So lets see. You pan eefoof because it doesnt have a CEO with name recognition and its model is revenue sharing based on ad revenue? As far as I can see the same "ownership" problems exist for LuluTV as for eefoof...
I may be wrong but I think this whole category is wrong-headed. The only successful business model I've seen is the one employed by RapidShare.de where you get a free one-month premium account if your video generates a certain number of downloads. Then you can sell those premium accounts on ebay for 1/2 or 1/4 what RapidShare.de charges the noobs. Of course RapidShare.de is a haven for pirates, rippers, and pornographers, but they don't seem to care..
Pete Cashmore
· 3 years ago
Jacob,
I'm "panning" everyone - neither of these sites is well executed.
Jacob Levy
· 3 years ago
I'd love to read your take on the silent elephant in the room, RapidShare.de :)
Its true that they dont support play-in-page, they are a download only service and no tagging or other 2.0 stuff, but that was my point really, you don't need it to be huge and successful.
Pete Cashmore
· 3 years ago
Jacob,
Sure, Rapidshare is doing great, but I'd need a newsworthy angle before I could post. You got one?
David G
· 3 years ago
The Amway business model comes to Web2.0 - it was only a matter of time.
Why is this so hard?
Surely the correct model here is to slap ads (rich graphics or video) onto the start and / or end of popular videos - making it a right of passage to produce a video "good enough" for advertising - then split ad rev's with the content producer - simple - what's with all this freekin' thrashing about with horrible business models?
nickgrowsontrees
· 1 year ago
AMEN!!! Someone please get a site like this started asap. A well done site like this would not only be the end of youtube, it would create new jobs for people around the world and be on top of a brand new digital video marketplace. All these sites are bogus trying to offer us points for gift cards and prizes. They're making money off our videos, the users should see profits!!!
Jeremy Hogan
· 3 years ago
Pete,
We've done another round on the UI, it's probably still ugly, but it should be easier to navigate if you care to take another glance.
--jeremy
Pete Cashmore
· 3 years ago
Jeremy,
Looking much better! But yes, still ugly. :)
Matt
· 2 years ago
LuLu TV Rocks! I have had much success with LuLu! You Tube just looks like a traffic jam of videos to me. LuLuTv is easiler to look at because it seems more personal with fewer content screaming at you in a thousand different boxes.
All Comments
I may be wrong but I think this whole category is wrong-headed. The only successful business model I've seen is the one employed by RapidShare.de where you get a free one-month premium account if your video generates a certain number of downloads. Then you can sell those premium accounts on ebay for 1/2 or 1/4 what RapidShare.de charges the noobs. Of course RapidShare.de is a haven for pirates, rippers, and pornographers, but they don't seem to care..
I'm "panning" everyone - neither of these sites is well executed.
Its true that they dont support play-in-page, they are a download only service and no tagging or other 2.0 stuff, but that was my point really, you don't need it to be huge and successful.
Sure, Rapidshare is doing great, but I'd need a newsworthy angle before I could post. You got one?
Why is this so hard?
Surely the correct model here is to slap ads (rich graphics or video) onto the start and / or end of popular videos - making it a right of passage to produce a video "good enough" for advertising - then split ad rev's with the content producer - simple - what's with all this freekin' thrashing about with horrible business models?
We've done another round on the UI, it's probably still ugly, but it should be easier to navigate if you care to take another glance.
--jeremy
Looking much better! But yes, still ugly. :)