6 ms·
TikTok is in the same niche (short form, mobile-first video content) and hasn't been hurt by the pandemic.
by nostromo 6y ago
TikTok is in the same niche (short form, mobile-first video content) and hasn't been hurt by the pandemic.
- ViViDboarder 6y agoSocial media is pretty different.
- fumar 6y agoHow is it different from a consumer perspective? As a consumer I have the ability to choose when and what media I interact with. Wouldn’t Quibi be a fun distraction at home for 10-15 minutes?
- awinter-py 6y agotiktok has infinitely more content and pays infinitely less for it tiktok has more viral hits per day than quibi generated in its whole lifetime tiktok is expert at recommendation, quibi doesn't have enough content to have a recommender quibi doesn't have anything share-driven
- eric_h 6y ago> quibi doesn't have anything share-driven and that right there is why quibi failed - the only quibi clip I've seen was taken by someone using another phone to record it and post it to twitter. By not allowing viral hits to be easily shared on any platform they shot themselves in the foot.
- awinter-py 6y agoyeah the 'no screenshots' rule was a thinker
- eric_h 6y agoThere are so many ways they could have allowed sharing of clips/photos without giving copies of all their content to other services (which I imagine was the motivation for making it effectively impossible to share anything on other networks). Seems like such an obvious miss.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- schnable 6y agoTikTok is free.
- ehsankia 6y agoI would definitely put TikTok much closer to Quibi/Youtube than to Twitter/Facebook. Maybe Instagram, but most people go to TikTok to consume media, not to conversations.
- pm90 6y agoThe vast majority of twitter/Facebook users are consumers and not conversationists. Besides, I would say tiktok has the same amount of conversations as twitter.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Polylactic_acid 6y agoThere is a difference between watching 6 second meme videos and full length content.
- drusepth 6y agoTo be fair, I wouldn't be surprised if a large % of TikTok users watch are on the app for durations equivalent to full length content. I see two, three, even four hours/day spent in the app surprisingly frequently. It's built to be addictive and keep you scrolling.
- ulfw 6y ago...where content is produced for free instead of bought in for billions of dollars. How does this compare?
- SilasX 6y agoIt compares in that it's the same thing but a more sustainable sourcing model.
- ulfw 6y agoThen it's not the same thing! I'm sorry. Youtube and netflix aren't the same thing either. One has to pay for hosting costs, the other has to pay for hosting AND sourcing/production costs. (*I am simplifying here. I am aware Youtube is more than that)
- SilasX 6y agoThat’s a really strange concept of “same”. You’re saying that if one business makes a stupid decision (overpays for an input, in this case, content), while the other one doesn’t, then they can’t be compared, merely on account of one having made the stupid decision and thus you can’t really say it was stupid?
- ulfw 6y agoI don't understand how you possible cannot realise there is a difference between hosting other people's content (UGC, in your example tik tok) and producing/sourcing/paying for content (in your example Quibi). There is a difference between being a librarian who sells 1000 books and being a librarian AND author who sells AND writes 1000 books
- SilasX 6y agoOf course there's a difference! Any time you have two things with different identities, you can point to a difference. The important question is whether they have a difference that is applicable to the defense/failure explanation that was offered. My point was that Katzenberg does not. Katzenberg claimed that "gosh, you just can't make money on a short-form video content service right now, there's covid and the lingering effects of 9/11 blah blah blah." Oops, major counterexample: Tik-Tok. YouTube. Instagram/FB stories. Dubious defense: "Oh, those aren't remotely comparable, because they paid less for their content. Obviously, the world turns upside down and the two become incomparable once you fill that service with content you paid too much for. You can't go with the much simpler explanation that we were just much worse at finding content people would be willing to view at a price sufficient to cover our costs." >There is a difference between being a librarian who sells 1000 books and being a librarian AND author who sells AND writes 1000 books Okay, if you want to go that route, the analogy would be: Pointy-haired boss: "I'm going to make a fortune creating and hosting books." PHB: <fails> PHB: "Well, gosh, you know, people just aren't really reading that kind of content now, so of course it's going to be unprofitable." Creators: "What? We make plenty providing content." Bookstores and conventional libraries: "What? We make plenty of money buying and hosting content." PHB: "No, you can't compare that, because I try to do both!" Quibi is just the same, except that you can also add: YouTube/TikTok: "Huh? We make money hosting free content where we share a cut of the advertising with the providers." At what point do you say, "No, dude, the market is there, you're just bad at it"?
- filmgirlcw 6y agoTikTok isn’t $4.99 a month. Now, I would argue that even if it were, it would be more successful than Quibi, but free versus subscription (and the subscription still included ads) are very different things.
- AdamJacobMuller 6y ago> and the subscription still included ads sigh Who thought that would be a good idea.
- mypalmike 6y agoHulu somehow manages to get people to pay and still view ads.
- blueblisters 6y agoBecause the product is not Hulu but the TV shows that you can stream exclusively on Hulu. Clearly very few people were convinced Quibi had content that they needed to watch.