3 ms·
>Instead they went for the big-star tactics that really doesn't work. Which demonstrates their failure to understand why YouTube is so successful in this space
by mywittyname 6y ago
>Instead they went for the big-star tactics that really doesn't work.
Which demonstrates their failure to understand why YouTube is so successful in this space. YouTube is all about making millions of videos that satisfy the niche interests of billions of individuals, while Hollywood is about making hundreds of things to satisfy the broad interest of billions.
They would have been better served by building up a pipeline for identifying and cultivating new talent. Six million dollars would probably pay for a lot of content created by some attractive college-aged nobodies with a little bit of training. And at least some of that is bound to be a hit.
- magicalhippo 6y agoI'm mostly tired of "TV series", at least the ones that are so very obviously following the same formula, with tons of drama just for the sake of drama etc. Instead I watch interesting mini-documentaries, how-to's etc on YouTube, learning about history, food, electronics etc. However YouTube is annoying, the ads are worse than regular TV now. I'm actually surprised Netflix hasn't branched off into this space. They could have done a Spotify-like thing but for videos. They have all the infra for serving the content, they just need content creators. Sure it would be in competition with their more traditional video content, but as it stands YouTube gets those views anyway...
- bagacrap 6y agoyou realize there's a way to get ad free YT, I assume. Is $10/mo too much to ask for this service, especially if you're going to compare to Netflix?
- magicalhippo 6y agoI knew about Youtube Red, but it was not available in my country. I see now that they have rebranded it to Youtube Premium not long ago, and with it expanded it to include my country. So that's certainly something. Still puzzles me why Netflix isn't trying to get a piece of this pie.