3 ms·
> The price for good content has certianly decreased but it most certianly hasn't become any definition of cheap. Big-budget entertainment certainly remains ex
by michaelt 3y ago
> The price for good content has certianly decreased but it most certianly hasn't become any definition of cheap.
Big-budget entertainment certainly remains extremely relevant for things like star wars and marvel movies, I agree. Not to mention sports!
But the rise of Youtube and Twitch and suchlike have shown there is a great appetite for cheaply produced niche content.
Linear TV would never have considered it economical to air 30 minutes of chess coverage every day. But it turns out there's a market for 30+ minutes of chess-themed entertainment per day, paying in the low seven figures annually. And the viewers really don't mind if the mic is in shot or the guy flubs his lines, they'll do the whole thing in one take.
And sure it's not literally one guy, I know that low-seven-figures has to pay for video editing and community chat moderation and enough of a creative team to keep things fresh and so on - but compared to the production standards of linear TV, even way back in the 1990s, this stuff is very cheaply produced.
- jpc0 3y agoI completely agree with you on this. We can do phenomenal things for cheao these days. But cheap still isn't that cheap. Just a few 0s disappeared from the end. Let me put it this way, it's unlikely even a large YouTube channel is creating The Mandalorian or The Witcher or The Boys anytime soon with a budget that only advertising will be covering. YouTube is an amazing niche and is the only subscription I will happily pay for monthly. But when I want to see creativity who are truly inspiring it's unlikely YouTube is funding it and I will need to have one of the big providers do that.