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

Learning From Quibi

salildalvi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: Learning From Quibi

#21

Post by apozem »

bawolff wrote: post #18
apozem wrote: post #2

An interesting piece, though I would have liked more about the failures of YouTube/TikTok and other platforms that simply aggregate user content. The author suggests a fund to help develop IP, but YouTube and TikTok don't need that. The YT/TT approach is "let a thousand flowers bloom and users/algorithms will pick the best". I think a lot about the teenage girl who went viral on TikTok for writing musical numbers bas…

Indeed, pretty sure youtube tried the whole directly funding popular channels back in 2012 [1]. They moved away from that Honestly though, i'm not sure that people making essentially viral fan fiction videos is "the future" as that's already been a thing for a while. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_Original_Channel_Ini...

You’re being a bit literal. The fan video is an example of “the future.” The future is:

> “let a thousand flowers bloom and users/algorithms will pick the best”

Re: Learning From Quibi

#22

Post by Traster »

continuations wrote: post #8

I read that Quibi does not own its content. The content creators do. I don't understand. How could Quibi possibly spend $2B in 6 months when it doesn't even own its content. What exactly did it spend those $2B on?

It's more complicated than just "Does Quibi own the content"- Quibi struck deals with content creators for the creators to create the content and own it, but to give Quibi an exclusive license to the content for 2 years. So whilst it's technically true that the content creators still own the content, the vast majority of the value is in the rights to that content. They justified this as some creator friendly move, but frankly I think they knew that by 2 years time Quibi was either huge or dead.

Re: Learning From Quibi

#23

Post by skinnymuch »

Traster wrote: post #22
continuations wrote: post #8

I read that Quibi does not own its content. The content creators do. I don't understand. How could Quibi possibly spend $2B in 6 months when it doesn't even own its content. What exactly did it spend those $2B on?

It's more complicated than just "Does Quibi own the content"- Quibi struck deals with content creators for the creators to create the content and own it, but to give Quibi an exclusive license to the content for 2 years. So whilst it's technically true that the content creators still own the content, the vast majority of the value is in the rights to that content. They justified this as some creator friendly move, bu…

This basically means there’s no reason for any one to pay more than scraps for the rights to the content as they will have under 1.5 years with it.

Re: Learning From Quibi

#24

Post by xnyan »

sofixa wrote: post #19
Deimorz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No movie has ever had a budget anywhere near $1.75 billion. This is more like... making the 5 most expensive movies of all time, in a row, and flopping all of them . That's a completely different level of failure.

But nobody would pay for it if there was zero or not enough to convert trial users content, so they needed lots of it to engage and keep users.

They absolutely did not need to speed a billion upfront on an unproven format. Nobody had tried this format before, so they could not have been confident that there was a market. They could have instead, for example, commissioned a few of their more promising shows and offered them for free to gauge interest in the format.

Re: Learning From Quibi

#25

Post by Traster »

skinnymuch wrote: post #23
Traster wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more complicated than just "Does Quibi own the content"- Quibi struck deals with content creators for the creators to create the content and own it, but to give Quibi an exclusive license to the content for 2 years. So whilst it's technically true that the content creators still own the content, the vast majority of the value is in the rights to that content. They justified this as some creator friendly move, bu…

This basically means there’s no reason for any one to pay more than scraps for the rights to the content as they will have under 1.5 years with it.

Well most of the content is crap anyway, but right now there's a lack of content due to Amazon/Netflix/Apple etc. bidding up the market and covid limiting supply. So 1.5years of exclusive is probabbly 90% of the value of the content, and if it's still valuable afterwards you can license it from the original creators. Stuff drops off Netflix all the time.
Post reply on HN