YouTube Under Fire

YouTube. What is it good for?

Not for making a living, apparently. According to new research by Matthias Bärtl of Offenburg University of Applied Sciences in Offenburg, Germany, 96.5 percent of YouTubers trying to make money from their videos won’t earn enough from advertising to exceed the official U.S. poverty line of $12,140 a year.

That’s in part due to YouTube’s low advertising rates, but mostly due to the fact that a tiny slice of videos grab nearly all of the views. According to Bärtl, 3 percent of most-viewed channels in 2016 attracted almost 90 percent of all views.

There’s a broken heart for every “like” on YouTube.

While Bärtl’s research may say more about the unwarranted expectations of most YouTubers than about anything YouTube itself is doing, another new study this week cast the Google-owned site in a more sinister light. Read More »

Competing With Paid

The rise of subscription streaming services, in both the music and video industries, has given the lie to the old complaint that consumers won’t pay for content online. But to many in the music industry, to say nothing of streaming investors, too many of them still don’t.

Ad-supported free streaming services remain the bête noire of the record labels and music publishers. They rail against YouTube, even as they’re making deals with it, and have fought to restrict the copyright safe harbors that allow YouTube to profit from music posted without license by users. They’ve maintained pressure on Spotify to shift more of its free users to its paid subscription tier, a tune now echoed by potential investors as Spotify eyes an IPO or public listing of its shares, and have begun to restrict when new releases are made available on the service’s free tier. Read More »

Amazon in Good Field Position After NFL Deal

Amazon won the auction for live-streaming rights to this season’s Thursday Night Football franchise with a bid of $50 million dollars for a package of 10 games. That’s 5 times what Twitter paid last year for essentially the same deal: Amazon will share the games with NBC and CBS and will stream the networks’ feeds, including their ads. Amazon will also be able to sell a handful of ads per game itself.

The games will be available for free to Amazon Prime members.

Although the 5X increase in price is impressive — and was probably too rich for Twitter — $50 million is still pretty small beans, both for the league — whose deals with the broadcast networks run into the billions — and for Amazon, which has $20 billion on its balance sheet. For both, it’s largely an add-on business at this point.

For the NFL, streaming is still largely an experiment aimed at finding a way to reach cord-cutters and out-of-home viewers, and to test the viewership waters outside the U.S., not to supplant its traditional broadcast deals. For Amazon, the NFL deal is a way to enhance the value of a Prime subscription and to attract to new subscribers at a relatively modest price. Read More »

Plenty of Bundles, Not Much Joy in Linear OTT

YouTube this week formally unveiled its long-gestating linear over-the-top services, YouTube TV, which will feature a skinny-ish  bundle of about 40 live channels for $35 a month. When it begins rolling out later this year in select cities YouTube TV will join Dish Network’s Sling TV, AT&T’s DirecTV Now, and Sony’s Playstation Vue in the linear OTT sweepstakes, and will soon by joined by a previously announced entry by Hulu and perhaps one from Apple.

As with those other services, however, the lineup of channels in YouTube’s bundle is a bit of a hit and miss affair at this point. Subscribers will get all the major broadcast networks, along with ESPN, USA, Bravo, Fox News and MSNBC, but no CNN, Turner or TBS, and no Viacom-owned networks.

Sling TV will get you CNN and Turner but the broadcast networks are only available in select markets, and again, no MTV, Nickelodeon or Comedy Central.

DirecTV Now will sell you a big bundle of 100 or so channels at the skinny-bundle price of $35 a month, but so far AT&T hasn’t figured out how to deliver it to you without its crashing. Read More »

Unsafe Harbors: Fake News Is Part Of a Larger Problem For Facebook

Faced with mounting criticism over the proliferation of fake “news” stories on Facebook, and their alleged role in tipping the outcome of the presidential election, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has fallen back on a familiar formulation: Facebook is a technology company, Zuckerberg insists, not a media company. It merely provides a platform where users can post, share, and respond to content posted and shared by others.

“Our goal is to give every person a voice,” Zuckerberg wrote in a somewhat plaintive blog post over the weekend. “We believe deeply in people. Assuming that people understand what is important in their lives and that they can express those views has driven not only our community, but democracy overall. Sometimes when people use their voice though, they say things that seem wrong and they support people you disagree with.”

BN-QU803_1115te_GR_20161115083039The clear and intended implication is that Facebook is not liable for what its users post, and has very circumscribed responsibility to police false, misleading, and tendentious content on its platform. While Facebook and other social media platforms are now taking some modest steps to discourage the spread of fake news content, they’re stopping well short of accepting editorial accountability.

“This is an area where I believe we must proceed very carefully,” Zuckerberg wrote. “Identifying the ‘truth’ is complicated. ..I am confident we can find ways for our community to tell us what content is most meaningful, but I believe we must be extremely cautious about becoming arbiters of truth ourselves.” Read More »