When you sign up for cable or satellite, you get a predictable package of content, all navigable from a single interface. When YouTube emerged as the dominant force in web video, a single interface emerged, though the content became wildly unpredictable. Over time, content stars started to emerge from the pack. Like well known TV shows and stars, YouTube’s stars developed a following and successful channels enriched the creators as well as YouTube’s owners.
As the financial models matured, the disrupters found their way to the market. Hulu created an advertising-laced pay model that found traction. HBO recognized that they could sell their content on line, without relying on big cable. Netflix pivoted from DVD to video streaming to freshly produced content. Amazon joined in with Instant Video and a series of independently produced programs.
Now the next wave is hitting. From the Wall Street Journal:
Vessel, which plans a subscription video service, has been particularly aggressive courting YouTube stars in recent weeks, according to the people familiar with the discussions. Founded by former Hulu Chief Executive Jason Kilar, the company has raised $75 million in venture capital, according to Crunchbase, and is looking to secure programming ahead of a planned launch by the end of the year.
Vessel and others are offering lucrative terms, according to one YouTube content creator who has been approached. “I would like to remain on YouTube,” says this person. “But some of the competing offers are incredibly attractive.”
Three people who have been approached by Vessel say the company wants artists to post videos exclusively on its service for up to three days, part of its plan to offer subscribers an advance look at popular short-form video. One of those people said Vessel offered to pay an advance based on how well the creator’s videos have performed on YouTube.
This is but one crack in YouTube’s dominant hold on video content. Though YouTube does offer dependability, high bandwidth, and a consistent, well defined embedding process, what it does not offer is elegance, a far-sighted interface. The first stages of fragmentation are Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Go. The second stage is the wave of competing services, offering their own YouTube model, some of which is wrapped in a more elegant interface.
One thing missing here is the company that can unify the experience, giving you the chance to collect and watch all this content from a common interface. So far, the licensing for online content is like the wild west: completely uncontrolled. Is there a company out there that can rassle this content into some consistently accessible form? Or are we forever consigned to switching between a multitude of viewing experiences, depending on the content we seek?
“One thing missing here is the company that can unify the experience, giving you the chance to collect and watch all this content from a common interface. So far, the licensing for online content is like the wild west: completely uncontrolled. Is there a company out there that can rassle this content into some consistently accessible form? “
On the consumer side, it is called cable/satellite TV. It is why they sell content bundled. They may be a decade behind on the tech from where we want them to be as a consumer but they are quickly catching up with the “TV everywhere” mantra. I think a lot of folks don’t even realize how much content you have access to just with your log-in information across not only your providers apps but to the network apps as well.
On the content producer side, it is the networks. The lines between content that is produced just for TV vs online are going to continue to be blurred, as they should. The only incentive at the end of the day is viewers and the ability to sell ads and/or subscriptions. YouTube is essentially just another network now and they have to realize that there are competing services and that the producers want more guaranteed revenue streams and money upfront to produce more quality content as I imagine some of these new competitiors are offering.
Another thing missing here is net neutrality. There is a paywall ie last mile access that YouTube (Google), Netflix (now after being slowed), and even our beloved Apple pay to the last mile providers ie Comcast, Verizon, TWC..etc….
Can Vessel pay to compete? Should they?
If my favorite youtubers’ move to Vessel and his/her videos keep studdering, should they move back to YouTube for priority access?
For professional broadcasts, yes there will be (and there is) a “fragmented” market. However, YouTube’s strength is in short-form, amateur, and semi-pro video. It will be tough to crack that part of the market. Vimeo and Dailymotion have been trying to chip at the edges of this, but YouTube is the 800 pound gorilla of that market segment, and will likely continue to be.
None of these services seem to answer the question “Why shouldn’t I be using YouTube instead?”
Sites that focus on niche communities, or specific brands of content that are lost in the sea of content at YouTube have a chance to succeed on a modest scale. Examples: Gaming clip sites (though YouTube just bought one such site), Branded original content (such as Funny or Die).