- Joined
- Feb 11, 2009
- Messages
- 4,117
- Reaction score
- 4
Well I like reading Time and Newsweek right?, and I came across some articles discussing the rise of the Internet (and the media being ported to it) and how old media is struggling to keep up. I wonder what do you guys think about this. Who will pay for news now? Are we all going to demand for things to be "free" on the Internet and just blog/tweet everything?
But then... Old Media Strikes Back
Other articles:Hulu, founded by NBC and Fox, has become a better moneymaker than Web darling YouTube. The moral: better content wins.
As the worlds of technology and media collide, the same contest keeps getting played out over and over again: lumbering old-media companies take on nimble new-media upstarts, and usually the new-media guys win, since it's easier for them to figure out the content business than it is for the content companies to figure out the techie stuff involved in launching an Internet business. Apple outfoxed the music companies and now in effect controls their business. Google reaps billions by selling ads that run next to content created by others—while some of those creators, newspapers and magazines, teeter on the edge of the tar pit. In video, Google figured it could work the same trick again, so in late 2006 it spent $1.65 billion to acquire YouTube, a site that had built a huge audience by dishing up user-generated videos and pirated clips from movies and TV shows. YouTube wasn't bringing in any money, but Google believed it would figure something out. Meanwhile, Apple was trying to lure movie and TV studios into the iTunes store, just as it had done with music labels.
But this time the old-media guys fought back. In 2007, a few months after Google bought YouTube, NBC Universal and News Corp. announced they would jointly build their own Internet video site.
But guess what? Unlike YouTube, Hulu had legal access to great content—shows from NBC, Fox and others. And it had great technology—a clean, simple user interface and a smart search engine. Today, just one year after its launch, Hulu has gained the upper hand. "The empire is striking back," says Arash Amel, analyst for researcher Screen Digest. Amel estimates that while Hulu attracts far fewer visitors per month than YouTube (8.5 million versus 89.5 million), in financial terms Hulu is actually doing better. He estimates that last year Hulu took in $65 million in U.S. ad revenue and cleared $12 million in gross profit, while YouTube generated $114 million in U.S. revenue but had no gross profit.
How to Save Your Newspaper