[idspispopd]

I get that this site(HN) has a lot of google fans, to the point that often completely illogical arguments are painfully maintained by characters that would rather gush loyalty than have an honest discussion.

But to those that think youtube is holding all the cards here need to look at what has undone so many other sites.

This is youtube's largest channel, and it's a large source of referral traffic, especially social sites like facebook.

It's google's prerogative to keep this kind of referral traffic, not only to maintain relevance, but also to be perceived as the first choice in online video. If the average teenager begins to associate another site as the first choice in video that would have follow on consequences as google would not be able to control the user experience. (Or tout Google+) Users will hunt around for the right video, they're not so loyal as to abstain from watching a music video because it comes from vimeo etc.

Youtube has been effective at shutting outtheir competition with exclusivity deals like these, a competitor could do the same to youtube - and this is a pretty desirable catalog that appeals to a very active online demographic, it would instantly make a competitor relevant, elevating them above the pool of B-grade youtube competitors.

[creamyhorror]

Your argument about Youtube's relative power in this relationship is fine, but your comment attacking HN "google fans" as arguing illogically and not willing to carrying out honest discussion is uncalled for. If you want to make such assertions, do it in response to a relevant comment, not as a random potshot.

[idspispopd]

Thank you for your opinion on my conduct.

However you should note that I did not make the argument that all "google fans" were of this type of illogical character, rather that some do and have already begun filing responses of this kind in this thread, making it futile to reply to each, especially when this kind of fanboyism is immune to any contradicting realities presented to them.

Finally my "potshot" makes up a relevant piece of my argument, more specifically the argument that "being a fan of google doesn't invalidate vevos importance or clout".

[untog]

The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Both Google and Vevo benefit from the current arrangement. As someone who works at a video-based startup, I can tell you that for a large majority of people online, YouTube = online video. Getting sites (like, say, Tumblr, Reddit, etc) to accept video embeds from you is a huge pain. Grafting on a layer of social networking similar to YouTube's and getting people to actually like, comment, etc. is incredibly difficult.

YouTube works, for good reasons.

[idspispopd]

I don't think it'll be the undoing of youtube - not at all. Youtube offers much to their audience, this certainly won't dramatically change their business. It does however give any competitor a much better standing to compete against youtube, giving the competitor relevance and a bucket load of traffic from consumers seeking desirable content. (The top 10 searches every year involve one or more music celebrities.)

It'll be interesting how it plays out anyway, now that google has announced it will discontinue video search altogether (in favour of youtube only.)

[confluence]

I am a YouTube/Google fan with great reason - they provide 2 critical infrastructure services (instantaneous global video distribution/search) at little to no cost for the vast majority of the world.

VEVO is a middle-man who is only as strong as his grip over the conduit between 2 parties.

The artists require exposure and YouTube requires the content. However, as YouTube now has a daily standing audience (network effects/sticky subscribers), the artists want YouTube more than YouTube will want any one artist (for channelling views towards live concerts/creating new fans/selling merchandise offsite). It is to any one artist's detriment if they reduce their YouTube exposure - as their artistic competition will be happy to take their views for themselves (time per person per day is the limiting resource).

VEVO's strength is their subscriber funnel that pushes massive numbers of views towards new/existing artistic content. This is thanks to Metacalf's law and a strength that will be lost if they drop off YouTube.

If VEVO falls off YouTube someone else will take the mantle - and YouTube will extract their pound of flesh.

YouTube used to be weak. They aren't any more. They are the 800 pound gorilla now.

[idspispopd]

Vevo would certainly take a hit, but it won't be their end.

I think a competitor could do more with vevo than the commoditising approach of youtube.

Imagine if vevo were incorporated into facebook for example. It would be a larger audience with highly targeted ad & opportunity to sell network.

[confluence]

It would - the artists would either start their own channels or others would fill the void (YouTube has insane numbers of uploads a day). Artists care more for exposure (and converting views to sales) than they care about VEVO.

VEVO's hold is tenuous - they are no stronger than Freddie Wong/Corridor Digital/Smosh - they all rely on YouTube more than YouTube relies on them for traffic flow (nowadays anyway) - there's always someone there ready to fill audience needs if they went off YouTube.

[idspispopd]

Media distribution rights are held by the studio, the artist can continue to produce other content that their contract allows for(many have active twitter accounts/facebooks & behind the scenes clips.)

The music video clips in question are exclusive to the studio for the contracted period, and it's this which vevo are willing to shop around. It's an exclusive product without substitution. I'm yet to find a convincing argument that a consumer will be satisfied with a home remixed version with custom graphics when they're looking for the original clip. (Or rather that they'd choose such a clip when the original is available elsewhere for free.)

As for unlicensed copies, youtube's own system is very good at taking down illegitimate versions. Additionally the studios are lighting fast with DMCA take down notices (within hours) for clips that sneak past one way or another. The system is geared heavily to copyright holders, automatically denying clips that would normally construe as 'fair use' in the USA.

I won't comment on traffic flow, since that's not publicly revealed, however it is reported to be youtube's most watched "channel", that on its own indicates that the traffic result is not due to a unique "youtube experience", but rather the result of being the only place online where the videos can be viewed for free.

This is something Vevo can shop around, I suppose what I'm conveying here is that ultimately they don't need youtube. Youtube to vevo is a commodity video service, it's network was once unique, but now other sites could handle the level of traffic that the catalogue would generate. In another thread I've listed simple examples where it could be better leveraged, possibly producing a better outcome for the studio than what youtube provides.