Is YouTube really a $1.65 billion Web 2.0 success?

Should YouTube be emulated?
Written by Donna Bogatin, Contributor

ALSO:  Will YouTube ‘King Hurley’ really share video riches?

Is Chad Hurley the poster “king” for Web 2.0 entrepreneurial success?

Does the YouTube “story” reflect a Web 2.0 start-up model to be emulated? 

Google's $1.65 billion stock acquisition of the free-for-all, no fees required, online video hosting property undoubtedly leads most to shout a resounding NEED YOU ASK!

NewTeeVee says today “From our perspective, it seems like the near-total absence of ads on YouTube was an essential part of its success.” 

Should the Chad & Steve no-revenues-needed, what’s a business model, rise to clip culture fame be the go-to start-up guide for Web 2.0 success?

Besides the personal gains Chad & Steve pocketed thanks to a cash and stock rich Google, what is the Chad & Steve success track record with YouTube?

Just days before Google’s announcement of the merger of two “Internet kings,” I underscored YouTube’s “junk culture” riddle, rather than a YouTube “clip-culture” in “YouTube: clip culture or junk culture?”:

YouTube is revered for its touted “100 million videos streamed daily.” The YouTube “video” experience, however, is “junk” from many angles;

Junk clips,
Junk CPMs,
Junk copyright protection.

What has Google done in the last three months to elevate the YouTube “culture”? Nothing apparent.

The lowest common denominator junk CPM “clip culture” continues to flourish (see “YouTube vs. MySpace: Is friendly bankable?”) and television networks, movie studios and music companies continue to be damaged by copyright infringement (see “Google ’safe harbor’: ‘Nice’ way to do business?”).

During the pre-acquisition announcement frenzy I put forth last August “Top five reasons NOT to buy YouTube”:

1) Free-to-the-consumer YouTube has $1 million monthly estimated bandwidth costs, but no meaningful revenue stream.

2) YouTube solicits low production quality, “home-grown” user created content lacking mainstream appeal of professionally produced video entertainment.

3) YouTube is a magnet for the uploading and hosting of pirated video content.

4) YouTube users are not willing to pay for content and are deemed resistant to advertising.

5) YouTube’s “Broadcast Yourself” positioning is not sustainable.

I restated my case yesterday in “Google’s YouTube: Who are the broadcasters?"

[poll id=38]

ALSO: Will YouTube ‘King Hurley’ really share video riches?

Who needs YouTube? Bolt, NBBC, Network2 on stage in NYC


Why Google wants YouTube independent

YouTube: Is ‘cheating’ hurting YouTuber community?

Editorial standards