When Google announced its plans to fund some 100 new channels of original programming on YouTube, many expected a transformation in television.
Google had disrupted other industries and TV appeared to be next in line. The YouTube channels were trumpeted as the next iteration in television: just as a handful of networks begat a few hundred cable channels, YouTube would now foster the birth of thousands of channels online.
The revolution has not yet been YouTubed.
A year later such a cultural sea change isn’t palpable, but YouTube is now doubling down on its investment. It recently expanded into Europe with another 50-plus channels. And now, YouTube is reinvesting in 40% of the channels that have already launched. That means more than half of the channels have failed to catch on.
For YouTube, success at this stage is measured less by view counts than by changing perception.
“What we’re trying to do is galvanize the creative and advertising community,” Robert Kyncl, YouTube’s global head of content and the leader of its channels initiative, said in an interview. “And we’re succeeding at that.”
Since it was founded in 2005, YouTube has been predominately the home of user-created video. But by putting out a welcome mat to Hollywood, the site is trying to lure viewers to stay for longer and coax advertisers to pair their brands with known talent.
Kyncl says the first year has been one of defining where YouTube’s channels fit into the media landscape.
“I feel we’re 300% smarter than we were in January,” he says.
YouTube has declined to make public the size of its investment. The initial channel launch was reportedly fueled by $100 million, a number YouTube executives dispute. Kyncl will go no further than to confirm the $200 million he pledged to spend marketing the channels at YouTube’s TV-style upfront presentation to advertisers in May—a flashy event capped by a performance by Jay-Z, who recently launched a lifestyle channel called Life and Times.
Jamie Byrne, director of content strategy, said the second round of funding would be relatively similar to that of the first round, on a per channel basis. Those not being offered more money aren’t cancelled; they are encouraged to keep going, but will have to pay their own way.
A simple glance at the site reveals how central the channels initiative is to YouTube. The fabric of the video behemoth—where 72 hours of video are uploaded every minute—has been reoriented to emphasize a user’s playlist of channels, a move that has increased channel subscribers by 50%, executives say. It may sound like a small tweak, but behind it is the mission to alter the very nature of YouTube.
“Up until now, the primary noun on YouTube has been video. You watch a video, you share a video, a video has view counts and so on,” said Shishir Mehrotra, director of product management at YouTube. “We’re gradually shifting the site so the primary noun on the site is the channel, and you tune into the channels that you care about.”
Perhaps the closest a YouTube channel has come to a mainstream viewing event was Red Bull’s October 14 webcast of daredevil Felix Baumgartner’s free-fall jump from space. Some 52 million watched the channel’s live stream, a viewership that far outpaced the 7.6 million who watched it on the Discovery Channel in the U.S.
Such breakthroughs have been seldom, though. Most programming has been more of the talk show variety. Rainn Wilson gets metaphysical on his channel Soul Pancake. Amy Poehler gives young women a role model with Smart Girls.
The most popular channels typically draw 5-10 million viewers weekly. Among the usual chart-toppers are Warner Sound, which features music videos and behind-the-scenes features on the label’s acts, WWE Fan Nation, Maker Studios (a sprawling digital network of hundreds of channels), and the gaming channel Machinima Prime.
Most channels, though, receive less than 100,000 views per week and some draw just a few thousand.
One advance in the YouTube viewing experience has been the launch of skippable ads, which now run on about 65% of videos. Mehrotra says this is more palatable to both viewers and advertisers, who only pay for ads that are watched.
“TV has generally made more money by showing more and more advertising,” says Mehrotra. “Our view is that we should actually show you fewer ads but make sure the ads are actually being seen.”
