The rapidly shifting strategic stance of YouTube

Two articles today show how fast YouTube is changing its strategic position - first, the LA Times shows how its rapidly moved from Wild Westonomics to something looking like Respectability:

A similar scene has been playing out digitally at YouTube, the Internet’s video town square. In addition to its long-standing campaign to crack down on illegally copied material, in September the site outlawed videos depicting drug abuse and last week tightened its guidelines further to restrict profanity and sexually suggestive content. In other words, before the money wagons roll in...

...some law and order needs to be imposed.

This has been the impact of The Crunch - it became clear that the world of infinite Freeconomic subsidy is over. About 3 months ago we started researching for a big project on the future of online video, and YouTube has been moving its position by the week (I've had to revise our predictions of its future twice already ). the endgame, of course, is to crank up that ad placement rate above 3% - if you look at their economics, nothing - not even distribution cost savings - drives their success more than increasing teh % of video streams with Ads placed against them.

Thus:

Videos that YouTube considers objectionable will no longer qualify for its daily honor roll pages, where the most widely viewed clips are showcased. These “browse” pages often act as a kind of viral launch pad, from which many of the Web’s most-watched videos blast off. Exile from these areas, while not explicit censorship, cuts deeply into a video’s chances to get noticed.

and, like Ning, its startedin to have a go at reducing the porn content....but one slow step at a time:

In explaining sexually suggestive content, the site includes a list of elements that could get a video flagged, including when “the subject is depicted in a pose that is intended to sexually arouse the viewer.”

Adding a layer of murkiness is just how YouTube plans to enforce such slippery rules on the thousands of videos it gets every day. The site says videos that violate its new content guidelines will be “algorithmically demoted,” suggesting the implausible idea that computers would be able to determine, for instance, if a video was intended to arouse, educate or make an artistic statement.

The second post was this from the NYT - it may be a PR puff piece, its hard to tell, but its asserting that people who play the game can make serious money on YouTube:

One year after YouTube, the online video powerhouse, invited members to become “partners” and added advertising to their videos, the most successful users are earning six-figure incomes from the Web site. For some, like Michael Buckley, the self-taught host of a celebrity chatter show, filming funny videos is now a full-time job.

Mr. Buckley quit his day job in September after his online profits had greatly surpassed his salary as an administrative assistant for a music promotion company. His thrice-a-week online show “is silly,” he said, but it has helped him escape his credit-card debt.

He may be the very tip of the hit head of a very steep power law, its hard to tell - but hey, give it a go:

All he needed was a $2,000 Canon camera, a $6 piece of fabric for a backdrop and a pair of work lights from Home Depot. Mr. Buckley is an example of the Internet’s democratizing effect on publishing. Sites like YouTube allow anyone with a high-speed connection to find a fan following, simply by posting material and promoting it online.

Granted, building an audience online takes time. “I was spending 40 hours a week on YouTube for over a year before I made a dime,”

But hey, if you're laid off why not give it a go......... worst / worst you've learned a new skill.

How long will it take YouTube - its hard to tell exactly, but deals with long form legal media (such as MGM) distributors and a new focus on quality "pro user" generated content should shift the ratio of advertised traffic - and a small shift makes a big change.