Will YouTube replace TV in 5-10 years in the US?
As YouTube came to power from 2005-7, the TV ad business was being slapped by the growth of DVR and beginning of VOD. It might not have mattered if there were still no alternative to TV ads-but now advertisers had the glimmer of a choice: they could start to, very slowly, move ad dollars online.
TV felt the fear of lost revenue, but had a massive buffer: the 80s and 90s explosion of subscription revenue.
Here's how that works, in brief:
- You pay a distributor (Comcast, DIRECTV, etc.) a monthly fee for TV service
- That distributor pays a piece of that fee to each network you receive
- For small networks like Nick 2, that fee might be two cents a month; at the top end, for ESPN, that fee might be $5.54 a month – currently over $70 per household per year (2013 license fees, per SNL Kagan)
YouTube hasn't gotten a limb into the subscription money sluice... until now. That's why it created YouTube Red. And while YouTube's total ad revenue has been climbing, its revenue per ad has been falling.
So what did YouTube do? They added more ads! Just like on TV.
Alas, there's a problem: the more ads people are forced to sit through, the more likely they are to install ad blockers.
So what do ad blockers remind us of? That's right...DVRs! Second verse, same as the first.
So in brief: YouTube, the engine so many predicted would decimate TV is now at the mercy of the same problems.
So as YouTube works to make Red worth paying for, what should they do?
They should study the last broadcast network team to re-invent the network.
For more information, go and visit SushiVid Blog
Yes and no.
YouTube is a very real threat to cable TV. You can't really beat the low price of "Free," and YouTube is not only free, but has a more steady stream of new content than Cable TV does. Thousands of videos are uploaded daily. Not all of them are very good, but quite a few are. I already know people who have given up cable TV because they only use YouTube anyway.
However, YouTube is not a replacement for cable TV. You can't just turn on YouTube and let it play in the background - you have to pick individual videos. Plus, YouTube is very obviously lacking AAA TV Shows. Some are available pay-per-view, but it's not really the same as watching it air on day 1, and it can be expensive in the long run.
I do not expect conventional TV to stop existing any time soon - however, I do expect sattelite and cable to be mostly replaced by internet TV within the next 15 years.
YouTube TV - YouTube launches its own streaming TV Service in U.S
YouTube TV offers Live TV streaming from more than 40 Live TV channels like ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, ESPN, regional sports networks and dozens of popular cable networks.
YouTube TV includes major sports networks like ESPN and regional sports networks like Fox Sports Networks and Comcast SportsNet, so you can watch your favorite NBA or MLB teams. YouTube TV has also partnered with local TV stations, so you'll also get sports and local news based on where you live.
With YouTube TV, you'll be able to record live TV and never run out of storage. Your cloud DVR can record as many shows as you want, simultaneously, without using precious data or space on your phone and YouTube TV will store each of your recordings for nine months.
You can watch YouTube TV on any screen-mobile, tablet or computer-and you can easily stream to your TV with a Google Chromecast or Chromecast built-in TV. YouTube TV works on both Android and iOS. And your cloud DVR goes with you, so you can stream your recordings on any device, whenever and wherever you want.
With a YouTube TV membership, you can watch all of our YouTube Red Original series and movies right on the new YouTube TV app.
Every YouTube TV membership comes with six accounts, each with its own unique recommendations and personal DVR with no storage limits. You can watch up to three concurrent streams at a time.
A YouTube TV membership will cost $35 a month and there are no commitments-you can cancel anytime.
YouTube TV will be available soon in the largest U.S. markets and will quickly expand to cover more cities.
OK to be true,consider an example,if the GDP of India could overtake China in next few years,sag 5 years than what would happen,China a major economy,an armed nation allied with other armed nation(much powerful than India),leading producer of different technology will soon collapse and remove it ts majority of investments and exportation from the countries who contribute towards th e growth of India,So now the real problem starts to those countries as India will prove to be a good ally to be on side but China would have done better and more resourceful(looking at current scenario),so maybe they will withdraw their support from India and India would definitely have to work on his own to get that position.
So in the above context consider India to be you tube and China to be t.v,and other countries as the Welcome to Caster Co.,LTD it becomes quite obvious that you tube has potential,it has got allies in form of channels but they are not fully reliable on them as channels get better coverage through t.v and also common man can afford t.v but not all can afford a net connection with a good working you tube(as in case of India).
So it might take time but yeah in near future not possible.
P.S-:No hard feelings for India on development,onlg used for c OK ntext.:)
YouTube will most likely become the go to source for watching content, even more so than now. I know my generation in particular has a strong relation to the popular website. As it stands however, YouTube is not a friendly environment to animators. An animator could spend months on a single video and make the same as someone who uploads daily. It's all about the views on YouTube, not necessarily the time it takes to make a video. One could imagine the financial strain such animators would face whilst using YouTube as their content host. This is why alot of animators left YouTube or moved onto other types of videos (I'm looking at you Arin Hanson, big fan by the way). This applies to other excessively time consuming endeavors as well, such as actual movies and TV series (like Spartacus for example). If YouTube can find a way to make time consuming projects worth it, TV is properly boned. Until then, cable TV is still a good source for entertainment that takes a long time to make. Then again, there's always Netflix.
No. YouTube lacks the coherence necessary to replace TV. And it's interesting to watch the online video folks attempt to shift to TV - their program sophistication is quite low and they have generally (with a few exceptions) failed.
At this point, incidentally, we are at a high point in hype about online video. That hype will begin to seriously abate in about 9 months (because we are already seeing the excellent analyses that precede the fading of a hyped tech-bauble).
My own critique is this: YouTube cannot replace TV because it lacks the economic power that TV delivers. And that power is from TV's ability to reach out. When we buy TV advertising, we are buying an audience and that advertising has power. With YouTube, we are beginning to be able to buy audiences - and are finding that the advertising has very little power. Oh, I know I'll get some complaints about this. But fundamentally, you can't achieve much with YouTube when compared with TV.