buckwheat
Anchor Cove Citizen of Note
Posts: 108
|
Post by buckwheat on Dec 23, 2006 13:42:43 GMT -5
Revver troubles? Looks like IMS financing is still a work in progress.....from something called Splashcast....anyone know what a "VC initiated changing of the guard" means? "Changes afoot at video company Revver; AdAge (via PaidContent) reports that co-founders Ian Clarke and Oliver Luckett are departing from the company. Remaining co-founder and CEO Steven Starr will be joined by executives Kevin Wells, David Armitage and Angela Gyetvan are joining the company. Some observers believe it’s a VC initiated changing of the guard. The company issued a statement saying that the changes were “intended to advance the company’s infrastructure and bolster its marketing and advertising efforts in 2007.” Revver sells its own still frame post roll ads. Selling video ads at all is difficult, making a company profitable with still frame post rolls seems like a strategy unlikely to prove sustainable. I think we can expect to see major changes not just to the roster of Revver advertisers over the next year, but probably to the fundamental revenue model as well. Though the company has landed some high profile talent, including Ze Frank, Lonelygirl15, EepyBird and AskANinja - a number of other talented content producers have questioned the prospects for anyone but the biggest stars to be well compensated through the current system. I like the Revver vision and click on ads every time I get to the end of a Revver video, but I will be interested to see what the Revver experience is like 3 or 6 months from now." splashcast.wordpress.com/2006/12/20/2-out-of-3-revver-founders-leave-the-company/
|
|
Icaterus
Cove Jr. Detective
www.nzprotag.com
Posts: 48
|
Post by Icaterus on Dec 30, 2006 12:53:48 GMT -5
First I have to say wow there's some really interesting posts here. I sort of have some thoughts so I thought I'd add them too lol ;D ... Subscription feeA subscription fee defiantly won't work. Personally I know I'm not going to watch anything I have to pay for before I get to see what it is. Everyone presumes the internet to be mostly free and you can just get it off bittorrent anyway, which is a good way to distribute but it won't earn the creators any money . MerchandiseI think selling merchandise from the show is a great idea . Take Pure Pwnage for example. There's no advertising on their site, not even any on their forums, and none on their videos either. I think the way they make their money is purely from selling tshirts and other pure pwnage merchandise. Pure Pwnage manages to sell so much stuff because the characters in the show actually wear the items themselves, so they've become like their costumes. Imagine if P. Monkey, Owen etc were original toys created by the LG15 dudes. They would have the rights and would be able to sell them (they're originally from wallmart so is that why they can't sell them now??). LG15 would earn heaps if they could sell P. Monkeys . I think the way to get people to actually want to own the items is to have them involved in the show. You can't just sell some branded crap on the side because no one will want to own it, I think it has to be something cool from the show that fans will want.. In my opinion product placement from other big companies won't work because honestly people hate stuff forced on them, and I know personally I hate when there's a totally obvious brand logo in a movie or something because it distracts me from the story.. Have to start on youtubeI think revver and the other paying sites with ads are great, but in order to get enough viewers to actually click the ads and earn you anything you have to start on youtube, because that's where everyone is watching things at the moment. Imagine if LG15 began on revver, it probably wouldn't have become as popular because no one would have found it. I think a major problem in monetizing IMS is that to get a big audience you have to be on youtube......
|
|
Smashing
Very Very Sr. Cove Sleuther
All you need is love...and high speed internet.
Posts: 454
|
Post by Smashing on Dec 30, 2006 21:33:14 GMT -5
The subsciption fee does work. All you have to do is make it free until you have a following, then start charging. You will inevitably lose most of your audience when you switch, there will be some piracy, and even some who pay the fee will complain, but as long as enough paying customers stick around, that's all that matters. The key is building that following in the free period. If you aren't a celebrity, you essentially have to become one before enough people will be interested in paying.
What intrigues me is the idea of making say $15,000 USD a year off an internet show from a core subscriber base of like 500 people. If it's not a show like LG which "costs 10s of thousands of dollars a month to produce," but is more 'no-budget,' speaking for someone like myself, with no family to support, I could live off that much money. I suppose it would be similar to struggling musicians, actors, or other artists who play small gigs and eek out a living. There aren't enough art house theatres and cable channels to support all the indie filmmakers out there, but the internet could fill the void.
|
|
Icaterus
Cove Jr. Detective
www.nzprotag.com
Posts: 48
|
Post by Icaterus on Dec 31, 2006 0:04:16 GMT -5
Hmm... is there any examples where the subscription fee has worked? I don't see why anyone would continue to pay if it started out free and would still be easily available pirated on youtube and torrents
|
|
Smashing
Very Very Sr. Cove Sleuther
All you need is love...and high speed internet.
Posts: 454
|
Post by Smashing on Dec 31, 2006 4:39:22 GMT -5
In the world of podcasting audio, The Ricky Gervais Show did 12 episodes for free, then 6 for $1.99/each through audible.com and iTunes (where they were sold as "audiobooks" because iTunes doesn't charge for podcasts).
Air America Radio podcast their content for free for at least a year before starting to charge for premium accounts that could access the podcasts with a password. Air America technically did go bankrupt (whoops), but it wasn't because of the podcast. In both these cases I'm pretty sure a good profit was made.
The reason why you would pay for something when you can get it for free, 1) Torrents aren't as convenient or reliable as a paid service like iTunes or a dedicated site. 2) You have the money to spend. If you don't have the money to spend, then no one was going to make money from you anyway, so if you pirate it, it doesn't hurt anybody. 3) how tech savvy you are plays a role. If you are a whiz at searching for quality pirated material, vs someone whose never heard of a torrent, you're less likely to pay.
YouTube IS convenient, but if I were a content creator charging for a video, I would simply search YouTube once a day and have any copies taken down. Would some leak through? Yes. But again, it's okay if the people who were never going to pay anyway see it for free. The people who have the money to pay, would rather just take a few seconds to buy it and not try to gamble on whether or not they get to it on YouTube before you do.
The price point is of utmost importance, of course. For me, if somebody says I can have exactly what I want now for a dollar or spend a few hours doing nothing but waiting and have it for free, I pay the dollar, because I luckily have a dollar to spend. If you charge $100 to see your video, probably no one would be willing to pay. iTunes has settled on $.99 per song and $1.99 per video, and has made tons of money.
The only example I can think of where subscription has been done with video is porn pay sites. There is no shortage of free porn on the internet if you know where to look, but for people who have the money and a specific desire for a certain niche of porn, they will pay 30 bucks a month just to not have to always be searching for it. I'll refrain from posting links.
|
|
|
Post by milowent on Dec 31, 2006 8:23:24 GMT -5
smashing & icaterus: great thoughtful posts going on here. so, smashing, do you think a subscription model could ever work for a product like lg15? how many niches other than porn can succeed?
|
|
Icaterus
Cove Jr. Detective
www.nzprotag.com
Posts: 48
|
Post by Icaterus on Dec 31, 2006 11:01:43 GMT -5
Yea smashing I agree about the tech savvy thing. A lot of viewers won't be able to find torrents, or won't have the time to learn how to. I still don't think subscription will work. I think you'll never get enough people willing to pay before they watch an IMS. But I'm mostly basing this on the fact that I don't want to pay for anything myself lol About having to start out on youtube to gain popularity: I learnt Google is testing online video ads. At the moment they're just experimenting and they haven't announced bringing them to youtube. But if the ads are introduced to youtube videos then youtube will become the absolute ultimate site and there'll be no need to move over to revver! But then it'll probably be a while till they're introduced, or maybe it'll never happen....
|
|
|
Post by milowent on Feb 3, 2007 9:00:09 GMT -5
|
|
buckwheat
Anchor Cove Citizen of Note
Posts: 108
|
Post by buckwheat on Feb 27, 2007 11:14:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by milowent on Feb 27, 2007 12:18:40 GMT -5
thanks for the links, bucky. both very interesting articles. the ny times article is fairly in-depth (with quotes from renetto and boh3m3 among others) and reveals the long suspected fact that the creators do not have a special deal with revver: "Revver ... is big enough to attract advertisers, said Steven Starr, the company’s chief, speaking from Hollywood. But in luring Lonelygirl15’s producers to his site, he said he had offered nothing more than Revver offers any other contributor, nor did it demand exclusivity." also of interest is the metacafe revenue model - $5 per 1000 views. That not a not of cash. - only $2500 bucks if you get 500,000 views, which is generally the mark of a successful lg15 video now. aside: i noticed that the huff post article links to lg15.com (not lonelygirl15.com, but lg15.com), which was the site matt foremski set up back in the summer from the fake british dentist. it now links to the mothership. i wonder if he sold the domain for a profit?
|
|
|
Post by Terryfic on Feb 27, 2007 15:44:11 GMT -5
“According to the creators, lg15.com gets about 20,000 unique viewers each day.” I know we pick on Miles and Greg’s record keeping skills, but if we are to believe this figure then that means that only 50% of the viewers each day actually watch a video as the last 5 have averaged only 10-11,000 Revver views.
I’m also blown away that they didn’t get any sort of deal from Revver. That is hard to believe. It seems like lots of people (for god sakes Renetto) gets money thrown at them. I may be mistaken, but I remember their being Revver ads for LG after some other Revver videos. Does that mean that LG paid for those ads? Or did they get some special treatment above and beyond the regular Revver poster.
The lg15.com thing is funny. That was a really lame site. What I enjoy is that of the very few things on it was him proclaiming that he would never sell the domain.
|
|
buckwheat
Anchor Cove Citizen of Note
Posts: 108
|
Post by buckwheat on Feb 27, 2007 18:26:44 GMT -5
I think the operative term here with regard to revenue sharing is Renetto's use of "chump change." So far, that's about all any content providers have managed from the video sharing sites. In Revver's case, I can undestand it since they haven't really taken off yet but it passes my understanding why YT has not locked down its stars...what can they be waiting for? And what do they plan to do witht eh 1.6B if not hold onto their talent? Once they original talent goes somewhere else (just a matter of time) , and the networks lock down their content to their own sites, where does that leave YT?
|
|
|
Post by milowent on Feb 27, 2007 23:46:24 GMT -5
Renetto: "What can I say... I was on the front page of the New York Times this morning... and on FOX NEWS tonight... this is getting CRAZIER by the moment..." www.youtube.com/watch?v=caFyTSZzdHMImagine if Renetto is the 1st person to make a living off youtube? --- I really have no idea if Youtube's business model requires them to lock down their top original content creators. i would think they have enough money now to start paying some people as a trial balloon, but they may not yet see the need because of the future promise of revenue sharing, and because their traffic so far outstrips the competition at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by hyemew on Feb 28, 2007 1:05:42 GMT -5
OK this is the second time Renetto has done this... claimed he was on FOX News when he was on his local Fox News affiliate. Fox News implies the big time ultra-biased machine seen throughout the country. Fox News- Columbus, Ohio has a viewership many times less than actual Fox News and is not a big deal at all. Also he made the front page of the NYTimes? His picture? Why? I mean seriously, why? Well, here's the article in question: www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/technology/26ecom.html?_r=1&oref=sloginUsually articles are listed with what section they appeared in. This one only says "E-Commerce Report" in the Technology section. It's a quite unflattering picture of a shirtless Renetto and something I HIGHLY doubt was seriously on the front page of the NYTimes, I mean come on! Front page of the Technology section, likely, but that is a totally different thing than being on the front page of the NYTimes. If he actually isn't exaggerating again, then this means there was a small teaser section towards the bottom of the front page directing people to the technology page and presumably had his picture, but seeing as it is listed with the article on-line that is highly doubtful. I wish I had a way to confirm this, but my hunch is he was NOT on the front page of the NYTimes either. Also, check out this quote!: 'Then again, Mr. Robinett added, no one has tested his loyalty with a truly lucrative offer. “These companies don’t quite understand,” he said. “If they understood the power and influence that some of the bigger people bring to the table, they wouldn’t think twice about paying me and 10 other people $100,000 apiece to blog for three months. If they thought twice about doing that, they’d be nuts.”' $100,000 for THREE MONTHS?! I'm still shaking my head in disbelief. COME ON. I used to like Renetto, back in the old old days when Bree was in her room. But then a couple months ago, as her world went downhill, his blogs got very serious and personal. They hinted at all these deep secrets and also painful momnets from his past. He wasn't ready to talk about them he claimed, but seeing as he's such a showman I wonder if that was truly him using the vlog for real venting or an attention getter. Whatever the case, it backfired as I noticed he had a bunch of messages bemoaning what happened to him and his viewership took a nose-dive (I wasn't carefully monitoring it but it did seem to go down a lot if I recall correctly). Oh yeah, and he got caught up in the whole GregSolomon debackle, forgot about that. I guess that got some buzz, however they also appear to be some of his LEAST viewed videos. Three months on and the GS-era videos literally have as few as 10-15,000 views after this long a time. That whole period was such a mess and made renetto look immature, I think that turned a lot of viewers off. YouTube around that time seemed to have grabbed him though, had him do a few things for the site, etc. Then they featured his "Why Aren't There Black People on YouTube" video just in time for black history month. That certainly helped him get viewership back up a bit, and right now his average video gets an 25,000 thousand views after the first week almost consistently. His episodes directly speaking out to the London YT gathering people got in the 30s thanks to the subject matter I'm sure. But yeah back to my original point... $100,000 for THREE MONTHS?! You mean, from the guy who in the past two days posted a video of a light on in Buckingham palace and musing "Is the Queen taking a ROYAL CRAP?" That's worth $100,000?!?! I'm sorry but as I said, illusions of grandeur... LonelyGirl15, while I WISH would get that much, I don't think is even worth that much to youtube and it is far and away the biggest story to ever come out of it. Renetto, though he joyfully exclaims how he's "more famous than the average drummer in a famous band" in his Fox News interview, is NOT that famous, nowhere close. He really rubs me the wrong way now, I mean he SERIOUSLY got a big head from being a semi-famous YouTuber?? That's like... *insert appropriate simile here*... I don't know, like coming in fourth place at the Olympics. Sure the big names are up at one and two, and well nobody really knows the bronze-place guy but at least he's still standing there with a medal and gets his name recorded and put around. But nobody CARES about the fourth placer, he doesn't get a medal, no one mentions him, you just see his name in the final leaderboard. And at least getting fourth in the Olympics requires real talent, despite no fame. In my opinion being renetto lately requires no talent NOR does it garner real fame, despite what he thinks. It's just kind of sad. I certainly didn't intend for this to become a rant against renetto, but this video ended up rubbing me the very wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by Imparfaite on Feb 28, 2007 9:26:48 GMT -5
Off-Topic, but I gotta say it.
I live down the street from Renetto. He's not exactly discreet about what his house looks like. *eye roll*
It's strange. When I first saw him... I thought he was cool, but now, I'm pretty uninterested.
And CBS news in Columbus is totally better than FOX. Trust me.
|
|