Hulu beating out YouTube in the video monetization?
Why are we so willing to pay for video advertising on Hulu, but not YouTube?
I never expected Hulu to work out, but according to ReadWriteWeb's review of a recent report from LiveRail, it may actually be doing better than YouTube in terms of online video monetization.
Why? Because Hulu is apparently able to sell ads against 100 percent of its video inventory, while YouTube is struggling to hit 3 percent. User-generated video content, it would appear, is not nearly as lucrative as selling advertising against professionally-generated video content....
Hulu has better content, and higher quality of video, even though it has far less overall content. According to LiveRail, Hulu hosts 88 million videos, compared to YouTube's 4.2 billion. When I want a Saturday Night Live sketch, however, I find it on Hulu, not YouTube (at least, not for long on YouTube).
Less content, but better, seems to pay, at least in the video world.
Even so, is it just a matter of time until higher bandwidth commoditizes video, as well, to the point that it will be as "worthless" as text? Maybe. At that point, it would make a lot of sense to bundle in pricing for video with my monthly ISP subscription. I'm happy to pay. I just don't want to have to think about it. Make online video payment as easy as paying my cable subscription.