Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I have to agree here on cost...broadcast television effectively gets its bandwidth for free. Then again, with peering deals, Google is probably getting it for pretty close to free.

What changes is the competitive landscape--when there are a billion videos to choose from, as opposed to 20 or 50 or even 100 found on broadcast or cable or satellite, the eyeballs on any one drop. Obviously the aggregator is the natural place to sell the ads (bully for Google), but the ability to focus efforts on "blockbuster" shows is a bit different. I worked in television for several years right out of college, and blockbusters are a major part of the operating budget of a TV station because it's a limited commodity--if you want to advertise during Lost, you've only got one company to buy from and there's only a couple dozen slots for sale. Cheaper spots are actually often more effective (since you can run them a lot more and get a single viewer to see your ad multiple times), but there's still magical thinking in TV advertising and advertisers like to reach the blockbuster audience. When the blockbuster no longer exists (as seems likely in a future of a billion+ possible videos), monetization will shake out differently. But advertising isn't going away, so something will happen and it'll all work out somehow.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: