Revver’s sale at a loss indicates online video monetization is difficult. (Not impossible.)

revver logo

The WSJ among others reported on Revver’s sale to LiveUniverse for $5 million, a loss from the total of $12.7 MM invested in the project.

What went wrong with Revver?

  • Clear overspend: I’m confused as to why they needed $12.7 MM in capital funding. Reportedly they only gave $1 million toward content creators since project inception and this $12.7 MM figure doesn’t include any revenue from ads. Overspend on payroll (people), hardware and office space?
  • Lack of differentiation: What does Revver offer that YouTube doesn’t? Higher quality? Perhaps. But since they don’t allow copyrighted content this nixes a huge amount clips provided by YouTube: Network TV and clips from copyrighted films or other media.
  • Poor monetization: This is conjecture as these internal figures are impossible to acquire. It seems as though Revver has a hard time commanding high CPMs for its ad inventory. A quick check right now shows they’re running Google network ads on their premium placed content. Didn’t they spend some of that $12.7 MM on ad reps that cater to media agencies? Why aren’t they running premium brand campaigns on their site?
  • Inadequate momentum: The network effect or the “oomph” that draws both content producers and end-user viewers didn’t seem to be there. Undoubtedly, this is tough to create, especially when YouTube is the dominant gorilla in the room.


This entry was posted in internets, media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s