4 ms·

...where content is produced for free instead of bought in for billions of dollars. How does this compare?

by ulfw 6y ago

SilasX 6y ago
It compares in that it's the same thing but a more sustainable sourcing model.
- ulfw 6y ago
  Then 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 ago
    That’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 ago
      I 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 ago
        Of 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"?

...where content is produced for free instead of bought in for billions of dollars. How does this compare?

by ulfw 6y ago

...where content is produced for free instead of bought in for billions of dollars. How does this compare?

SilasX 6y ago

It compares in that it's the same thing but a more sustainable sourcing model.

ulfw 6y ago
Then 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 ago
  That’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 ago
    I 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 ago
      Of 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"?