4 ms·

500,000 followers puts his viewership on par with, say, "Morning Joe" with Joe Scarborough Mika Brzezinski. (Rough numbers, here.) A little research. Poking ar

by chasing 10y ago

500,000 followers puts his viewership on par with, say, "Morning Joe" with Joe Scarborough Mika Brzezinski. (Rough numbers, here.) A little research. Poking around I see "Family Guy" has been pulling, say, $250k for a 30 second spot. They've got, say, five times "Morning Joe's" ratings. So let's say "MJ" gets $50k/spot to access (influence) their 500k viewers. Super rough numbers, to reiterate, but I bet it's of this scale given what the hosts make. So. $80k doesn't seem that out-of-line to market directly towards a very narrowly defined demographic of that size. If you can accumulate such an audience, it's probably reasonable to compare your impact to that of a moderately popular TV show. And if you can make that impact with basically zero overhead... Well. Seems reasonable that you'd be raking in some cash.

eridius 10y ago
I don't think you can directly compare followers like that, though. This guy may have 500,000 followers, but that doesn't mean they're actually viewing everything he posts. Whereas viewership of TV shows is attempting to measure how many people actually watched that show.
- csydas 10y ago
  I'm not sure the it's all that different though really, since I don't think it measures "watched" as much as "had the show on as noted by the set box". Unless the tech has changed, I think it just is hardware that determines what was on the TV and when; it's not actively checking to see if people are watching. Just having the TV on doesn't really mean that the people are watching, paying attention, or even in the same room. (for an example, my folks insist they can't fall asleep unless the TV is on in the background, with my mother and aunt joking that the Law and Order theme song is a lullaby for them). That certainly would be more in line with what the Snapchat audience is like. Advertisers are well aware of this and seem pretty contented with that fact, and have devised some real-world tactics to better get their audience's attention.
  - bleachedsleet 10y ago
    Also worth noting that any view on Snapchat is indicative of active engagement because of the ephemeral nature of it (even the stories to an extent are a view it once experience). All my peers (younger age brackets) always use Snapchat when they want to guarantee a response from their friends because it forces immediate interaction. Despite its urgent nature, I've found it actually forces more thoughtful responses because people have to make time to actually view and immediately reply. Also, anyone they follow on their stories is usually viewed at some point. Browsing your Snapchat story updates is akin to a modern form of scrolling through the news but with guaranteed viewership.
oculusthrift 10y ago
I don't think it's quite fair to compare it to morning joe, which routinely also gets half a million views on Youtube and holds people's attentions for an hour instead of 20 seconds. That being said, SnapChat also reaches the prime demo for advertisers: Idiotic Tweens.

by chasing 10y ago

eridius 10y ago

I don't think you can directly compare followers like that, though. This guy may have 500,000 followers, but that doesn't mean they're actually viewing everything he posts. Whereas viewership of TV shows is attempting to measure how many people actually watched that show.

csydas 10y ago
I'm not sure the it's all that different though really, since I don't think it measures "watched" as much as "had the show on as noted by the set box". Unless the tech has changed, I think it just is hardware that determines what was on the TV and when; it's not actively checking to see if people are watching. Just having the TV on doesn't really mean that the people are watching, paying attention, or even in the same room. (for an example, my folks insist they can't fall asleep unless the TV is on in the background, with my mother and aunt joking that the Law and Order theme song is a lullaby for them). That certainly would be more in line with what the Snapchat audience is like. Advertisers are well aware of this and seem pretty contented with that fact, and have devised some real-world tactics to better get their audience's attention.
- bleachedsleet 10y ago
  Also worth noting that any view on Snapchat is indicative of active engagement because of the ephemeral nature of it (even the stories to an extent are a view it once experience). All my peers (younger age brackets) always use Snapchat when they want to guarantee a response from their friends because it forces immediate interaction. Despite its urgent nature, I've found it actually forces more thoughtful responses because people have to make time to actually view and immediately reply. Also, anyone they follow on their stories is usually viewed at some point. Browsing your Snapchat story updates is akin to a modern form of scrolling through the news but with guaranteed viewership.

oculusthrift 10y ago

I don't think it's quite fair to compare it to morning joe, which routinely also gets half a million views on Youtube and holds people's attentions for an hour instead of 20 seconds. That being said, SnapChat also reaches the prime demo for advertisers: Idiotic Tweens.