This Is Classic

In the wake of (or maybe well before) Google's purchase of YouTube, the major TV networks are discussing collaborating on a YouTube rival. That's so predictable its laughable.

Back in the early days of the Internet, the major newspaper chains created a consortium to build a major web presence. I forget the name of that effort because whatever it was called, it failed miserably.

First, you can't build anything interesting by committee. Second, this is not TV, this is the web. This is about rejecting everything about TV. Third, I watched and rooted for NBC to get their NBBC initiative right and they just messed it up. It's not about content. It's about context, convenience, and community. It's about letting the audience dictate the experience, not having it dictated to them.

The chances that any one of the TV networks could get it right is slim. The chance that they could get it right in a partnership is nil.

Comments

[tomo]

It is laughable and even more so because creating a consortia and executing to the degree required to make it work are two totally seperate things. Getting any major players of any industry together is like herding cats. The cable companies tried to do it with @Home Network and we all know what happened there. What, is Lloyd Braun going to be brought in to 'carry out the strategic vision' of the networks? :)

[joshua schachter]

The consortium was called New Century Networks. I turned down a job offer with them in 1997 or so.

[John Dodds]

This has echoes of the current BBC plan to create their own media player rather than allow visitors to their sites use existing players, as is presently the case.

[James]

Fred,
Put this in the context of the negotiations and the hundreds of millions Google is dangling in front of the media companies. This smells like a strategic leak and is almost certainly a high-pressure negotiating tactic on the part of the media players, to take Google for as much as they can.

Even if Google "wins" (i.e pays up the hundreds of millions, and keeps the content off the hands of competing video sites) they still have the long tail of lawyers to contend with. Universal Music is already suing YouTube competitors, and this has all the finger prints of "evil" all over it (courtesy Mark Cuban).

In other words, I don't see how the YouTube deal has a happy ending for Google - it leads to either a) billions in exposure to the aforementioned long tail of lawyers or b) losing their soul as a company due to the "evil" nature of the deals or in the worst of both worlds, both (a) and (b) at the same time. Then again, I am not the one sitting on $150 billion of market cap, so what do I know?

[David Henderson]

This is the classic Innovator's Dilemma. :-)

[Christian Busch]

This reminds me of the French efforts to create a European Google. It's called Qaero i think. Imagine 1000s of French Bureaucrats grouping together to build a search engine!

[Andrew]

You can replicate technology but you cannot replicate a community.

[ap]

Why don't the other networks take a page from ABC's book by posting their prime time programs online on their respective websites? This is what would eventually happen anyway, even if a YouTube rival were created by the networks. Competition would ultimately trump collaboration.

[Ethan Stock]

Orbitz has a decent chunk of the airline ticket industry. They didn't win, but they certainly haven't lost.

[will]

hehe . . . whatever did happen to Covisint.com ? I see the website is still up . . .

[Tom Higley]

The culture and mindset in the one-to-many world of the networks is so fundamentally at odds with the open, many-to-many world of YouTube that I don't give the former the slightest chance of creating and sustaining a successful competing platform. In YouTube's world, content is plentiful - essentially a "free good." In the world of the networks, content is scarce and must be guarded and protected at all costs. The networks have always "won" by controlling access to the means of production and distribution. YouTube wins - and gathers an enormous audience faster than anyone before them - by opening up the input side of the equation.

The networks have always believed that their controls on production and distribution coupled with their ability to ensure the "quality" (i.e., high production value) of their content was a guaranty of market dominance. This assumes, of course, that limited amounts of higher quality content triumphs over virtually unlimited content of uneven quality.

We'll see. I'm casting my vote with the disruptive technology, with the innovator. I haven't watched network television in nearly ten years. My kids don't watch it either. But they send me YouTube videos. And I watch them. Frequently.

[fewquid]

Any such coalition would be a nightmare since there would be no basic alignment of interests -- this would be like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo all agreeing to build a business together.

But the real problem is the reason they alledgedly want to build this: to control it the way they do their current outlets. That's why old industry players die when the Next Big Thing hits -- they keep trying to force the new ideas into their old model.

I do think it may just be GoogleBait.

Any my closing thought: "A camel is a horse designed by a committee"...

[Ben Forcevive]

... but they still have the content a lot of people are looking for.

... just reinforcing their bargaining position.

[Ben Forcevive]

... but they still have the content a lot of people are looking for.

... just reinforcing their bargaining position.

[James Governor]

GSM - the cellphone standard that has delivered a far better mobile experience in Europe, where it was ratified, than in the US, which said no thanks, was designed by committee. maybe its not as "interesting" as some US standards, but it works.

The Eclipse open source software tooling platform has been built out by committee. Its an extremely interesting phenomenon.

But they may be exceptions that test the rule.

Wasn't the American Constitution built by committee? I would say that was quite interesting.

[dave mcclure]

hmm... CareerBuilder ain't no slouch.

tho i agree, in general this approach usually results in mostly crap.

[Balaji M]

I sometimes find it really amusing and amazed to know how web has changed the way in which market in played.

This idea of having a consortium and having a common platform is absolutely stupid. Just imagine the collissions that everyone will have for the content, who own what etc etc.

I really do like the way in which CNN, BBC and CBS News puts their video in the web and let users watch them for free. I think that is the way it should be. Every major network should put their programs online for free viewing, streaming video kind of thing. Why should someone pay for watching the same stuff that he sees on TV when he is watching online. Ok...it gives him the idea of watching it anytime. But that is the purpose isn't it. It allows someone to follow your network without sticking it to the TV time.

I think the media networks should post their videos on their own networks and also in video sharing sites for people to view. The sooner they realise it, the better it is.

[John Furrier]

I remember New Century Networks. I tried working with them on a search product. Those guys couldn't get out of their own way. In fact all this work went into building portal that required way to much time and the content sucked.

It was a cluster f&*k to say the least. Great point in this post.

[Gordon]

I did a small deal with New Century Networks, too. Their owners could never agree on anything, so it wound up languishing.

Uber-blogger Jeff Jarvis worked for them, as I recall.

[engtech]

my simple guide to starting a content network:

If there already is an existing hugely popular service in that space then you’re going to have to treat your customers better, not worse than them to succeed.

[Dustin]

I think a lot of people try to create a business on the web in what they know as the 'traditional' manner but fail due to the fact that this is the web and everything is different.