4 ms·

what I don't get is, if they saw a high number of views on FB with no actual revenue, why didn't they revert to their previous behavior of just sharing links?

ceejayoz 7y ago
Some of the revenue will have been CH directly selling ads (sponsorships, product placement, etc.) based on those inflated viewership counts.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  ... and that's the meta-story. "Ad-supported business models are fragile."
  - vkou 7y ago
    Do you have a better business model that has been proven to work for monetizing the kind of content CH made? People won't pay for a subscription for that, people won't donate enough to keep the business afloat, and people don't actually want to use attention tokens/microtransactions. A lot of people claimed that these alternatives work, but I've yet to see a business prove that they actually work.
    - Groxx 7y ago
      Dropout, the CH thing that will keep running for 6 months or more despite all this, is subscription-based.
      - ergothus 7y ago
        When I saw this article, I checked out. Sadly it was a mess that made it hard to find the CH content liked (such as the messages from CEOs skits). That may have been their roku app though. Still, since that is how I consume content, and since they already laid everyone off, I cancelled my trial.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      It's possible that for the kind of content CH creates, a better business model doesn't exist. It's tough to make a living being a comedian. Especially in an era of deeply-interconnected communication where "everyone's a comedian."
    - mrtksn 7y ago
      What about licencing? Think of it like Star Wars but comes with free movie tickets and makes the money from merchandise and licensing characters/artwork etc. to businesses that actually sell things.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Not they aren't. Facebook and Google are advertising businesses, and two of the most valuable companies in the world. Poorly executed business models based on faulty data and no clear profitability are fragile.
    - jjeaff 7y ago
      Facebook and google aren't ad supported in the sense that many content creators are. They are ad platform providers which gives them a totally different position of power than 99% of companies out there trying to live on ad revenue.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        They're exactly the same. They sell advertising space on their own websites and get attention by giving away free content and services. Publishers also buy each others tech and advertise on each others sites. The business models are identical, just with vastly different scales.
        echelon 7y ago
        They are platforms and content marketplaces (where the currency is attention). This is entirely different than run of the mill publishers that can't drive attention at scale. Google and Facebook can leverage their power to put entire industries out of business.
        manigandham 7y ago
        Publishers also monetize attention. Scale is the only difference, the business models are the same regardless.
- slg 7y ago
  Also when these companies are selling ads instead of relying on native ads, some of the moves are made in anticipation of future revenue rather than based off current revenue numbers. It is just like a startup that touts active users over any revenue numbers. Once you have people's attention, monetization was generally assumed. A company might therefore move video to Facebook as soon as they consistently see that Facebook videos get 10x the viewership numbers compared to videos on their own site only to later realize that inflated viewership number was wrong.
wyclif 7y ago
Because, as one of the parent comments mentioned, it was too late. CollegeHumor's readers changed their behaviour because of FB's shady practices.

ceejayoz 7y ago

Some of the revenue will have been CH directly selling ads (sponsorships, product placement, etc.) based on those inflated viewership counts.

shadowgovt 7y ago
... and that's the meta-story. "Ad-supported business models are fragile."
- vkou 7y ago
  Do you have a better business model that has been proven to work for monetizing the kind of content CH made? People won't pay for a subscription for that, people won't donate enough to keep the business afloat, and people don't actually want to use attention tokens/microtransactions. A lot of people claimed that these alternatives work, but I've yet to see a business prove that they actually work.
  - Groxx 7y ago
    Dropout, the CH thing that will keep running for 6 months or more despite all this, is subscription-based.
    - ergothus 7y ago
      When I saw this article, I checked out. Sadly it was a mess that made it hard to find the CH content liked (such as the messages from CEOs skits). That may have been their roku app though. Still, since that is how I consume content, and since they already laid everyone off, I cancelled my trial.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    It's possible that for the kind of content CH creates, a better business model doesn't exist. It's tough to make a living being a comedian. Especially in an era of deeply-interconnected communication where "everyone's a comedian."
  - mrtksn 7y ago
    What about licencing? Think of it like Star Wars but comes with free movie tickets and makes the money from merchandise and licensing characters/artwork etc. to businesses that actually sell things.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Not they aren't. Facebook and Google are advertising businesses, and two of the most valuable companies in the world. Poorly executed business models based on faulty data and no clear profitability are fragile.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    Facebook and google aren't ad supported in the sense that many content creators are. They are ad platform providers which gives them a totally different position of power than 99% of companies out there trying to live on ad revenue.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      They're exactly the same. They sell advertising space on their own websites and get attention by giving away free content and services. Publishers also buy each others tech and advertise on each others sites. The business models are identical, just with vastly different scales.
      - echelon 7y ago
        They are platforms and content marketplaces (where the currency is attention). This is entirely different than run of the mill publishers that can't drive attention at scale. Google and Facebook can leverage their power to put entire industries out of business.
        manigandham 7y ago
        Publishers also monetize attention. Scale is the only difference, the business models are the same regardless.
slg 7y ago
Also when these companies are selling ads instead of relying on native ads, some of the moves are made in anticipation of future revenue rather than based off current revenue numbers. It is just like a startup that touts active users over any revenue numbers. Once you have people's attention, monetization was generally assumed. A company might therefore move video to Facebook as soon as they consistently see that Facebook videos get 10x the viewership numbers compared to videos on their own site only to later realize that inflated viewership number was wrong.

wyclif 7y ago

Because, as one of the parent comments mentioned, it was too late. CollegeHumor's readers changed their behaviour because of FB's shady practices.