nice publicity in the NYTimes for .tv
Site Tempts Video Makers by Offering to Pay Them
By PETER WAYNER
If creators of homemade Internet video get tired of producing something for nothing, they can post their work on Lulu.tv.
The Web site, which lets people upload and watch video clips, said last week that it would begin charging a $14.95 monthly fee for a "pro" account and putting 80 percent of that money into a special fund. Each month the money will be distributed among the video creators, with the biggest share going to the person who attracted the most viewers.
Free accounts with fewer features will be available, but those users will not share in the revenues. To get the process moving, the company is priming the pot with $5,000.
Other video sites are trying different approaches to bringing in cash. YouTube, the most popular of the genre, has a deal with NBC to promote its new television shows on a special section of the site. Revver.com will share 50 percent of its advertising revenue with those who post videos there.
Bob Young, the chief executive of Lulu Enterprises who also started the open source software company Red Hat, said Lulu.tv was an experiment inspired by the traditional television broadcasting world, where the networks buy shows from producers, and shows succeed or fail based on the ratings.
"The problem with that model is that it's very capital-intensive and it's so limited," he said. "On the Internet, there's an infinite number of channels. There's no reason why there can't be several hundreds of different 'Friends'-like shows because the market is so vast."
Lulu Enterprises also runs a print-on-demand bookstore (www.lulu.com) that pays 80 percent royalties to authors after they pay a binding fee and small per-page charge. Authors are responsible for their own editing and publicity.
Mr. Young said he wanted to find the most efficient way to get money directly into the hands of the people who created the most interesting videos, while working to block people who inflated their ratings with fake clicks.
Fred Vanderpoel, a creator of television commercials based in Hawaii, has posted lyrical videos on Lulu.tv in his off hours, documenting a triathlon and people like the musician Calvin Keys. He said the promise of payment would be a welcome incentive. "I'm interested in anything that will make money," he said.
But he said he was not yet sold on setting up a pro account. "I don't know if I would spend money to make money," he said.
Jon Gibs, the director of media analytics at Nielsen/NetRatings, said he was enthusiastic about the Lulu experiment. "If this ends up being a successful model, they could quite easily be making money off of advertising, and even move to a subscription model if it's high quality," he said.
The pro accounts might also help cut down on the number of junk videos found on other sites, Mr. Gibs said.
There will not be any advertising on the initial version of Lulu.tv. For now, Mr. Young said, the model should be as simple as possible. "Like any experiment, if you try to do too many things at once, it's hard to study the feedback," he said. "The more focused the experiment, the easier it is to see what works."
Site Tempts Video Makers by Offering to Pay Them
By PETER WAYNER
If creators of homemade Internet video get tired of producing something for nothing, they can post their work on Lulu.tv.
The Web site, which lets people upload and watch video clips, said last week that it would begin charging a $14.95 monthly fee for a "pro" account and putting 80 percent of that money into a special fund. Each month the money will be distributed among the video creators, with the biggest share going to the person who attracted the most viewers.
Free accounts with fewer features will be available, but those users will not share in the revenues. To get the process moving, the company is priming the pot with $5,000.
Other video sites are trying different approaches to bringing in cash. YouTube, the most popular of the genre, has a deal with NBC to promote its new television shows on a special section of the site. Revver.com will share 50 percent of its advertising revenue with those who post videos there.
Bob Young, the chief executive of Lulu Enterprises who also started the open source software company Red Hat, said Lulu.tv was an experiment inspired by the traditional television broadcasting world, where the networks buy shows from producers, and shows succeed or fail based on the ratings.
"The problem with that model is that it's very capital-intensive and it's so limited," he said. "On the Internet, there's an infinite number of channels. There's no reason why there can't be several hundreds of different 'Friends'-like shows because the market is so vast."
Lulu Enterprises also runs a print-on-demand bookstore (www.lulu.com) that pays 80 percent royalties to authors after they pay a binding fee and small per-page charge. Authors are responsible for their own editing and publicity.
Mr. Young said he wanted to find the most efficient way to get money directly into the hands of the people who created the most interesting videos, while working to block people who inflated their ratings with fake clicks.
Fred Vanderpoel, a creator of television commercials based in Hawaii, has posted lyrical videos on Lulu.tv in his off hours, documenting a triathlon and people like the musician Calvin Keys. He said the promise of payment would be a welcome incentive. "I'm interested in anything that will make money," he said.
But he said he was not yet sold on setting up a pro account. "I don't know if I would spend money to make money," he said.
Jon Gibs, the director of media analytics at Nielsen/NetRatings, said he was enthusiastic about the Lulu experiment. "If this ends up being a successful model, they could quite easily be making money off of advertising, and even move to a subscription model if it's high quality," he said.
The pro accounts might also help cut down on the number of junk videos found on other sites, Mr. Gibs said.
There will not be any advertising on the initial version of Lulu.tv. For now, Mr. Young said, the model should be as simple as possible. "Like any experiment, if you try to do too many things at once, it's hard to study the feedback," he said. "The more focused the experiment, the easier it is to see what works."
