Live data from Hacker News

The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

medium.com

161–170 of 176 posts

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe your second sentence negates the first. But even if it didn't, Patreon is a glorified busker's tip jar. There are only a small number of individuals on earth who can make a full-time living from it. There's no sign that this model could work at scale for a large corporation. Even if it theoretically could, in practice your second sentence would again come into play.

>There's no sign that this model could work at scale for a large corporation. Why should it? Most of the content people are now enjoying day to day isn't coming from large corporations. What we're witnessing now is the infancy of a shift away from the centralization of entertainment started by the industrial revolution (with access to printing presses, radio broadcasting, etc being relatively limited by economies of…

I think what you are articulating is half true, or more so, half of the picture. People love big blockbusters more than ever. Game of thrones, The Avengers, etc. really show that it is a bifurcated market. I think the full effects of globalization have caused part of this (people around the world are less interested in the coming of age Boston story), so the studio pushes something with universal appeal. No one man band can compete with this. On the other side of the equation, I won’t be surprised if Joe Rogan gets a similar amount of views as Fox News. Ad spend seems to be significantly lagging viewership at the moment.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#162
post #131
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not too familiar with other media companies so I don't know what the correct multiple should be, but here's my math on Google: 1. Over the past 13 years world GDP per capita has grown about 3% per year. So it's reasonable to think that the people who are currently connected to the internet will on average be 30% richer in 10 years 2. The average amount of time that people spend on the internet could grow 20% in 1…

> 1. Over the past 13 years world GDP per capita has grown about 3% per year. So it's reasonable to think that the people who are currently connected to the internet will on average be 30% richer in 10 years A bit more from compounding, but ya. However, that's priced into every company's multiple. > 2. The average amount of time that people spend on the internet could grow 20% in 10 years And you think Google will ca…

What do you think is going to happen if Google starts showing more ads?

Hint: I haven’t seen a Google ad when browsing on my iPhone since iOS 9.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible to infer what people would watch from what they currently watch. That's exactly what every recommender system ever does. Netflix says "hey, this thing would be highly rated by some users if it existed, but it doesn't". Then they go and make it. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make this into, or what you're talking about when you say data. But it seems like you're on such a completely differe…

Again, your argument continues to validate one of the essential points I make: that these data sets are most useful for identifying existing media that “works” and then scaling/marketing it. Here is where I think we disagree: I don’t believe that Netflix’s ability (or Google’s, for that matter) to predict new markets is substantively improved by their data set. I understand that that might be a radical perspective am…

>Again, your argument continues to validate one of the essential points I make: that these data sets are most useful for identifying existing media that “works” and then scaling/marketing it.

I'm not sure how you're managing to miss this so completely, but no its explicitly not this. Are you familiar with how recommender systems work? Id suggest reading this article[1], which discusses how Netflix uses data to identify the fanbases for shows that they haven't yet launched. Yes, they use data to post-validate successful shows, but everyone does that, it's what Nielson has done for decades. Netflix is doing more: they're able to (with decent accuracy) predict what market a show will be popular with before launch, and they do this to market niche shows that would otherwise never be launched at all with a strong certainty that they'll find success.

Your second paragraph invents evidence and certainty and data that you don't have. Frankly, it makes you look like you are unfamiliar with statistics and data analytics, which is fine, but then you shouldn't share strong opinions about how things you don't fully understand can't work. How do you know that they can't have statistical reliability? Thousands of data points is absolutely enough to have statistical certainty. Yes you can absolutely predict the popularity of a genre with a high degree of certainty before filming a single scene. How do you know that they don't have a high rate of success? (I refer you back to [1]:

>She notes the mixed reviews for Lost in Space. “Do we care?” Not that much, it turns out.

>Furthermore, Netflix picking themes, topics, etc as you suggest to drive successful production runs contrary to their most successful strategy so far, which is to cast a wide net by producing highly diverse content at low costs then scaling what works.

I'd just like to make this really, exceptionally clear: they don't pick what content to produce by throwing darts. They pick the diverse ("niche") content in a very data driven way. Again, quoting [1]:

> It [...] predicat[es] programming decisions on immense amounts of data about true viewing habits, not estimated ones. It has discovered ways to bundle enough niche viewers to make good business out of fare that used to play only to tiny markets.

But I suggest reading the entire article, because it thoroughly dismantles the presumptions your making about how netflix does production. (Especially the part about "Money Heist").

>When a company has a combination of access to scale and quality data, they quickly outpace and overwhelm their competitors. Netflix hasn’t quite accomplished this, suggesting that their dataset isn’t as magical as you imply.

Wait, who are their competitors that they aren't outpacing? Netflix absolutely dominates their market (streaming media), they defined it. Everyone else is playing catch up. If you are considering Netflix to be a competitor to WB or Disney, netflix had more revenue than Universal Pictures, Columbia (Sony) or Paramount, and WB, Fox, and Disney are all part of huge conglomerates that make it hard to tell, but it's possible that in terms of movies and TV, Netflix is second only to Disney. If not, it's certainly close.

Of course I'd also like you to justify your original statement, I don't think it's generally true, there's more to a business than just data, and I can't think of any business except maybe Google where scale and quality data was the defining factor. In almost every other case it was something else: network effects (FB, Twitter, Insta, WhatsApp), logistics (Amazon), or a different business model, normally freemium (Spotify, Slack, etc.). All of those companies use data for all sorts of different things, but they didn't take over/find success because of their data.

>Lastly, their dataset isn’t as private as you might believe, either.

Yes, their data is absolutely private, unless you think that the netflix prize from 2009, before they started streaming and 4-5 years before their first original, is at all relevant.

[1]:https://www.vulture.com/2018/06/how-netflix-swallowed-tv-ind...

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's no sign that this model could work at scale for a large corporation. Why should it? Most of the content people are now enjoying day to day isn't coming from large corporations. What we're witnessing now is the infancy of a shift away from the centralization of entertainment started by the industrial revolution (with access to printing presses, radio broadcasting, etc being relatively limited by economies of…

I think what you are articulating is half true, or more so, half of the picture. People love big blockbusters more than ever. Game of thrones, The Avengers, etc. really show that it is a bifurcated market. I think the full effects of globalization have caused part of this (people around the world are less interested in the coming of age Boston story), so the studio pushes something with universal appeal. No one man b…

>"I think what you are articulating is half true, or more so, half of the picture. People love big blockbusters more than ever. Game of thrones, The Avengers, etc. really show that it is a bifurcated market."

People still consume that sort of media, but the amount of time they spend consuming media like that is small compared to the amount of time they spend consuming independently produced media. Compare how many hours a month they spend watching Hollywood blockbusters and how many hours a month they spend watching independent creators on youtube or listening to independent creators music on soundcloud.

Some people, mostly older people are still stuck in the past. They avoid specialized independent content and instead consume corporate entertainment (engineered for 'universal appeal' by finding an LCD) with netflix, hulu, or even with cable subscriptions(!). But it's clear that times are changing. There was once a time when corporate media had a near total monopoly on people's attention, but those days are now long gone and will never come back.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we are discussing if Google and Facebook's digital ad revenues will be able to continue to rise. If Google is going to show ads on a content creator's channel because they map to the demographic I want to advertise to, what is stopping me from just cutting out Google and paying the content creator directly? That way I can exercise more fine-grained control over what my ads don't show up next to, the content cre…

Because that doesn’t scale, that’s why

Do you need it to scale? People don't place ads on every website or every possible search query, why would you want an ad sprayed far and wide when most of your audience can be reached by targeting a few big creators?

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The content that Google and Facebook produce is garbage. It’s only barely better than nothing at all. Most people would not pay for the kind of content that shows up on Facebook and YouTube by so-called “content creators”. Facebooks ads are garbage except in certain circumstances. Everyone knows this, including the big brands, but they continue to do it because it makes the board happy when they see their brand on FB…

> Most people would not pay for the kind of content that shows up on Facebook and YouTube by so-called “content creators”. Are you sure? Why are you sure? And as a corollary: even if most people won't pay for it, are you sure it won't still obtain a majority in its market? For any given successful product, most people don't buy it.

Yeah I’m sure.

Most of the content that gets views is click-baity garabage. Not all, just most. People watch it because they are conditioned to, not because they want to or even find it entertaining.

Some people can make it in a paid model—most can’t. Most of those who can graduate out being a “content creator” for a living.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe your second sentence negates the first. But even if it didn't, Patreon is a glorified busker's tip jar. There are only a small number of individuals on earth who can make a full-time living from it. There's no sign that this model could work at scale for a large corporation. Even if it theoretically could, in practice your second sentence would again come into play.

>There's no sign that this model could work at scale for a large corporation. Why should it? Most of the content people are now enjoying day to day isn't coming from large corporations. What we're witnessing now is the infancy of a shift away from the centralization of entertainment started by the industrial revolution (with access to printing presses, radio broadcasting, etc being relatively limited by economies of…

Most of the content people enjoy still comes from big corporations.

Much of the content people consume now comes from random people, but they don’t actually enjoy it. You ever watch someone use Instagram? It’s just conditioning. Scroll, tap tap, scroll, tap tap, scroll, tap tap.

When people enjoy content they pay for it with money. When people mindlessly consume content whose value approaches zero, but isn’t quite zero because zero would be nothing at all, they pay for it with “likes.”

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we are discussing if Google and Facebook's digital ad revenues will be able to continue to rise. If Google is going to show ads on a content creator's channel because they map to the demographic I want to advertise to, what is stopping me from just cutting out Google and paying the content creator directly? That way I can exercise more fine-grained control over what my ads don't show up next to, the content cre…

> what is stopping me from just cutting out Google and paying the content creator directly? Nothing per-se, but if you talk to content creators they'll tell you that they prefer Patreon or youtube monetization or similar systems for at least one simple reason: their per-month income is more predictable, which provides them with a sense of financial stability. For many creators this isn't a full-time job, but rather a…

Ad runs aren’t the same as a glorified internet tip jar. Those are contracts to buy ad space for a specified amount of time, way more reliable than a Youtube monetization policy that can change at any time or a fickle Patreon.

Anecdotally a lot of videos I see from creators and influencers are often sponsored either with a segment at the beginning or end, or with product placement. If this trend continues to take off, it’s hard to see long run ad growth on Google and Facebook.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#169
post #122
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I didn't even know Google and Facebook tried to produce something. What was that? I've only heard about YouTube's programs for creators, with workshops, free studio time and such.

This article was from a little over a year ago, and detailed what Google and Facebook were producing. I think your ignorance of their offerings (and I couldn't name anything either!) says what we need to know about their success.

So Google have complety failed in producing popular content themselves, yet still managed to grow revenue at 22% per year. What does that say about Google's need to produce in-house content?

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#170

> "There is zero reason to think that a tech company can create content better than anyone else — which is the only way anyone knows of to capture any future ad growth. They have zero advantage over Disney." I was following but til this point. Unfortunately, it is false assumption, fatally false. I'm going to over-simplify a bit but...The tech companies know what you watched, how much you watched, at what point you s…

I think you’re fundamentally misinterpreting the value of creativity here. While audience data is valuable for marketing existing shows, it currently has almost no value for creating new shows. Just take a look at YouTube creators. Some guy in Australia who ignores data and makes things with mud and plants produces content more popular than almost anything else. Sure, Google owns the platform, but they remain reliant…

Yes. There are outliers. Every creative outfit lays __non__ golden eggs. So how do you mitigate that risk?

Data / analysis.

That can be used as part of the creative process. It can be used to understand the market. It can be used to identify and target your target markets.

Let's not be naive. The truth is there is little true originality. One creative effort stands on the shoulders of those that came before it. Just because you use data does __not__ belittle the need for creativity.

W

Post reply on HN