Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

digiday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 87 posts

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#21

Post by slackoverflower »

JackCh wrote: post #9

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.

I definitely would not say it is a sizable portion. I'd say it is infact a minority of Youtube's audience. Their CEO revealed they have 1.8b logged in users [1] every month watching videos.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/3/17317274/youtube-1-8-billi...

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#22

Post by richsherwood »

katzgrau wrote: post #19

I 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.

It’s getting cheaper and cheaper to produce videos these days though. We’re kind of in the place that graphic design was in 10 years ago. As the equipment gets better, software more powerful, and generations of younger folks with substantial knowledge in the subject, the costs are going to go way down.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#23

Post by soared »

katzgrau wrote: post #19

I 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.

I would argue the opposite.. there are millions of YouTube channels that have no budget at all. Some of my favorite channels have very small budgets.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#24

Post by prostoalex »

mozumder wrote: post #3

There'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?

If the intent is to sell quality ads, advertisers need to see some audience analytics. A smaller publisher is less likely to get people to register, fill in the proper demographic data and stay logged in across all their devices than a large platform.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#25

Post by 52-6F-62 »

Working for a major Canadian multimedia company (including some reputable magazines). Brightcove is pretty much at the core of it. Youtube is a sometimes, or just another endpoint. Facebook Live was used a few times but I haven't heard much from that lately.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#26

Post by 52-6F-62 »

kumarvvr wrote: post #11

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.

If you're okay with more of a microfiche-style experience:

https://www.pressreader.com/

Not sure if you can kill photos— but they're pretty essential to journalism.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#27

Post by kumarvvr »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #26
kumarvvr wrote: post #11

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.

If you're okay with more of a microfiche-style experience: https://www.pressreader.com/ Not sure if you can kill photos— but they're pretty essential to journalism.

My point is countless hours of dev time, resources and infrastructure is wasted on what is obviously a very bad design.

Making a bad design, then overcoming the bad design with another piece of software is pure wastage of valuable resources.

It's really sad. UX design does not get the authority it deserves.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#28

Post by toasterlovin »

richsherwood wrote: post #22
katzgrau wrote: post #19

I 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.

It’s getting cheaper and cheaper to produce videos these days though. We’re kind of in the place that graphic design was in 10 years ago. As the equipment gets better, software more powerful, and generations of younger folks with substantial knowledge in the subject, the costs are going to go way down.

I’d say we’re at the end of the cost reduction curve. Capital requirements for video production have been minimal for a while. Costs are overwhelmingly people. People don’t get cheaper.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#29

Post by toasterlovin »

krapp wrote: post #8
ninkendo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discovery is the problem. If they’re on YouTube they can show up in people’s recommendation lists, target users with particular history, etc. Hosting your own video means you’re not likely to catch users who are binge watching videos, which I would imagine is a more lucrative demographic for ad dollars.

Isn't hardware (server space, bandwidth and latency) the real problem, with streaming video?

No, cost for that is constantly reducing. The problem is getting people to pay attention to what you make.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#30

Post by kgwgk »

slackoverflower wrote: post #21
JackCh wrote: post #9

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.

I definitely would not say it is a sizable portion. I'd say it is infact a minority of Youtube's audience. Their CEO revealed they have 1.8b logged in users [1] every month watching videos. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/3/17317274/youtube-1-8-billi...

But do they log in consistently? I log in by mistake every now and then, but I use it without being logged in 99.9% of the time.
Post reply on HN