Comments on: IDEA #9 – Pay-Per-Play Videos (PPPV): The YouTube Differentiator

By: Vasudev

Vasudev — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:10:38 +0000

Hi
Im working on the above site.It will contain news,blogs,foreum,jokes ans puzzles…Im lookin at a site monetization technique
Im based out of India

1.Is pay per play audio a good option?Does it work in India?Is it genuine?
2.How can I give my bloggers an option of earning through my website?

Lokking forward to your suggestions
Thanks
Vasudev

By: » 100+ Web Start-up Business Ideas - By Steve Poland - web startup ideas and brainstorms, straight up! (formerly Techquila Shots)

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:47:52 +0000

[...] IDEA #9 – Pay-Per-Play Videos (PPPV): The YouTube Differentiator [...]

By: Patrick Gardner

Patrick Gardner — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:59:09 +0000

hmm… net crack.

Don’t know about everyone else – but i’m guessing a saturated market isn’t a good one to be the first to start charging in.

metacafe, youtube, yahoo channels (is it still called that?), livevideo, stickam (yeah it’s a little different but similar still), revver… Lots of people all wanting to be the online video kings.

By: Graydon

Graydon — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 04:02:09 +0000

Sorry, one clarification… yes, I know that in the age of viral marketing, it is possible for a creator to get lots of exposure without going through a “channel” filter. But the majority of people still don’t get into social / tagging / whatever sites… but I believe they’ll go to a station that has multiple creator choices… more likely than they’ll go to Bob’s site and pay to watch his stuff.

By: Graydon

Graydon — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 03:56:11 +0000

That which has been given away for free… makes it harder to get paid for later…

Sorta like “Why’s he gonna buy the cow if the milk is free?”

But with that aside… yes, I think that people would pay something for content relevant / interesting / entertaining to them.

The challenge isn’t how to work the financials… selling videos in process (not technology) is the same as selling pictures online. Photographer uploads, people get to see, they like, they pay, they get a print or the hi-res file.

The $100 million question is how do you “lure” people into the paying model?

Leading / Bleeding edge types may go ahead and pay per episode of the current coolest thing and watch it on their ipod or have the setup and understanding to go from the computer to the living room tv…

But all of the other “normal” people have to be marketed to like crack addicts… start off with some great free stuff, hook them and then make it easy / cheap to get a fix… and then pile on the premium.

It’s a tight wire balancing act.

Take a look at America’s Test Kitchen by Cook’s Illustrated. They do a show on PBS (free sample) and they have the magazines (just pay a little to get some more fixes) and then there’s the subscription website (pay some more to get fixes whenever you want) and now they are launching the America’s Test Kitchen pay to view website (pay more to re-live those highs) where you can pay to watch what they put for free on PBS… and the crack addicts will follow. (despite their near spam like constant emailing about sales, but that’s for a different post).

OK, enough rambling… the point?

Providing JUST the service to enable a pay for video will be copied over and over… but provide the full support to content creators so that they can go from Drug Lord wanabe to full fledge Kingpin.. that will rock.

Now for some afterthoughts…
– the average joe / jan still needs an easy way to take the video from the PC to the TV.. Tivo has that I believe, but we’ll need the cable junkies to build it into their packaged deals (cable + highspeed).
– The service company that you desire needs to be able to be in the back office so that content publishers can build an online “channel”. I think people would be more willing to subscribe to a channel than to a show. The “channel” can build a following / trust by pre-filtering the crap out.

Ok, that’s it for now.