Why would you watch a 30 second ad just to watch a 2 minute video? Naturally, if you have the same content, people will watch the videos WITHOUT ads. This is why ads don't work as well on Youtube compared to Podcasts. Most people go to YouTube to watch bite sized videos. ![]() How long was it? Probably like 3 minutes to 5, or maybe you watch a conference livestream or tutorial that's 1 hour long, but those are exceptions. Now think about the last YouTube video you watched. Yes, they are mostly "long-form" content that are 30 minutes to 1 hour long. ![]() When was the last time you've sat through a shitty Podcast that's 1 hour long? You probably haven't. Let's dig in further to see what's going on. There are always reasons behind everything. > The fact that podcasts work better economically for content makers than youtube. Once it becomes centralized you're better off just distributing content as a centralized feed like Twitter. In this environment, RSS is virtually meaningless because the whole point of RSS was to have an open standard in a world where everyone ran their own RSS servers. because.centralizing makes sense economically. When was the last time you downloaded a Podcast from a self-hosted server? Most people download podcasts through iTunes, SoundCloud, etc. I would argue that podcasts are as decentralized as emails are "decentralized". It happened to be decentralized and rss-based. Users adopted podcasts because the content was there, even though the UX was/is clunky. They were the way to distribute certain content. It would be possible to make FB with much less than the $25bn in ad revenue it generates. ![]() FB is at least an order of magnitude above that boundary. ^Of course, there are bounds of viability/sutainability. The fact that podcasts work better economically for content makers than youtube. All the decisions that made these platforms successful are/were not directly related to ad-money. the economics are very profitable for the platforms, but not anyone else. Even if you have enough viewers to make a TV show successful, you probably can't afford 3 full time makers on youtube revenue. Youtube doesn't work well (money-wise) for independent producers. If these users had chosen different platforms, these would have won regardless of how well these platforms lend to advertising^.Ĭentralizing news on FB (for example) isn't working (money-wise) for most news organisations or other established, professional content producers. These decisions collectively determined FB, twitter or youtube becoming major platforms. The profitability of youtube or FB doesn't impact their decisions to post videos there. ![]() So, who does this economy work for? It just doesn't apply to regular, "personal" users. They won because that is where people put their content and where people looked at that content. But, all three "won" their respective platform wars before those lucrative ad businesses existed. The platforms' ad businesses definitely benefited from being centralised and proprietary. Let's start from examples: youtube, facebook, twitter. "GeneratedFileHeader": "Generated by Eddie v, try install.Economics certainly was central to the story, past or future, but I wouldn't state it quite so strongly.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |