Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Shares Ad Wealth With Videographers

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the shaking-it-up dept.


Rockgod writes to let us know that Google has begun sharing advertising revenue with the makers of a popular video clip. From the article: "[This] is a groundbreaking deal that could drive up the costs of competing in the fledgling video-sharing sector. The search company has agreed to turn over most advertising revenue generated by the latest video from Fritz Grobe and Stephen Voltz, creators of 'The Diet Coke & Mentos Experiment,' according to Peter Chane, a senior product manager for Google Video."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frist (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16663509)

prost.. i love niggers

Breaking News (0, Offtopic)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16663517)

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Julianna Rose Mauriello, the actress who played Stephanie on the television show "Lazytown" was found dead in her New York home this morning. There were not any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss her - even if you did not enjoy her work, there is no denying her contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Breaking News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16664543)

May I be the first to say that she will always stay in my memories...covered in hot grits!

(got to remember that PA button)

Re:Breaking News (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16665355)

Hey NostrilDumbass, fuck American "culture".

Good on them! (1)

celardore (844933) | more than 7 years ago | (#16663521)

Their new video [] is awesome. So much time must have gone into creating the videos, they deserve a bit of coin for their efforts.

Re:Good on them! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16663959)

Perhaps it would make more sense to link to google video, since they might hold up a bit longer to the /. effect.

shockwave player link []

Re:Good on them! (1)

diersing (679767) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664051)

Thank you

Re:Good on them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16664197)

Meh, the link was broken anyway.

Re:Good on them! (1)

hurting now (967633) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664841)

Thank you for the correct link!!! Now I need to go clean up my desk... in a moment of stupidity, I decided that dropping a mentos into my diet coke would be funny....... Damn.

Re:Good on them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16664713)

There are simpler and less wasteful ways of creating a fountain. Once you know what happens when Mentos meets Diet Coke, the umpteenth iteration isn't really worth it. If David Blaine vows to have Mentos-induced Diet Coke fountains rain on his head for one week straight, then perhaps this fad will die (please).

I love U.M. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16663527)

Everyone, I love U.M.

Thank you and goodbye.

BTW... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16664015)

He's probably talking about "Ultra Masturbation".

He's probably doing it now as he's reading /.

Re:BTW... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16664585)

who isn't?

Re:I love U.M. (0, Troll)

RiotXIX (230569) | more than 7 years ago | (#16667709)

//This is a not a troll
wait - not yet. Imagine: 10,004 cocks of slashdotters ejaculating 25 litres into the air at once, like the fountains of hope & prosperity. You'll get money for it.
} // ok, maybe this part.
Behold, this [] the vision of CowboyNeal to get you & other fellows motivated. 10,004 people HERE could get on Slashdot.

Thanks for the competition! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16663549)

Hopefully we'll see less crap on YouTube//Google Video.

Brilliant... (2, Insightful)

sirgallihad (846850) | more than 7 years ago | (#16663615)

Congrats google, you've set the stage for a new era in digital video on the web. If the creators have the monetary incentive to produce their film, then there's a good chance that they start producing higher quality videos more often. Now, we just have to ask ourselves, why didn't youtube think of this in the first place?!?

Re:Brilliant... (4, Insightful)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16663689)

almost... but you made one crucial error; "there's a good chance that they start producing higher quality videos more often"

Elephant Dreams did ok, a full length film made in that way could do really well and could make a little money, but it won't get as many hits as someone just making a really cheap video of themselves lighting a fart (...if anyone has a video of this, do post a link), not to mention the fact that I could make about 3000 of the really low quality type videos in the time really talented people could make another ED.
What I'm trying to say is that I think this will lead to more really low quality videos which try and caputre a "funny" moment and then just send out thousands of links to it

Re:Brilliant... (2, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#16663827)

I doubt that Google is too down with the idea of hosting a full-length film released in 1080p. A multi-gig viral video of sorts (or even not that viral, but something not distributed via Bit-torrent) is basically about the same as slashdotting a server running a P1 with a 56k connection. Call it a PII on a T1 in Google's case.

That said, even funny viral videos tend to lose their humor when it's been converted to such low-bitrate flash that you can't even make out the above mentioned anal explosion. I certainly agree that we're more likely to see more of this kind of content - you can hit that long tail niche-y stuff with the short clips that full-length stuff simply can't do, regardless of how well it was made.

Re:Brilliant... (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664091)

What I'm trying to say is that I think this will lead to more really low quality videos which try and caputre a "funny" moment and then just send out thousands of links to it

That could be fixed by a simple Review board, videos could be selected to send to the Board by something akin to Slashdot's moderation system with emphasis given to meta-moderation by the board to downgrade the value of those who vote for 'fart lighting' videos.

Re:Brilliant... (1)

bogjobber (880402) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664397)

Is this really an either/or proposition? Right now most of the videos on youtube are crap, but there is some really good stuff (granted they are few and far between). The same crappy videos will be getting lots of views, but now there will be the incentive for people to put forth the effort towards making really high quality stuff (in addition to the shit). In the worst case scenario most of the videos will still be awkward-looking people embarrassing themselves, so from my standpoint it's a good move.

Re:Brilliant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16664441)

Also, it's not hard to at least briefly rack up a ton of hits with a misleading title and a suggestive thumbnail image, even if it gets nothing but 1-star ratings and everyone ignores it the next day.

Re:Brilliant... (1)

kthejoker (931838) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664781)

But there is a happy medium out there, and people will flock to the next level up.

For less than $10,000, you could have a high-quality, professional 1080p HD camera with great lenses, a nice professional lighting setup, a sound mixer, wireless microhpones, a high-quality editing bay, some good software, and one of those fancy French berets directors used to wear. And of course, if you know how to cut corners (or are willing to sacrifice some quality), that number could easily move down to $5 - $6,000.

You could shoot a high-quality 5 to 10 minute video in 3 days on a very limited budget. Edit it, do some post production, compose some music, and put one out every week.

If you could pull in even $500 a week in ad revenue for each video from GooTube (or whoever), that's $25K a year (minus your initial investment) to do something really fun, creative, and be your own boss.

My wife works in the film industry. She's 24, she mostly does low-budget production work (commercials, film festival projects, etc) and she pulls in maybe $1200 a month (I've got the steady gig.) When times are thin, if she could go out, shoot a film, put it on GooTube, and pull down ad revenue for it - even $50 - that'd be a nice night out for the two of us.

I think every 20something filmmaker should jump on this as an opportunity to be creative, independent, and really make a name for themselves now. All of this stuff would be great on a production reel when applying for other jobs or trying to break into the larger industry scene.

Re:Brilliant... (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 7 years ago | (#16665609)

In my own self whoredom, I was thinking of doing a series of very short (maybe 30 second) sketches that would be posted to Youtube/ Google video , featuring a character I produced for a project back in Uni. I'd tag it with my multimedia design company's logo and website address in order to attract business.

Here's a pic of my character [] , I'd add a couple of more guys like him and start to come up with some scripts. I was thinking of making JimBob (the guy in the pic) really clean cut, and having two other toys who get him into trouble...... or maybe it'd be him and a female toy talking about 'relationship' stuff, and try and make .... anyway I think it could be funny. It'd also be nice to get ad. revenue from a venture like that :D

Re:Brilliant... (1)

noname4444 (972861) | more than 7 years ago | (#16663749)

Did you not read the numerous Slashdot articles where people were wondering how YouTube was paying for it's bandwidth? YouTube didn't have a revenue stream before now. The real question is why didn't Google's competitors who had more money than YouTube do this as an incentive with their own video websites...

Re:Brilliant... (1)

MorderVonAllem (931645) | more than 7 years ago | (#16663783)

"Congrats google, you've set the stage for a new era in digital video on the web" um...this has already existed, it's called Revver

Re:Brilliant... (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#16663941)

> "Congrats google, you've set the stage for a new era in digital video on
> the web" um...this has already existed, it's called Revver's not about doing stuff first, it's about marketing - making it noticable and available to the general public. Who the hells has heard of Revver?

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats"
-Howard Aiken

Re:Brilliant... (1)

MorderVonAllem (931645) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664071)

you probably haven't but it is very popular. tons of really good video shows are on it...ask a ninja for one

Re:Brilliant... (1)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664195)

If the creators have the monetary incentive to produce their film, then there's a good chance that they start producing higher quality videos more often.

Not only that, they'll be likely to limit the content to Google, whose massive advertiser base is likely to generate more income than all the YouTube knockoffs that have popped up.

...why didn't youtube think of this in the first place?!

Because YouTube never had any interest in turning a profit, only in being bought out a larger, less agile companies that was not willing to take the risks that YouTube was.

Re:Brilliant... (1)

lilfields (961485) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664681)

I predicted this a long time ago, even before the YouTube purchase, it only makes sense. Google launches Video Ads a few quarters back, Google Video is moved to the home page of Google. Google purchases YouTube for a large sum of money, Google has to "figure out" how to make advertisements less intrusive. Well this is a no brainer; Google introduces an adsense for video of sorts, even if there are no video advertisements (videos tied to textual ads can work too). Now even if the advertisements are somewhat intrusive, video uploaders still have an incentive to continue to come upload videos; as well as make their videos more competitive (better) to improve revenue. Naturally, because all the "good" videos are on the Google networks (Google Video/YouTube) they receive more viewers. The same idea applies to television, most (you never know) viewers don't pick their favorite networks based off of advertisements, but rather content. Google is in a win-win situation, Google has a huge advertising network and as their quarterly results have shown us, it isn't slowing in growth. Google has a lot of influences on the media companies, so we won't see a lot of lawsuits. Why would you sue a company whose network you advertise on, or makes up a significant portion of you site traffic? Google also owns large stakes in Time Warner...Google as a company knows what it's doing...

Re:Brilliant... (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#16666475)

Indeed, for all the (justified) naysaying about the youtube deal, what some people forget is that Google may possibly now own the central TV distribution channel of the future. Putting economic incentive to create content for it is just another step for them down this path.

If Google's bet pays off eventually, they're in for another big pay day in the future.

Re:Brilliant... (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16670671)

New era in video is... advertising?

New Precedent (1)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#16663633)

Now that this precedent has been set, every idiot with a camera is going to make even more crappy videos hoping to be noticed by Google and the like and cash in.

Re:New Precedent (1)

JymmyZ (655273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16663743)

And surely a few diamonds will be found among the huge pile of crap that gets submitted. And it'll give kids something better to do than sit on a WoW server every day.

Re:New Precedent (1)

thewils (463314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664279)

Not necessarily...

Check out Naked Britney []

I'm sure you get the picture.

The problem with this (3, Interesting)

HarryCaul (25943) | more than 7 years ago | (#16663681)

In the numerous other places it's been tried (google is far from the first here), is that there's nothing stopping 500 people from uploading the same popular video.

Then Google gets to become arbitrator and try to pin down who the video really belongs to.

This should be fun.

Another problem. (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 7 years ago | (#16663797)

Who negotiated with The Coca-Cola Company and Perfetti Van Melle Corporation?

Re:The problem with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16663835)

yeah, because it's nearly impossible to detect duplicate videos with a computer.

seriously, if you can program a computer to recognize a coke can, it's not too much more difficult to recognize the same kid lighting fireworks out of his ass. in fact, it's probably easier.

How well does google filter duplicate results now? (1)

HarryCaul (25943) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664525)

Yeah, about that well.

Plus, telling you who was first doesn't tell you who owns it...

Re:The problem with this (1)

symes (835608) | more than 7 years ago | (#16665217)

But! We could see a whole of talented animators start putting some really neat little pieces on YouTube - there's a hole bunch of them who have to rely on funny little small art council grants to keep ticking over. This could spark a renaissance in short films - YouTube doesn't have to be all about spotty teenagers lighting farts!

MPAA? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#16663735)

I bet the Motion Picture industry will be thrilled with this one. Someone other than them getting paid for creating video content, and now it's not copyrighted material that *they* own. Though it'll be interesting to see how, if at all, this affects the EULA for google video with regards to your copyright or possible release of it.

Re:MPAA? (1)

suggsjc (726146) | more than 7 years ago | (#16665641)

Simple answer for the MPAA. Start patenting plots and situational humor. Then whenever people produce this non-sense content they can come after them with lawyers...that will keep them at bay.

As sarcastic as I was trying to seem, I bet there is probably someone sitting there, that is a *great idea.

you 5fAil it! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16663763)

Whoa! (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16663777)

Time to get those Rob and Kath honeymoon vids up on Google Video! =)

"uh! uh! uh! uh! uh! uh! UH! UH! UH! UH! UHHHHH!! AAAAHHHHH!!"

"Oh that was awesome, Babe!"

"Uhhhhhh huhhh huh-uhhhhhh..."

"So many cool electronic gadgets and anime vids in one place, at such prices! Thanks for carrying them up the stairs, Babe."

Re:Whoa! (1)

Gracenotes (1001843) | more than 7 years ago | (#16666851)

I don't think that you realize the full import [] of that comment.

Of course, Rob did submit the same story, but apparently it was rejected corporate sponsorship. Oh, that the world would be modeled after Slashdot!

Firqst?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16663803)

Niggers everywhere can no longer be we al know,

Missing the real story! (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16663837)

Okay - on one hand we have a bit of commercial news that Google are starting to share revenue. Interesting, I'm sure, but not groundbreaking. I expect a few more changes in the online video market in the next 3-5 years.

On the other hand, we have a couple of geeks who set up a cascade of diet-coke fountains and made a video from it! This is Slashdot! It's meant to be "news for nerds, stuff that matters"! What could be more important than violent chemical reactions?

Re:Missing the real story! (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16667205)

What could be more important than violent chemical reactions?

Physical reactions, involving members of the opposite sex.

Re:Missing the real story! (1)

iwsnet (946715) | more than 7 years ago | (#16669071)

Google is sharing ad revenue with lots of sites through its Adsense program. It's a reason why they are on top. They are willing to share in the success with other sites so both have a vested interest in succeeding.

Re:Missing the real story! (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16669943)

Yes. As the article says? What's your point, and why is it more interesting than mixing Diet Coke and Mentos?

Re:Missing the real story! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16672771)

While the Diet Coke and Mentos experiment is "For Nerds" and "Stuff that Matters", it's not exactly news: It's at least 6 months old. (Not that this usually stops Slashdot, of course.)

The real story is the recent stealth censoring. (1)

forgotten_my_nick (802929) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664221)

My story was rejected earlier but this apppears to be real story and this story is somewhat tied into it.

A lot of the more Famous YT'ers have been getting revenue for thier work from various places. One of those a vlogger called littleloca.

In a recent video [] littleloca was complaining that too many people where cheating and pushing her down off the popular pages (most viewed/most discussed/etc).

Another vlogger posted a video [] about how littleloca herself had cheated for some time and was still cheating. In fact she got money for cheating.

Now the proof video appeared in top rated videos and then suddenly disappeared. If you check the stats it should still be visible but isn't. A large number of similar "cheater!" videos also disappeared.

If you subscribe to the director of the accusation video and check the subscriptions you will see that the video has been flagged by YouTube in such a way that it never shows up in your subscriptions either unless you directly click on the directors name.

It appears that youtube are doing this to a large number of videos to hide any videos that may put YouTube in a bad light from appearing. But it is done in such a way that you would obviously notice it.

Basically, another form of clickfraud and poor way to hush it up. I am surprised google haven't done anything about it.

I wonder (1)

c0reboarder (885528) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664251)

There are definitely a few problems I can see with this, that have already been pointed out. And of course this is really cool for people making new content from their home (which has already been pointed out). But I wonder what affect this will have on the media industry. Will media that's previously been forced off the site by the copyright owner now be posted to the site by the copyright owner? Does this mean Comedy Central will post clips of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report now that they can make money from it? If Google works out the potential problems, this could be really cool.

Colbert to get his wish? (1)

Ligur (453963) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664285)

Looks like Stephen Colbert wasn't so far off [] after all!

Student Filmmakers (1)

Darthmalt (775250) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664407)

This also creates an incentive for amateur/student/independent filmmakers to host their films on youtube.
Prior to this my film group has been holding out and hosting the videos ourselves because of the crappy quality of the flash videos. But with this we might actually be able to make some money so our next film could have a budget. As of now everything comes out of our pockets. We just made a tv pilot on ten dollars.

/Shameless plug for said tv comedy about a new AD's first day at a tv station.
Affiliated []
//not a youtube link and not a rip of anchorman

Re:Student Filmmakers (1)

Unknown_monkey (938642) | more than 7 years ago | (#16666959)

try putting up something besides embedded WMV. It doesn't play well with others.

Re:Student Filmmakers (1)

Unknown_monkey (938642) | more than 7 years ago | (#16667133)

Add a shower scene
Remove the odd camera angle coffee mug shot
what's with all the "sweetie", is that the only way of addressing anyone you all know?
Connie Chung was from China. Not Japan. And Buddha?
Well, I've given you enough help, and there is still no shower scene yet. Sorry but this is obviously written by people that haven't had real jobs yet so your people speak like amateur actors. I'd recommend watching more TV and get some volunteers that have been around other people besides drama geeks. At least Andrea is cute and the Okinawa chick too.

Re:Student Filmmakers (1)

Darthmalt (775250) | more than 7 years ago | (#16669587)

Thanks for the comments to the parent post we are working under strict file size limitations. We are way over our allotted amount of space on the school server and wmv give us the best file size to quality. I'm trying to find a way to use quicktime as it looks a lot better but I can't get the filesize down far enough. The Connie Chung and Buddha were deliberate mistakes. As for the acting, you work with what is available and willing and the drama geeks overactors that they are fit the over the top roles we are aiming for. And I have to agree with you about the coffee mug shot but I'm the editor not the director or the cinematographer so I can only work with what I'm given.

MythBusters (1)

BoySetsFire (178757) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664751)

didn't MythBusters do the coke/mentos thing like a year ago?

Filmmaking is like bartending (1)

HarryCaul (25943) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664965)

Or life with a MBA.

It's 95% how your present it, not what it is...

Re:MythBusters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16665189)

Not sure. But when I grew up (in Denmark) we did Coca Cola and Icecream. Same effect.

Re:MythBusters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16665343)

After the videos first surfaced.

Could this mean a reduction in ad-spam models? (1)

Frankinmerth (869698) | more than 7 years ago | (#16664815)

A lot of great content providers host their own data so that they can milk the advertising potential of it. Once it gets out on youtube it is out of their hands. Now Google is certainly dominant in the ad market, so in reality they would have been paying money out to the people who didn't want their data on google-video (now youtube). This is a very clever way to change the model with which money changes hands (same bottom line for google?) and yet place the content in their portal (in this case youtube). Seems like common sense to me! Perhaps a wealth sharing venture with a database as popular as youtube will wind up having a profound impact on the web-enabled income models and ad-sense type programs of today. Take the advertising burden back off of the individual, reduce overal complexity and maintanence costs of rolling out these models by saying 'listen, just put it on youtube and you still get paid'. Will popular web sites bite and give up their golden eggs? This would certainly serve to reduce WWW bloat and overhead, but also puts all the cards in fewer hands (aka the conventional media tycoons of today). Neil Stephenson's Library of Congress? Really good, or really bad? Tough call!

Groundbreaking my ass.... (1)

z-kungfu (255628) | more than 7 years ago | (#16665285) has been doing this for a while now. They're just jumping on the bandwagon....

Re:Groundbreaking my ass.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16666905)

I agree with you that it's not groundbreaking, but Lulu.TV is not a good analogy because they make you pay them first ($14) before you can get paid. is a better analogy.

Wha? (1)

denix0 (949825) | more than 7 years ago | (#16665927)

Without RTFA it is absolutelly impossible to figure out what the Slashdot post is about - what video, whom does Google pay, what for... Citing first 2 sentences from the original article does not make it a good post. This is not how news description should look like.

Porn advertisements... (1)

SirKron (112214) | more than 7 years ago | (#16666079)

will show up. They will not break the terms of service and the owners will want to get paid for advertising themselves.

Two Words, "Smart Pricing" (1)

eathan13 (765756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16666917)

I wonder if Google will apply their smart pricing technology to the ads they display, or are AdSense publishers special in that regard.

Is video traffic any more likely to convert...?

Conspiracy Theories (1)

sadler121 (735320) | more than 7 years ago | (#16668165)

So how much money has loose change and alex jones made?

Re:Conspiracy Theories (1)

eathan13 (765756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16669713)

So I shouldn't point out that it's spelled "grammar" then...? ;)

Re:Conspiracy Theories (1)

Zwaxy (447665) | more than 7 years ago | (#16670527)

No, and you also shouldn't mention that Slashdot should be capitalized, or that nazis doesn't have an apostrophe.

Re:Conspiracy Theories (1)

eathan13 (765756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16673477)

Thank you for clearing that up. Guess I'll pass on mentioning that "It's" could use a lower case "i" as well...

Overrated (1)

CarlHungus (887065) | more than 7 years ago | (#16668317)

'The Diet Coke & Mentos Experiment' video was such a disappointment. I was expecting him to eat the mentos, down the DC and then start jumping up and down. I'm not sure which advertisers would wish to be associated with that though...

video site already shares profits with creators (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671491)

Theres already a video site that pays content creators, called revver

check out
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>