Tags containing: "digital video"

Perspectives | Supporter Spotlight | Video

How video, and a champion, can transform newsrooms

November 2, 2022 Claire Gould, Global Editor in Chief – Oovvuu

There are no two ways about it: video storytelling is the future of news.

However, it is currently being used as a secondary source to illustrate the written word, almost as an afterthought.

As highlighted in the 2022 Digital News Report from the Reuters Institute and the University of Oxford, you only need to look at Gen Zers and Gen Alphas to see the growing prominence and relevance of video. Practically everything these under 30s consume is done through video. And there’s no delineation between news content versus social content etc. for them. It’s all content. It’s all news. It’s everything.

Couple this with the continuing shoe-horning of TikTok trends and viral videos as news from online publishers, and you’ve got an up-and-coming audience with an appetite for video content before anything else. They’re always connected and they’re ready to scroll.

Why, then, are newsrooms the world over not adopting a video-first strategy? Worldwide, just 0.7% of articles have a video in them.

A video strategy isn’t enough

Having worked in newsrooms for nearly my entire career, I know that many publishers have a video strategy in place.

That strategy could take many forms, from creating in-article video galleries, to targeting social media as a video distribution channel to trawling the internet for the best viral content. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has sat in a news conference and debated the merits of making a viral video (a true contradiction in terms).

So, to clarify: At least on paper, newsrooms have a video strategy. But things aren’t going according to plan.

They know video is important and it’s something their audience wants. And it’s the most profitable medium newsrooms can utilize. There’s an audience that wants video and there are advertisers who want to run their ads against video. So why has video success been so elusive for so many publishers around the world?

Quite simply, it’s all in the execution.

A publisher can have the most innovative video strategy the publishing world has ever seen, but if they don’t have someone dedicated to enacting that strategy, it’s never going to reach its full potential. Commonly, publishers KPI their newsrooms on embedding video and think this will solve the problem. My experience is that it does not. Newsrooms are frenetic, and video is rarely a priority.

Ownership makes all the difference

Independent Online, known to readers as IOL, is one of South Africa’s leading news and information websites with over two million monthly readers. In early 2022 its video numbers had become stagnant despite video being highlighted by the editor as a priority for all staff.

As with most newsrooms, there were competing priorities and adoption was slow. Indeed, feedback from the editorial team around the video priority was: “It’s kind of a lack of focus,” “I’m super busy” and “To be honest, I really thought someone else was doing it.”

When it’s everyone’s job, it’s no one’s job.

In August 2022, IOL made the decision to hire a dedicated video embedder. An experienced journalist, she knows what makes a good story, what is meaningful to audiences and can work at the speed required for a hectic newsroom. She was given access to the CMS and permission to add videos to articles herself, working hand in hand with her boss and reporting up to an existing executive in the newsroom who volunteered to be video’s champion.

The benefits were immediate and nothing short of excellent.

“We are extremely happy with the deployment of an embedder across IOL. The positive impact is clear to see for all. Our streams are up 3x and user engagement is at an all-time high. It really does pay to have a team focused on driving our video strategy.”
–Faheem Khota, Content Manager: Video & Audio, IOL News

The results speak for themselves:

370% increase in video streams since she joined the newsroom
The percentage of articles with video (saturation) has risen from 8% to 48%
Play rate has risen from 3.9% to 8.5% due to more considered video choices

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

Due to this huge upswing in all video metrics for IOL, video advertising inventory is sold out and video consumption is at record levels. That means video is working for all facets of the organization: editorial and commercial.

But they’re not stopping there. IOL is now seeking to take the next step in video growth.

To date, the embedder has only fulfilled a reactive role – adding videos to the existing stories. IOL has now initiated a new focus with them on two key growth opportunities:

Watch stories. The embedder will work with the video champion and Oovvuu’s extensive video catalog to create video-first stories which will get homepage exposure
Fast video hubs. The embedder will use Oovvuu tech to quickly create video-only collections in big and fast moving and recurring stories:
a. The Ukraine and Russia conflict
b. The impact of big tech
c. Manned exploration of space etc.

Oovvuu’s Africa lead Myles Brown has led the relationship with IOL. He said: “In truth, it wasn’t easy getting IOL to take the first step. It took months. But now it’s done, there’s no looking back and they are highly motivated to grow. We have shared the numbers with other publishers in the market and now they are asking for embedders too. It means we are giving new jobs and training to journalists, which is very satisfying to be honest.”

This seismic shift in the IOL newsroom is not unique to one publisher or region. In fact, it could and should be replicated around the world. IOL’s proactive tackling of a problem that is endemic in publishing everywhere, with hindsight, is so simple. If you aren’t in a position to create large quantities of video, you can start by working with a provider (like Oovvuu) to get the video assets.

Then, to be successful with video:

Make a person or a distinct set of people accountable.
Make them subject matter experts.
Harness the passion for what they do by empowering them to do the work.

In the end, it’s about delivering a world class end-to-end experience for our audiences. Today’s audiences, particularly younger ones – who are your growth opportunity – want video. Not every organization has the capacity or ability to create the quality and quantity of video that will be required to move the needle. But, if they are able to outsource that component, they can easily leverage their longstanding ability to employ subject matter experts to manage their content in a way that incorporates video to better engage and serve audiences.

Policy issues on the streaming video horizon

October 27, 2022 Chris Pedigo, SVP Government Affairs – DCN

The streaming video marketplace is expanding and evolving at a breakneck pace. While the market was growing long before Covid, the pandemic lockdown spiked demand and cemented new habits for consumers across demographics. Consumers have devloped a ravenous appetite for streaming, which content providers are happy to satisfy.

Not surprisingly, the number of policy issues surrounding streaming video has grown at a similar pace. Some of these issues have been around for a while, while others emerged just this year. As with all expanding markets, it is critical to monitor regulatory and policy activities to ensure that the market is positioned for healthy growth. To that end, let’s review the current slate of legal, regulatory and legislative issues poised to impact streaming video companies.

New taxes and fees

A host of states and municipalities are attempting to extend franchise fees, which are typically levied on cable and internet service providers, to streaming video companies. Similarly, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering requiring edge providers (aka companies with apps and websites) to pay into the Universal Service Fund (USF).

The rationale is that the companies that provide high quality, high bandwidth content to consumers should pay for the infrastructure that enables consumers to access this content. Of course, this position fails to recognize the fact that franchise fees and the USF were initially established as a way for cable companies and ISPs to return the benefit they gained from public investment in their infrastructure.

Streaming video companies, however, did not receive any federal or local funding. While actions like these would be detrimental to the entire streaming market, they would disproportionately impact small and diverse content creators because they don’t typically have diversified revenue streams. Instead of levying new taxes on an emerging set of services, it would be better for Congress to continue funding broadband deployment initiatives, which helps level the playing field for equitable access.

Emergency alerts

In 2021, the FCC asked for comments on whether streaming companies should be required to broadcast emergency alerts in the same way that traditional television and cable providers are required to. DCN weighed in with big concerns about the technical and financial burdens of that proposal. We also noted that the costs would likely significantly outweigh the benefits when you consider the fact that consumers already receive these alerts on their phones. The agency prepared a report for Congress and appears to have shelved the proposal for now, but it’s worth monitoring.

Caught up in the techlash

Policymakers at the state and federal level have grown increasingly antagonistic toward big tech platforms. With each new scandal, we typically see a rash of bills introduced in an effort to right the wrongs. Unfortunately, sometimes those bills are overly broad, and they inadvertently affect streaming video companies.

One recent example is the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which was introduced by a group of bipartisan well-meaning Senators after whistleblower Frances Haugen testified before Congress about Meta’s predatory practices with regard to kids on their platforms. The bill purports to address the role that “social media platforms play… in the mental health crisis for children and teens.” However, the bill would also cover streaming video companies which offer professionally-curated content in a safe environment – pretty much the polar opposite of social media services teeming with user generated content.

Data rights and consumer privacy

In the absence of a federal privacy law, five states have now passed their own privacy laws. Of course, these laws apply to a wide range of businesses, impacting far more than streaming companies. However, the new laws will certainly have an impact on how the sector develops, particularly on how consumer data is collected and used.

For example, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) builds on existing California privacy law to provide consumers with robust rights to delete, correct and port data that companies hold about them. Starting next year, consumers will also enjoy easy ways to opt out of the sale or transfer of their data.

Meanwhile, big tech companies like Amazon and Google are battling with newer platforms like Roku, and a raft of advertising-supported video providers, to carve out space in the streaming business with an eye toward harnessing valuable flows of consumer data. If this plays out like the broader web, then whoever controls the data will corner the revenue.

As the streaming video market matures, more policy issues will surface. It’s the hallmark of every evolving sector. The question is whether the streaming video market can continue to grow with healthy competition or whether punitive fees and the collateral effects of dealing with the bad behavior of tech platforms will gum up the works.

To ensure that new entrants and innovation have the opportunity to flourish, DCN will continue to advocate for sound legislation that addresses the specified harms and that unnecessary hurdles are removed. Consumers have high expectations, so should we.

Perspectives | Video

Does the film industry have a monopoly problem?

October 25, 2022 Mike Thompson – Independent Media Reporter

The year 1948 saw a monumental Supreme Court decision that forever altered the business of moviemaking – and of moviegoing. Nearly 75 years later, as the movie industry struggles to recover from the brutal one-two punch of streaming media and the Covid-19 pandemic, one prominent film historian feels similar government intervention may be the best chance of saving film as we know it – but would also mean big changes for streaming platforms.

The impact of the Paramount Accords

Prior to 1948, movie studios were vertically integrated; they not just produced the films, they had actors, writers, and directors under contract, they marketed them, and they even owned the theaters in which the films were shown. But, in United States v Paramount Pictures, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled such a system violated U.S. antitrust laws. While the move was seen as a blow to the major studios, it proved a boon to independent filmmakers – as they were free to produce content without major studio interference – and also led to an explosion in independent movie theaters.

“We got more independent creatives, more independent picture houses, and the weakening of the Hays Code, an extremely puritanical self-censorship policy within Hollywood,” film historian G. Vaughn Joy wrote in a viral Twitter thread from September.

Joy is a History PhD candidate at University College London and co-host of three podcasts: Impressions of America, Joy of Star Wars, and Hollywood in Focus. For her dissertation, Joy studies the U.S. government’s infiltration of Hollywood in the early Cold War and the cultural ramifications this caused via a case study on Christmas films.

In that same Twitter thread, Vaughn pointed out the decision (the Paramount Accords) was reversed in August 2020, as the Department of Justice felt the decrees were outdated. The reversal had a sunset period of two years – a period that wrapped up this past August. And without that antitrust legislation in place, Joy argues in an interview with Digital Content Next, the future of film is pretty bleak.

The future of movies and media

“I, personally, think it will be grim,” Joy says. “I think we’re headed for even more monopolization and consolidation of power and properties by the major studios. If you’re concerned about independent filmmakers and smaller studios, the past few years already haven’t been looking amazing. And I do think relaxing antitrust legislation puts independents in an even more precarious position within the motion picture industry.”

Joy says part of what’s been making it rough on the indies is that, even when they do get deals with sites such as Netflix, their departments have been. “In May Netflix laid off 150 part-time and contracted workers,” she notes, “and had a second round of layoffs in June at around 300, largely independents or in diversity departments.”

She argues, repealing the Accords altogether was a step too far: “I believe new legislation should have and should still be made to regulate the streaming services and film studios against monopolization.”

Indeed, Joy maintains, it’s not too late for government intervention – intervention that, she feels, is vital: “I definitely think antitrust legislation for Hollywood is incredibly important and a pressing matter, as diversifying messages and perspectives in media is crucial for maintaining freedom of thought.”

Looking out for the little guy

The lack of sufficient antitrust legislation has already resulted in two major acquisitions that Joy feels should be illegal: the 2019 sale of 20th Century Fox to Disney, and the 2021 purchase of MGM by Amazon. “I believe both of these sales should have been stopped by antitrust legislation because that means, ultimately, that Disney and Amazon have a say over the films those studios are still producing and distributing,” Joy says.

Joy added that “one of the biggest issues” with the studio system was that eight major studios – the “Big Five” and the “Little Three” – were producing most of the mainstream movies. This meant eight studio heads were deciding which movies would be made, how they would be made and by whom, where they would be shown, and more.

After the Paramount Accords, though, that picture slowly began to change. Whereas in 1949, the eight major studios controlled 96% of the market, by 1986 the combined share of the then-six majors (which at that point were Warner Bros., Columbia, Universal, Paramount, Fox, and MGM/UA) had fallen to 64%. So more small studios were definitely getting their feet in the door.

Joy noted the Department of Justice’s reasoning for repealing the Paramount Accords was to, as she puts it, “level the playing field” for major studios against the streaming services – and that, interestingly, it was sort of the inverse of the 1948 Supreme Court decision.

“We need to acknowledge that we’ve abandoned independents and smaller studios in favor of loosening restrictions for the major studios,” she says. So what is the solution?

Is government intervention coming?

“I think the only way to reform this would be for Congress to bring about legislation regulating the streaming services and how they operate,” Joy says.

Streamers should be formally acknowledged as movie studios – and it should also be acknowledged that they’re practicing the very type of vertical integration the major studios had in the 1930s and ‘40s, according to Joy. Therefore, similar restrictions should be applied to the streamers as were applied to the studios in 1948.

“The motion picture industry is vastly different from what it was in the 1940s, but the answer to that absolutely cannot be that we just abandon attempts to discourage monopolization,” she says. And unfortunately, Joy says, she does not see much reason for studios to change without government intervention.

There are things studios can do, she says, such as “selling their streaming sites, making a central streaming site for all content, [or] breaking apart their own holdings so one studio doesn’t own mountains of IP and back catalogues and entire other major studios as their subsidiaries.”

New legislation is not necessarily on the way – but there is something that gives Joy hope. In October, the American Economic Liberties Project, a nonprofit that pushes for more aggressive antitrust enforcement, launched a campaign urging the Department of Justice to undo the 2010 merger between Ticketmaster and Live Nation. Not only has there been price gouging of customers, AELP alleges, but artists and venues have been strong-armed into accepting unfavorable conditions. U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., a Democrat from New Jersey, has also urged the overturning of the merger, “for the good of consumers and America.”

Democratizing content distribution

It’s not just the movie industry that has changed since the Paramount Accords were put into place. The internet has completely transformed how we all access content, and has allowed creators to take their movies, music, and shows directly to consumers.

Upstarts like InPlayer are already capitalizing on this trend. Studios and streaming services of all sizes could take a cue from companies like these and find ways to ensure independent voices are still heard and try to head off the possible disruption of government intervention or an entirely new business model.

About the author

Mike Thompson is a newspaper editor and freelance reporter living in Connecticut. He can be found on Twitter @MMThomp.

Industry experts offer 3 ways streaming services can reduce churn

October 6, 2022 Matthew Keys – Independent Media Reporter

The Wall Street Journal recently profiled a couple that they characterized as frustrating customers for streaming services. They subscribe to a streaming service, binge what they want to watch, then drop that service and move on to something else. Unfortunately, they are emblematic of a growing segment of streaming audiences.

When Netflix was king of the streaming services, this practice was rare. This was, in part because Netflix had a little bit of everything: hit shows like “The Office” and “Friends,” interspersed with licensed movies from blockbuster studios and must-watch original programs like “House of Cards” and “Orange is the New Black.” Didn’t have Showtime but wanted to watch “Dexter?” Netflix had it. Want to watch “Breaking Bad” without cable? Netflix had that, too.

But over the last few years—as others seek to reap the attraction of their own IP—Netflix has lost some of those key titles that once made the streaming service a must-have for households. NBC moved “The Office” to its own service, Peacock. Warner Bros. did the same thing with “Friends,” bringing it to HBO Max. “Dexter” is now exclusive to Showtime, which can be had as an add-on within Paramount Plus. “Breaking Bad” is still on Netflix, but only for the next few years, at which point it will presumably be exclusive to upstart streaming service AMC Plus.

Unfortunately, the diffusion of content to various services has created a nightmare scenario for streamers. Now, couples like the one profiled by the Journal are becoming the norm.

According to the analytics firm Antenna, around 19% of customers who subscribed to premium, cornerstone streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus, and Hulu dropped three or more of their subscriptions between June 2020 and June 2022. That’s an increase of 6% compared to the period between June 2018 and June 2022.

Their loss has been a benefit to newer streaming services like Paramount Plus, Apple TV Plus, Discovery Plus, and others. However, the nature of how the streaming video business works means their models are not ironclad. Most services offer monthly subscriptions, and with no contract or other long-term mechanism to lock them in, customers can drop those start-up services just as easily as churn through the premium ones.

There are some obvious ways a streaming service can keep customers engaged in a way that reduces churn: Offer compelling shows and movies. Keep the price affordable. Make it easy to use. Make it available on every platform and every device. But with a dizzying landscape of streaming services that are spinning up at a breakneck pace, low prices and hit programming aren’t enough of a strategy to keep viewers locked into a service over the long term.

So, we asked some experts in the video space for other ways streaming services can grow their audience while keeping churn levels relatively low. Here is what they suggest:

1. Know your audience, and respond with that content

When the Fox Nation streaming service launched four years ago, the brand was franchised from Fox Nation section of the Fox News website, which offered a mixture of political and social commentary from thought leaders and digital correspondents. In some ways, it was a “Fox News Plus,” in that it carried several streaming political commentary shows and documentaries that were largely hosted by Fox News personalities.

That worked to a point. But as time went on, executives at Fox News Media realized the Fox Nation streaming service could serve as a platform for other types of content. It offered a home for historical documentaries, general entertainment programs, reality-based shows—content that Fox News enthusiasts had to find across a number of other services, if they were offered at all.

So Fox Nation has stepped up to fill the void. The service commissioned original shows and documentaries that it figured would appeal to the average Fox News viewer. And it has made them easy to find in a single service at a low price point.

“We definitely know what the space looks like for Fox Nation: it looks a lot like what the Fox News audience watches when they’re not watching Fox News,” Jason Klarman, president of Fox Nation, said in an interview. “Curation is at the heart of this. It’s about serving an audience that wants us to give them the content that they otherwise might go somewhere else—everything from real estate shows to cooking shows.”

The opinion programming is still there. In fact, Fox Nation viewers get next-day access to prime-time shows like “Tucker Carlson Tonight” and “The Ingraham Angle” as part of their subscription. But they also get shows like “Sharon Osbourne: To Hell and Back,” a documentary that dives into the issues of cancel culture; “The Pursuit with John Rich,” an interview show with the country music star; and “Historical Battles for America,” a docuseries hosted by Kelsey Grammer.

While the Fox News audience might be considered niche, Klarman said focusing on what those viewers would want to see from a general entertainment streaming service has done very well for Fox Nation. In fact, he went so far as to say Fox Nation has one of the lowest churn rates in the industry (second only to Netflix, he says) because the streaming service’s programming is able to make an emotional connection with the core Fox News audience.

“The opportunity is as big as we want it to be,” he said.

2. Partner with a streaming platform

While some companies like Fox, Showtime and Discovery are able to leverage their traditional cable brands to lure viewers into a streaming service, other upstarts like Acorn TV, Britbox, and Shudder have ventured into the streaming landscape with virtually no name recognition. And all still have the challenge of keeping customers once they’ve signed up.

None of this was a problem for media companies in the era before streaming: If a customer wanted premium television, they signed up for cable or satellite. When they did, they could reasonably expect to have access to the channels carrying the shows that were discussed around the water cooler at work the next day. And accessing a new show was as simple as changing the channel.

Today, things are different. Content is spread out across a few services, which makes for a confusing landscape with many gatekeepers. That is a problem that the big four streaming platforms—Roku, Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV, and Android TV (Google TV)—have sought to address with various algorithms that help viewers discover content across services.

Roku takes things a step farther with its Roku Channel, an app that comes preloaded on every Roku device sold. Through the Roku Channel, users can sign up for dozens of third-party streaming services like Showtime, Starz, Discovery Plus, Paramount Plus, Epix, Acorn TV, and others. The services are paid for using Roku Pay, and content is streamed within the Roku Channel app. The approach makes purchasing a new service and streaming shows and movies a frictionless experience for customers.

“The Roku Channel allows us to showcase content and make it easy to discover and find and potentially attract audiences that would never have discovered it,” Nicole Fencel, a Roku executive in charge of premium streaming services, said at the NAPTE Streaming Plus conference last month. “Otherwise, it’s very hard for smaller services to play in an ecosystem that’s consumed by these major services…finding ways to bring that content up and elevate it across the platform is a way that we can help.”

The Roku Channel is not alone in offering this type of feature. The Apple TV app and Amazon’s Prime Video Channels also offer a marketplace for buying third-party streaming subscriptions, with content delivered within those apps. Google is reportedly working on a similar marketplace that will be powered by its YouTube streaming service.

None of those tech companies require streaming services to offer subscriptions through their marketplaces in order to reach customers on their platforms: Showtime, Epix, Paramount Plus, and others are still available as individual downloads, and customers can sign up directly for those services through the websites of each company.

But Fencel said there’s a benefit to partnering with the Roku Channel: Users have an easier time watching movies and TV shows across different services when they do so through that app, and Roku has developed numerous technologies centered around learning what its users like to watch, then surfacing movies and TV shows they may want to watch next.

“Finding ways to bring that content up and elevated across the platform is a way that we can help,” Fencel said, noting that helping users discover new content can lower overall churn rates.

3. If a customer is going to leave, make sure they leave happy

But Roku’s technology, and that of its competitor platforms, can only take a streaming service so far, something that Fencel acknowledged during her interview at NAPTE last month.

“We will make sure we help prevent churn as much as possible, but if a customer is going to make the decision (to leave), they’re going to make the decision,” Fencel said. “So, our job is to try to figure out, how do we re-attract them?”

Some might assume that the answer is simple: Add more programming that people want to watch. Or lower the price of a service to attract more customers. But some streaming services don’t have the benefit of adding programming or changing prices on a whim.

Philo is one such streaming service: It offers more than six dozen live pay television networks, the same found on cable and satellite, for $25 a month. Philo is able to keep the price low by making deals with programming partners that don’t offer cable news or sports channels. And, luckily, Philo carries a handful of channels that are responsible for many cable hits, including AMC (“Breaking Bad,” “The Walking Dead”) and Paramount Network (“Yellowstone”).

However, Philo is still very much at the whim of its programming partners. It can’t control the shows and movies that the live channels choose to carry in a given season. And it knows that customers might sign up to watch a season of a show like “Yellowstone”, and then leave for a different service once that show has run its course for the year.

Thus, Philo’s executives spend a lot of time thinking about the thing they can control: The customer experience. Does the app work? Is there enough variety? Can customers tune in and relax, or do they have to spend a lot of time finding something to watch?

That strategy has worked well for Philo. The service has grown to over 850,000 paying subscribers as of last year. (The company is private and doesn’t regularly reveal how many subscribers it has). Still, like other streaming services, it allows customers to start and stop service on a whim, which it considers to be its advantage over cable and satellite. However, its a situation that keeps the door revolving.

“I think everyone kind of accepts that churn is a reality,” Andrew McCollum, Philo’s chief executive, said in an interview. “But we have a particular belief that it’s really important people have a good experience with Philo, and that even if they leave, they leave happy.”

Philo’s philosophy is that a satisfied customer who ends their subscription will likely return when their favorite show starts up again, or when they discover a new program that is on a channel carried by the service. It is the kind of brand loyalty strategy that starts and ends with the overall customer experience.

“In a world with high churn, if people have a good experience with Philo, and they leave, and they leave happy, the next time they want to watch something we carry, hopefully they’ll come back to us,” McCollum said.

What publishers can learn from the creator economy

September 29, 2022 Damian Radcliffe, Carolyn S. Chambers Professor in Journalism – University of Oregon

The creator economy is estimated to be a $104.2B market with “a substantial growth trajectory similar to the gig economy.” And, just as the gig economy has transformed the shape of work, the creator economy is impacting the media landscape.

*Image* *via* *Influencer Marketing* Hub

Industry-watcher Simon Owens notes how bootstrapped content entrepreneurs are harnessing platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Substack to engage new audiences, often through verticals overlooked by mainstream outlets. Some are also very successfully monetizing these efforts. Globally, more than two million creators have six-figure incomes, as they tap into opportunities for sponsorship, subscriptions, and other revenue.

Excitement about this potential has unlocked more than $800 million from venture capitalists in recent years. This is “sending strong signals confirming the creator economy is not only legit, but a force to be reckoned with,” Influencer Marketing Hub suggests.

“This is really a new form of work and a new form of entrepreneurship,” according to Kaya Yurieff, a former CNN journalist who covers the creator economy for The Information.

The rapid rise of this sector is evident in the flurry of deals, creative campaigns, and platform developments featured in a four-times-a-week newsletter Yurieff and her colleagues have produced since April 2021.

Five actionable lessons for publishers

Collectively, the size of this market, its characteristics, and projected growth makes this a sector that media companies should not just report on. They should be learning from it too.

Below are five ways that publishers can learn from the creator economy.

1. Harness the value of niche

“As solo operators, creators handle everything from content creation to marketing to monetization,” Owens explains. “This forces them to be incredibly innovative if they want to compete with much larger media organizations for subscription and advertising dollars,” he adds.

One of the ways that they have addressed this is through niche content verticals. Yurieff points to Substack newsletters focused on indigenous news as an example of one “area that traditional publishers historically haven’t dedicated a ton of resources to.”

“Creators have proved that there are audiences for maybe more varied topics than we’ve seen traditionally in the media,” she says.

For publishers, this demonstrates the potential to superserve smaller, targetted, audiences. It isn’t always about scale. Rather, the focus should be on tapping into passions and subjects that audiences will engage with – and potentially pay for.

2. Learn how creators are growing their businesses

Niche verticals don’t necessarily have to remain small. “The most successful of these solo operators eventually end up hiring staff and acting more like traditional media companies,” Owens points out.

He highlights how a former Cosmopolitan editor, Mia Freedman grew Mamamia from a one-person blog to Australia’s largest women-focused media company (with c.100 staff, 99% women). Owens also cites Adam White’s Front Office Sports, which began as a college project and now reaches over 20M people per month, as “examples of creators who leveraged their initial success to grow into more traditional media companies.”

The transferable lessons from these types of success stories are highly relevant to the digital strategies being developed and deployed by publishers. As such, they should be required reading in the C-Suite.

3. Understand it isn’t just about flashy new social networks

Many of the methods used by independent creators to share content and generate engagement – such as newsletters, podcasts, groups and messaging apps, paid memberships, subscriptions and other tactics – will be very familiar to traditional publishers.

That said, in doing this, they are more likely to use newer platforms like Patreon, Discord and Geneva, than traditional publishers. But in terms of their approach, it shows you don’t necessarily have to reinvent the wheel. However, you do need to offer something valuable and distinctive. Content is King. Yet, in many cases, community is nearly as powerful. Distinctiveness can arguably be rooted in content, tone of voice, distribution channels and/or a combination of all three.

The Mamamia podcast network features around 50 different shows and 90 female hosts. According to their website, “it’s the largest women’s podcast network in the world.” Their podcast journey will be of interest to traditional publishers with similar audio ambitions.

By the same token, alongside a daily newsletter and podcast, Front Office Sports has created a paid Pro product. This includes research reports, access to events and market data, as well interactive courses sponsored by the likes of Meta and Ticketmaster.

Areas such as events, courses and research are among the tactics a number of publishers are also exploring as part of their efforts to diversify their revenues. The lessons Front Office Sports learned from these efforts is therefore relevant beyond the creator economy.

*Image: Screenshot highlighting a selection of* *Mamamia’s podcasts*

4. Reach new audiences where they are

Publishers are increasingly moving into spaces like TikTok and Twitch in an effort to engage new (often younger) audiences. To make these efforts more successful, it can pay to hire staffers conversant with the style and tone of the creator economy.

NPR’s Planet Money might seem like a venerable show, but its TikTok account counters that perception. Run by 25-year-old Jack Corbett, it has nearly 750,000 followers. Teen Vogue describes Corbett as “a wacky-professor figure, a talented TikTok comedian, and most importantly, a guide through the largely inaccessible world of economics.”

For NPR, Corbett’s skills potentially brings audiences to Planet Money’s content who would otherwise find it inaccessible, or assume it wasn’t for them. It’s a tactic others should study, if not try to duplicate.

5. Unlock the potential for partnerships

Publishers might, rightly, see the creator economy as a source for talent. But, those hires don’t necessarily need to be full time. Partnerships offer another approach that can potentially work for both parties.

Launched last month, as part of a suite of new advice columns, The Washington Post added TikTok content creator Jules Terpak to its cadre. The weekly column, Ask Jules, explores how technology intersects with digital culture and the lives of her readers.

Moves such as this enable publishers to benefit from a creator’s established audience and recognized expertise. (And in turn, creators may also benefit from an association with, and the resources of, a trusted mainstream media brand.)

Creators have a built-in following and have demonstrated that audiences value their voice and viewpoint. Partnering with them can help publishers diversify their own voice and content offering. This provides a gateway to new audiences for other content and products.

What’s next? Two trends to follow.

The creator economy is home to valuable case studies, talent and skills that the wider media industry can benefit from.

This may become especially acute given the latest set of changes to Facebook’s mobile product. The move is part of what New York Magazine’s John Herrman refers to as social media’s “race to see who can copy TikTok the fastest and with the least dignity.” As a result, It may put a premium on the style and types of content that are the bread and butter of what many top creators produce.

Short-form video

“The algorithm changes will probably push publishers to create more short-form video content,” predicts Owens. “I wouldn’t be surprised if publishers start looking more and more for prior TikTok/Instagram Reels experience when hiring out their social media teams.”

Private communities

For Yurieff, one potential trend to note is the migration of online conversations into “more private spaces… I think that’s something really to watch,” she says.

She cites Discord as an example of a platform which now has “lots of different niches and groups and audiences using it.” It’s part of a wider move among online users to connect in smaller groups, communicating privately and potentially going deeper on certain topics, Yurieff says. These are principles more publishers might want to get on board with.

In that vein, The Information’s move to create opportunities for its subscribers to network directly with each other demonstrates how some of the community principles evident in the creator economy can be applied by media outlets.

“These new features are meant to add more value to the news site’s subscriber base, as opposed to driving meaningful revenue themselves,” Axios reports. Nevertheless, in the future, The Information may look to monetize them.

Like and subscribe

The growth of the industry, and the success of some of its proponents, means that if the creator economy is not on your radar yet, then it should be.

For publishers, the maturing of the creator economy, and the growing numbers engaged in (and with) it, present a number of learning opportunities. We need to be looking at the creator economy, as well as the more traditional media industry, for case studies, talent and insights into how to respond to the next wave of digital disruption.

Yet, despite its growth, “this new breed of creators may be looked upon as charlatans and opportunists by some purists in traditional publishing,” suggests Josep Nolla, VP, Business Development & Partnerships at the e-commerce provider Bolt. “But the reality is there are more similarities than differences between this exciting new economy and traditional publishing,” Nolla advises.

Creators, like traditional publishers, are looking to drive subscriptions, diversify their revenues, and generate engagement and loyalty. They may use different platforms, content styles, or verticals to do this. But arguably, a lot of their core business goals are the same. And there’s a lot to be learned in these similarities – and maybe even more from the differences.

Care to disagree? Then let’s debate it on Discord!

Forget cable 2.0. Streaming video is TV 3.0

September 1, 2022 Matthew Keys – Independent Media Reporter

A few weeks ago, analytics firm Nielsen Research earned some splashy headlines after it issued a press release reporting that television viewers streamed more content than they watched on cable TV for the first time.

To clarify, Nielsen’s own research put streaming services ahead of traditional cable products for the first time since it began collecting data on those practices. And, arguably, some of its data is debatable, since it rolled services like Hulu with Live TV and YouTube TV into both the “streaming” and “cable” categories (cable networks are core to both products).

Also, while Nielsen’s own data has streaming at a slight edge over cable, columnist David Bloom notes that the measurement firm doesn’t typically gather data from devices like computers or game consoles where streaming services are also offered. More importantly, as Bloom pointed out, the Nielsen report probably reflects a consumer trend that has been taking place for several years.

Still, the survey has fueled comparisons between streaming services and cable television — and not always for the better. Bloomberg media correspondent Lucas Shaw recently wrote that price hikes and advertising made it so that “the streaming business is starting to look like cable TV from 10 years ago.” The idea is that price hikes and advertising are turning the streaming industry into “Cable 2.0“.

It is difficult to argue with that logic from a price perspective: Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus are among the streaming services that have implemented one or more price increases since their debut. (Netflix has raised subscription fees on average at least once per 1.5 years since 2014). But to focus squarely on price misses the bigger picture: Streaming has liberated good entertainment from the wall jack and the television set. And, in doing so, has made it cheaper and more-accessible than at any point in television history.

Streaming is not too far removed from cable’s history

Accessibility has spurred technological advances throughout the history of domestic television: Broadcast TV emerged about a century ago as a way to add moving pictures to radio programs. What is commonly known as cable TV started out as community antenna television. Regions in remote parts of the United States banded together to build a giant antenna capable of receiving distant broadcast signals, then ran coaxial cable from the antenna to homes. Customers paid a few dollars to maintain the system and had access to most, if not all, of the main three networks plus a handful of independent stations.

In the mid-1970s, television mogul Ted Turner figured he could make a few dollars more from the advertising he ran on his Atlanta station, WTBS (Channel 17), if he uplinked it to satellite. From there, cable systems could receive the station and distribute it to their viewers. The idea took off, and soon stations like WGN (Channel 9, Chicago) and WOR-TV (Channel 9, New York) jockeyed for satellite space so they, too, could get national distribution on cable.

Years later, another television pioneer, John Malone, saw that cable was a much-bigger business opportunity than anyone else seemed to realize. His Tele-Communications Incorporated (TCI) grew to become one of the dominant-players in the industry between the late 1970s and the mid-1990s. Malone and TCI bankrolled some of the first cable-only networks around (including Turner’s own CNN when it faced bankruptcy). And many of those cable networks are still around. (TCI is currently owned by Comcast.)

Both phases of television limited viewers to their TV sets. It wasn’t until streaming came along that video was finally liberated from the living room cable jack.

Streaming is not an extension of cable — it’s an evolution of television

Jason Cohen spends a lot of time thinking about this 30,000-foot view of the domestic television industry. In 2019, he left his job as a media portfolio manager for a Wall Street firm to launch MyBundle.TV, an online marketplace for streaming services. He thinks people who focus on streaming services being the new cable — “Cable 2.0” — are missing the bigger picture. He believes that “TV 1.0 was broadcast, TV 2.0 was cable and TV 3.0 is streaming. It’s taking the closed, set-top box model of TV 2.0 and opening up the marketplace.”

There are still pain points for streaming services, with price being an obvious one. It’s true that over the last few years, most major media companies have raised their subscription fees as they invest billions of dollars in original content production earmarked for their own direct-to-consumer services.

And the marketplace is reacting to rate increases by diversifying their subscription tiers. For years, Hulu has offered customers the choice of buying their streaming service at a budget price if they are willing to tolerate ads. They also have the option of paying more money if they want a commercial-free experience. Since then, other streaming services like HBO Max, Discovery Plus, Comcast’s Peacock and Paramount Plus have taken the same approach. Disney and Netflix have confirmed plans to do the same in the near future.

Cohen thinks price diversification will help a streaming service appeal to a broad group of customers at any given time: “If a household wants to save money, they can watch tons of free, ad-supported streaming services. If a household has money to burn, they can spend a ton of money on ad-free tiers of streaming services and never watch another commercial again. And if it’s something in-between — which is probably most of the country — it’s subscribing to a handful of services at one point, and then switching them out during the year.”

TV 3.0 is a chaotic landscape that will stabilize with time

There is some data to suggest that consumers are growing more comfortable with the idea of switching services on a whim. According to the analytics firm Antenna, around one in five households dropped three or more subscription services in the two years ending this June. In 2020, the number was closer to one in 20 households within the same two-year stretch.

One reason why subscribers might be switching away is the sheer volume of streaming services. Consumers are also finding their favorite TV shows and movies shuttled between them. Netflix, for instance, has lost several of its top comedy shows: “Friends” moved to HBO Max, then “The Office” moved to Peacock. Disney has slowly pulled titles from Netflix, too, as it seeks to reclaim movies for its own Disney Plus streaming service.

The revolving door of content hits on another pain point for streaming: In the TV 3.0 world, finding content can be a confusing experience. Cohen believes that platforms are starting to address this by building technology that makes it easier to find shows and movies across a number of different services and devices, and recommendation engines should become better and easier to use over time.

As Cohen describes the situation, “Where is it easiest to discover shows? It’s probably your phone. Where’s the best place to watch TV? It’s probably on the TV.”

So, how do manufacturers and platforms respond to that? By building a bridge between the two — whether that’s Vizio Account, or a Samsung app, or a Roku app, or something else. As he points out, “every TV maker and every operating system is trying to figure out the best way to help consumers find content on their platform.”

That said, Cohen acknowledges the streaming world is something of a mess right now. Mergers and acquisitions mean the owner of one streaming service (like CBS All Access or Discovery Plus) suddenly becomes the owner-operator of another (Pluto TV, HBO Max). And that, of course, means figuring out a long-term strategy for both. (If you’re Paramount Global, each streaming service lives in its own ecosystem. If you’re Warner Bros Discovery, you announce plans to get rid of two flagship streaming services and start anew).

It is a particularly chaotic time to be a sports fan, with sports rights to popular franchises like the National Football League and Major League Baseball split between broadcast, cable and streaming. Major League Baseball games, for example, are carried on regional cable sports networks in many markets, except for a few games that are exclusive to either NBC (and Peacock) or Apple TV Plus. This means that baseball fans this season might have to subscribe to cable and make an account with Peacock and Apple just to follow their home team.

Adding to the confusion is the lack of a single sign-on feature that allows customers to have one username and password that covers every service they want access to. Some companies have experimented with offering a feature that comes close to this: Roku, Apple and Amazon have streaming marketplaces baked within their own platforms. And Vizio recently announced Vizio Account, which seeks to replicate that experience. (Google is also reportedly exploring this idea.)

Cohen’s own MyBundle.TV is a platform-agnostic marketplace that asks streamers about the channels and programming they want to receive, then directs them to streaming services where they can find it. Eventually, customers will be able to manage their subscriptions from within the MyBundle.TV platform. Currently, MyBundle.TV only offers this feature with Sling TV, but other partners are in the works.

Malone, the cable magnate who pioneered TV 2.0, thinks bundles will eventually be the winning ticket for TV 3.0. He also believes there will be further consolidation between media companies as their war with each other intensifies.

Cohen backs the idea of a single platform where customers can start and stop streaming services at will — he left his Wall Street job to build that kind of product. But he’s not convinced that streaming services have to appeal to everyone with everything. He thinks niche streaming services can be successful on their own merit: “Streaming services don’t need to be everything for everyone. There are options that appeal to every household.”

As content becomes more fractured, Cohen said consumers need to resist the itch to sign up for every streaming service that is out there. The idea that customers had to have access to everything hearkens back to the days of TV 1.0 and 2.0 — when popular shows were watched in real-time on just a handful of channels, whether they were on broadcast TV or cable. That experience resulted in appointment-viewing — people had to watch shows at a certain time (later, they could record them for delayed viewing) — and also helped spur water cooler conversations and pop culture moments.

The TV 3.0 landscape is different. Streaming, for the most part, doesn’t require appointment viewing, because people can — and do — watch things on their own time and at their own pace. Cohen says things like streaming watch parties are offering solutions to people who still want television viewing to be a social experience. But it appears to be a technology that few people want. What customers do want is access to everything. But those days are long gone.

Streaming still has its challenges. However, the technology will improve over time and consumers will eventually come around to the idea that the convenience and price of streaming is worth the sacrifice of not having access to everything. That, coupled with the flexibility of starting and stopping services as well as the ability to watch programming across any number of devices, means streaming should not be reduced to Cable 2.0. It is an evolutionary leap in a revolutionary entertainment experience. It’s TV 3.0.

Industry-Research | Supporter Spotlight | Video

The next-generation news consumer is older than you think and wants more video.

July 18, 2022 Nate Kelly, Global Head of Content – Oovvuu

Publishers should target the medium, not the platform to capture the next generation of news consumers.

The 2022 Digital News Report from the Reuters Institute and the University of Oxford paints a grim picture. More people are avoiding the news than ever before, especially younger generations. But these social and digital natives are not necessarily next up in the queue of eventual news consumers nor are they a target audience, yet. This article aims to highlight who publishers should target and how.

Targeting too young, too soon.

It’s easy to read the aforementioned report and feel exasperated. Thirty eight percent of people surveyed around the world are selectively avoiding the news, up from 29% in 2017. In the U.S., it’s 42%, up from 38% in 2017.

The percentage of avoiders grows the younger the dataset gets with 20-somethings actively avoiding certain genres of news as a form of self-care.

“I actively avoid things that trigger my anxiety and things that can have a negative impact on my day. I will try to avoid reading news about things like deaths and disasters.”
—Male, 27, UK

This is distressing for any journalist to read. However, there’s an interesting yet subtle distinction in how younger consumers are classifying news which helps explain it.

“…younger audiences often distinguish between ‘the news’ as the narrow, traditional agenda of politics and current affairs and ‘news’ as a much wider umbrella encompassing topics like sports, entertainment, celebrity gossip, culture, and science.”

This means that younger generations are lumping proper journalism in with their entire digital diet. This makes sense based on how different types of information bleed together on social feeds. A video from the New York Times on the war in Ukraine might be sandwiched between a video from an influencer doing the latest viral dance trend and a video showing how to make burrata caprese. If you’re on your phone for another dopamine hit, “the news” isn’t going to satiate.

So called “older generations” (35 is the cutoff in the report) are much more interested in “the news” as opposed to “news”. They seek out the news because they feel it’s important, useful and a good way to learn new things as opposed to younger generations looking for entertainment or something to discuss with friends.

This sense of duty to be informed is the perfect audience subset for publishers and that passionate niche only grows larger with age. Some publishers are setting the bar even higher than 35. The Washington Post’s Phoebe Connelly, director of Next Generation Audiences told Poynter’s Senior Media Writer Tom Jones that younger audiences are anyone under 45. That’s just ten years younger than the average news consumer.

The Reuters report shows that younger audiences are less engaged and are even having a difficult time understanding the news. I should be clear that these audiences shouldn’t be ignored. It’s worth exploring how to increase media literacy and develop a sense of duty to be well informed. But newsrooms need to be strategic with their limited audience targeting resources, so whether it’s due to self-care or just wanting to be entertained, publishers should mostly put the millennial and Gen-Z generations on the shelf while they mature into vintage news consumers and focus on the tier below their current audience.

45 is the new 55

Most consumers are getting their news from social media on mobile devices, even this older demographic. But there are key opportunities in this subset for publishers compared to the younger audiences.

They are about 13% of the U.S. population (37 million and the third largest set)
They are twice as likely to have a digital subscription to news than 35-45 year olds. (8% or 3 million)
About 25% either mostly watch or have a balance of watching and reading the news. (9.2 million)

This last bullet point is key because it highlights a consumption trend that can result in huge engagement and revenue growth for publishers.

While only about 25% of older consumers mostly watch or consume the same amount of content via video or text, the younger generations are consuming nearly 35% via video. Our research at Oovvuu finds this to be true across its publishing partners as well. A global average of 34% of news consumers prefer video while on a publisher’s website, not just social media.

This trend isn’t going to change. TikTok is a video-only platform and it’s the most popular social media platform in the world with the youngest users. TikTok will come and go, but those users have been conditioned to consume video from the days of Facebook and Twitter to Instagram, YouTube and now TikTok. When they grow up and fit nicely into the 45 to 55 news-hungry demographic, odds are they’ll still want video.

Engagement and revenue opportunities

Already, 41% of consumers who prefer video say it is more engaging than text. When publishers embed contextually relevant video on a news story the time spent on that page doubles. It also increases the likelihood of that viewer returning to the site.

This strategy isn’t new. It’s usually mentioned every few years when a publisher “pivots to video” for the umpteenth time. The problem lies in the execution of that strategy. The road to proper video implementation is riddled with landmines: auto-play, long non-skippable pre rolls, too many ads, loading too many videos and weighing down the page, and a lack of contextual relevance are all recipes for disaster with news video consumption. One landmine can turn off a consumer or an advertiser. They’ll still want or pay for video, it just won’t happen on your site.

The winning formula is the right video, at the right time, in the right place.

This formula works because video is 34 times more profitable than display advertising when implemented correctly. At Oovvuu, we’ve found that publishers who are willing to follow the formula are rewarded with media agency partners who are willing to pay premium CPMs for those videos and consumers who actually engage with the content. Here’s the formula again with more detail.

Contextual Relevance + Premium and Timely Placement + Click-to-Play = Premium CPMs

The reality is that journalists still need to do the work, and publishers can empower them with this strategy because it translates across all levels of the organization. Contextually relevant video journalism making more money for the publisher means newsrooms could do something they haven’t done in a long time…grow.

Contextual relevance applies to video, but also the consumer

There is one more potential pitfall to this strategy worth mentioning. A digital publisher or broadcaster can have a 1:1 perfect match between an in-house video and an article, but over time the publisher will still see a lack of loyalty from its consumers. But why if the video and article are in perfect harmony?

Social and digital native audiences are more casual, less loyal, less trusting and more skeptical in their news consumption. Loyalty and trust are built through representation and diversity. A publisher who relies on one brand or one internal group of talent – no matter how good – is likely turning off younger consumers.

Publishers can’t hire every demographic. They also can’t source every video. This means that publishers and video providers need to work together to have the best audience representation possible. Publishers who have video from hundreds of providers around the world are able to publish a larger variety of reporting perspectives and viewpoints with more races, accents and dialects offered from news presenters.

Contextual relevance through diverse video sources will leave audiences feeling represented, empowered, and part of the news. Couple that with a proper video strategy and consumers will be more likely to engage with “the news” and less likely to disassociate with it.

Featured Post | Innovation | Perspectives | Video

The January 6 hearings highlight a significant growth opportunity for streamers

July 14, 2022 Christy Tanner, Founder – Coraly Partners and Senior Advisor Oaklins DeSilva & Phillips

The January 6 hearings demonstrate a significant opportunity for streaming services – SVOD, AVOD, FAST – to provide public service and to engage new and existing audiences. Most people can’t take two hours in the middle of the day to watch the hearings in full. But they can time shift, binge, or play the hearings at 2x speed on connected devices. And in my experience (which includes running CBS News Digital and CBSN for more than five years) they will. This is: they will if video is available and easy to find.

In fact, at this point in the streaming evolution, it should be easy for viewers to find most major breaking news events live and on demand within each of the major streamers. Unfortunately, it is not easy enough. And, in some cases, it’s nonexistent.

The reality

Most of the major streamers either operate news divisions or incorporate numerous news streams into their products. Based on the numbers and the research, it’s well known in the streaming industry that live, breaking news is both in demand and an expectation among viewers. In addition, there are no significant technology or distribution issues blocking these companies from streaming live, breaking news coverage.

So, it’s a major miss for the streamers that, when there is a major, scheduled news event in which it’s in the public interest to provide access, they continue to make it hard to find news within their services. It seems that most choose to continue to heavily promote tentpole entertainment properties – even in the middle of the day – rather than promoting scheduled news events that their properties already are covering.

The January 6 hearings have been among the most riveting live news events in recent memory. The testimonies of Georgia election official Shaye Moss, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, and former Oath Keeper Jason Van Tatenhove were dramatic, compelling, and newsworthy. Yet the major streamers are generally opting out of the opportunity to serve their viewers by making the hearings accessible live and on demand.

The opportunity

The good news is that it’s not too late to fix this. Here’s how streaming services can make it easy to watch critical scheduled news, such as the January 6 hearings, using four simple, inexpensive tactics:

Use front door promotional “marquees” to drive in real time to the live hearings and to communicate the upcoming schedule.
Showcase on demand video of the full hearings prominently within said marquees and other promotional space.
Re-run the hearings on streaming news services and in VOD sections after hours and on weekends.
Use their vast promotional and marketing capabilities including emails, mobile notifications, social, promotional trailers, etc. to put this coverage front and center.\

Audiences are intelligent, curious, and interested in making up their own minds. They want facts and are hungry for knowledge, not just opinion. Offering them the opportunity to easily consume these kinds of news events more easily provides a satisfying solution.

Delivery and growth

Every time CBS News streamed a major live news event, it increased our viewership base. When we made the full video of major news events available on demand, our viewers watched in large numbers. We created loyalty by delivering service and meeting viewers’ expectations for trusted news coverage.

Simply by focusing on, and delivering solutions for these needs and expectations, our CBS News team grew the live streaming news service to more than 1 billion views in both 2020 and 2021. As the digital audience grew, we saw no evidence of cannibalization of the linear audience. In fact, we saw brand loyalty strengthened in multiple research studies conducted during a period of six years, starting in 2015.

Major streamers can do the same by showcasing news when viewers expect it, such as during major live breaking events such as the January 6 hearings. Considering the investment that these organizations are making in their content and delivery optimization, it is an oversight in terms of serving consumers’ information needs. In an increasingly competitive streaming environment, streamers who take the opportunity to engage and grow audiences interested in breaking news will experience a payoff in long-term loyalty.

Perspectives | Supporter Spotlight | Video

YouTube’s success is a great sign for CTV

April 27, 2022 Todd Krizelman, CEO – MediaRadar

Lately, there has been much investor handwringing over CTV investments. With Netflix’s latest results, some worry that if Netflix’s growth has stalled, the prospects for everyone else may be diminished as well. This is why the same day that Netflix stock came down 35+%, there were also (albeit much smaller) declines in other broadcast stocks too.

But the concerns may be misplaced. If YouTube can build a $28.8B annual revenue advertising business, without subscriptions, surely there’s hope that Netflix and other media brands with strong content catalogs can build and sustain ad-supported offerings.

The YouTube business

To better understand the YouTube business, MediaRadar took a look at the mix of YouTube’s current advertising. For this analysis we reviewed pre-roll, mid-roll and post-roll ads from the largest 3,000 YouTube channels across 33 content categories through a panel of over 2 million users.

What we found was a robust, growing business, with significant lift in advertising revenue the trailing year, but also the number of advertisers, across most product categories, was up. Alphabet Inc, which owns YouTube, recently released FY 2021 numbers. The economics look strong. The company grew revenue 47% in 2021, up to $28.8B. Almost all of this was from ad revenue, with very little from subscriptions. The implications for all broadcasters and publishers is meaningful.

Some view YouTube as a platform only, not as content creator. But this is not quite right. YouTube is a platform of course. But they also invest aggressively in their influencers and third-party content creators. While they don’t finance scripted shows, they don’t leave content creation to chance. They do this by providing physical space, the latest tech, upfront grants, and even assign a manager to advise creators once they hit a certain number of followers. As reported by the WSJ in October 2021 they note YouTube employs 1,000 full-time managers assigned to the top 12,000 creators. With this in mind, there are takeaways for others on how to build a hybrid approach to content creation.

YouTube advertising findings

The industry verticals with the most concentration of ad spend include entertainment, technology, retail, finance, and pharma. Altogether, these categories accounted for 60% of ad placement, and each segment increased > 30% YoY from 2020 to 2021.

Retail and ecommerce advertising are up significantly year-over-year. We observed an increase in ad spend within this category of 109% from 2020. Unlike in certain categories, in retail we continued to see steady growth throughout the year. The Retail Category increased advertising on YouTube by 60% in Q3 2021 and 91% during the Q4 2021 holiday rush.

YouTube’s music content was the most popular in both 2020 and 2021 with advertisers. YouTube benefits from strong renewal rates, but also from new clients. 52% of advertisers in music YouTube channels were new in 2021.

Everyone knows Travel advertising would be up. YouTube did not disappoint. Advertising investment in the Travel vertical grew by 270% YoY from 2020. Some of the ad spend was from kid-friendly vacation destinations and theme parks like Disney World and Discovery Cove. Ad spend increased 8x year-over-year.

Content is key to advertising growth

Next, we looked into YouTube’s programming channels to see what content categories are helping to drive growth of the platform. Interestingly, the most popular among advertisers were the same in 2020 as 2021 – music, kids, society and culture, and gaming.

YouTube’s music content was the most popular both years among advertisers. Furthermore, 52% of the companies investing among YouTube’s music content were newcomers to the category.

Another trend we uncovered was within “kids” content. Advertising investment among travel vertical grew by 270% YoY from 2020. Most of the ad spend was from kid friendly vacation destinations and theme parks like Disney World and Discovery Cove. Ad spend increased 8x among this group.

What’s next?

As we move through 2022 and into 2023, we expect retail ad spend to continue growing on YouTube. YouTube will continue to be a hot-spot for advertising among retail brands.

While ecommerce has had an increasing presence for years, the pandemic likely accelerated this possess by uncovering new technology to help making digital buying easy. YouTube has had success with shoppable experiences, and we expect to see more of them.

Publishers have long understood the value of affiliate revenue and shoppable content. The opportunity here – as demonstrated through YouTube’s success – is to evolve this into video and CTV offerings as well.

It will be interesting to see how the “new normal” plays out post-pandemic. Obviously, the industry and buying behavior has been forever changed. The online video market is also becoming cluttered with numerous CTV and OTT options. Even Disney+ and Netflix are launching advertising-based models. The constantly evolving market will impact the way video is consumed and the methods advertisers need to use to promote their products.

The combination of content and commerce is a strong one. And, as we are seeing throughout the streaming space, content drives audience interest. And audience interest drives ad sales success. YouTube’s success illustrates the opportunity for ad-supported streaming success.

Industry-Research | Video

Audiences climb for OTT and mobile video viewing

April 22, 2022 Michelle Manafy, Editorial Director – DCN

March marked a new milestone for streaming, as audiences spent nearly 30% of their total TV time watching over-the-top video (OTT) content. The Gauge, the monthly total TV and streaming snapshot from Nielsen found that, despite a 0.7% decrease in time spent streaming from February, viewing share across all streaming platforms was either flat or gained slightly in March.

In a further boon for the sector, Sensor Tower Usage Intelligence’s Q1 Data Digest found that the top mobile subscription video on demand (SVOD) apps in the United States saw an average of nearly 18 million monthly active users in Q1 2022, up 14% compared to Q1 2020 and 49% from Q1 2019.

The release of new streaming platforms and the race to add more content has made the space more competitive ever in Q1 2022. According to Sensor Tower, six different apps had more than 10% of the download market among top apps, and four apps had more than 10% of the monthly active users.

While market competition continues to intensify, Sensor Tower believes that enthusiasm around new launches and the strength of the top players continues to drive mobile usage. “The addition of these new content providers, as well as increased content offerings by existing platforms, have led to a consistent upward trend in average MAUs even after the expected spike in usage during their launch months,” according to the analysis. Netflix, Hulu, and Disney+ led the cohort as the top three most-used mobile SVOD apps in the U.S. in 1Q22.

The Gauge reports that, as a whole, total television usage was down in March, decreasing by 4.2% versus February. Cable stood out as the only viewing category to see an increase in both share and volume, jumping 1.6 share points from last month. Cable news viewing was up 14% from February and accounted for 21% of the cable share, driven by continuing news coverage of the Russia-Ukraine war.

Gaining a full share point over February, The Gauge finds that streaming services benefited from the transition away from the finale of professional football and the Olympics, which bolstered fall and winter TV viewing across broadcast networks. Sensor Tower also finds that content drives download and viewing. According to their report, several big events in Q1 2022 helped boost adoption and give certain apps an edge in this competitive space. HBO Max’s season two of “Euphoria” was incredibly popular, and Peacock TV and Paramount+ benefited from major U.S. . sporting events.

Advertising | Perspectives | Revenue | Supporter Spotlight | Video

Why premium video is media’s new monetization moonshot

January 17, 2022 Ricky Sutton, Founder and CEO – Oovvuu

In May 1961, President John F Kennedy declared that America would put a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth and his vision took the world to new heights. Sixty thousand companies in 70 countries invented five million parts and 400,000 of the world’s greatest minds collaborated to achieve a giant leap for mankind. That’s what you call a moonshot.

There is a rising groundswell that the time is now right for a Media Moonshot: one that recasts the industry to blend trust with technology and a new commercial model that can last. The good news is that for those willing to embrace change, it’s not that hard.

A billion dollar opportunity

I have spent the past 15 years working in premium publisher video. I believe a relevant video in the right place in the right article lifts the quality of reporting, and improves the news experience for readers. This is now being recognized by ad agencies who are increasing spend in this sector.

To measure this, we at Oovvuu have been working with the Tribune Content Agency over the past year to match videos to articles from hundreds from America’s largest publishers. Those articles are read 93 billion times a month. Significantly, our data showed only 7% featured video, even when it was available.

Unfortunately, just 1% of the videos that were embedded were relevant. And, unfortunately, the least relevant videos of all were the most likely to be autoplay and contain low yielding bottom of the funnel programmatic advertising. However, our research showed that putting the contextual videos in priority positions, and making them click to play, was popular with news consumers and advertisers who would pay premium CPMs.

We used journalists, along with our own matching tech, with 100 global wires and broadcasters in the TCA project to ensure the highest levels of contextuality. The evidence was compelling according to Wayne Lown, Vice President of Tribune Content Agency, part of Tribune Publishing.

The Tribune News Service syndicates hundreds of daily articles read by millions and across the most trusted brands from Los Angeles Times, Dallas Morning News, Denver Post, St. Louis Post Dispatch, and Chicago Tribune.

“We were able to match 86% of articles in the Tribune News Service with relevant video across news, sport, lifestyle and multiple other genres,” Lown said. “It proved relevant video was there and could be simply matched, revealing a major new revenue stream for publishers who get it right.”

A timely solution

Display advertising is in freefall and subscriptions nearing saturation. The good news is that premium video – which fetches $40 CPMs – offers a way to capitalize on billions of page views and reset publishers’ earnings.

Last month, the world’s largest ad agency GroupM released a report that showed global ad spend was predicted to exceed $1 trillion in 2025. Of that, premium video will account for 19.6% of spend in 2022.

Mark Lollback who served GroupM CEO in Australia and New Zealand before joining Oovvuu believes that “Publishers are perfectly placed as they have massive engaged audiences. And the big global agency groups are openly talking about supporting publishing.”

At the same time, he pointed out that the biggest spending brands are looking for trusted locations for their messaging. Premium publisher video opens a whole new marketing channel for them, but it needs to be done right.

“Publisher video must be click to play, sound on, highly contextual and get premium positions in premium brands. When it does, it taps into users’ attention and delivers the high performance metrics that marketers are demanding,” according to Lollback.

He recently presented research to the IAB showing publisher video delivered double digit performance boosts compared to YouTube on viewability, completion rates and click throughs.

Publishers must act now

The benefits to publishers to grow revenue couldn’t be clearer. Unfortunately, 99% of US articles today feature machine-matched autoplay video with low relevance that attracts low yielding programmatic $7 CPMs. However, The TCA trial has proven that relevant video is available for 86% of articles and premium pre-rolls command $40 CPMs when they are click to play, sound on and highly contextual.

Autoplay should now be outmoded by the smart publishers so they can tap into the opportunity to shift ad spend from YouTube back to publishing. That is the Media Moonshot

Undoubtedly, the emergence of large video syndicators, powerful matching technologies and premium advertising support means it will play an increasingly important role in publisher earnings going forward. The good news is that publishers who do this will be poised to meet customer demand for video, increase engagement and performance metrics across their sites and open access to the largest premium advertising budgets on offer.

“I Feel Seen”: How HBR connects with Gen Z through video

November 4, 2021 Kelsey Alpaio, Associate Editor – Harvard Business Review

“What side of TikTok are you on?”

The contents of your TikTok “For You” page, a stream of videos curated by the near-omniscient algorithm, says a lot about what you stand for, who you are, and what you like. It’s part of what draws audiences to the platform. When you open the app, you know what to expect. And, better yet, you know you’ll like it.

This type of personal experience is what digitally native audiences have come to not just enjoy, but expect, from the content they consume. If it isn’t authentic, vulnerable, and personal, they don’t want it.

So, when it came time to reimagine what video content would look like for Ascend, Harvard Business Review’s brand for young professionals, we knew we’d have to make it real. We knew we’d have to take a host-driven approach. And we knew we’d have to meet our audience where they are. On TikTok, yes, but also on YouTube, Instagram, and whatever comes next.

Appearing as on-camera hosts, being authentic in front of an audience of millions, and making sure that audience feels engaged — this is all easier said than done. Here’s how we make it work at HBR, and some tips on how to make it work for you and your audiences.

Authenticity and vulnerability are necessities.

Obviously, neither video nor social media was new for HBR in 2020. But that was the year Christine vs. Work marked the first show that we designed specifically and primarily for YouTube. This meant leaning into a host’s personality (in addition to credibility), embracing mistakes that make us human (the word “flawesome” is often applied), and creating a dialogue with our audience.

In each episode, I (Christine) address a real work dilemma, seek advice from experts, and then put that advice into practice (with varying levels of awkwardness). Although I feel like I “should” know the answers to my biggest career questions by this point in my path as a manager, I often don’t — or I’m not confident about them. In Christine vs. Work, I’m honest about that. It’s that vulnerability, which many can relate to, that earns the trust of our audience.

The same goes for Career Crush, another host-driven, YouTube-first series we launched in 2021. In this show, I (Kelsey) interview people with my “dream” careers to get to the bottom of what their jobs are really like. I dive into how much money they make, misconceptions about their roles, and whether they actually enjoy what they do for a living. Most of the time, I have no idea what it takes to get a job like theirs, and I don’t pretend that I do. After all, I’m not an expert in software engineering, or Twitch streaming, or photography. I’m still in my early career, too. So, the questions I ask and the ideas I uncover are based on things I’m genuinely curious about. That curiosity is crucial to creating a connection with our viewers.

A key element to making this work is to remember that you can’t manufacture “realness” and “authenticity.” We film in our own homes as much as the office (a necessity during lockdown), process complex emotions on camera, and are transparent about ourselves in front of a virtual global audience. It’s not always easy for us as hosts, but the human connection that forms from sharing our vulnerability is a lasting one. That’s particularly important for bridging the HBR brand to Gen Z audiences and reassuring them that we’re here for them in a world where it’s harder than ever to determine what is real and who to trust.

More voices, more perspectives.

We’ve learned, as individual hosts bringing our authentic selves to the fore, we’re not going to be everyone’s cup of tea. That’s precisely the point: We want our audience to connect with whoever they vibe with most. And, when it comes to host-driven content, that means diversifying the personalities, voices, and perspectives on our channels.

We put great care in our guest selection to fulfill that mission. In Christine vs. Work, we feature practitioners in addition to academics and thought leaders from around the world. In Career Crush, there’s no substitute for hearing first-person accounts of what it’s like working in a specific role or industry.

We also think carefully about the “faces” of Ascend. By design, our TikTok channel isn’t led by any single content creator. Although there are recurring familiar faces that deliver a regular dose of work advice and office humor, we encourage each presenting editor to lean into their distinct and authentic storytelling style. Plus, anyone in the company who wants to pitch, write, shoot, or star in a TikTok is welcome to join the party (a.k.a our weekly brainstorm). Who knows whose video will go viral next?

Lastly, we recently launched a pilot called HBR Presents on our video platforms. In this initiative, we partner with and feature talented external creators to share their expertise on topics like personal finance, early career, and email etiquette. The vision is to thoughtfully grow this creator network, expanding our offerings for an audience hungry for helpful and engaging content delivered in a relatable way.

To put it simply: You can’t have authenticity without hosts who are willing to be vulnerable. Expand your pool of hosts, make it diverse in every sense of the word, and never pair a host with a video or topic that doesn’t resonate with them. Audiences can spot an uniterested host from a mile away.

We’re listening. You matter.

What’s most exciting about our roles as hosts and producers is that we’re able to forge a connection, through our own voices, with our audience. Whatever platform or channel, we commit to reading the comments, replying as ourselves, and responding to questions and stories that others have shared with empathy and insight. We take viewer requests and incorporate them into future episodes. In addition to performance analytics and audience data, we’re able to synthesize viewer feedback to inform Ascend editorial projects across the board. With host-driven video, audiences keep coming back not just for the content, but for the hosts themselves. So creating that engagement — that direct connection — matters.

Long story short, we’re listeners, not lecturers. This philosophy defines our commitment as editors. We also represent a piece of Harvard, for an audience that demands — and deserves — a brand they can trust.

And if you find us on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, or Ascend, our goal is that you’ll feel like this content is delightfully “for you.”

About the authors

Kelsey Alpaio is an Associate Editor at Harvard Business Review.

Christine Liu is the innovation editor at Harvard Business Publishing’s product incubator.