Internet steaming video giant You Tube will begin testing whether or not consumers will pay to rent streaming videos, according to USA Today.
The Web’s most popular video sharing site Friday will offer five films from the 2009 and 2010 Sundance Film Festival for a fee around $5 . It’s a way, YouTube says, to bring more exposure to independent films. But it’s also a test to see if viewers will pay for content, YouTube says.
YouTube product manager Sara Pollack says the program is a response to the problems facing independent filmmakers. Too many movies are getting produced, with few places to exhibit them. For instance, she says of the 9,000 films shown at Sundance last year, only 53 found some form of distribution.
“The online audience is getting bigger and bigger, but the ad-supported model doesn’t always fit the needs of filmmakers,” she says
The videos will cost in the $5 range to watch — but Pollack says the exact price will be set by the filmmaker. YouTube will split revenues, but will give the lion’s share to the filmmaker, she says.
The Sundance Festival opens Friday in Park City, Utah, where YouTube execs will be visiting and networking with filmmakers.
The five Sundance films:
- The Cove by Louie Psihoyo an underwater adventure about dolphin capturing in Japan.
- Bass Ackwards by Linas Phillips , an improvised road trip.
- One Too Many Mornings by Michael Mohan–the filmmakers describe it as a “coming of age comedy about two guys who are too old to be coming of age.”
- Homewrecker by Todd and Brad Barnes–a comedy about a locksmith.
- Children of Invention by Tze Chun–from 2009, about two orphans near Boston.
It was only a matter of time. There is so much copy infringement on YouTube the only way to keep the wrath of the MPAA at bay is to start locking it down with dollars. I expect this will be the beginning of a new iTunes style model that will impact all online content.
Time will tell.
I don't mind the idea of fees except I still believe they are missing the pricepoint. $5 per viewing is about 3-4 times more than I would be willing to pay for a one time viewing . . . and that's if I liked the offering.
A smarter way to go would be by subscription (a la Netflix), perhaps even based on total viewing time (i.e. $20/mo for 60hrs of viewing).
Of course, for me it would only work if I could stream it to my TV . . . I'm not likely to sit and watch a feature film (or TV show) on the PC.
Oh give them time.. this is just the first shot across the bow of free content. The demand will dictate price point.
Mike, tell me it would not make your life easier if every listener paid a quarter or 50 cents to listen to the episodes.
While I am as guilty as anyone in taking advantage of free content, tutorials, music, stories, etc. etc., fundamentally I don't think it's right. I may have missed it, but I cannot point to any other time in history where people habitually gave away their time (a portion of their lives) for nothing.
I can see the model of free content working as a way of introducing the consumer to what exactly they will get, but you are on your 250th show, and you have a loyal following (as well you should for the quality you put out). Do you think they would all give up on it if you started to charge a dime or quarter per episode?
I see that more of a problem with the collection of the fees than on people being unwilling to pay for what you provide. In that respect it may be easier to deal with a monthly or annual subscription.
Anyway, I digress . . . I'm willing to pay for stuff I like, just as I would like to charge for efforts I put forth. For me right now that's called a "job". It would be nice to make a living from writing or photography, but all the free content is hindering my chances of breaking through the noise.
Sure, if I were a unique talent I would break through anyway, but that's saying only a few people can make a living from their efforts, and all others have to provide it for free. As Pete said very eloquently . . . "That don't make no sense!"
That's it, I've spoken my piece and counted to three.