3 ms·

Well, economics has something called “revealed preferences”. Despite your opinions, most people do prefer media from the juggernauts based on where they spend

Well, economics has something called “revealed preferences”. Despite your opinions, most people do prefer media from the juggernauts based on where they spend their money. Based on where people spend their money, your preferences are in the minority.

nvrspyx 4y ago
Is it that they prefer media from juggernauts or that they're more likely to know of media from juggernauts? Juggernauts are able to put their movies in theaters or cable/streaming television, put trailers in front of other movies or tv shows, take out billboards, etc. Juggernauts are able to market the hell out of their products, while most little guys don't have that opportunity. I imagine that this also has a lasting effect. For example, juggernauts are more likely to have a streaming service trying to pick up their media while also putting that media ahead of little guy's media in that streaming service's recommendations. I'd also guess that over time the probability of organically finding little guy's media drops at a significantly faster rate than juggernaut's media .
- scarface74 4y ago
  Well, we have studios like Blumhouse that create low budget movies that do get a lot of press, have trailers, get plenty of promotion etc. They do well on an ROI basis. But they don’t top the box office.
  - nvrspyx 4y ago
    Since 2014, all of Blumhouse's movies are owned, distributed, and co-produced by Universal Studios. Well, except for their BH Tilt division, which is partnered with Neon for co-production and distribution. Their most notable low-budget film that kickstarted their rise was Paranormal Activity, which was straight up acquired by Paramount Pictures for an actual theatrical release. Blumhouse wouldn't be where they are without the juggernaut's purposefully propping them up.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
sudosysgen 4y ago
People spend their attention here, not their money. YouTube alone has far more watch-time than cinemas or Netflixes.
- scarface74 4y ago
  But how many people are willing to pay $15 to watch 2 hours of YouTube videos? How many paying subscribers does YouTube have compared to Netflix?
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    It's because there is no reason to pay for something you can get for free. The YouTube premium value proposition is different.

nvrspyx 4y ago

Is it that they prefer media from juggernauts or that they're more likely to know of media from juggernauts? Juggernauts are able to put their movies in theaters or cable/streaming television, put trailers in front of other movies or tv shows, take out billboards, etc. Juggernauts are able to market the hell out of their products, while most little guys don't have that opportunity. I imagine that this also has a lasting effect. For example, juggernauts are more likely to have a streaming service trying to pick up their media while also putting that media ahead of little guy's media in that streaming service's recommendations. I'd also guess that over time the probability of organically finding little guy's media drops at a significantly faster rate than juggernaut's media .

scarface74 4y ago
Well, we have studios like Blumhouse that create low budget movies that do get a lot of press, have trailers, get plenty of promotion etc. They do well on an ROI basis. But they don’t top the box office.
- nvrspyx 4y ago
  Since 2014, all of Blumhouse's movies are owned, distributed, and co-produced by Universal Studios. Well, except for their BH Tilt division, which is partnered with Neon for co-production and distribution. Their most notable low-budget film that kickstarted their rise was Paranormal Activity, which was straight up acquired by Paramount Pictures for an actual theatrical release. Blumhouse wouldn't be where they are without the juggernaut's purposefully propping them up.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

sudosysgen 4y ago

People spend their attention here, not their money. YouTube alone has far more watch-time than cinemas or Netflixes.

scarface74 4y ago
But how many people are willing to pay $15 to watch 2 hours of YouTube videos? How many paying subscribers does YouTube have compared to Netflix?
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  It's because there is no reason to pay for something you can get for free. The YouTube premium value proposition is different.