YouTube to Spend Millions Producing Free-to-View Original Content

[MacRumors]

YouTube has announced plans to produce a raft of original programming beginning this year, as the Google-owned video site moves to counter the rising tide of premium streaming services like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu.

The difference in YouTube's approach to original content is that its shows will be free to view on its website and apps through an ad-supported format, rather than being tied to the company's ad-free $9.99 YouTube Red subscription service.

The company will make a multi-million dollar investment in more than 40 original shows and movies in the next year, according to sources who spoke to Bloomberg. YouTube hopes that high-profile stars will feature in the content and that this will in turn attract bigger advertisers to sponsor the programming.

"We're working with YouTube stars and big celebrities that we know have global appeal, advertiser appeal and are largely established on the platform," Susanne Daniels, YouTube's head of original content, said in an interview.

YouTube has signed up comedian Kevin Hart and TV host Ellen DeGeneres as its first two high-profile celebrities. Hart's show will be a workout-based series, while DeGeneres' program will give fans a peak backstage into the making of her talkshow.

Katy Perry and Demi Lovato also announced behind-the-scenes shows with YouTube, while TV and radio personality Ryan Seacrest confirmed his involvement in a music competition called "Best.Cover.Ever", which will debut on the site later this year.

YouTube's original content plans were announced at the annual digital NewFronts conference in New York on Friday.

Article Link: YouTube to Spend Millions Producing Free-to-View Original Content

 

[LinusR]

I wonder what the effect of those services (Apple, YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, you name it) producing original content will be in the long run. It makes sense to them to do so, given their huge client base and detailed knowledge of their target audience, but in the end they are merely more than producers, giving money to fund exclusive content. I hope this won't backfire at some point, the fragmentation is, in my opinion, painful to watch.

 

[KieranDotW]

Sounds like a complete bastardization how youtube's original purpose: original content from everyday people. YouTube was never meant to be a place for a-list celebrities, nor were its users supposed to attain celebrity status

 

[MrNomNoms]

And it'll be only viewable in America - as per-usual.

 

[cube]

And it'll be only viewable in America - as per-usual.

Why would it be if it's their own?

 

[newyorksole]

Sounds like a complete bastardization how youtube's original purpose: original content from everyday people. YouTube was never meant to be a place for a-list celebrities, nor were its users supposed to attain celebrity status

Things change... No person or company stays the same. This is nothing new.

 

[6836838]

YouTube is too heavily censored now. It's all about bitchute now.

 

[trainwrecka]

Sounds like a complete bastardization how youtube's original purpose: original content from everyday people. YouTube was never meant to be a place for a-list celebrities, nor were its users supposed to attain celebrity status

A lot of YouTubers did achieve some level of celebrity (when you get millions of views on a video, that's something). Sadly, YouTube is destroying its platform right now by killing ad revenue for a lot of channels. I don't blame them as advertisers only want to pay to be on certain videos (nothing controversial at all). Just sad to see it crumbling from what it was.

 

[MrNomNoms]

Why would it be if it's their own?

Because they do it already - the Pixel phone still cannot be bought directly from Google in New Zealand even though Australia as access to it.

 

[cube]

Because they do it already - the Pixel phone still cannot be bought directly from Google in New Zealand even though Australia as access to it.

That is hardware, it has nothing to do with digital goods distribution.

 

[swester]

Funny, they did the same thing by funding a bunch of YouTube channels 3 or 4 years ago. The ones with the "big name celebrities" mostly failed and funding was pulled after a year. The ones that succeeded were the actual YouTubers who understood the platform.

You can't just throw money and big names together and expect it to work.

 

[jacksmith21006]

They have over 1 billion hours of content viewed each day and over a billion active users. But the 1 billion is a 100% YoY growth over 2015. Which is an acceleration.

With this user base only makes sense to create their own content. They also have a ton of data to figure out what to produce.

 

[Juicy Box]

YouTube has announced plans to produce a raft of original programming beginning this year, as the Google-owned video site moves to counter the rising tide of premium streaming services like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu.

While DeGeneres' program will give fans a peak backstage into the making of her talkshow.

This is just my opinion, but YouTube's and Apple's original content such as backstage with Ellen, or POTApps will not be even close to the quality of Netflix's originals. Netflix started with premium programing like Lilyhammer, and House of Cards, while YouTube has behind the scenes with Ellen, and work out videos.

Although, I could be totally out of touch with what is popular these days, and maybe this is what people want to see.

I wonder what the effect of those services (Apple, YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, you name it) producing original content will be in the long run.

I hope this won't backfire at some point, the fragmentation is, in my opinion, painful to watch.

You have a good point.
If this does happen, it may not be that bad though, as it will probably remain easy to subscribe/unsubscribe so you wont need to have an on-going subscription to watch your favorite shows. Of course, if the user has to watch it the second it comes out, then they would have to have multiple subscriptions to things at the same time.

 

[T Coma]

Well it *is* YouTube, so at least we know they'll maintain that committment to a well-balanced variety of opinions, politically and otherwise. I mean, other than restricting whatever they tell us is "dangerous," of course.

 

[masochist]

For those of you saying it'll flop: you're not the target audience. The target audience is the person who watches cable TV, all day, every day. The person who cares about celebrity gossip (it's inconceivable to you and me, but people like that exist). There are surprisingly many people like that; tabloids and celebrity news TV networks wouldn't be in business if there weren't. That's who this is targetting, not the person watching House of Cards.

 

[EightyTwenty]

More ultra-liberal SJW propaganda shoved down our throats.

Can't wait!

 

[Glassed Silver]

YouTube is too heavily censored now. It's all about bitchute now.

I agree about the censorship.

If anything will hinder its success it's that.

The more hands-off Google is with the actual content beyond reasonable policing the better for the platform and its users.

Will be interesting to watch, also reminds me to ramp up downloading the stuff I like.

I'm done trusting anyone but my own self-managed storage.

Glassed Silver:ios

 

[Analog Kid]

Wait, I thought YouTube was full of original free to watch content already. Why spend millions just to compete with your providers?

Not that millions means anything to Google, but I'd love to see the justification...

 

[bozzykid]

Wait, I thought YouTube was full of original free to watch content already.

Yes, but Google only gets a small portion of the advertising from content they don't own. In this case, they will earn much more from their own content.

 

[Phil in ocala]

I wonder what the effect of those services (Apple, YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, you name it) producing original content will be in the long run. It makes sense to them to do so, given their huge client base and detailed knowledge of their target audience, but in the end they are merely more than producers, giving money to fund exclusive content. I hope this won't backfire at some point, the fragmentation is, in my opinion, painful to watch.

+++++
There are now, today...full length movies FREE on you tube...this is one of the best inventions ever and its FREE....I watch on Amazon Fire for free and I love it.

 

[Pakaku]

Free content from Google, eh? Surely there is no catch here

 

[imicca]

How to ruin YouTube and make it mainstream 101.

 

[Analog Kid]

Yes, but Google only gets a small portion of the advertising from content they don't own. In this case, they will earn much more from their own content.

I'm not finding official numbers, but the broad consensus seems to be around 45% goes to Google. I don't think I'd call that a small portion. And the fact that they don't commit to a percentage suggests they could adjust it.

At best, it sounds like they stand to make twice as much-- but if they're dumping millions in at the front end and they get just a few dollars per thousand views, they're going to need for this to be wildly popular to win this back on ad revenue alone.

I get the feeling this is seen internally as more "strategic", but I can't really grasp how.