Google Discovers -- Again, Though No One Remembers -- That People Don't Like Paying For Video Online

from the didn't-we-do-this-before dept

I have to say that I'm a bit perplexed at what appears like worldwide amnesia over the fact that when Google launched its Google Video platform, its main focus was on charging people to "rent" videos on its platform. There was a ton of press and excitement over it, with lots of people claiming that Google was going to remake the video market online, and lots of money would be made. And then... nope. People didn't pay. Instead, they all jumped over to an up-and-coming site called YouTube that didn't charge and Google eventually bought them out while quietly shutting down its pay-for-video efforts, which no one missed. And I guess because no one missed it, everyone seems to forget it exists, even though we try to remind people that Google tried this and failed.

But, instead, we get those professional journalists at the NY Times pointing out that this latest very poorly received pay-for-video trials are the company's "first forays" into charging for video content. Apparently the new test brought in a whopping $10,709.16 over the course of 10 days (and five movies). Google is trying to spin this as "exceeding expectations," but it's hard to see how that's the case. There may be models that get people to pay (Netflix's subscription model seems to get people to pay simply for the convenience factor), but I think direct charging like this is unlikely to get very far, and Google, of all companies, should know that, even if everyone else has forgotten.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 2:59am

    I wish I made $1000 a day

    but yes, that is a low number. But that's a very short run time, 10 days. Not nearly long enough to gather any kind of momentum online.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      dangit, Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 5:12am

      Re: I wish I made $1000 a day

      ... and I wish I thst got an annual 100 mil bonus, but that is not going to happen either.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    diode, Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 4:16am

    Maybe I've been living in a shoebox, but I didn't even know they were doing this.

    Not that it would've made any difference at any rate. Living in Australia - a country where we're relatively very limited to how much we can download - I'm not (what is effectively) paying twice for something I can only watch once.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    diode, Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 4:16am

    Maybe I've been living in a shoebox, but I didn't even know they were doing this.

    Not that it would've made any difference at any rate. Living in Australia - a country where we're relatively very limited to how much we can download - I'm not (what is effectively) paying twice for something I can only watch once.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    digitivity, Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 4:22am

    Wow, sharp memory.

    Anyways, agreed that users don't like paywalls.

    But if Netflix can be successful renting online video, why can't Google?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Alan Gerow (profile), Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 8:05am

      Re:

      It's not really a "paywall". It's video rental. I'd pay for a video "paywall" with a subscription to on-line videos ... but a per movie rental service is a no-go to me.

      It's the sole reason I have a Netflix account. I get one DVD at a time, which is usually hard-to-find stuff. Mostly I view videos on-line or through the PS3. Netflix's on-line video offering is closer to a "paywall" than Google's with YouTube rentals.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 4:29am

    Netflix still has the best answer.

    But why are people looking at youtube/google. Amazon is almost as big of a name, and most people (people who are internet savvy enough to stream video anyway) already have an account there. And they already have their online PPV service on set-top boxes like the Roku.

    I'd think if you want to get an idea of the sort of success online PPV could have, you'd check Amazon out. I don't have those numbers, but since Netflix can do unlimited videos for $9 a month and youtube can do it for ads, I'd guess costs are low. So if we assume it's 90%+ profit on a streamed movie, I'm surprised Hollywood isn't all over this.

    I think google should figure out a way to give me movies for free for personal information other than my CC number.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Anti-Mike (profile), Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 4:38am

      Re:

      since Netflix can do unlimited videos for $9 a month and youtube can do it for ads, I'd guess costs are low.

      In Youtube's case, there is absolutely no indication that they are even within shooting distance of being profitable, even with the amazing cost advantages of Google internal bandwidth prices and Google's distributed data center network. Netflix, as they are mixing business models together, may not give us any indication if online movie business is working, as they are offering it for the moment as a value added service as they work to position themselves in that market. Netflix is working hard to have hardware installs on DVD players and TVs that point to them, and in the long run, I am sure the online model will work out for them.

      The questions will always remain the same: What rates are companies like this paying for content? That will define the true price point of the industry.

      As for this Google test, I would say there are a bunch of things in play here. First, the 5 movies are not mainstream films, but rather entrants into the Sundance Films festival. The price wasn't cheap ($3.99 per movie), I didn't see a bunch of promotion, and the time frame was very short. I suspect Google is pleased with the results because they worked with unknown movies, with no real ad budget, and probably netted about $1 per viewing. That is a very good margin, and something that could likely be ramped up with increased volume and turned into a very profitable part of their business.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        BobinBaltimore (profile), Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 5:59am

        Re: Re:

        I'm betting that Gooogle's net on this largely unadvertised, niche experiment was higher than TechDirt's net on the widely trumpeted CwF+RtB experiment last year. Sadly, Mike has refused to reveal the actual fiscal performance of that effort. Hmmmm....

        http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20091028/0348476705#c368

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 10:35am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I'm betting that Gooogle's net on this largely unadvertised, niche experiment was higher than TechDirt's net on the widely trumpeted CwF+RtB experiment last year

          Well, I would guess that's not true, honestly, seeing as our net was greater than their gross, but hey.... But the thing is, even if it were accurate, most people recognize that we're starting from a base that is not even a rounding error on Google's daily traffic. I'm wondering why you would ignore that. Apples and oranges comparisons (or, really, mountains and dust mite comparisons) are beneath you. I really thought you were above the ridiculous cheapshot, but apparently not.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            BobinBaltimore (profile), Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 2:56pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Meh...just a way to dredge up that you never provided full disclosure on the experiment. So, I guess in that regard it's a cheap shot, though you did kinda just leave it hanging out there low those many months ago. So your net was greater than their gross...good to know. Of course, that is new information unshared until now. Also, I agree that it is a mountain/dust mite comparison. Glad to read that in this case at least, you agree with me that scale really does matter in the analysis of a business approach and that scalability is a critical factor. Hmmmmm....

            BTW, I agree with you on this one generally, Mike. I do think that Google needs to try something at a bit of a bigger scale with mainstream films and widely advertise it. I think the results will be much better. Whether they will be good enough to spawn a profitable service offering, who knows. You were definitely right to point out that the media has it wrong that this is Google's first try.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jim, Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 4:56am

    Google promoted the heck out of this

    We have Google Adsense ads on our movie-related site. We were flooded with ads for these rentals over the past week. My guess is that Google paid a lot more than $10K to promote the offering. Oh well, at least we made a profit off of Google's rentals.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bob Dole Lives, Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 5:16am

    Normally..

    It was five no-name movies for ten days.... barely even worth discussing.

    I'm normally behind much of Techdirt's obvious agenda, but this is just scrapping the bottom of the barrel. There is better arguments to make and cases to analyze.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chris-Mouse (profile), Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 5:40am

    exceeding expectations?

    If Google has any sort of realistic expectations as to how much people would pay for movies online, then I have a hard time describing this as anything but exceeding expectations.
    Whether or not Google can make a profit on that income is another question. Any simple online movie watching service with a non zero income is exceeding the income level I would expect it to have.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bradley Stewart, Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 6:21am

    Pay For This Stuff?

    OK so I'm an Old Codger and by now I have seen every plot and formula that has or will ever be conceived. I'm not going to start paying for this stuff though I can understand it if you are a lot younger than I am. Then again I do have an Old Codger Friend who just loves watching the latest releases. I think that one day he will get a job at an old actor's home reminding the senile residents which movies that they were in and the parts that they played.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    zanedabrain, Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 6:22am

    Youtube does not compare

    Google Video was a PPV streaming service of copy written material made by professionals.

    There are no commercially recorded videos on the site with the exception of some that violated policy that Google has done an exceptional job of removing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      zanedabrain, Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 6:27am

      Edit: Youtube does not compare

      "There are no commercially recorded videos on the site with the exception of some that violated policy that Google has done an exceptional job of removing."

      I was speaking of Youtube.com in this line

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Alan Gerow (profile), Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 8:10am

      Re: Youtube does not compare

      Google Video wasn't exclusively PPV. It was very much like YouTube at first with user submitted content that broke all kinds of copyright laws. Google made deals with content creators and experimented with rentals, but the heart of the service was very YouTube-like. I still have a couple .gvi files of stuff that was never available on YouTube and sure wasn't approved by the original creators. :)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    a-dub (profile), Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 7:15am

    The problem with renting online is that they are still charging too much. I would gladly go to a redbox over renting from something like Zune on XBox live. The whole pricing model on Zune is way too much and you have to pay MORE for the HD version. Compare that to Netflix streaming on XBox Live. When I use Netflix, I can jump around to different TV shows and movies and if I dont like something, I dont continue watching it...I just find something else on Netflix. I cant see myself paying so much for a movie and then not liking it. Paying up to $6 or $7 bucks for an HD rental on Zune is just too much of a gamble.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 8:30am

    Lets put this in perspective ....

    These are five independent films that no one has really heard of. So I say Kudo's to Google for even getting 10k.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Roy Weissman (profile), Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 10:27am

    Google and Pay per View

    Did Lance Armstrong learn to ride a bicycle in 10 days?

    I think that anyone criticizing Google's Pay Per View efforts is just looking for any publicity. There is no question that Google can be successful with an on demand online offering. The only issue is Google's commitment to the program. Given that the studios release all the movies to most everyone at once (or will do that shortly), its going to come down to the marketing, business model and promotion to determine success.

    One great advantage Google has is its technical prowess. They truly have the strongest and most reliable video platform on the net.

    I look forward to lots of great choices online!

    Roy Weissman
    Octopus

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Vastrightwing, Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 2:30pm

    Not willing to pay the freight

    Satellite offers hit movies for $4.99 and boy is that convenient. I don’t have to go anywhere and all I have to do is use my remote. Guess what? I opt to get in my car and drive to RedBox for $1.00. For the price of one rental on the dish, I can go to RedBox and get almost 5 movies! (yes, I know, the gas). The point is, the publishers think we’re willing to pay for convenience… sure, up to a point. Just not $5! Not $4.00, Not $3.00 and possibly not even $2.00. I’d pay up to 99 cents for renting a movie online. Not one penny more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Owain Robinson, Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 10:01pm

    GV

    I find GV useful... it's all about you, isn't it? me me me i'm on fire, put me out.

    O.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ashley nixon, Mar 3rd, 2011 @ 12:28pm

    Thank you for the most useful information.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This