In an important announcement that could have a major impact on Google's future in video, the New York Times is reporting that Seth MacFarlane, the creator of "Family Guy," will start "Seth MacFarlane's Cavalcade of Cartoon Comedy", which Google will syndicate (using AdSense) to thousands of Web sites that fit with MacFarlane's target audience. Instead of a static ad, Google will place the video clip on the site.
Interesting, huh? Not only has the company found a way to bring video to the Web and finally make some money on it, but it has nothing to do with YouTube.
Am I missing something here?
Did Google just happen to forget that YouTube is still hanging around with no prospects for revenue and no advertising platform? I commend Google on forming this deal with the world's most popular cartoonist, but why wouldn't it try to do something on the YouTube front?
Ostensibly, Google believes this idea will yield better revenue, but it still doesn't solve the one problem it can't figure out: YouTube is becoming the company's albatross. And if you ask me, this "Cavalcade" would be best served on YouTube.
Then again, maybe Google doesn't want to play the traditional advertising game with Seth MacFarlane. Instead, the company seems to be under the impression that by using it on its AdSense platform, it'll use the video to its advantage, while helping customers add some entertainment to their sites and hopefully increase their own ad revenue.
But I'm not sold on that.
Regardless of the fact that Google can probably make more money on ad revenue through this distribution scheme, I don't think it's the best way to go about it. Instead of tying MacFarlane's income to a portion of advertising revenue, and thus forcing itself into this distribution deal, Google should have paid MacFarlane a flat fee for his services and added this show as an exclusive on YouTube.
Upon doing so, Google solves two problems: it solves the issue of controlling content, thus ensuring that more advertisers would be willing to spend cash on the show, and finally turns YouTube into a destination for high-quality content and advertising dollars, instead of a toilet for the worst videos on the Web.
This deal strikes me as nothing more than a cash grab. Sure, it's a big step for online video and it could have a major impact on the industry, but let's not forget that it does nothing for YouTube -- the one place Google needs all the help.
From a purely financial standpoint, this deal makes sense, but finances should be the least of Google's troubles right now if it can't turn YouTube around. It's already a company with solid financial health, but its looming issue with video has yet to be solved. If it can't turn things around with YouTube soon, all the money it's making with MacFarlane could be lost at the hands of its video albatross.
No comments:
Post a Comment