Commentaries
Now raising intellectual capital
Gut feeling: How Google CEO valued YouTube deal
Let the second-guessing, the mock horror, the disbelief, the crowing begin.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt has acknowledged he realized upfront that he was overpaying to acquire YouTube, to the tune of $1 billion, judged by any conventional measures.
The many critics of Google’s $1.65 billion deal to acquire the video-sharing site three years ago will claim this confirms everything they have always said about the deal. Not quite.
In fact, not really at all.
Schmidt came clean in a deposition by lawyers in the Viacom copyright lawsuit that there was very little revenue coming into YouTube to justify the price his company paid.
No surprises here. There were intangibles to consider:
1. YouTube’s popularity was sky-rocketing, making it the runaway market leader among video-sharing sites. 2. It was crushing his company’s own site, Google Video. 3. YouTube was up for auction and would be sold to a competitor unless Google jumped first. 4. Google overbid to ensure YouTube didn’t fall into rival hands.
-
The Wall
Yet, the author fails to mention perhaps the most important reason Google bought YouTube– to defend online content.
If Google’s objective is eyeballs– and we can all agree that it is– then it would benefit Google to have Internet users across the world being able to infringe copyright, i.e. upload copyrighted movies, tv shows, and clips.
At the time of Google’s purchase, the number one threat to YouTube’s success were lawsuits from copyright holders.
Without having the resources and clout of a serious parent company (i.e. Google, Microsoft, Newscorp, or maybe Yahoo at the time) YouTube would have been sued, and subsequently lost in the courts, therefore, setting a precedent that would have been much more detrimental to online video, and Google’s business, than overpaying for YouTube. Even at a price of more than $1.5 billion.
Don’t be fooled, Google knew exactly what it was doing when it agreed to pay more than 1 billion extra than it had “valued” YouTube, which was, reducing a threat to its business- which isn’t search, but rather attention. skh