3 ms·
They are also blaming it on Facebook: > “In order to beat YouTube, Facebook faked incredible viewership numbers, so [CollegeHumor] pivoted to FB,” former Colle
by jannes 7y ago
They are also blaming it on Facebook:
> “In order to beat YouTube, Facebook faked incredible viewership numbers, so [CollegeHumor] pivoted to FB,” former CollegeHumor writer Adam Conover presciently tweeted last October. “So did Funny or Die, many others. The result: A once-thriving online comedy industry was decimated."
- ASalazarMX 7y agoI don't understand this. Did they abandon Youtube for Facebook? They could have easily managed their followers in Facebook while continuing to upload to Youtube as usual.
- ceejayoz 7y agoIt's not the uploading that's the problem, it's the budget you spend on getting new Facebook likes or YouTube channel subscriptions. Buying Facebook likes looked like a wildly better investment, but that was an illusion.
- dudus 7y agoSince both platform forbid straight up buying likes and subscribers that would be a hard line to argue against any of them.
- ceejayoz 7y agoUh, what? "About Page likes ads": https://www.facebook.com/business/help/209213872548401 https://www.facebook.com/business/help/209213872548401 > Page likes ads help you reach people who may like your Page. If your goal is to increase awareness of your business, these ads are a way to promote your Page to people who are interested in your content or businesses like yours. "Advertising your channel": https://creatoracademy.youtube.com/page/lesson/ad-promotion https://creatoracademy.youtube.com/page/lesson/ad-promotion > To help drive more views and subscribers to your channel, you can pay to run an ad campaign for your videos on YouTube through Google Ads. You can create an ad that appears before a video starts, or alongside a video on its watch page on YouTube. Both ban purchasing fake followers, but they'll happily take money to put your page/channel in front of potential genuine subscribers.
- corobo 7y agoYou're thinking dodgy likes. I think the parent comment is referring to ads https://i.imgsir.com/Bv2k.png https://i.imgsir.com/Bv2k.png
- irjustin 7y agoA large problem is content stealers. They'll post the entire video without attribution. Also Facebook for a very long time didn't do anything to prevent content stealing even with takedown notices there were too many. FB didn't have an automated system. College humour was basically forced to put their entire video just to retain views.
- chc 7y agoTo my understanding, what Facebook tried to present to online producers was that publishing native video directly on Facebook was insanely lucrative, not just that they should have a Facebook page.
- amyjess 7y agoBefore they started posting native video on Facebook, their Facebook page consisted of links to stuff posted on the CollegeHumor website. Fans would share CollegeHumor posts to their own timeline, and their friends would click on the links and go to CollegeHumor's site and partake in the community, and if they liked it enough, they'd bookmark the website and just go there. But with native video, you don't get that. What happens on Facebook stays on Facebook. People who watch a video on Facebook might like the video or even leave a comment, but they won't follow through and go to CollegeHumor's website. When they're done with the video, they'll just continue scrolling through their feed.
- milesvp 7y agoWhat’s interesting is there’ve been a couple threads recently on HN talking about this with medium. Bloggers who’ve lost a significant amount of self referral traffic by relying on medium for it’s traffic spikes. Seems to be a common pattern unintentionally trading your long tail for initial spike traffic. I’d be surprised if this is ever sustainable.
- metamet 7y agoRobert Evans (from Behind the Bastards podcast) mentioned in one of his episodes what happened at Cracked when FB's falsified lure led to a strong content pivot to FB. This, obviously, didn't pan out according to what was advertised. The way I understand it, management trusted FB more than they should've, overhauling the way they approached content, which resulted in all the eggs being in one dropped basket.
- smooveCriminal 7y agoI believe it's because Facebook seemed more lucrative because they faked viewership numbers: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-10/hiltzik-facebooks-bogus-video-claims-40-million https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-10/hiltzik-fa...
- sulkie 7y agoWould there be significant disadvantages in using both platforms at the same time? Or does "pivoted to FB" also imply that the content was adjusted to FB audience?
- ceejayoz 7y agoUsing, no, but at some point there will have been meetings about where to use the marketing budget. "We can buy Facebook likes, or YouTube subscribers." "Engagement's so much better on Facebook, let's buy likes." Facebook's incorrect (dramatically so - as high as 900% inflated) stats made buying a like look way more cost effective, so that's where the budgets went.
- michaelt 7y agoI think "pivoted to FB" means "Instead of putting the videos on our site and posting links to our site on FB, we posted native videos on FB"
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]