I really hate these news sites that overload their sites with graphics like images and videos.
I long for simple websites that dont have auto playing videos that are always on some corner even when scrolled down.
Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
11–20 of 87 posts
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#12"...the shows are weekly, focus on evergreen topics and run up to eight minutes per episode..." That's __obviously__ not a good fit for FB. Nothing more. Nothing less. To say anything more means someone has an ax to grind. Perhaps the title oft his article should be: "Full Disclosure; Google Paid Me to Write This"?
Most likely someone who feels raw about FBs stock price on its way to full recovery despite the recent scandal.
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#13"...the shows are weekly, focus on evergreen topics and run up to eight minutes per episode..." That's __obviously__ not a good fit for FB. Nothing more. Nothing less. To say anything more means someone has an ax to grind. Perhaps the title oft his article should be: "Full Disclosure; Google Paid Me to Write This"?
I don't think I understand. Is it the 8 min part that isn't a good fit for FB?
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#14Youtube seems to offer a better user experience than facebook for users who don't have an account or aren't signed into an account. I have no data to back this up, but I suspect users with no accounts or users who aren't signed in account for a sizable portion of the youtube audience.
>Youtube seems to offer a better user experience than facebook for users who don't have an account or aren't signed into an account. I have no data to back this up, but I suspect users with no accounts or users who aren't signed in account for a sizable portion of the youtube audience.
That's true for me. I'm not on FB, and even publicly-accessible pages will throw up a "Please login" screen after a few seconds. So I see very little FB content. OTOH, I watch plenty of Youtube videos, and I can see, AFAICT, all of the non-paid content even when I'm not logged in.
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#15I really hate these news sites that overload their sites with graphics like images and videos. I long for simple websites that dont have auto playing videos that are always on some corner even when scrolled down.
Safari on mobile supports defaulting to Reading Mode for domains.
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#16Wayyyyyyy safer, and yet still not.
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#17There's not enough open-source back-end tools that would allow a site to host and publish videos on their own, without going through a third-party service. Where is the video equivalent to WordPress?
Publishing is usually not the issue. The delivery is. Besides being it very expensive to re-encode, store and delivery content (in comparison to text), it's incredibly challenging to create good experience for the end user. This is where companies like mux [0] come in the picture, but it's a paid product. YouTube is "free" with a chance to also generate, in some cases, pretty significant revenue stream. [0] https://m…
Publishing is part of the problem. We need to be able to go from Final Cut Pro to web. It has the capability to deliver HTTP Live Streaming, but that's not supported in all browsers.
Everything from between "Final Cut Pro" and "Web Browser" needs to be standardized with easy-to-use self-publishing capabilities.
(The CDN can take care of the bandwidth)
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#18Given YouTubes weird stances on content moderation, I'm not sure that's a wise bet.
A brand publisher is in a much better position to roll with that than an indie content maker. Having worn both hats, it's strange how much your perspective changes.
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#19I just don't see smaller magazine publishers sustaining the production of video. It's extremely high cost relative to other content and they don't have the traffic or niche audience required to gather the ad revenue to support it.
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#20"...the shows are weekly, focus on evergreen topics and run up to eight minutes per episode..." That's __obviously__ not a good fit for FB. Nothing more. Nothing less. To say anything more means someone has an ax to grind. Perhaps the title oft his article should be: "Full Disclosure; Google Paid Me to Write This"?
So many conspiracy theorist snowflakes in tech.