As soon as next month ("within 30-90 days,") YouTube will begin to experiment with carrying full-length films. The move has been long-rumored, and now, with it on the verge of becoming a reality, the questions are being raised about the wisdom behind the move.

Going head-to-head with competitor video site Hulu was inevitable. However, the situation is unique in that the three-year old YouTube, who still dominates with over 80 million hits a month, is dead even with the under one-year old Hulu in terms of generated revenue. Generally, studios still view YouTube as a rogue company, skirting the DMCA's "safe harbor" policy, while specifically being designed to break intellectual property laws in a "Napster-like" context. As a result, Hulu has seen a surge in revenue since advertisers are more comfortable with the idea of the full-length show, the clear DVD-like resolution, and the legal, non problematic stability of officially-posted content.

In that sense, the onus is on Google to decide exactly what it wants YouTube to be. The perception of it being "the wilderness" is certainly not unreasonable. If Google wishes to cash in on the excitement that is generating Hulu so much revenue, then it has to be aware of how Hulu's business model will inter-connect with YouTube's. The 80 million hits a month that YouTube receives is clearly the result of not just posted copyrighted content, but the surging viral market. Such things lend themselves well to SHORT features. Why? Because most people have jobs. In cases of either creating or absorbing the content, the "quickie YouTube fix" is a habit to which most of us have become accustomed. So while YouTube's audience will already be built-in, one wonders how much more to the 80 million hits it will it bring, and whether or not that increase is worth any potential baggage?

The beauty of YouTube is that, whereas once people were at the mercy of being spoon-fed content at the whims of the studios (TV airings, video releases, etc.), for the first time in history, the users were able to dictate what content they wanted to see, when they wanted to see it. Will the growing presence of studios and demanding sponsors who will have a new stake in the site jeopardize that dynamic and spoil what made YouTube great? While it could have the potential for reinventing YouTube as a vehicle for promoting independent films on a scale that could put Cannes and Sundance to shame, the question that must be asked is; what will YouTube become once the big money of Hollywood (who will undoubtedly have more sway with it) has a chance to get a hold of it?

Source