Mustafa R.’s Post

When a industry is built by artists But run by profiteers There’s often misalignment of motivations Artists - generally - don’t care about money. I can’t speak for anyone but me, but I find money incredibly boring. 🥱 This isn’t to imply unimportant- just uninspiring. Unmoving. And in the worst cases, even demotivating. It’s certainly distracting It can stifle creativity and censor ideas It can also promote an agenda It can push a narrative It can turn family against each other It can turn countrymen into enemies It can turn nature into a commodity It can turn faith into greed It can turn children into slaves It can turn parents into monsters It can turn hero’s into criminals It can turn art into an asset - and in so doing, changes the very essence of the thing. To an artist, whom often sees their work as a child - an extension of their very soul, to see it reduced to something as mundane as a ROI metric and force to contort itself unnaturally to fit into a category it was never intended for just to survive can be soul crushing and disheartening. Forcing many artists to sell their rights away before they even begin or go broke trying to retain the spirit of their artistic identity in the face of ever increasing competition and worsening economic conditions globally. Leaving artists vulnerable. Money - as a proxy for power - has historically been used to manipulate artists, more than empower them. Allowing a few to choose the accepted narratives available to the many. That’s changing. This is what happens when fans get to vote with their views. Hollywood doesn’t really have a great way into this world. Their model doesn’t fit. Funny enough - many of the YT channel operators I know are still wanting to get into Hollywood. Not understanding why their content doesn’t translate to GA. Then you have writers - from authors to screenwriter- that believe they have the most authentic version of a story. YouTuber, an author, and a filmmaker are all storytellers - but we expect them to tell that story in a different way. Each medium having its own rules and conventions. To master one is not to know the other. But to master story is the first step to all. Because it’s the story that should determine the medium, not the other way around. Some stories are small, quick and visually shocking - perfect for a short. Some are long, deep, emotional journeys across a single life defined by a tragic end or novel detail - ideal for a novel or biopic. Some are a collection of interwoven narratives, told across the expansive of space and time; representing generations of related stories into a single, epic tale fit for a series To compare one to the other to determine which is better, imho, fails to grasp the true nature of what being a storyteller is. The two story vehicles are fundamentally different; the same story manifests uniquely on each - adapting to the medium. Start with the story

YT is just a platform (distribution) with an open advertising revenue share model. While it competes for the same eyeballs, it doesn't threaten to replace the Hollywood model. They are two very different things. The YT model is more conducive to small productions with little upfront production costs because its returns do not scale in a way that justifies large production spending. This means that you will only ever get a certain style of product from YT that will never compete in the same space as the larger production spends. They are two very different products that while competing for the same finite audience, are two very different beasts.

💡 I shared some thoughts on how TV networks & producers are succeeding on YouTube, with Long & Short form content, monetization, CTV engagement, the YT flywheel and more. Take a look below and let me know what you think. 👊🏻 Thanks Nico Franks for the interview, Neil Price for the duet! and Lauren & Sarah for making things happen. #YouTube #CTV

In Netflix v. YouTube, There's At Least One Way for a Comeback I previously stated that YouTube was kicking Netflix's—pardon my language—ass, because YouTube continues to grow TV streaming share, while Netflix, YoY, is down. https://bit.ly/3MSeTCk And YouTube appears to be doing all they can PRODUCT-WISE to make sure they're THE choice for creators looking to monetize their video skills—including incorporating gen-AI. https://bit.ly/3B8QWEi But maybe there's hope for those "underdogs" over in Los Gatos, yet. YouTube is leaving the door open for premium streamers, by not completely obliterating this "brand safety" issue. I was at YouTube in 2017 when the Youtube Adpocalypse went down, and advertisers were boycotting the company, causing creators to see 30% or more of their personal revenue vanish. A lot of people said YouTube was done. But they bounced back by assuring brands they had put in mechanisms so brands' ads wouldn't appear next to controversial content. Well, the NYTimes article below suggest otherwise. https://nyti.ms/3zq2bro Full disclosure, I actually don't buy that brands don't know what their content is appearing next to anymore. I didn't buy it in 2017, and I'm sure as heck not buying it now. It's probably not a coincidence that the article couldn't get any brands on record blasting YouTube for this. The truth is, brands have paid third-parties a lot of money to know where their ads are. And YouTube reports on every single video your ads show up next to. So as much as brands want to blame YouTube for this, they are 99.9% complicit in putting their ads, wherever they appear, in places where they get the best ROAS. However... If I'm Netflix, or Disney, or Warner, this is absolutely where I pounce. They have to win the "brand safe" category. And they currently are. Traditional TV Ad Spend (aka "brand safe") 2024 (est.) = ~$60B CTV Ad Spend 2024 (est.) = ~$30B As you all know, those TV ad spend dollars are increasingly flowing to CTV. As are the eyeballs. And here's a made-up stat: 1,217% of traditional TV Ad spend is on brand safe content...minus whatever percentage Fox News gets. The Fox News part is not a joke—just facts: https://bit.ly/3MQCH9K But Disney, Max, CBS and Netflix need to make sure it stays that way, by making sure the transition from Traditional (aka Brand Safe) goes to their CTV products and not YouTube. Now, maybe they can't do anything about it, because as I said, I think the NYTimes article is misleading and brands know what they're doing. But the narrative is out there. And brands do want to be around less controversial content, not just for PR, but because brand safe has a better ROAS. But it's on Netflix and Big Media to sell that, capture that, and make that easier for brands to implement. Because if they don't... The ass-kicking will only continue.

As we witness YouTube's unprecedented dominance in viewership and advertising revenue, capturing a historic 9.7% TV viewership share and a whopping $31.5 billion in ad revenue in 2023, the traditional media landscape is at a crossroads. Giants like Disney and Netflix are recalibrating strategies amidst this surge. The evolving dynamics highlight a potential pivot towards AI-enhanced content on YouTube, challenging conventional production norms. This landscape shift prompts a critical dialogue on future content strategies and industry alignments. #MediaIndustry #YouTube #DigitalTransformation #AIinMedia Kurt Wilms

No one will tell you this directly, but... YouTube is on the verge of becoming a dominant force in the streaming world, and it's changing how we consume content and how brands reach us. I can tell you first hand, I've been reaching for the YouTube app on my TV way more than Netflix these days... YouTube’s ad revenue is skyrocketing, reaching $8.9 billion in Q3 alone. This puts it on track to potentially equal the entire broadcast ad industry’s earnings in 2024. This shift is fueled by YouTube’s massive reach, especially among the coveted 18-49 demographic and younger viewers, who are increasingly turning away from traditional TV. But here’s the kicker: YouTube may be testing a feature to hide view counts and upload dates on its homepage. This is big. This move could be a game-changer for creators meaning new or niche creators could gain more visibility as content quality takes center stage over popularity metrics AND viewers might also benefit. They might be more inclined to explore older or less-viewed content, leading to a more diverse and engaging viewing experience. However, some creators fear this change could make YouTube too similar to platforms like Netflix, stripping away its unique identity as a community-driven platform. What are your thoughts??

"We have the ability to deliver that complete experience," referencing the success of not only YouTube TV, but also the popularity of the platform's digital arm with…viral content creators like Mr Beast. “I think it's resonated with consumers." - Christian Oestlien VP of product management at YouTube Agree 💯 with Christian and disagree 👎 with this Yahoo Finance headline! - YouTube TV is a fabulous product. I remember when Garth Ancier told me at launch it would be the gold standard of VMVPD’s - he (as usual) was right! - Their superior product, price point, etc drives a ton of value and has been a huge contributor to winning the eyeballs on television battle for YouTube - But the ability to mix these worlds, Mr. Beast alongside NFL games; Cocomellon for the kids alongside Nickelodeon; How To Videos of every shape and form alongside HGTV and Food Network…. every piece of the creator ecosystem mixed alongside all of the best traditional offerings makes YouTube NOTHING like cable … it makes it special. And that’s is why it’s winning when compared to the sea of sameness it competes with!

From the NYT: Two years ago, YouTube abandoned its audacious plan to beat #Hollywood at its own game. The video platform had tried to build the next Netflix, but didn’t gain traction. So it canceled the shows and fell back on the user-created content that had made it a household name. It looked like a major concession — a failure, even. It turned out to be just a speed bump. Now, YouTube consistently ranks as the most popular streaming service on U.S. televisions, surpassing the companies it once tried to emulate. The platform’s unlikely ascent to the top of the leaderboard shows that more than a decade into the streaming era, the internet has continued to change the nature of TV and the habits of viewers. YouTube’s viewership on TVs jumped during the pandemic, when people were stuck at home and willing to consume more content. The trend has continued, in a sign of growing interest in a more laid-back TV experience. The platform’s popularity underscores the sharp differences between YouTube’s hands-off approach to content creation and the billion-dollar bets of old guard #media companies like The Walt Disney Company, Paramount and NBCUniversal as they compete for audiences. Since Netflix started offering original content in 2012, TV networks have jumped into the streaming race, trying to outflank one another with major upfront investments. On YouTube, ordinary creators decide what to make and cover production costs. If a video racks up views and ad dollars, YouTube sends the creators 55 percent of that revenue. If a video flops, it doesn’t lose any money. The company says it has paid creators and partners $70 billion for content over the last three years — but always after it has made money, without having to take financial risks. The decision to leave content decisions with creators was the most important lesson the company learned, Neal Mohan, YouTube’s chief executive, said in an interview. “Our creators are much better at predicting what our fans and audiences want,” he said. “This is television remade for a new generation.” Mr. Mohan said that the company had shut down Originals because creators had been growing rapidly on the platform, and that it had wanted to “double down” on supporting them. YouTube has topped the list for streaming time on a TV for 17 months in a row, according to data from Nielsen, which tracks TV viewership. “It’s just so broad — that’s what’s driving its strength,” said Brian Fuhrer, Nielsen’s senior vice president of product strategy. “There’s something for every single demographic and every race and ethnicity, all the time.” Not all #TV viewership of YouTube is created equal. It’s mostly broken into two extremes: those who watch incredibly closely and those barely watching at all, according to TVision YouTube tends to rank “rock bottom in terms of attention every year” among major #streaming platforms, said Yan Liu, TVision’s chief executive. (Amazon Prime Video ranked first last year.)

Casualties of the Grey Swan! “Not Amazon, not YouTube, and not even old-fashioned broadcasters. Our biggest competitor is…sleep.” This is what Reed Hastings, then CEO of Netflix, responded to a Guardian journalist in 2017 when asked who their biggest competitor was. Cut to August 2024. A video uploaded by Netflix Investor Relations—yes, it's an actual channel run by Netflix—features the company answering questions from stakeholders. It also reveals an uncomfortable truth. Buried within the 42-minute video, which has about 14,000 views as I am writing this, a five-minute segment throws light on the most important shift happening in the creator economy right now. A Morgan Stanley stakeholder asks a blunt question, “Your primary competitor for more passive home entertainment increasingly looks to be YouTube. What are you doing to take share from YouTube?” Netflix's co-CEO Greg Peters admits, "We clearly compete with YouTube in certain segments... on time and attention.” Nielsen's latest figures from last month perfectly paint this picture. 1. Streaming platforms now command 41% of total TV usage in the U.S. (an all-time high). 2. More importantly, YouTube has just become the first streaming platform in the world to capture over 10% of all TV usage. Watching YouTube on connected TV is not becoming the norm. It IS the norm. TV’s greatest strength in the ‘90s and 2000s was its ability to create a sense of monoculture (shared experiences). People from across the world could suddenly tune into the same Olympic events, the same BBC broadcasts, the same prime-time shows. And then talk about them with their colleagues, friends, and family. YouTube has captured this space—but on steroids. It has created a new kind of monoculture, where someone in Sri Lanka, France, and the U.S. can all follow the same updates—whether it’s the life of Casey Neistat or the latest developments in the U.S. election, simultaneously and instantly. Same product. Two different business models. YouTube: Low barrier to entry, ad-based revenue Netflix: Extremely high barrier to entry, subscription-based revenue However, it is not just the model (more on this in another post, hopefully). The real issue is the absolute lack of innovation. Since 2015, YouTube has rolled out far more updates, introduced better incentives for creators, and continuously pivoted when necessary. Evolution in business, especially in tech, is usually brutal. It’s often said long-term success for great businesses doesn’t come from clinging on to what works but from ruthlessly eliminating what doesn’t. YouTube has mastered this (like scrapping YouTube Red and Originals). Until Netflix can fix this, sleep—once considered its biggest problem (when it was not)—might actually become one to their board. This reminds me of Nassim Taleb’s approach to such events: ‘Though grey swans might not happen, they should not be ignored. And there should be plans in place to combat them.’

As traditional TV viewership declines, YouTube is becoming the primary source of entertainment for many Americans, offering a diverse array of content that caters to varied interests. #YouTube #DigitalMedia #CordCutting #StreamingVsCable https://lnkd.in/dGw6Uq45