A couple days after the acquisition was announced, lots of people are still trying to figure out what that means for the Web video business: Did Jeffrey Katzenberg buy a business, or CEO Brian Robbins and his talent? And what does that mean for other Web video makers, who are finding lots of viewers but not as much money?

Meanwhile, the deal represents a bright spot for Hollywood talent agencies’ long-running attempts to negotiate the Web. United Talent Agency, which had represented Robbins, a child-actor turned director and producer, helped build Awesomeness from the ground up. And it got a chunk of the deal’s payoff.

UTA CEO Jeremy Zimmer helped connect Robbins with YouTube content head Robert Kyncl back in 2010, when Kyncl was first putting together his strategy to seed “channels” with millions of Google bucks.

And when Awesomeness got off the ground, UTA took equity in Awesomeness in lieu of fees; later on, it put in cash for an additional stake when the company raised $3.5 million (MK Capital took the bulk of that round, and I’m told much of that money remained unspent when DreamWorks bought the company).

UTA is happy to tell people about its role, and you can read more in Variety and Adweek. And PandoDaily has an interview with Mark Terbeek, who put MK Capital into the deal; he’s now at rival firm Greycroft. Note that MK Capital, Greycroft and Mark Suster’s GRP Partners have all bet heavily on the YouTube ecosystem.

And here’s Katzenberg’s description of the deal, from YouTube’s Brandcast event this week, courtesy of BTIG’s Rich Greenfield:

Reddit’s rollout from niche site to Internet-swallowing Mega Meme-Maker continues. This time with help from YouTube, which is paying the Conde Nast spinoff to make “Explain Like I’m Five,” a video miniseries based on one of the site’s “subreddits.”

What’s particularly interesting here is that this doesn’t appear to be one of the YouTube “funded channel” projects the site has been promoting for the past year and change.

Instead, says Reddit general manager Erik Martin, Google’s video site has given them money for these specific clips, “and may fund others in the future … [but] anything down the road will be case by case.”

That’s different from the route YouTube has taken when it wants to encourage content makers to create stuff for the site. In the past, it advanced video makers millions of dollars, then more or less set them free to make what they wanted. (Though the economics are somewhat similar this time: YouTube funds the entire cost of production, pays itself back via ad sales, and once/if the videos recoup, will share revenue with Reddit.)

Since that approach has had a mixed record, this more focused effort makes sense, at least as an experiment.

Plus, this stuff is funny:

Of course, little kids and big ideas can often be funny. Could have sworn I’ve seen this one mined multiple times on “The Daily Show.” But here’s the only version of it I could find with a cursory search:

Things are fuzzier for some of YouTube’s biggest programming partners. Their views are also increasing. But the ad revenue YouTube generates for their stuff isn’t keeping pace.

In the near term, that’s pushing many big YouTube networks and partners to look hard for new sources of revenue. The bigger question is whether YouTube will be able to generate enough ad money for content makers to support the “premium” programming it has been trying to attract so it can compete with traditional TV.

“It’s hard, given YouTube’s low [revenue-sharing] numbers and lack of marketing infrastructure to make the unit economics for premium programming work,” says Steve Raymond, who runs Big Frame, a YouTube network/programmer that says it has generated 3.2 billion views.

The dollars programmers earn from YouTube’s ad-selling efforts range widely. But many big publishers say that after YouTube takes its 45 percent cut of the ads it sells, they frequently end up keeping about $2.50 for every 1,000 views their clips generate — that is, if their video generates a million views, they get $2,500. Other publishers say their split can be as high as $10 per 1,000.

Those rates were supposed to improve in the last year, in part because of YouTube’s splashy effort to create advertising-friendly “channels” by advancing programmers like Big Frame millions of dollars to make exclusive shows for the site. Last May, it hosted a glitzy “Brandcast” event in New York, where it brought out stars like Jay-Z to sell marketers on the idea that YouTube should command TV-like dollars.

Instead, according to people in and outside of YouTube, last year the site ended up with a glut of inventory, which put even more pressure on ad rates.

Last fall, YouTube invited top programmers for a sneak peek at YouTube Space, a glitzy new production studio it built in Los Angeles; at the event, many of them took the occasion to gripe about the site. “Every single person in the entertainment group complained to [YouTube content executive] Alex Carloss: ‘We’re not making enough money,’” said an attendee.

Late last year, Machinima, a videogame-focused network that generates billions of YouTube views a month, reworked contracts for many of the video contributors it represents, and let others go completely. The problem, according to people familiar with the programmer, was that it had guaranteed video makers a pay-per-view rate that was higher than the payouts it was getting from YouTube.

Now Machinima, like other big YouTube programmers, is looking to augment its YouTube ad dollars by selling some of its shows via subscriptions, according to people familiar with its plans. Maker Studios, another big “multichannel network,” is looking to boost revenue via alternate streams like iTunes soundtrack sales, among other strategies.

Many big programmers are also concentrating on selling their own “integrations” with advertisers, where stars talk about or use marketers’ products, since they don’t have to split those deals with YouTube.

Some, like Vice Media, try to find backers like Intel to pay for their videos before they ever make it to YouTube. “It’s a difficult space to get to scale and to monetize it at the same time,” said Vice Media CEO Shane Smith, whose advertising/production company has plans to run 12 channels for YouTube this year; it recently announced that it has one million subscribers on the site. Relying on YouTube-generated advertising is “not going to be our monetization strategy,” Smith said.

Others are working to direct traffic from YouTube to their own sites. Last year, Freddy Wong, whose amateur special-effects clips have won him millions of fans on YouTube, launched RocketJump, a portal he and his backers created to capture more money from his movies.

Video makers who control their own sites say they are often able to generate much bigger payouts than YouTube provides, and frequently cite CPMs, or ad rates, of $20 per thousand views.

That’s partly because they can offer advertisers bells and whistles that aren’t available on YouTube, like website “skins” featuring advertisers’ logos. But YouTube critics say standalone sites can also outperform YouTube because Google doesn’t have its own YouTube sales force; instead, the site is pitched by all of Google’s sellers, alongside other products, like search ads.

“They don’t have dedicated, 100 percent focused, 100 percent trained people on these sales teams who live and breathe video. It’s that simple,” said a video industry executive. “There isn’t a single person within YouTube that thinks this is the right way to sell video.”

YouTube programmers also complain that Google’s sellers aren’t directed to sell individual shows and networks, but instead focus on broad “audience” buys.

That’s good for Google’s top line, but not for individual shows. It’s also a turnoff for some advertisers, said Mark Pavia, who oversees digital at media shop Starcom USA, which handles more than $10 billion in annual ad spending. ”They tried a model that just wouldn’t work for advertisers,” said Pavia.

Google executives say they don’t have any plans to overhaul their YouTube sales approach. But they do predict that things will get better.

Up until last fall, for instance, YouTube made almost no money from videos watched on mobile phones, which now account for 25 percent of the site’s views. After reclaiming YouTube’s app from Apple and overhauling its Android app, some of those views now generate ad dollars. International traffic, which also represents many of YouTube’s views but often generates tiny ad dollars or none at all, will take longer to improve.

Here’s a statement from YouTube content head Robert Kyncl, who has pushed the site’s “funded channel” strategy:

“A key part of growing the platform is opening up inventory, which enables more partners to succeed by monetizing their content. This can lead CPMs to fluctuate in the short-term, but it’s good for the partner ecosystem long-term. We’re seeing this happen as overall partner viewership, revenue and subscriptions are on the rise.”

Some investors are betting that YouTube will get it right, and that programmers will end up building assets that are as valuable as today’s cable channels. In December, Time Warner led a $36 million funding round for Maker Studios. Last week, Bertelsmann invested in StyleHaul, another multichannel network aimed at fashion-conscious women.

YouTube will make another push for ad dollars in May, when it repeats its marketing event in Manhattan. Starcom’s Pavia is hopeful the site will adjust its pitch this time. “We have very large advertisers who believe in online video,” he said. “[YouTube has] the ability to solve this if they want to.”

Peter Chernin’s holding company isn’t announcing the amount of the round, but I’m told it’s around $3 million.

Other investors include Machinima CEO Allen DeBevoise; Advancit Capital, Shari Redstone’s VC firm; and Code Advisors.

There’s a lot of interest in Hispanic and Spanish-language stuff on YouTube, and the video site has funded several channels targeted at that audience, including one produced by IAC’s Electus and fronted by “Modern Family”’s Sofia Vergara. But MiTú doesn’t have any financial backing from YouTube.

And that seems to be working out just fine. The channel launched 7 months ago, and the company says its English- and Spanish-language clips have generated 800 million views so far. MiTú says it has signed up more than 2.3 million subscribers.

The investment comes alongside other big outside bets on YouTube channels/networks, like the $40 million round Time Warner is leading for Maker Studios. Meanwhile, YouTube is adding more funding to a select group of channels, while cutting off cash to many of the content creators it signed on last fall.

Now add Japan to that list.

Google’s video guys aren’t talking about it openly yet, but they’ll be replicating the same idea — YouTube advances programmers production money in exchange for exclusive content — with a handful of partners in Asia. Among that initial group will be Vice Media, the controversial/successful video maker/ad agency which already has three funded YouTube channels in the U.S.

Here’s a teaser trailer, which doesn’t look to be very Japan-specific, but more of a greatest-hits compilation:

Vice, a Brooklyn-based company that specializes in an edgy-but-not-too-edgy mix of youth- and sponsor-friendly content, is generating lots of attention these days — some of it glowing, some of it not. They also seem to be generating lots of money, and are reportedly on track to generate $200 million this year.

We’ll talk to co-founder Shane Smith — who makes several appearances in the clip above — about his plans, in February, at our D: Dive Into Media conference in Dana Point, Calif.

The media conglomerate, via its Time Warner Investments arm, is leading a $40 million round that sources say should close within the next three weeks.

I don’t know the other players in the round, and they may not be set yet. I also don’t have a pre-money valuation for the Los Angeles-based company, but it should be at least $150 million, which would put the total value for the company in the $200 million range by the time the deal is done. Maker had previously raised $4 million from Greycroft Partners and GRP Partners. (Update: I’m told the company has raised a total of $15 million to date, which makes much more sense.)

Last week, Variety reported that Time Warner was considering an investment in Maker. Both Maker and Time Warner declined to comment.

When the deal closes, it will be the second big slug of money that has gone into YouTube-centric companies this year. In May, Google and other investors put $35 million into Machinima, which makes and distributes YouTube clips for videogame fans.

And there may be more YouTube money to come: Industry sources say that Fullscreen, another big YouTube hub, has been talking to Bertelsmann’s RTL Group about a large investment, though it’s unclear whether the two companies will move forward.

The Maker deal comes a year after Google tried to kick-start original content production for YouTube by funding a slew of “channels.” Maker got three of those deals.

But while lots of video makers were happy to take Google’s money to finance their productions, many of them have privately complained that Google hasn’t done a great job of promoting their clips to viewers and selling them to advertisers. Sources say that at least some of Maker’s new round will go toward building out the company’s direct sales force.

Maker can also use money to finance its large production arm, regardless of whether it renews its deals with Google in the coming months. And it can use some of it to help recruit new talent; it has had a falling-out with Ray William Johnson, a YouTube star who has stopped producing his “=3” show for the studio.

Here’s an episode of “Epic Rap Battles of History,” one of Maker’s best-performing series. Careful! It’s not safe for every workplace:

Google is funding a new batch of video makers to join the 100 it launched in the last year. And it’s making an international push, by adding content for the U.K., German and French versions of the site.

YouTube says it will put money into more than 60 new “channels” — branded destinations that show a mix of original programming and clips pulled from around the Web. The idea is to make the site more “TV-like” — and convince viewers and advertisers to spend more time and money there.

Meanwhile, YouTube is in the midst of renewal talks with its first set of channels, that expect to hear about their fate in the next few weeks. In the announcement touting its new deals, YouTube is spending more time playing up the Web brands it is working with, like Everyday Health and PopSugar. A year ago, it touted links with the likes of Jay-Z and Madonna.

The expansion announcement comes as some channel partners have begun questioning the way YouTube has run its experiment. Their biggest gripe: They haven’t received much guidance or support from the video platform and have been left to their own devices — especially when it comes to marketing and distributing their clips.

Privately, YouTube officials argue that channel partners shouldn’t be complaining, since the deal terms were well-established at the beginning. Publicly, they point to statistics that show growth for the new channels. They say 25 of the channels now average more than a million views a week, for instance, up from 10 channels earlier this year.

Robert Kyncl, the former Netflix executive who has spearheaded the channel push for Google, says new YouTube programmers may need “a couple of years to gain a certain velocity and a certain volume.” Once they do, he says, the company plans on offering a group of them even more incentives to work for the platform.

“What we will look to do is provide them with greater revenue predictability, for multiple years, so they can focus on building their channels and on building their audiences,” he says. (Full interview)

YouTube’s new channels deals are roughly similar to the ones they offered last year: Google hands the channel makers interest-free advances in exchange for exclusive access to their content for a year or more; Google keeps all ad revenue until it clears its advance and shares it with creators after that.

But there are some variations. People familiar with the deals say that Google is likely handing out smaller advances to European programmers, because the video ad market pays out less than in America.

And some of the American deals are different than last year’s as well. In some cases, for instance, Google has made multiple-year committments to the content-makers, instead of making them year-by-year renewals.

Several of the new American channels are extensions of brands that already existed prior to YouTube’s involvement. Mahalo and Vice will contribute channels, for instance. So will ESPN’s Grantland site, run by Web star Bill Simmons. Several of those sites, like Grantland, have already launched their channels in recent weeks.

Also signing up: Revision3, the Web studio now owned by Discovery Communications. In August, Revision3 CEO Jim Louderback argued that some YouTube stars were abandoning the platform, a move he called misguided.

Here’s a clip from SourceFed, arguably the most successful of the new YouTube channels launched in the last year. It’s run by Phil DeFranco, who was already an established YouTube star prior to his deal.

(Shutterstock/Tatiana Popova)

The project is very much an experiment — both for Google and the video creators it has funded. Here’s a report card from one of them: R.J. Williams, a former child actor turned TV producer, who created a “Young Hollywood” channel for YouTube.

Williams had already been using that same brand to create “Entertainment Tonight”-style programming for other online outlets, like Yahoo and Hulu. But the new channel was supposed to cater specifically to YouTube’s audience. And as Williams has figured out over the last nine months, that’s different than the rest of the Web.

Peter Kafka: You guys were one of the first of the new YouTube channels to launch, back in January. How’s it going?

R.J. Williams: Great. We started out doing 1.5 million, 2 million views a month. Now we’re at 5 million, and we’ve earned back our advance. We’ve also learned a lot. There have been findings that have had us shift our programming strategy, and that’s helped tremendously. There were things I wish we knew earlier.

The biggest eye-opener for me was going to VidCon [the Web video convention] in June. I don’t think I truly understood the audience until I went there. It’s much younger than I expected. It was really 13-18 year old kids, primarily female.

You didn’t know the YouTube audience was made up of teenagers?

You just really don’t know with YouTube. For us, before the channel, when we put stuff there we were primarily using repurposed content we’d created for other outlets. Our brand’s core is really 18-34. That’s on Yahoo, Hulu, YoungHollywood.com. So we would cater toward that. But YouTube is different.

A good example: During Oscars, we did a thing with Melissa and Joan Rivers, talking about fashion dos and don’t. Because that who’s on E!, and TV Guide, and they love it. We put it up on YouTube, and it didn’t perform — 13 to 18-year-olds probably had no idea who Melissa and Joan Rivers are.

So who do they like?

[YouTube make up princess] Michelle Phan. We put her up, we got hundreds of thousands of views right away. It’s not just a YouTube personality, but it’s that sort of demo, that sort of sensibility. You put up someone like Selena Gomez, huge numbers. Zach Efron, huge numbers. Anything “Hunger Games.” One of our highest-performing videos in the last few months was with the “Hunger Games” cast. But it’s not even the main stars, it’s the smaller names. That brand has such a rabid fan base, and that is the YouTube audience. You have “Hunger Games” in that tag and title, it’s going to go through the roof.

Have you changed the way you produce the shows themselves?

Yes. We’re using a little less polish. I think they like it a little bit more raw. I think they like to see what really is happening. We’ve been experimenting in the past few weeks with people talking into the camera. Because you see what is really performing well on YouTube — it’s a person sitting in front of their computer, just talking.

But you built out this nice studio in the Beverly Hills Four Seasons that’s supposed to look like a “real” talk show. And now you’re trying to degrade that look intentionally?

Yeah, we are a little bit, actually. It wasn’t our intention going in, but we are.

Like distressing jeans?

Yeah, we really are. We’re encouraging talent to talk directly to the camera and break the fourth wall. And we’re finding YouTube likes that, too. Yahoo, not at all. Hulu, not at all. AOL, not at all. That’s similar to television. Here they want interactivity.

And are you changing the way you handle distribution?

Yes, now we’re outreaching to other blogs, getting people to seed it. And we’re shooting photos of everyone that comes through, and we’re syndicating it to Getty images, and we’re seeing that those are getting picked up, and attributing to the Young Hollywood studio, and we think that’s driving search.

Earlier this year you had this notion that you would be a “barker channel” for other new YouTube channels — like a Leno for the YouTube set introducing your audience to other YouTube stars. Has that worked out?

It has. We’ve done 37 of them so far, with most of the main channels. We do see a pop in those videos. It helps because they’ll help cross-promote you.

Anything that hasn’t worked?

Scheduled programming. Disaster. YouTube didn’t tell us to do that, but I know that was something they thought was important. It was a disaster on our end. We were putting up a new video at 10 am every day and rushing around to get the video up on time. Didn’t matter. Instead we’d see the long-tail effect. People don’t necessarily go to the video that day. It’s days after, it’s weeks after.

A good example: We put up a Simon Cowell video three weeks ago. It did well at the beginning, but it’s 600,000, 700,000 views now, and the bulk of it’s been in the last week. Why? Because “The X Factor” has been on the air, the machine’s going, more people are searching for it, more people searching for Britney Spears.

I think there needs to be consistency of one new video a day; I think that’s important. But if you say, “Here’s the time”, what the point? Especially if you’re not going live. Why go to 10 am to see this video if I can see it at my own time? And I think that’s why people embrace digital more than television.

How much input and support are you getting from YouTube?

They have the YouTube Next Lab. And you work closely with them when you launch. And that’s very helpful. You get a detailed report — here’s what’s working, here’s what’s not. And then you are left to your own devices.

For marketing, there’s zero marketing support. At the launch, there’s a little bit. But we knew that going into it. When we signed up, they made it very clear. It wasn’t, “You’re going to get home page placement.” They really said, “How are you going to market it?” That was part of our pitch process. I hear from other people who are frustrated. But YouTube has said that from Day One — they are the platform, and that’s it.

The flip side of it is that they’ve been very hands-off creatively. Which they also said from the beginning. But when I’ve done television stuff, the networks say that, too. And a few weeks later you start getting very detailed notes, and you have to follow them. I’ve seen it happen to the biggest producers. And I honestly thought that was going to happen with YouTube, and it hasn’t.

Day takes the spot vacated by Blip founder Mike Hudack, who left the company last fall. She’s one of several top hires with traditional media credentials that the Web video company has made in recent years.

COO Steve Brookstein, who joined a year ago, spent most of his career at cable providers like Comcast. And sales chief Evan Gotlib came to Blip after stints at Conde Nast, Time Inc. and Disney.

Blip was one of many Web video start-ups created in the wake of YouTube, and it deserves credit simply for sticking around since then. Blip’s co-founders were smart enough not to make it a (would-be) YouTube competitor, and focused instead on helping video creators distribute and sell their stuff on other sites.

By last year, that business was generating around $10 million a year, and Blip now says the clips it distributes generate around 300 million video views a month. Which sounds big, unless you compare it to YouTube, which generates four billion views a day.

Blip doesn’t need to worry about YouTube’s scale, per se, but it does need to pay attention to the video giant’s renewed focus on “professional” content. That means clips from Hollywood talent, but also from the new breed of Web video natives that Blip has made its living helping out.

Last year, YouTube bought onetime Blip rival Next New Networks, specifically so it could increase its outreach to video creators. This year, it upped the ante by leasing out a huge warehouse complex in L.A., where it will provide studio space and advice to video creators. Day has her work cut out for her.

But Google’s Web video giant is also very happy to run good old-fashioned TV shows, if it can get its hands on them.

Here’s a reminder: Nearly 70 videos from Disney’s Disney Channel, many of them full-length episodes, are all free.

The videos have gone up in the last few days, but neither Google or Disney has said much about them. They’re there because of a programming deal the two companies cut last fall.

Coverage of that pact focused on the fact that Disney was going to create original short videos for YouTube, and would also allow YouTube to post a selection of user-generated stuff that incorporated Disney characters, etc.

But the deal also allows YouTube to run full-length shows. They’re even fully embeddable, as you can see below, if you’ve got 22 minutes to catch up on Zack and Cody’s suite life.

I’m not an expert on this flavor of kids’ programming, but I gather these are relatively old clips. But I do know that kids don’t really care about the vintage of their Web videos — they’re generally happy to watch whatever they watch, over and over again.

That’s why kids’ videos are so important to Netflix, and why they’re potentially very important for Google. That long-running, never-ending copyright lawsuit means that YouTube can’t get its hands on all the kids’ stuff that Viacom controls, but the Mouse House has plenty of its own. The fact that Disney distributes its stuff quite widely on the Web doesn’t diminish its value to YouTube boss Salar Kamangar.

This isn’t the first time YouTube has distributed full TV episodes, or even full movies, owned by Big Media, for free. (See more here and here). But it is a good reminder that it is very happy to show more of them, as soon Hollywood is ready to play along.

But you don’t need a YouTube deal, or YouTube’s money, to launch a channel with nice-looking content.

You can do it the old-fashioned way, and get an advertiser to foot the bill.

That’s what Outrigger Media, a Web video sales start-up, has done with Tumi, the high-end luggage company, and Road Bite TV.

Road Bite TV is a mashup, conceptually speaking, between TV’s Food Channel and Travel Channel. Outrigger doesn’t work with either cable channel, but it is leaning on one of their stars, celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain, to launch the thing.

Outrigger is piggybacking on Bourdain’s globe-hopping shows by getting producers Zero Point Zero, who put together Bourdain’s “No Reservations” and “The Layover,” to shoot a series of behind-the-scenes vignettes. Tumi underwrites the series in exchange for prominent placement in the clips (see below), as well as pre-roll ads and other promotional spots. (Zero Point Zero wants to make it clear that while Bourdain is on camera, he’s not part of the deal. Here’s more clarification from the producers: “There was no deal between Anthony Bourdain and Outrigger to launch Road Bite TV. Zero Point Zero Production was commissioned to create the content for Outrigger with a separate production crew.”)

Outrigger CEO Mike Henry says the first eight clips (he’s got another eight in the works) cost something in the “low-mid six figures” to produce. That gets him around half an hour of content, which makes it expensive by Web video standards, and dirt cheap by TV standards.

The finished product sort of straddles the line between the two. Interesting, but you’re not going to watch 30 minutes in a row.

What I’m really waiting for is the moment when “No Reservations” — or something like it — appears as a Web-only show. That is — something that’s as good as a good reality TV show, but which just happens to be running on the Web.

Free Web video sites still don’t generate enough money to support a TV-quality reality show (subscription services like Netflix are a different story), but those costs should keep coming down. And if YouTube is successful, ad dollars will go up, and we’ll get to that point sooner than later.

Now Warner has another music deal with YouTube, but this one has a twist. Warner will launch a new “channel” with the video giant, which will feature even more content from the label’s artists.

The idea has a business logic to it, but it’s hard to see the consumer appeal behind “The Warner Sound.” Because, with a couple of minor exceptions, people aren’t fans of labels — they’re fans of specific artists, songs and genres.

But at least the channel is trying to do something a bit different here — instead of showcasing music videos you can see other places, it’s going to create brand-new stuff. Some examples, via a press release:

• CeeLo Green Presents ManTazia: “Directed, shaped and cut in 2D Jankyvision, each episode of this short-form series will take you on an adventure into the lush imagination of CeeLo Green.”
• Untitled: “Hot on the heels of his award-winning ‘A Tribe Called Quest’ documentary, actor and director Michael Rapaport presents this documentary series featuring different WMG artists.”
• Staged: “This show takes the famous lyrics of top stars and re-imagines them as the script of a drama. Each episode will be in a different style and feature recognizable lyrics from a WMG artist.”
• The Live Room: “Intimate performances shot in legendary recording studios around the world.”
• Countdown to … : “An up-close look at the last frenetic days before a hotly-anticipated album comes out. In the first instalment, teen rap sensation Diggy criss-crosses the country headlining tours, shooting music videos, meeting fans and even doing homework.”
• Finding Cody Simpson: “Using YouTube’s annotation technology, fans will be able to create their own Cody Simpson movie.”

Here’s a teaser clip. The channel is supposed to launch later this month, in conjunction with SXSW.

Hollywood and Google have been circling each other for years, as each side tries to figure out what to make of the other. Now they’re finally starting to link up in a serious way, via YouTube’s new “channels” strategy.

Which means it’s a perfect time to hear from YouTube CEO Salar Kamangar. And if you’re at D: Dive into Media in January, that’s what you’ll be able to do, as one of the world’s most important Googlers joins us onstage.

Getting Kamangar out of Mountain View and into the public eye would be a big deal under any circumstances, because — while he keeps a very low profile — he has enormous clout: He’s one of Larry Page’s most trusted lieutenants, a position he has earned by joining the company as hire No. 9 in 1999, then helping to build the AdWords product that has generated a vast majority of Google’s revenue.

Kamangar has been formally running YouTube for the past year, but in reality he had been overseeing the world’s largest video site for some time. Kamangar is also in charge of Google’s broader video plans, including Google TV, which is now making a second stab at inserting itself into the world’s living rooms.

So there’s going to be plenty to talk about when Kamangar joins a lineup of media heavyweights Jan. 30 and 31 at the Ritz-Carlton in Laguna Niguel, an hour south of Los Angeles. Previously announced speakers include Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman, New Yorker editor David Remnick, Warner Music Chairman Edgar Bronfman Jr., News Corp. Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey, Clear Channel CEO Bob Pittman, Legendary Pictures head Thomas Tull, and VEVO CEO Rio Caraeff.

We’ll announce more in the weeks to come. If you want to make sure you get a seat, you should sign up now.

Google won’t comment on his promotion, and people I’ve talked to who know about the site’s org chart aren’t sure whether it’s formally considered a promotion. But here’s the gist: Kyncl, who used to report to Global Head of Content Dean Gilbert, now reports directly to YouTube CEO Salar Kamangar. Chris Maxcy, who handles music partnerships and deals like Google’s linkup with Vevo, now reports to Kyncl instead of Gilbert.

Gilbert is still onboard, but I’m told his role is now more “operationally focused.”

Meanwhile, for a quick summary of what Kyncl has been up to over the last 12 months, see last month’s rollout of YouTube’s “channels” strategy, or today’s Disney tie-up.

But before you envision the rollout of a nationwide Google pay TV service, consider: Building out and maintaining a cable TV (and broadband) service is enormously time-consuming, expensive and messy.

Think, for example, of all those angry/confused service inquiries your local cable guy has to deal with. And recall that last year, when Google tried to sell its own line of smartphones, it was hoping to get by without setting up a customer service operation that gave buyers the ability to talk to a real live human.

Verizon spent some $23 billion on its FiOS rollout, and by the time it stalled out last year, it still wasn’t clear if it was a good idea for the telco to build out a cable/broadband service. So why does Larry Page think it makes sense for him?

He doesn’t, according to Sanford Bernstein analysts Craig Moffett and Carlos Kirjner in a note this morning. Instead, they argue, Page and Google have to be thinking about Kansas City as an R&D experiment meant to accomplish three things:

First, it helps Google (slightly) on the public policy front as it promotes the agenda of faster broadband, and it potentially adds to their status in promoting net neutrality. Faster broadband means more Internet usage, more searches, and more ads. Of course, the real regulatory game is a few orders of magnitude more sophisticated, but every little arrow in the quiver helps.

Second, it is a laboratory for Google to learn about technology and consumer behavior, ranging from the impact of higher speed access on Internet usage to the potential and economics of different ad formats and models, on different platforms, particularly when it comes to advertising associated with video and TV.

Third, it is an opportunity for Google to learn about the economics of deploying and running infrastructure. And learn they will…

Analysts like to pull their punches, but Moffett and Kirjner are crystal clear here: There’s no way they think Google becomes the “world’s biggest cable company” or anything like that.

Just to beat this into the ground, here’s another excerpt from their report (well worth reading the whole thing) where they spell out just how ugly the economics of this kind of venture would be:

From a [return on invested capital]-based perspective, the difference between Google’s current business model and that of a facilities-based wireline service provider like Verizon could not be starker. In 2011, we expect Google to post an ROIC of 56%, or 38% when including goodwill. In 2010, Verizon’s wireline segment (which includes FiOS) sported an ROIC excluding goodwill and “one-time items” of… wait for it… just 1.6%. Including goodwill and similar intangible, and smoothed one-timers, it was -1.0%.

Still. It’s quite obvious that something has changed in Google’s thinking over the years.

The company that strove to stay away from anything approaching the content business has now leapt in with both feet. See, for example: Google Music, Google Books, YouTube, and YouTube’s new “channels” project. And recall that Google just made a plus-sized bid for Hulu.

So the notion that Google is now willing to consider even testing out life as a cable TV service is still telling. As is the notion, buried lower in the Journal piece, that Google has floated the idea of turning YouTube into an “over the top” cable service, though that doesn’t seem like it’s on the table right now.

Android boss Andy Rubin even spelled it out at the AsiaD conference in Hong Kong last month: “Google is in the very, very early phases of adding consumer products to our portfolio.” So even if that doesn’t mean it’s ready to become a cable guy, it’s still going to evolve into something much broader than a search company.