Who hasn't spent hours on YouTube checking out the latest videos? Were any of them music videos? Universal Music Group is hoping to take away a bit of that market stranglehold, and perhaps, actually make a profit while they're at it.
UMG is looking at a model similar to Hulu, that offers original programming from Universal's stable of artists, including Kanye West, Amy Winehouse, and The Killers. Hulu has full-length TV shows, movies, and other high-quality professional videos.
Why isn't UMG content to have their content only on YouTube, and what's the difference between YouTube and something that operates similarly to Hulu?
Universal, as would any label, wants to get more exposure for their artists in a professional and more 'polished' platform. Plus, what if they can make more money while they're at it?
YouTube is mostly non-professional videos. Advertisers would much rather be associated with professional, high-quality videos, than on the crap-shoot available on YouTube. It's been reported that Hulu sells ads within all its videos, while YouTube only gets revenue from 3% of its content.
YouTube would still play Universal content, but this just gives viewers another option. If advertisers want to foot the bill, Universal makes more money to keep making interesting music videos, and we get high-quality, professional made and uploaded videos, who would be foolish enough to complain? —Leslie Shapiro
Copyright © 2013 Bonnier Corp. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.