Online Video Sources will shift further

[Flint]

Those of you who participate in social media may have noticed the extreme growth of native videos on Facebook and Instagram and fewer linked videos from YouTube. This is a trend you will see more of over the coming year as Facebook is rewarding content creators financially for posting their content natively on Facebook versus embedding a link to it on YouTube. Instagram is doing the same.

I had a long conversation with a guy who makes his living off online video content he creates, and he said he now has to produce multiple copies of his content for each platform which pays for content (based on views and advertising click-through). Once he produces a new video, the longest version will go to his YouTube channel - he tries to make those videos over 10 minutes long as that multiplies the advertising revenue. He will make a 3 to 5 minute version for Facebook which ends with a link to YouTube "to see the full video". Then he will make a trailer or short clip version for Instagram which is about 30 seconds to a minute long with a link to the YouTube version.

He says this is very time consuming, but Facebook punishes him for embedded content now by not paying advertising revenue for linked content. So to make money he has to make it native on each platform, and each platform has different tastes in terms of length and such. So, for maximum reward for each video production, three to four versions are now created designed specifically for each platform.

I already see this in the advertising produced by my favorite drums and percussion brands. They produce content of musicians playing their instruments, and those videos are very entertaining to me. But the same video doesn't appear on the different platforms - instead they create different versions or not even overlap the content at all. Crazy!

 

[Akula]

It sounds kind of like what we've been seeing with subscription streaming sources (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc.). Not all content is available on all services, forcing the user to multiply service uses (and therefore subscriptions) or choose between media that is viewed.

I have noticed more native Facebook video but did not know why. Thanks for the background.

 

[Haywood]

I'm pretty sure that once the shift away from traditional cable is done, we will find that we spend just as much on programming as we did before. I think the real advantage of the way things are going is the ability to pay for exactly the kind of programming you want. I just hope that we continue to have at least the option to opt out of ads (ala Hulu), because I hate watching them with a burning passion and don't mind paying extra to avoid them.

 

[Towen7]

I'm pretty sure that once the shift away from traditional cable is done, we will find that we spend just as much on programming as we did before. I think the real advantage of the way things are going is the ability to pay for exactly the kind of programming you want. I just hope that we continue to have at least the option to opt out of ads (ala Hulu), because I hate watching them with a burning passion and don't mind paying extra to avoid them.

I agree. The data I'm seeing indicates that the shift away from traditional cable is not resulting in people spending less time watching video.

 

[Haywood]

I agree. The data I'm seeing indicates that the shift away from traditional cable is not resulting in people spending less time watching video.

I was thinking more about the money we spend than the time. I currently spend $43 on streaming services (including Amazon, which may not be fair).

 

[Towen7]

Oh, I knew what you meant. I was just saying that it's not unreasonable to expect the laws of supply and demand to be in play. If demand rises, so will cost.

 

[Botch]

I'm not understanding what would keep Farcebook from preventing, or charging for, a link on the video on their site, going to a longer version on EweTube.

 

[Flint]

To encourage people to use Facebook, they do not charge for links, but they will block links to sites with excessive unregistered advertising. You may have noticed a reduction in clearly scammy click-bait posts.

Facebook stopped pay for advertising they insert into the page while watching an embedded videos in order to encourage people to make those videos native to Facebook. That way they can control all of the content and tune it to the viewer, making it more accurate and pleasing to the user (and thus charge more). If an embedded YouTube video has ads in it, YouTube still pays for those even if the video is embedded elsewhere, you just don't benefit from all the other ads that appear on the page if the viewer were watching the video at YouTube instead of Facebook.

It is pretty complicated, and learning how it all works is how content creators make the most money for their efforts.

 

[Haywood]

I greatly prefer YouTube, because I have a Red subscription and don't have to watch ads. I hate ads. A lot. I pay extra to get the ad-free version of Hulu as well.

This has no bearing on the realities of this thread and it is certainly no ding on Facebook for investing in their own video infrastructure and incentivizing people to use it. I just like talking about how much I hate ads.

Did I mention that I hate ads?

Cause I do.

 

[Botch]

While you're hating the ads, may I ask how much Red costs?

I don't mind ads on the header, on the side, on the other side, on the bottom, and after the video finishes.
But when they stick an ad into the middle of the f*&^$^%! 1" x 3" video screen on my laptop, I hate that. HATE it!

 

[Haywood]

While you're hating the ads, may I ask how much Red costs?

I don't mind ads on the header, on the side, on the other side, on the bottom, and after the video finishes.
But when they stick an ad into the middle of the f*&^$^%! 1" x 3" video screen on my laptop, I hate that. HATE it!

A family membership costs $15/mo and provides both YouTube Red and Google Play Music to up to five family member Google accounts. It is great when watching on a computer, but even better when watching on a TV.