Youtube Time to Start Charging Users Case Study

Youtube Time to Start Charging Users - Case Study Example The move was experimental; first it offered five movies to help promote the Sundance Film Festival at a price of $3.99 for a 48 hour-viewing period. Under this plan, YouTube hoped to later allow producers to come up with their own prices to charge users (Elberse and Gupta). This was very much in line with the second revenue generation strategy fronted by Munster. The strategy sought to charge users for viewership similar to the way iTunes are operated, on subscription basis. However, like every new move, this strategy was laden with uncertainties mainly based on the users’ response to paying for a service that was initially free. Furthermore, such a move would need to come up with the category of users and content that would be charged. This is in line with the fact that not all material in YouTube would constitute value for money, a factor that would prompt YouTube to reevaluate its content (Hartley, Jean and Axel 410). Under this consideration, YouTube would have to establis h a completely new relationship with content owners who in this case would upload material based on commercial viability. In summary, getting this strategy to work would require decisions touching on users’ categories, content, and payment channels. The other strategy in monetizing YouTube’s content is charging users for uploading videos. Charging users to upload their videos would provide the resources required to meet he assortment of costs that come with running and maintaining YouTube. These costs which include cost of bandwidth, site maintenance, and storage costs represent a significant part of YouTube’s cost outlay, if this cost is offset fully or partly by users, YouTube would record significant profits (Elberse and...This is if the number of viewership and users are to be considered from a business perspective. At the moment, given the YouTube’s popularity three viable options have been considered as potential sources of YouTube’s revenues. The three are; a hybrid model where YouTube charges a portion of its users to upload their videos, charge users for downloading movies and lastly continue with the current strategy of depending on advertisement generated revenues. YouTube would have to establish a completely new relationship with content owners who in this case would upload material based on commercial viability. In summary, getting this strategy to work would require decisions touching on users’ categories, content, and payment channels. To augment their ad dollars, YouTube needs to constitute an able sales force as opposed to the current Google’s seller’s products. The other change YouTube has to enforce is shifting focus to sell individual shows and networks as opposed to the current focus on broad â€Å"audience† buys. These changes have been highlighted by YouTube programmers and very much represent the key changes likely to turnaround YouTube’s fortune. In conclusion, the best strategy remains focusing on advertisement revenue. This presents fewer risks and has great potential as well. This is given the fact that lesser entities have been able to augment their ad money and now generate much more revenue that YouTube. This underlines the fact that it is not the business that has a problem but the approach and the adopted model.

National and International Oil Companies Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

National and International Oil Companies - Essay Example The formation of joint ventures to explore oil has always defied all odds because the partnerships are formed across boundaries despite the parties coming from a different geo-political background. For instance, it was quite astonishing that BP formed a joint venture with the Rosneft, a Kremlin based Oil Company (Chzan, 2013). The joint venture was formed to explore the complex oil reserves of Russia thus there was a chance for BP to renew its investments in Russia despite the Sanctions that Moscow had been facing from the West. The joint venture was formed despite the sanctions against the annexation of Crimea but the CEO of BP, Bod Dudley, maintained that the sanctions could not affect investments (BBC NEWS, 2011). Therefore, the two oil giants teamed up to explore resource in central Russia. According to the provisions of the terms of the joint venture, BP was supposed to own 49% of the joint venture while Rosneft was to own 51%. In this case, there was a 4.9 billion share between the two companies (Chzan, 2013). The joint venture is a collaboration between an international private oil company and a national oil company (Brinded, 2010). BP stands in the history as a major oil explorer worldwide whose ownership was privatised or acquired from the government and since then, it has seen tremendous growth in different areas in the world. On the contrary, Rosneft is a Russian National Oil Company and has also been a major player in oil exploration. There are increasing concerns over the fast depleting oil reserves.