Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave what he just had to know would be a much quoted comment to the Nikkei today, explicitly saying that the company had “begun seriously looking into acquisitions again.”

Music to the beleaguered mergers and acquisitions market, to be sure, especially after a recent uptick from other big companies pulling out their wallets again as the impact of the econalypse subsides.

According to sources, Google (GOOG) is working on at least a half-dozen acquisition deals, most of which are small start-ups in the online advertising and cloud computing arenas.

That would be welcome news for many.

That’s because, as The Wall Street Journal noted in a piece today, “August was shaping up to be the worst month for deal making since 1995, according to data provider Dealogic” (see the chart).

That was, until Disney (DIS) bought Marvel for $4 billion, in a deal announced Monday.

Then yesterday, eBay (EBAY) traded 65 percent of its Skype Internet telephony unit to a group of free-spending private investors, led by Silver Lake Partners, for $1.9 billion.

While eye-popping numbers like that make dealmakers smile, most think it is in the spate of smaller venture-backed companies that more of the action will happen, with big companies like Google, Microsoft (MSFT), Apple (AAPL) and even Yahoo (YHOO) as predators.

Many of these were funded in the Web 2.0 boom and have done well enough, but are figuring out that a link with a larger fish will likely make for a better outcome, along with filling in tech and product gaps at the giants.

Think about Facebook’s $50 million acquisition of social networking site FriendFeed recently and you have the right idea.

According to more than a half-dozen Silicon Valley VCs I have spoken to this week, this is the likeliest kind of exit for a large group of their portfolio companies.

Thus, they are putting on their finest and placing themselves on display in the store window, offering talent and innovation.

“We all realize that a lot of these companies are not going to be independent, so we’re all trying to figure out where they best fit in,” said one VC. “We essentially did business development for a lot of the large companies.”

Thus, here are some companies whose names have been bandied about of late by M&A types who say they are more likely candidates for sale:

Veoh, the Web video portal that MediaMemo wrote about in July, has reportedly been searching for a home for a while now as it struggles in a costly space dominated by giants like YouTube and Hulu.

That goes for many other similar video efforts, such as Joost, Metacafe and Dailymotion, all of which have been trying to gain traction.

There is also likely to be a shakeout in the gaming and “guy” content space, which has also seen a lot of funding in the last several years and less monetary success.

Some possible names here include: Xfire, a gaming instant-messaging company Viacom (VIA) bought a couple years ago for $100 million; Giant Realm, a 20-something guy site funded by Comcast (CMCSA) and others; and UGO, Hearst’s version of a 20-something guy site.

Probably, given the need to focus on monetization, the most active M&A space will be in online advertising.

Sources said Google, for example, has been interested in companies such as Teracent, a dynamic ad-serving and optimization start-up in San Mateo.

There are lots of names in this general arena to pick from, from Tumri to Quantcast to AdMob to the Rubicon Project, not all of which are for sale, but might be for the right price.

Lastly, there is the smart phone and telecom space, where there might be some of the bigger deals.

While Palm (PALM) has been trying mightily to gain traction with its Pre offering, many think that if it does not go as well as hoped, the company will be an acquisition target eventually for giant companies like Nokia (NOK).

While many think Microsoft could also be a buyer of Palm, given the lackluster performance of its Windows Mobile devices, it might be more attuned to a much bigger catch: Research in Motion (RIMM) and its business-oriented BlackBerry empire.

Such a massive acquisition–most of those I bounced that idea off agreed–would be an uphill battle, but it would be perhaps the best fish story ever.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

A few weeks ago, when I was having breakfast with legendary Silicon Valley entrepreneur Marc Andreessen about his new venture fund, he talked about what he thought was critical to being successful as an Internet company.

Ticking off names, from Apple (AAPL) CEO Steve Jobs to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Andreessen said he always favored technical entrepreneurs for one key reason: “You need someone who lives and breathes product.”

It’s a refrain I have heard a lot recently from a wide range of people in the sector, most especially when talking about two of the more challenging renovations of key Internet brands going on of late.

That would be: Yahoo and MySpace.

In recent days, the focus at both Yahoo (YHOO) and MySpace, a division of News Corp. (NWS), has been on cost cuts, management rejiggering and, of course, layoffs, as new leaders at each Web giant are trying mightily to push the reset button. (News Corp owns Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

No surprise, their efforts have gotten a lot of attention and have been the subject of a lot of coverage (here for Yahoo and here for MySpace).

But, as those clean-up efforts wrap up, both have to show a whole lot more than that if either is to truly succeed at their tasks–which is to make both services much more relevant and exciting in the fast-changing Web arena.

While Yahoo and MySpace remain huge Web properties–and Yahoo, in particular, is very profitable in comparison to most Internet outfits–the widespread perception across the digital sector for too long now is that they are both tired in some significant ways and in desperate need of innovation.

Their big tasks include an overhaul of product offerings and features, a refreshing of brand and, most importantly, a strategic rethink that will set them on a new course for the next several years.

This is not a new thing in the Internet space, which has seen once-popular companies fall by the wayside as their products have gotten dull and consumers weary.

AOL–the Time Warner (TWX) unit whose new CEO, Tim Armstrong, is trying to reinvigorate that iconic but deeply tarnished brand too–is the classic example of this problem. But there have been too many that either hobble along, get subsumed into a larger company or just wither and die.

Sudden death is not likely to be the case for either Yahoo or MySpace, but time is most definitely running out for the pair to show some true product pizzazz and a strategic road map.

At Yahoo, most of the glitter thus far has come from the personality and charms of CEO Carol Bartz (pictured here), who has been hard at work projecting an image of moxie and decisiveness in her efforts to get some momentum at the turmoil-plagued company.

Replacing former CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang, Bartz has largely been busy cutting staff, pruning products that she recently dubbed “space debris” and rounding out her executive staff.

She’s also been prepping a new branding campaign to accompany Yahoo’s overhauled front page, which is set for the fall.

But, as the famous Peggy Lee song (see video below) goes: “Is that all there is, is that all there is?/If that’s all there is my friends, then let’s keep dancing/Let’s break out the booze and have a ball/If that’s all there is.”

But breaking out the booze and having a ball is actually not such a bad idea. To my mind, instead of tweaking what is there and emphasizing what it has been, Yahoo now has the chance to just go for broke and boldly make some dramatic choices.

That is especially true if it forgoes a search and online advertising partnership with Microsoft (MSFT), since Yahoo is going to have to do more than just what it already does better.

Interestingly, it is Microsoft, with its well-reviewed new Bing search service, that seems the most aggressively innovative these days.

So, why not, for example, make a shocking move, say, into the premium online video space? Yahoo certainly could pick up some damaged goods, like Veoh and Joost, on the cheap.

But what about buying the early winner: Hulu?

While the three studios that are its joint owners (the fourth owner is Providence Equity Partners)–News Corp., Disney (DIS) and GE (GE) unit NBC Universal–don’t seem inclined to sell, many sources close to the company said they most certainly would for the right price and perhaps a stake in Yahoo too.

Yahoo has been one of Hulu’s many distribution partners, but that effort has been lackluster. As owner, it would surely point its vast traffic and tech resources at Hulu to good effect.

In this kind of scenario, Google (GOOG) and Comcast (CMCSA) are also contenders for Hulu, but it is only Yahoo that has the truly better record of being able to create, manage and distribute Web content.

Plus, you could call it: HuHoo or YaLu or, better still, HooLu.

There are lots of ideas along these lines for Yahoo, but the overarching idea is to dominate in areas its rivals do not.

For MySpace, which was the dominator until rival Facebook cleaned its clock and then some, it is both a crisis of identity, a broken consumer experience and technology that needs a major overhaul.

It is hard to say what MySpace is, except really noisy. While the music part of that is good, the idea of making it hip again seems well-nigh impossible.

But it could be useful as an entertainment hub where it is fun to be. News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch raised this concept recently, in fact, and it is a good one.

That’s because Facebook is aggressively un-fun, with a fascist design sensibility and a thick ethos of utility and enforced busy-ness. Whenever I use it, I always start to feel like I am 23 minutes late.

There really is no good overall and unified entertainment hub on the Web in a massive way–one that aggregates all kinds of interests. I would, for example, love a place where I could easily live in a “Gossip Girl” universe.

Best of all, such a direction moves MySpace well away from Facebook, where is needs to get pronto.

MySpace CEO Owen Van Natta (pictured here) said as much in a memo to employees yesterday:

“As I’ve said before, simplifying and unifying our site is fundamental to our success going forward. MySpace should feel like one platform–not 15 sites loosely stitched together. We consider our diverse content offering a strength but too many logos and disorganized verticals makes the site difficult to navigate and creates confusion about our brand identity. Our users don’t know if we’re a social portal, a music site, or an entertainment hub.”

In her own memo last week, Bartz also talked about the need for speed and definition of Yahoo:

“I’ve noticed that since the reorg, people seem like they’re waiting for something. I’m not sure if it’s a sugar-low or what, but we need to stop waiting and get moving. Good things do not come to those who wait, they come to those who make things happen.”

Actually, per Marc Andreessen, good things come to those who make things. Wonderful things, fun things, memorable things and, if you are Steve Jobs, just one more thing.

Let’s just hope in the case of Yahoo and MySpace, they don’t settle for just any thing.

Until they do that thing they do, here is a catchy video from the movie, “That Thing You Do”:

Recently, while I was at a conference in Los Angeles, I caught up with Veoh Founder Dmitry Shapiro.

BoomTown will be focusing a lot on online video this year and Veoh is one of the several online video-sharing sites–a group of smaller players that includes sites like Joost, Hulu, Dailymotion, Vimeo and others that I like to call not-YouTube.

But there are pluses to not being the Google-owned (GOOG) video behemoth, in that major entertainment companies who want to figure out how to put their content online aren’t wondering all day long whether to hug or sue you (or both if you are Sumner Redstone).

Today, for example, the Los Angeles-based Veoh announced that the ABC (DIS) television network would put full episodes of its hot prime-time shows–such as “Ugly Betty” (love it) and “Desperate Housewives” (not so much)–up on the site on a non-exclusive basis.

While Veoh has a lot of short, user-generated material, it has also made a push to get more professional material from big media companies like CBS (CBS)–which wins kudos for being the most promiscuous of networks–on its service.

Interestingly in this deal, media connections seem at play here: Disney-owned ABC is giving over content to Veoh, which has former Disney poobah Michael Eisner as one of its principal investors.

The traffic-type deal is typical–Veoh gets paid to send audience to ABC’s site or gets it to use ABC’s really nice player, and ABC tries to monetize it. Veoh currently says it has 28 million unique monthly visitors.

Of course, Veoh is also trying to figure out that nettlesome monetization issue that all online video sites face, which centers on building audience with the attractive big media content and then getting them to watch other ad-supported fare on its site.

But, as with all video sites, it is still in the early stages and, thus, Veoh got another tidy pile of new funding just two weeks ago to help it muddle through.

That would be $30 million more to add to the kitty of about $40 million previously raised.

Along with existing investors–Shelter Capital Partners, Spark Capital, Goldman Sachs (GS), Eisner’s Tornante Company, Tom Freston’s Firefly3, Time Warner (TWX) Investments and Jonathan Dolgen–Veoh’s latest round included Intel Capital, Adobe Systems (ADBE) and also media and tech investor Gordon Crawford.

I talked to Shapiro, who now serves as Veoh’s chief innovation officer, about the money and more here:

Project Granola?

Apparently, that’s the jokey nickname that’s been given by some in the company to Microsoft’s (MSFT) new online strategy, in the wake of its failed efforts to acquire Yahoo (YHOO) that ended in a big heap of mess this past weekend.

Now, sources tell BoomTown, it is all about “organic”–hence the image of a healthy handful of granola (except for the fact that, in my experience, nobody really likes granola after eating it as much as they think will before).

In any case, it is a word Microsoft folks have been slipping into the conversations with BoomTown over the past few days, so much so that I have started to feel like I was talking to execs from Whole Foods.

Now Microsoft’s greenness has gone public.

Case in point: Brian Hall, Windows Live General Manager, who trotted out the organic word in front of Merrill Lynch analysts yesterday, as reported by CNET’s Ina Fried, saying: “We’ve withdrawn the offer and moved on, and now are focused on how we grow as fast as possible organically.”

But what does organic mean exactly?

Two things, it seems.

First, stepping up spending on marketing, technology and research to try to find ways to differentiate from Google (GOOG) and get into the No. 2 spot now held by Yahoo.

Of course, that plan has not worked out so well as yet for the software giant, with Microsoft spending billions of dollars with no profits and little gain in online search or ad market share, while its archrival Google keeps growing stronger.

Even so, while in Korea today, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates backed Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer’s do-it-yourself path and his move to walk away from Yahoo.

“The key decisions on that will be made by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, who took a look at Yahoo and decided that, on our own, he likes the stuff that we’re doing,” said Gates.

Gates also added what amounts to the second option for Microsoft. “I wouldn’t rule out some partnerships, but we don’t have anything imminent there,” he said.

While a return to Yahoo is a possibility, in fact, buying up Web 2.0 stars is likely to be a bigger focus of the company.

“Yahoo can twist,” said one source. “Microsoft has lots and lots of other options.”

According to sources close to the company, for example, Microsoft’s bankers had been putting out subtle signals to Facebook to see if it would be open to a full buyout.

Microsoft already invested $240 million in the hot social-networking site, an investment that gave Facebook its kooky $15 billion valuation.

And its execs have long told Facebook execs they wouldn’t mind a bigger bite–um, like all of it.

“We just wanted to gauge their interest, more than any real effort,” said another source, who expects Facebook to stick to its longish path to an eventual IPO.

But, as is no secret, Microsoft has selections all over Silicon Valley to help it improve its Internet chances.

Those would include buying bigger vertical sites in strong categories like autos or jobs or finance, and also scooping up smaller but fast-growing socially oriented sites like Digg, Meebo, Yelp or focusing on ad plays like Spot Runner (which just got another big dollop of funding).

There might even be some sense in spinning some of these and all Microsoft Web units off into a separate Internet company, which would be another way of integrating even bigger deals for properties like Time Warner’s (TWX) AOL or News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace (which are longer shots, I think).

In a post I did in February right after Yahoo rebuffed Microsoft for the first time, I suggested such a course for the company.

As I wrote:

Here’s a list: LinkedIn. Digg. Flixster. Slide or RockYou. Veoh. WordPress. Sphere. Sugar. Some international stuff. And more.

Then, some noted, Microsoft would have to give massive financial incentives to those entrepreneurs to stay and thrive. Most importantly, it would have to keep its Redmond hands from interfering.

Now that would send shivers up the spine of Larry and Sergey.”

And that, most of all, would be more like icing on the cake for Microsoft and be much more tasty than a bowl full of granola.

And, as Martha Stewart says: It’s a good thing.

The one-time mighty conference has obviously lagged, as the way the entertainment industry buys and sells programming has drastically changed over the years.

Also a concern: the impact of interactive technologies–digital issues seemed to be the biggest topic for attendees.

I was there, for example, for a panel–called “Possibilities and Perils of Internet TV”–about online video with Walt Disney head Michael Eisner (pictured here), former Viacom head Jonathan Dolgen and Dmitry Shapiro, founder and CIO of Veoh.

Both Eisner and Dolgen are investors in Veoh–one of the many online video services out there. And Eisner has been dabbling in the new-media content space with several efforts at original programming.

The conversation was lively, with Eisner bullish that the online video market would explode in the coming years, both in terms of influence and profitability.

He compared the situation to the early days of cable television and also noted that it would take a new generation of talent to make it happen at lower costs.

And Eisner quite correctly noted that a lot of the new stuff that is being produced for the Web from Hollywood is simply weak material that failed to get on television.

But he did point to all sorts of interesting experimentation going on, and said he was convinced that advertisers would eventually follow.

Both he and also Dolgen expected the advent of better editorial control and programming efforts would increase audience.

I was less sanguine, in my ongoing role as official grump of the Web, wondering how overblown production costs and this-is-the-way-we-do-it stubbornness in Hollywood would change.

More importantly, I am still waiting for better answers on how really serious money will be made in the medium.

In any case, here is a short video I made, with interviews with Shapiro and Dolgen. Of course, Mr. Online Video, Eisner, declined to be interviewed by me and my little annoying Flip camera:

I am back in Sin City to appear on a panel at the National Association of Television Program Executives (NATPE) conference here today, along with former Walt Disney head Michael Eisner, former Viacom head Jonathan Dolgen and Dmitry Shapiro, founder and CIO of Veoh.

Titled “Possibilities and Perils of Internet TV,” it should be an interesting discussion, since I think it is all peril at this point with very little to show in the possibility column.

While there have been a lot of attempts to create Internet TV–and by this I don’t mean delivering traditional television via IP–most of what is out there is repurposed professional content that Hollywood hopes we will think is newfangled and, via easy-to-post user-generated material, a more massive version of “America’s Funniest Home Videos.”

In other words, bad Web programs and a whole lot of videos of cats on skateboards. As for profits from all this: Not so much.

Nonetheless, the television industry is changing dramatically. With the backdrop of the writers’ strike, the situation is even more volatile, as viewers migrate away from the network model and toward, well, who knows?

Both Eisner and Dolgen are investors in Veoh–one of the many online video services out there, this one aimed at professional content. And Eisner has been dabbling in the new media content space to mixed results.

I wrote about Eisner back in November when he jumped on the Blame-Steve-Jobs bandwagon, saying Apple was to blame for Hollywood’s woes.

Said Eisner–whose tense relationship with Jobs was well known–then: “[Movie and television studios] make deals with Steve Jobs, who takes them to the cleaners. They make all these kinds of things, and who’s making money? Apple! They should get a piece of Apple. If I was a union, I’d be striking up wherever he is.”

I will be sure to ask him about that comment.

Tech is getting a lot of attention in Hollywood, so talking about online video is a key area for the independent filmmakers who are here this year.

Topics on the panel were wide-ranging, including: social networking, politics, the writers’ strike and the need for more broadband.

Better yet, here’s the description of the panel:

“The writing is on the wall–the industry must adapt to new media or face extinction. Today’s studios and independents are finally embracing the challenge of porting content and revenue to new distribution strategies. Join Hollywood power brokers and new media superstars to discuss their strategies for the Web.”

The panelists included Ted Sarandos (Netflix), Dmitry Shapiro (founder and CEO of Veoh.com), Dan Glickman (MPAA), Jason Kilar (CEO of Hulu.com), Mike Volpi (CEO of Joost.com), Erik Flanagan (EVP Digital Media MTV Networks/Comedy Central/South Park Studios) and tech strategy adviser Phil Lelyveld.

In other words, me and seven guys, which is about par for the course in Silicon Valley!

Here’s the video:

And here is my video touring the festival.

I just got to Park City, Utah, for my annual visit (well, this will be my third year here) to the famous film festival that takes place in this lovely mountain resort.

While I like a good movie as much as the next person, I am no film aficionado, nor do I have a screenplay stuffed in a drawer, nor do I hope someday to direct. I do like celebrity sightings, of course.

I am here because the Sundance Film Festival has understood early and often that technology is becoming increasingly important to the future of the film industry.

Because of that, they’ve been expanding additional offerings in the digital arena with panels throughout the festival.

The panel I will moderate is a great one about online video, called “Webolution!–Hollywood Adapts to the Web.” It will take place tomorrow at 12:30 p.m. at the New Frontier on Main here.

Here’s the description:

“The writing is on the wall–the industry must adapt to new media or face extinction. Today’s studios and independents are finally embracing the challenge of porting content and revenue to new distribution strategies. Join Hollywood power brokers and new media superstars to discuss their strategies for the Web.”

The panelists include Ted Sarandos (Netflix), Dmitry Shapiro (founder and CEO of Veoh.com), Dan Glickman (MPAA), Jason Kilar (CEO of Hulu.com), Mike Volpi (CEO of Joost.com), Erik Flanagan (EVP Digital Media MTV Networks/Comedy Central/South Park Studios) and tech strategy adviser Phil Lelyveld.

Videos, of course, to come, along with visits with various tech players here, who are increasing in number annually. And, maybe, a Hollywood celeb or two.

Pictured here, the 40-year-old longtime tech exec is a nice choice to run the moderately hyped online video television site.

But I will admit it–I have not been gung-ho on the prospect of Joost–which I have called a potentially “messy control freak of a service.”

I was teasing, of course, but do have doubts about the company–founded by the well-known geek duo Janus Friis and Niklas Zennström–as being too closed and destination oriented, as well as playing in a very crowded field.

In addition, Joost needs massive amounts of cooperation from the very restrictive mandarins of Hollywood. And we all know the amount of leadership they have brought as all content has gone digital–some sum much less than zero.

By the way, Friis and Zennström are the pair who disrupted the phone industry with Skype and also created the controversial peer-to-peer file-sharing service Kazaa, used by many to illegally download–yes–copyrighted entertainment content.

But now in the age of fear and loathing in Hollywood for Google-owned YouTube comes Joost, which aims to deliver a TV experience on the Web with high-quality professional content by using a special player you download. It is free, supported by advertising.

To do this, Joost nabbed $45 million in funding in May from Silicon Valley’s famed Sequoia Capital (backers of Yahoo, YouTube and Google, among others) and early Skype funder Index Ventures, as well as CBS, Viacom and the wealthy Hong Kong investor Li Ka-shing.

It has struck deals to offer content, using a peer-to-peer technology distribution system, from CBS, as well as Turner and Warner Bros. and Sony. It has also picked up a slate of big-time advertisers like Coca-Cola. Also, unlike television, it also gives users a bunch of interactive options like instant messaging while viewing and news feeds.

So far, Hollywood likes Joost because, hmm, it’s not copyright-defying YouTube.

But the start-up is not alone. For example, NBC Universal and News Corp. will soon launch a new Web video service called Hulu, in a reported $100 million effort. Also, there’s Veoh, backed by former Hollywood bigwigs Michael Eisner and, recently, Tom Freston.

(At least Joost has this going for it–not such a dopey name as those two! In fact, I like the name a lot.)

And it seems as if a new video site pops up constantly, as every traditional content provider tries to figure out a strategy, even as less cooperative techies like YouTube and Apple’s iTunes grow ever more popular.

So what better place to interview Volpi, a longtime Cisco exec (who was considered the heir apparent to CEO and Chairman John Chambers), than on the trendy Asia de Cuba patio at the Mondrian Hotel on Sunset Strip.

While Volpi has the tech cred, he is also pretty smooth for Silicon Valley, possessing a bit of Hollywood style and looking hipper than your average nerd (it’s obviously due to his Italian-born roots).

Well-liked and respected in the tech industry, the mechanical engineering grad from Stanford was raised in Japan, where his journalist mother covered a wide range of issues.

Yesterday in Los Angeles to make the rounds at the studios, trying to explain what Joost will do for them, Volpi talked with me about everything from Joost’s prospects to widgetmania to how you create great online content.

He also insulted me, calling me hyped (that’s the digital pot calling the Web kettle black!).

Here’s the first video with the second posted here:

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

I will be traveling south to Los Angeles Sunday afternoon to do a few days reporting there.

That will include visits to the offices of JibJab, Userplane, Disney’s Internet Group, as well as some catching up with newly minted investor Ross Levinsohn and Joost CEO Mike Volpi.

We’ll be headed that way again a week later to go to Rafat Ali’s “iPhone & Beyond” one-day conference, and to see the new studios of TMZ, the execs at Move.com, Veoh and perhaps visit MySpace, Yahoo in Santa Monica, Helio and also meet the new head of Hulu.

Also on the agenda, DEMOfall and a lunch with blogger Paul Kedrosky in San Diego.

As you can see, a wide range of companies and people, which is why if you’re going to be a tech reporter going forward, you must school yourself quickly on what is happening in the digital arena in Southern California.

I have an even longer list of people and companies I want to meet there, so I expect to get there more often over the next year, rather than just sticking to the 101/280 corridor here in Northern California.

In fact, I have been wading deeply especially into the entertainment industry for a long time now, because the intersection of that industry and tech is one of the more important stories going forward. It’s a canard that Silicon Valley and Hollywood are at odds. While they will be fighting, of course, their fates are now inextricably combined and even aligned.

Case in point: A post I did this past week on the appalling instance of an ingenue singer being “discovered” on YouTube, when it turns out she was being secretly groomed by Hollywood Records to seem like an amateur phenom.

An amazing story, which is all about how marketing, entertainment, content and distribution of information are shifting quickly and with great chaos.

So, I will just say, as Randy Newman sings below (a video someone ripped onto YouTube, of course), I love L.A. Considering the stakes, it would be foolish not to.

Here’s an interesting graph from a Wall Street Journal article yesterday about the continuing efforts to figure out the best way to monetize online video, which is considered the gold mine of Web 2.0.

That is, if anyone can create innovative advertising beyond the weak ideas thus far, like the 15-second preroll–a wretched experience that only an advertiser could love.

In a recent interview on ways to make money on his own online video business that could be seen universally, Veoh Networks’ new CEO Steve Mitgang noted: “We’ve really created a great product; we haven’t created a great business. … We need to make money.”

Indeed. Powerhouse YouTube only generated about $30 million in revenue last year, despite the gigantic growth in audience. All the big players are experimenting with a variety of ideas, such as overlays, though none has broken out yet.

If they do, the business could grow into the billions from $410 million last year.