes hands (same bottom line for google?) and yet place the content in their portal (in this case youtube)
  • Lulu.tv has been doing this for a while now. They're just jumping on the bandwagon....
  • by denix0 (949825)
    Without RTFA it is absolutelly impossible to figure out what the Slashdot post is about - what video, whom does Google pay, what for... Citing first 2 sentences from the original article does not make it a good post. This is not how news description should look like.
  • will show up. They will not break the terms of service and the owners will want to get paid for advertising themselves.
  • I wonder if Google will apply their smart pricing technology to the ads they display, or are AdSense publishers special in that regard.

    Is video traffic any more likely to convert...?

  • So how much money has loose change and alex jones made?
    • by eathan13 (765756)
      So I shouldn't point out that it's spelled "grammar" then...? ;)
      • by Zwaxy (447665)
        No, and you also shouldn't mention that Slashdot should be capitalized, or that nazis doesn't have an apostrophe.
        • by eathan13 (765756)
          Thank you for clearing that up. Guess I'll pass on mentioning that "It's" could use a lower case "i" as well...

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Working...