I say they're living on a different planet.
I haven't read the full report, 2009 TMT Predictions, but in the online summary, Deloitte says
"most customers [of video sharing sites] acknowledge that free lunches are unsustainable. Those that really want to post their content are likely to pay, and may even be willing to pay more for premium services."
What "customers" have they been talking to? Are those the ones that are downloading pirated music and videos for free? Are they talking about young people that don't have their own credit card yet?
I'm sorry Deloitte but just because there's a big cost to hosting all this content, doesn't mean those who upload it are ready to pay. And just because YouTube and others have a problem directing the advertising overlays to match the video content doesn't mean they won't solve the problem or find a different business model.
Given the success of Hulu in generating more advertising revenue than YouTube because of its premium content, I'd say it was more likely that YouTube will start screening more ad-supported TV shows and movies and cross-subsidize the user-generated clips.
Given the report's other prediction that "markets [will get] anti-social with social networks" it sounds to me like this report was written by an accountant with a wish list.
Its certainly becoming an issue for many content providers, particularly popular ones, that they need some way to earn back on the money they spend putting content online. The likes of Stephen Fry, now seems to hope to make some of that cash back through selling special t-shirts and other merch.
I don't have a readership of hundreds of thousands, but I spend a fair bit every year in server fees and so on, and need to find a sustainable way of offsetting my web costs. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop providing it for free. Though if I thought people would pay for it, maybe I'd consider charging something.
Posted by: Robert J.E. Simpson | March 18, 2009 at 05:03 AM
Oh of course I'd like to see content providers earn money on their content. But here I'm talking about the "distributor" of that (video) content - the video sharing sites like YouTube and others where anyone is able to upload for free.
I believe that if any of the video sharing sites start charging for uploads then someone will find a workaround that keeps it free.
Posted by: Zen Films | March 18, 2009 at 06:37 AM
Looks like Cisco didn't agree with Deloitte's analysis either: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/19/its-official-cisco-buys-pure-figital-flip-video-for-590-million/
Posted by: Zen Films | March 19, 2009 at 10:32 AM