3 ms·

That's fine. I dropped Time Warner and Comcast years ago. Oddly enough, between Youtube, podcasts, Netflix, iTunes, and bittorrent I have no need to have "chann

by geuis 14y ago

That's fine. I dropped Time Warner and Comcast years ago. Oddly enough, between Youtube, podcasts, Netflix, iTunes, and bittorrent I have no need to have "channels" any more. If there's a movie or tv show I want to see, Netflix -> iTunes -> bittorrent. I've actually been finding I watch Youtube more than anything else. I have a particular set of interests and have found a particular set of regular independent producers on Youtube and subscribe to them. Minecraft: Etho's Lab Starcraft: HDStarcraft and Husky Bread baking: multiple Telescope mirror making: multiple Photography: multiple Beyond that, I listen to a variety of podcasts about tech and photography. I literally have no need for cable tv and haven't for years. All of the interesting stuff is online. What I'd really love to see is a popular tv show with a loyal fan base but marginal viewers on cable to just switch over 100% to Youtube. Put the episodes in full HD and run regular Youtube ads. Maybe do some in-show advertisement, product placement, that kind of thing. Recently, Dirty Jobs was cancelled after 8 years by Discovery. That was a really cool show with a loyal fan base. Its numbers got too low for Discovery so they canned it. It'd be the perfect example to try switching to a pure online model.

recuter 14y ago
> What I'd really love to see is a popular tv show with a loyal fan base but marginal viewers on cable to just switch over 100% to Youtube. Put the episodes in full HD and run regular Youtube ads. Maybe do some in-show advertisement, product placement, that kind of thing. The budget for one Top Gear episode (for example) is greater then what PSY made from his youtube video with a Billion views. On top of that, even the smaller networks enjoy a built in audience of hundreds of thousands (if not several million) viewers for each new show they put out there. If you start a show from obscurity it has a much steeper hill to climb. If you take an already existing show, like you say, it will lose most of its audience because people will think "whatever happened to" and promptly forget about it. That's how good stuff like Firefly gets killed, you move the schedule around a bit and ratings tank because people don't keep up with that.
- geuis 14y ago
  I know the current monetization for videos is low. That's not for lack of audience, its because advertisers have not really switched over a lot of their ad spend to online video. Look at this video from HuskyStarcraft. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfBKFLrUQU4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfBKFLrUQU4. That's his episode celebrating his 700,000th subscriber. 700,000 people subscribe to his channel. He posts several videos a day, usually about 20-30 minutes in length. Each video gets hundreds of thousands of views in a day, and even more over time. There are entire cable networks that don't have that kind of viewership, and this is just a highly-caffeinated guy broadcasting high-level StarCraft 2 games. There are thousands of Youtubers just like him. There's a huge audience worldwide on Youtube. It and sites like it are already the future of broadcast, and the traditional networks are way, way behind. They're going to be less and less relevant as time goes on. If you take an existing show that, as I already said would likely be cancelled, and move it to Youtube there could be an amazing response.
  - recuter 14y ago
    That is rather what I am talking about. He posted 18 videos this week (I'm not counting the two from the last 24 hours) with an avg. of ~55,000 views. There's a lot of noise and people have short attention spans, he also posts stuff willy nilly. So only some small fraction of his 700,000 subscribes see any one video, for the rest it disappears into their feeds. His 360 Million views is still quite a lot, by definition there can only be so many accounts with such a high view count. And yet that translates to a check of only around a quarter million dollars. This is great for a highly caffeinated individual sitting in underwear and recording his screen - it simply doesn't cover a cast and crew even if you improve the CPM by a factor of x10. The truth is that TV advertising is very overpriced and just like newspapers trade physical print dollars for digital pennies the same thing applies here.
AustinGibbons 14y ago
Perhaps less popular in this audience, but it hard to find many live streaming sports (legally) without a cable subscription. The Rose Bowl, for example, was on ESPN yesterday and they did not offer a live stream, afaik.
- _delirium 14y ago
  It's getting increasingly common to be able to buy streaming packages if you're outside the normal TV area, since that allows the streaming offerings to be decided independent of TV contracts. For example, anyone outside the U.S. or Canada can get all NFL games streamed on the internet for $280/season. Americans and Canadians aren't allowed to subscribe to that package, due to exclusive licensing deals with TV stations. I'm not sure that will change anytime soon. NBC pays the NFL $950 million/year for the exclusive license. They would need a lot of streaming subscribers to move the needle relative to that kind of money.

by geuis 14y ago

recuter 14y ago

> What I'd really love to see is a popular tv show with a loyal fan base but marginal viewers on cable to just switch over 100% to Youtube. Put the episodes in full HD and run regular Youtube ads. Maybe do some in-show advertisement, product placement, that kind of thing. The budget for one Top Gear episode (for example) is greater then what PSY made from his youtube video with a Billion views. On top of that, even the smaller networks enjoy a built in audience of hundreds of thousands (if not several million) viewers for each new show they put out there. If you start a show from obscurity it has a much steeper hill to climb. If you take an already existing show, like you say, it will lose most of its audience because people will think "whatever happened to" and promptly forget about it. That's how good stuff like Firefly gets killed, you move the schedule around a bit and ratings tank because people don't keep up with that.

geuis 14y ago
I know the current monetization for videos is low. That's not for lack of audience, its because advertisers have not really switched over a lot of their ad spend to online video. Look at this video from HuskyStarcraft. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfBKFLrUQU4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfBKFLrUQU4. That's his episode celebrating his 700,000th subscriber. 700,000 people subscribe to his channel. He posts several videos a day, usually about 20-30 minutes in length. Each video gets hundreds of thousands of views in a day, and even more over time. There are entire cable networks that don't have that kind of viewership, and this is just a highly-caffeinated guy broadcasting high-level StarCraft 2 games. There are thousands of Youtubers just like him. There's a huge audience worldwide on Youtube. It and sites like it are already the future of broadcast, and the traditional networks are way, way behind. They're going to be less and less relevant as time goes on. If you take an existing show that, as I already said would likely be cancelled, and move it to Youtube there could be an amazing response.
- recuter 14y ago
  That is rather what I am talking about. He posted 18 videos this week (I'm not counting the two from the last 24 hours) with an avg. of ~55,000 views. There's a lot of noise and people have short attention spans, he also posts stuff willy nilly. So only some small fraction of his 700,000 subscribes see any one video, for the rest it disappears into their feeds. His 360 Million views is still quite a lot, by definition there can only be so many accounts with such a high view count. And yet that translates to a check of only around a quarter million dollars. This is great for a highly caffeinated individual sitting in underwear and recording his screen - it simply doesn't cover a cast and crew even if you improve the CPM by a factor of x10. The truth is that TV advertising is very overpriced and just like newspapers trade physical print dollars for digital pennies the same thing applies here.

AustinGibbons 14y ago

Perhaps less popular in this audience, but it hard to find many live streaming sports (legally) without a cable subscription. The Rose Bowl, for example, was on ESPN yesterday and they did not offer a live stream, afaik.

_delirium 14y ago
It's getting increasingly common to be able to buy streaming packages if you're outside the normal TV area, since that allows the streaming offerings to be decided independent of TV contracts. For example, anyone outside the U.S. or Canada can get all NFL games streamed on the internet for $280/season. Americans and Canadians aren't allowed to subscribe to that package, due to exclusive licensing deals with TV stations. I'm not sure that will change anytime soon. NBC pays the NFL $950 million/year for the exclusive license. They would need a lot of streaming subscribers to move the needle relative to that kind of money.