3 ms·
I don't think loss leader is the correct term either. YouTube doesn't make money, nor intends to make money in the near future[1]. The key here is to get entre
by ktta 9y ago
I don't think loss leader is the correct term either.
YouTube doesn't make money, nor intends to make money in the near future[1]. The key here is to get entrenched in the market, then assert their monopoly.
On surface this might seem okay, but it definitely is anti-competitive. We've just gotten used to it. Dumping isn't the proper term, but was the closest I could find. It comes under predatory pricing, but the problem is, this business practice is so different from what the current literature consists of, I don't think there even is a proper term.
[1]: http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojcicki/ http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojc...
- mulmen 9y agoUh, isn't that just abusing their monopoly position? It's not a problem that YouTube grows, it's a problem when they abuse their monopoly position. This is why we (United States of America) have antitrust laws.
- saalweachter 9y agoFrom your link: "That doesn’t necessarily mean YouTube isn’t profitable, but it just means it’s not a focus at the moment. YouTube, which primarily makes money from advertising within its videos, doesn’t release revenue numbers (it is not separated in financial statements by parent company Alphabet). But some reports put revenue in the billions."
- ktta 9y agoThat sounds like corporate talk. It's been 11 years since YouTube has been acquired by Google. Insane amounts of money has been poured into YouTube. Sure, it gets revenue, but I bet it's not close enough to justify the expenditure, and there's no clear path either.