“Hello, I am an analyst. I work at a bank. Credit Suisse to be exact. And I say that Google paid too much for YouTube and that they are losing money on it and they probably regret buying it in the first place.”
Actually, I am not sure whether ‘analyst‘ is a proper job at all. I mean, what does an analyst do? He/she looks at data and tries to make sense of it. Isn’t that what each and everyone does everyday all the time? It’s not like you guys are any good at it. Especially the ones at banks. I know I’ve made the point of how you ran the world into a financial crisis several times already, but it’s such a fun point to make over and over. You get to take home big unearned bonuses that come out of our pockets and in return we get to make fun you. I’ve paid for the right to call you all idiots.
YouTube = possibilities
People who work at banks by definition cannot know a thing about how fun stuff works. If you had a clue of what ‘fun’ or ‘cool’ or ‘social’ is, you wouldn’t be working at a bank. Pure, simple yet elegant reasoning. So bankers should show some modesty when claiming to know stuff about fun, cool, social media such as YouTube. Not that YouTube is my cup of tea, but still. YouTube is one of the biggest brand names online. For millions of people it’s not a destination to surf to when you’re online, it’s the reason they’re online in the first place. It’s one of the first things people think of when they think of the internet. Even if YouTube can never make money as an independent website, it will be of great value to the owner who can afford it and can make good use of the all the possibilities YouTube offers. An owner like Google.
New media gurus… like all gurus
Much like bankers by definition cannot know a thing about fun and cool, there is also a group of people at the complete other end of the spectrum. They are a weird bunch, shouting stuff like ‘the future is already here’ (shouting in this case, means twittering with Caps Lock on.). These new media gurus claim that the old media are already dead, since the internet is taking over with such speed that all newspapers, magazines and tv stations are already obsolete. We’ve heard these stories for many, many years now and nothing much has changed… except that those old media are getting better and better at designing business models that make use of those new media as extras. The computer screen is not replacing the television screen as predicted by the NMG’s. Television screen are adding features that are interesting for tv watching audiences. The revolution led by the computer is losing to the evolution of the television.
@ great eSpeed?
And at great speed? Mehh. YouTube is celebrating the fact that 7 billion clips have been watched in 2010. Which sounds like a lot. Say the average clip is 3 minutes, that would make it 21 billion minutes spent on YouTube. Which sound like even more. But if we do a bit of conservative calculus with very limited input from Dutch television. we get the following.
On a typical sunday evening 3.5 million watch the 1st, 2nd and 3rd most watched shows. These last approximately 55 minutes each. This evenings take place 52 times a year. Sunday evenings are good television evenings, so the other evenings (6) would draw only 2/3 as large audiences for the top three shows. The top 3 shows account for 1/3rd of all viewers per night. how many
minutes of television watching would that make for the Netherlands alone?
That makes somewhere around 36 billion minutes, well over 1,5 times as many minutes as YouTube. Even if 10% of all those YouTube minutes were by Dutch people, YouTube wouldn’t be a significant player in the Dutch media landscape yet. And they took well over five years to get into this position. It took RTL less than a year to do a whole lot better.
I know all this is comparing apples with pears, but I think it’s good to put things in context. YouTube won’t kill tv, Twitter won’t kill newspapers, WordPress won’t kill magazines. And no one should ever take anyone who calls him/herself analyst at a bank seriously.