Why MSN's Lead In Video Is Unlikely To Matter
from the fast-starter dept
In thinking about the surge in online video, the name that invariably comes to mind is YouTube, in part because the company gets tons of hype, but also because the site has actually transformed the experience of watching television (defined broadly). Considering all the hype about YouTube, it may come as a surprise that the video service from MSN is actually seen as a leader in the space, at least in terms of advertising and revenue. MSN’s approach has been, simply, to go out and sign a bunch of exclusive contracts with content providers and then to distribute popular shows with advertising. Essentially, the company has the same business model as a conventional TV station, which is the reason it hasn’t gotten anywhere near as much buzz as YouTube. And since the conventional TV channel is dying, there’s reason to believe that with its current model, MSN will have a hard time holding on to its gains. There’s certainly no guarantee that YouTube will emerge as a victor in the online video battle, but just as AOL’s promise of exclusive content gave way to a more anarchic web, the same is likely to happen with video.
Comments on “Why MSN's Lead In Video Is Unlikely To Matter”
Traditional TV is dead, long live TV.
Traditional (not convential) Television is dead.
do Stations still broadcast?
Digital only Cable Networks; IP Television;
HDTV is always a digital stream;
does anyone get TV from broadcast Traditional Television?
The landscape is changing,
your cable operator could be your telephone company;
your telephone company could be your cable operatior;
your cell phone company could supply everything: Voice, Data and Video (the triple Play);
triple play is all the rage in the network community;
that is Cisco, Time-Warner, Microsoft. Local Television stations are going away to be replaced by national and international IP Network distributed content.
Your logic is severely flawed!
So let me get this straight, you’re saying that because MSNs business model is like a tradiitional TV station it will not be as successful BUT revenue indicated it is more successful than the “new business model” widely known YouTube?
If anything your arguement shows that the old business models work better and maybe the “new” models aren’t ready to compete yet. In this case the big name in the space is YouTube so we can’t make the usual arguement that the “old model” companies win because they are household names.
I have no particular love of any business model over another I just don’t like it when people don’t make a logical conclusion from the data they are presented with.
Conventional TV (and news) is dying and Link TV is probably the nail in the coffin.
http://www.worldlinktv.org/
MSN has a video service?
Interesting developments...
Interesting to see how this develops.
I have my bets on MSN. Not that they will replace YT (YouTube) but rather find their own niche where they contract the content. If there is copyrighted content, chances are that YT would have trouble offering it.
This, in and of itself, gives MSN a particular type of advantage. Offering free content could just be a side thing for MSN and this little side thing could very well be the end of YT.
blah
This article isn’t even worth the time it takes to read it.
Re: blah
Haha! You’re right, it was aparently worth the time to read AND post a comment about!
Good grief.
Who writes this stuff???
Stop with the Microsoft bashing.
Does anybody actually approve these articles or can any moron post on here?
Re: Who writes this stuff???
I Microsoft-Bash therefore I am.