The move was experimental; first it offered five movies to help promote the Sundance Film Festival at a price of $3.99 for a 48 hour-viewing period. Under this plan, YouTube hoped to later allow producers to come up with their own prices to charge users (Elberse and Gupta). This was very much in line with the second revenue generation strategy fronted by Munster. The strategy sought to charge users for viewership similar to the way iTunes are operated, on subscription basis. However, like every new move, this strategy was laden with uncertainties mainly based on the users’ response to paying for a service that was initially free. Furthermore, such a move would need to come up with the category of users and content that would be charged. This is in line with the fact that not all material in YouTube would constitute value for money, a factor that would prompt YouTube to reevaluate its content (Hartley, Jean and Axel 410). Under this consideration, YouTube would have to establish a completely new relationship with content owners who in this case would upload material based on commercial viability. In summary, getting this strategy to work would require decisions touching on users’ categories, content, and payment channels. The other strategy in monetizing YouTube’s content is charging users for uploading videos. Charging users to upload their videos would provide the resources required to meet he assortment of costs that come with running and maintaining YouTube. These costs which include cost of bandwidth, site maintenance, and storage costs represent a significant part of YouTube’s cost outlay, if this cost is offset fully or partly by users, YouTube would record significant profits (Elberse and...
This is if the number of viewership and users are to be considered from a business perspective.
At the moment, given the YouTube’s popularity three viable options have been considered as potential sources of YouTube’s revenues. The three are; a hybrid model where YouTube charges a portion of its users to upload their videos, charge users for downloading movies and lastly continue with the current strategy of depending on advertisement generated revenues.
YouTube would have to establish a completely new relationship with content owners who in this case would upload material based on commercial viability. In summary, getting this strategy to work would require decisions touching on users’ categories, content, and payment channels.
To augment their ad dollars, YouTube needs to constitute an able sales force as opposed to the current Google’s seller’s products. The other change YouTube has to enforce is shifting focus to sell individual shows and networks as opposed to the current focus on broad “audience” buys. These changes have been highlighted by YouTube programmers and very much represent the key changes likely to turnaround YouTube’s fortune.
In conclusion, the best strategy remains focusing on advertisement revenue. This presents fewer risks and has great potential as well. This is given the fact that lesser entities have been able to augment their ad money and now generate much more revenue that YouTube. This underlines the fact that it is not the business that has a problem but the approach and the adopted model.