These are time sensitive. You do not receive credit if you write them after the deadline each week. Furthermore, if you are in the habit of writing everything on Saturday you will not receive full credit. Why? There would be no time for others to interact with your writing. Write early; write often! Right? Right!
First, there's a blog entry (about 250 words) which will have you respond to a hopefully thought-provoking question. Each week, you must do the blog entry with enough time left in the week to be able to enter into dialogue online with your classmates. Write, reply, write more, reply more, and then write and reply more.
Second, there's a reading. There’s no blog entry associated with this. Just read.
Third, there's a written response to the reading. Your reading and writing on the blog must be completed by the SATURDAY (by midnight) of the week in which the reading falls. This entry should be a long paragraph. YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESPOND TO OTHER STUDENTS' PART THREE EACH WEEK.
Monday, April 14, 2014
WEEK THREE WRITING ABOUT WHAT YOU READ
What is one claim made in this piece? What evidence does the author use to support that claim?
The one claim I found in this piece was that Google bought YouTube for 1.65 billion dollars. The evidence to support this claim is that The two people who created YouTube made a video about what had happened in October of 2006. The names of two of the YouTube creators were Chad Hurley and Steven Chen. The two creators made a video titled, "A Message from Chad and Steve". The author used this claim to show how successful YouTube has become since it was created. There are other claims in this passage that shows that YouTube has become one of the most successful companies in the world. Also, YouTube is one of the most successful companies that was created in the Silicon Valley. This passage just shows that YouTube is probably going to get bigger and bigger.
One claim made in this piece is that YouTube’s that “the niches will get nichier, and the audiences smaller still.” But audience is small but the audience that they do have are going to be more engaged and measurable because advertisers rely on ratings and market research to get a rough estimate of who’s watching which show. The evidence that the author uses to support this claim is that “Advertising will be done at the level of the audience rather than at the level of the show. Content is no longer proxy for an audience—we know who the audience is. We know what your preferences are, the types of shows you like to watch. If you posted a video of your trip to Hawaii on YouTube, chances are YouTube is going to advertise airfare to Honolulu to you. Advertising can therefore be highly focused, not the blunt instrument it is now.” So this claim made makes sense to me because every time I log into my YouTube I have a section that says “what to watch” and I always have new videos coming up. Also, when watching a video about something an advertisement that goes with it always comes up. I used to think that it was just a coincidence.
One claim made in this piece is that YouTube’s Partner Program has flourished since it began in 2007. Evidence given by the author to support this claim consists of example that show how the program has been successful financially and in pop culture. The author states that “YouTube sells advertising against popular channels created by homegrown YouTube stars” and that it shares the revenues with creators of these channels. The top five hundred YouTube partners are said to make over a hundred thousand dollars a year, which is a sign that in time and with consistency, these partners and possibly others will bring in even higher revenues for the company. The author goes on to say that the younger YouTube audience is more familiar with these internet celebrities than with celebrities on television, further demonstrating how successful and promising YouTube’s Partner Program and company has become.
“Netflix lost more than half its value in the stock market and provoked a customer revolt after announcing its plan to separate the streaming and the DVD sides of the business.”
This claim was made by Seabrook near the end of this writing has much truth to it. Yet no stock prices were mentioned. The year in which Netflix stock lost much of its value is not mentioned. A customer revolt, although I remember it fondly, was not substantiated by any personal opinions or quotations from angry customers. Although the specifics are not present, the statement is true. I looked it up. Netflix stock went down from about 295 dollars per share to about 70 dollars per share in 2012 (Netflix, N.D.). Yahoo finance is a great resource when utilized but a claim must be backed by facts. Just because something sounds true, and may be 100 percent true, does not mean the evidence is presented to the reader. I do remember the outrage from this event. My friends were grumbling that they could no longer receive DVDs in the mail and had to rely solely on streaming movies. At the time the decision sounded like a bad one made by the management of the company. Yet Netflix is trading today at about 345 dollars (Netflix, N.D.). This was quite a comeback and I believe Netflix is stronger because of the move. Since Netflix started streaming we have seen Hulu plus, Amazon Prime, Google TV, Apple TV, and a few other streaming sites pop up to in order to start charging for streaming services. I believe the Stop Online Piracy ACT (SOPA) had a great deal of influence with the new online streaming service charges of recent years. It just so happens that after SOPA was introduced; companies took advantage of other sites, such as Megavideo, shutting down free content to the masses. Now fees can be charged while free sites are now considered illegal. This of course brings up a controversial issue of how much freedom is allowed on the internet and what can (or cannot) be shared. Was the information I stated factual? I guess the reader may need to check the facts.
The author makes the claim, “But, big as the streaming-video business became for Netflix, its potential was even greater.” He supports his claim by explaining how Netflix has grown since they originally emerged as a DVD mail service. Netflix has now progressed into a streaming site with a DVD by mail subscription available. Although, he also mentions that the consumer base was outraged when Netflix decided to offer separate subscriptions for the services that were previously combined for an affordable $7 a month. The author further supports his claim by explaining the advancement in technology and how the way people consume information and entertainment has evolved. With the invention of the smartphones and smart televisions, Netflix had new platforms to offer their services on. Today, Netflix can be streamed on a phone, a TV, a computer, or a game system and is a common item in a home. As time goes by, Netflix will have other ways to change and make things easier for their customers. In fact, Netflix has already changed to allow more than on profile on a single account. This allows multiple users to use the service without the frustration of a friend or family member logging on and ending their streaming. It is comforting to know that Netflix listens to their customers and makes changes accordingly. Other streaming companies such as Hulu, Amazon, and Blockbuster are desperately trying to gain on Netflix’s consumer base but the customers are generally satisfied with the service. A flat low monthly fee and a lack of commercials strongly appeals to the fast paced generation the company is targeting.
In the 1960’s and 1970’s, it was common for three major networks would capture more than two thirds of the prime time audience. However, there are now different ways in which entertainment is delivered to the public and they differ from more than just with television. The various options now available ranging from Netflix to Hulu, the author claims that “the business of TV advertising has had to learn to cope with audience fragmentation.” In other words, in order to more precisely target an audience, advertisers have to find new ways in which advertisement reaches an audience. Although, this might be difficult since American Idol, the most popular show on TV only had less than nine percent of all television viewers in the United States. Niche shows draw the largest number of audiences, yet it seems it is difficult to advertise to those audiences, unless the message is successfully targeted and modified for the audience. This method of advertising is an efficient way to reach a smaller audience, yet companies keep focusing on reaching a large and broad target group.
The one claim I found is, “If YouTube could get people to stay on the site longer, it could sell more advertising, and raise the rates it charges advertisers for each thousand views, which are known in the industry as C.P.M.s.” The evidence that supports this issue is that advertisers spend some sixty billion dollars a year on television; they spend only about three billion on online video. The more people on YouTube and the longer they stay on site, they will make more money by charging higher rates from the advertisements if viewed by thousands of people. It is also beneficial for advertisements due to the fact that they will save a half of what they spend on TV for advertising compare to online video. YouTube also have higher number of users, but it is still behind HULU on C.P.M.s, which is another site to watch favorite TV shows. However, by having too much advertisement, this makes the audience leave the site faster than they should be. To prevent that from happening on YouTube, the advertisement should only last for 8-10 seconds because it drives me insane by watching those before watching a chosen video on YouTube. However, not all people have an access on the internet and some people prefer to watch TV on their comfortable couch with a huge screen in front of them than actually watching online on a small screen on their computer. But YouTube already have solution by connecting YouTube to YouTv which they believe will attract more viewers when it is completely done.
The author makes the claim that by "watching YouTube it was nothing like watching TV. It was user-generated anarchy." In my opinion, i would agree with the author's claim because YouTube allows you to watch and listen to practically anything that is current. If you wanted to listen to the new Miley Cyrus song you would be able to search is on YouTube in a matter of seconds. Whereas the TV has a strict schedule of when channel will be aired and limits the choices of the viewers. The author backs up his claim with supporting statistics like youtube is growing massively when Kamangar took leadership. Today YouTube generated 8 hundred million users a month, and generates more than 3 billion users a day. He also supports his claim by saying that YouTube is growing rapidly that it is beating other competitions as well such as Hulu and remains to be the most prolific media platform.
The author made the claim "People prefer niches because “the experience is more immersive". The author backs up the claim by giving an example of a certain niche. The evidence is as follows: "For example, there’s no horseback-riding channel on cable. Plenty of people love horseback riding, and there’s plenty of advertisers who would like to market to them, but there’s no channel for it, because of the costs. You have to program a 24/7 loop, and you need a transponder to get your signal up on the satellite. With the Internet, everything is on demand, so you don’t have to program 24/7—a few hours is all you need". The evidence used to back up the claim has a good point. Viewers in the 21st century are looking for their own particular niche, and like when they can find the content quickly and easily. I personally like videos that show you how to do DIY projects. It's nice to start a project and then be able to refer back to a step by step video whenever you get stuck. Having YouTube available means that you have all sorts of knowledge and entertainment at your fingertips. The overall claim that this piece also makes is that internet entertainment is the thing of the future. It makes many claims throughout the article and states that the cheap, user friendly style of YouTube will make it the new TV set. I agree with this claim. Although I use it more as a learning tool, I would be willing to watch shows on YouTube, much like I do Netflix. YouTube has grown and expanded their business so quickly over the last decade. I think we will be seeing a lot more improvements over the next couple years. It will be interesting to see what the future holds for the internet.
One claim that the author made was that YouTube expanding to YouTV might be a risk for them. Their goals is to "increase the watch time, attract more viewers, and provide advertisers with as customized a customer as possible." Knowing this, it means that they are going to control and take data knowing what advertise to use because of what we watch. Other big companies have failed like MySpace adding more advertisement or Netflix splitting the streaming and DVDs costs. I was a Netflix member until they decided to split streaming and DVDs. I just did not thought it was worth it. The author believes that YouTube will might head into the same direction as MySpace and Netflix, unless they work really hard. It will take a lot of work to continue their success. When it comes to more advertisement, it turns people off. Nobody wants to watch an advertisement before they actually watch their video. Most people want things right now. Like they say, free comes with a price and spying on you to know what advertisement to use is the price.
A claim Seabrook makes is, "YouTube had won the gold." By this he means that YouTube has become a major internet contender against other networks that also show video on the internet. This claim is supported throughout his article. Seabrook explains that in 2006 "Google bought YouTube, for $1.65 billion." This shows that YouTube is extremely valuable. It is shown it's worth and growth from it's first video in 2005 to present. According to Seabrook, "Today, it has eight hundred million unique users a month, and generates more than three billion views a day... It is the first truly global media platform on earth." YouTube has grown in popularity and has become more popular than other well known companies. There are loyal viewers that are committed to those who watch those who post on YouTube often, certain YouTubers have even become more well known than some actors and actresses. Unlike other companies, YouTube videos are very cheap to create. A majority of the time videos are made by individuals from all around the world, so YouTube rarely spends money on videos. They get to make whatever they want whenever they want, with only a few limitations. Also, there are more options available for people to watch things like YouTube videos, for example, laptops, phones, and gaming devices. Televisions are not as easily potable and most do not allow internet access. YouTube has shown that it has grown to become an important and enjoyable part of the world today.
The author claims, "If YouTube could get people to stay on the site longer, it could sell more advertising, and raise the rates it charges advertisers for each thousand view, which are know in the industry as C.P.M.S.s…". Youtube struggles to kept their views online longer. The author states, "The average 'Tuber spends only fifteen minutes a day on the site-- paltry showing when compared with the four or five hours the average American spends in front of the TV each day. If Youtube could get their viewers to spend more time on the site then the advertising market will go up for them as well. Advertising is what brings in the money for Youtube. As stated in the reading, "Advertisers spend some sixty billion dollars a year on television; they spend only about three billion on online video. This clearly show that these companies are only interested in the dollar signs. While they try to entertain us and battle between television world and online viewing, these moguls will continue to battle for success. I find it absolutely fascinating how the online companies are reaching as far as wanting us the consumers to view Youtube like we do television. The one who can entertain the best will clearly be around for many more years.
The claim "YouTube had won the gold" is the most glowing statement in the article, I believe. What he basically means by this is that YouTube has become one of the most important competitors in the entertainment business, not just the internet. The ease of watching YouTube far outweighs the available options of cable television. Phones, gaming systems, laptops; the list goes on and on. Cable can create high production shows that reel in millions of people, but YouTube embraces creativity and the internet. People legitimately have reasons for cancelling cable subscriptions and focusing on YouTube as their main entertainment device because of the diversity the product brings to the world. Seabrook states, according to Kyncl, "there's no horse-back riding channel on cable. Plenty of people love horseback riding, and there's plenty of advertisers who would like to market to them, but there is no channel for it, because of the costs." This backs up the claim in a way that Google and co. hit the gold because of the variety on YouTube. The majority of content on YouTube is user generated. People can create their own shows, their own music, their own opinions, and broadcast them around the world to target specific people that have been dying to watch something that fits their interest. They hit gold because they have a hit website that can satisfy every single person in the world. The user generated content that gets uploaded to the site never ends because of advertising and no price-wall that hits users in the face when they want to create something. While Kyncl and Seabrook make it a point that, yes, they probably will not be able to produce historic shows such as "Friends" or "24", they will always have the creativity of the world beside them to constantly upload more content, something cable cannot do because of the price barrier. That is why YouTube legitimately hit gold.
One claim that the author makes is that YouTube is creating the future of television. He claims that YouTube has a chance of becoming the future place for watching television by stating the advantages that YouTube already has over television and the possible increased success it will have when it incorporates the new Channels that will be named as YouTV. He talks about the success of YouTube by highlighting its advantages over television which includes more viewers and less focus on quality of production but quantity. YouTube therefore has an advantage in the cost of the contents displayed on their network than television does. He states that YouTube is the future of television if they can successfully make YouTV work for the audience. YouTV will be better than television because people can make a choice about what they want to watch versus what is on the channel. There is much greater freedom and accessibility but the creators of YouTV must first figure out how to make the viewers tune in longer.
The author makes the claim that the average YouTube viewer spends an average of fifteen minutes on the website while the average American TV viewer spends four to five hours watching TV per day. He backs up this claim by giving the average length of content shown on both YouTube and TV. He further explains that an average block of TV programming is only about twenty two minutes and on YouTube it’s about three minutes. Since TV content is generally longer, compared to YouTube content, it is understandable that viewers will spend more time watching the shows on the television. A YouTube viewer can watch videos from multiple content providers in a shorter period of time since the videos are not as long. Another reason the author gives as to why YouTube viewers spend so little time watching videos is because the videos can be watched on demand. The videos can be watched whenever someone has some free time. As the article points out, YouTube is a worldwide platform. Content on the site can get upwards of a hundred million views while TV programs are heavily restricted by region and copyright, making them less accessible. A YouTube viewer might be spending less time watching videos, but the amount of views per video adds up. I think a better comparison would have been television and streaming sites such as Hulu and Netflix. If these streaming sites are taken into account, online programming will have a similar, if not higher, time-watched-per-day count.
One claim that the author makes is that “…YouTube “airtime” is infinite, content costs almost nothing for YouTube to produce, and quantity, not quality, is the bottom line.” This statement is backed up by the fact that “it’s up to the audience, not the executive gut, to decide what’s worth watching.” YouTube “shows” are infinite because there really isn’t a limit to the number of videos a person could upload, and the length of the post is unlimited. A video clip could be three minutes, or last three hours. On TV, the shows that air are judged based on the viewer ratings and popularity that it receives. YouTube is so easy to use, it is not surprising to find the kind of videos that are stored there. Anyone could upload basically anything on the site, whether it is a makeup tutorial or a video of the family cat yawning. I agree with the author’s statement because one could find millions of “random” video clips while navigating through YouTube. The fact that “people are willing to trade fidelity for utility” also supports this specific claim. People tend to gravitate towards less complicated search engines. For YouTube users, all one has to do is type in a key word on the search bar, and pages of videos containing or relating to the key word pop up in less than two seconds. Nonetheless, YouTube is one of the most popular sites used and visited.
One claim made and supported in this article is that television watching is on the rise. The article states that the increase has been from four to five hours and they believe it will continue to increase. They support this claim by bringing to mind the amount of screen time that Americans enjoy each day. From computers to phones, tablets and televisions, screen time is a large part of our days. Kyncl's goal is to make YouTube into a large competitor for TV. The idea of creating YouTube channels is a brilliant way t make that goal a reality. As a customer of TV, I am looking for something that is entertaining and is readily available in a way that fits into my schedule. This is why I am such a fan of Netflix and Hulu. Expanding little niches is one way that YouTube plans to gain an advantage over cable and satellite television. The quote at the end of the article is inspiring with its positivity. Kyncl quoted one of his friends that had recently been hired at one of the networks and he said that at least YouTube was "swinging for the fences". It will be exciting to see the dynamic changes that will come over the next ten years in home entertainment.
From the article Kamangar made the claim saying " That's the trend more screen time and that will benefit Youtube. He mentioned how screen time in general was going to expand. TV watching has increased from 4 to 5 hours. Kyncle has met with content creators to participate in making youtube channels. They are looking for a hundred new channels to pick. One channel is with Jay Z. Amy poehler has also created a channel called Smart Girls at the party. The goal is to have this new type of channels that can engage viewers for a longer period of time. They also mention “The average 'Tuber spends only 15 min a day on site compared to the 4 to 5 hours the average American spends on t.v each day. T.V has an advantage when it comes to advertising because of the more screen time. Advertisers spend 60 billion a year on t.v and only 3 billion on online video.
The claim that stood out to me the most in this article is “People prefer niches because the experience is more immersive”. The author gives an example of someone who likes horseback riding or skateboarding or comedy suddenly being provided with a channel that is custom just for him/her feeling like they no longer need cable because there is no custom channel there. The author talks about how youtube offers more than a way to look up tv shows and movies like Netflix but also music to listen to and a group to belong to. In my opinion this is revolutionary in the world of entertainment because people are so used to tv where they experience a limited percent of entertainment that appeals to them, another percent of advertisements and the rest is just entertainment they learn to put up with. The author talks about how people don’t even realize that the creators of you tube are using the statistics of what is most popular to emphasize certain niches and get people even more involved in them.
The claim that I observed the author make is that YouTube is revolutionary. I agree with this claim simply because I for instance I have not had cable in five years and I can still enjoy shows, movies, and music videos at my own convenience with Internet connection. Internet is much cheaper and more convenient than cable television. It has seems lately that there are many more commercials before every video you watch on You Tube. The author explains valid points in regards to You Tube losing viewers due to too many advertisements. You Tube used to be commercial free, then it went to ten second long commercials, then fifteen seconds, but you used to be able to skip after five seconds, and now there are commercials that are not optional of skipping. Come on we live in a world where waiting for food to cool for one minute after microwaving it for only two minutes is too long. You Tube can be time consuming without you noticing, you can start out by searching ”how to clean with a Kirby vacuum” and end up two hours later watching bum fights. The author supports his claim by using statements that are relevant to anyone who has ever searched the world of You Tube.
The claim that I found to be the most interesting in this piece, was that Google bought YouTube for 1.65 billion dollars. That is an insane amount of money to put into a company that had not be in existence for very long. It is crazy to think that something that was such a little brand and was not flourishing almost 10 years ago, is now this huge thing!! It is crazy to think how much money is brought in just by the ads that are used on the website daily. From reading this article, it really brought to light how many legal issues there were in the early days of YouTube. The office that they describe in this article almost seems unreal. It sounds like a fun place to work at. I think that YouTube will continue to only grow in success as technology and the web becomes more and more popular. I am not a big user of YouTube, but it seems very beneficial to the world.
The main point of the article was that YouTube might lose viewers in its attempt to create television competitive channels that audiences do not want. Author John Seabrook explained that YouTube is getting more and more niche-specific viewership because that is what the audience is seeking. He states that although increasing secure content might increase viewership total time, increasing niche targeted (audience-based) advertisements and professional niche channels might not sit well with viewers. Seabrook explained that the audience is looking for more common, unprofessional video from YouTube, and by opting to go more professional with its channels and content might backfire. He reminds the reader that privacy of the history of internet viewership might cause viewers to reject such targeting. Regarding the YouTube channels becoming more professional rather than just the common-person posting interesting things from ordinary and real lives might cost viewer appreciation. In all, the author is stressing that many of the major changes that YouTube is looking into in order to expand internet to the television and compete with current television might become its own undoing. He is stressing that YouTube take heed in past examples of other internet services jumping the gun to expand to an audience that might just not be ready for such changes.
The claim that I found interesting was, YouTube may end up internally ruining it's self by trying to reach for bigger things. They used the example of Netflix. When Netflix decided to make their DVD and Streaming capabilities separate features they lost a large amount of their following. They feel that although YouTube is at a good place, it could ruin its' own following. They also used Myspace as an example. Myspace changed their format and added a lot of adds and other things. This in turn brought them down. YouTube has a good chance of doing this to its self.
The one claim I found in this piece was that Google bought YouTube for 1.65 billion dollars. The evidence to support this claim is that The two people who created YouTube made a video about what had happened in October of 2006. The names of two of the YouTube creators were Chad Hurley and Steven Chen. The two creators made a video titled, "A Message from Chad and Steve". The author used this claim to show how successful YouTube has become since it was created. There are other claims in this passage that shows that YouTube has become one of the most successful companies in the world. Also, YouTube is one of the most successful companies that was created in the Silicon Valley. This passage just shows that YouTube is probably going to get bigger and bigger.
ReplyDeleteOne claim made in this piece is that YouTube’s that “the niches will get nichier, and the audiences smaller still.” But audience is small but the audience that they do have are going to be more engaged and measurable because advertisers rely on ratings and market research to get a rough estimate of who’s watching which show. The evidence that the author uses to support this claim is that “Advertising will be done at the level of the audience rather than at the level of the show. Content is no longer proxy for an audience—we know who the audience is. We know what your preferences are, the types of shows you like to watch. If you posted a video of your trip to Hawaii on YouTube, chances are YouTube is going to advertise airfare to Honolulu to you. Advertising can therefore be highly focused, not the blunt instrument it is now.” So this claim made makes sense to me because every time I log into my YouTube I have a section that says “what to watch” and I always have new videos coming up. Also, when watching a video about something an advertisement that goes with it always comes up. I used to think that it was just a coincidence.
ReplyDeleteOne claim made in this piece is that YouTube’s Partner Program has flourished since it began in 2007. Evidence given by the author to support this claim consists of example that show how the program has been successful financially and in pop culture. The author states that “YouTube sells advertising against popular channels created by homegrown YouTube stars” and that it shares the revenues with creators of these channels. The top five hundred YouTube partners are said to make over a hundred thousand dollars a year, which is a sign that in time and with consistency, these partners and possibly others will bring in even higher revenues for the company. The author goes on to say that the younger YouTube audience is more familiar with these internet celebrities than with celebrities on television, further demonstrating how successful and promising YouTube’s Partner Program and company has become.
ReplyDelete“Netflix lost more than half its value in the stock market and provoked a customer revolt after announcing its plan to separate the streaming and the DVD sides of the business.”
ReplyDeleteThis claim was made by Seabrook near the end of this writing has much truth to it. Yet no stock prices were mentioned. The year in which Netflix stock lost much of its value is not mentioned. A customer revolt, although I remember it fondly, was not substantiated by any personal opinions or quotations from angry customers. Although the specifics are not present, the statement is true. I looked it up. Netflix stock went down from about 295 dollars per share to about 70 dollars per share in 2012 (Netflix, N.D.). Yahoo finance is a great resource when utilized but a claim must be backed by facts. Just because something sounds true, and may be 100 percent true, does not mean the evidence is presented to the reader. I do remember the outrage from this event. My friends were grumbling that they could no longer receive DVDs in the mail and had to rely solely on streaming movies. At the time the decision sounded like a bad one made by the management of the company. Yet Netflix is trading today at about 345 dollars (Netflix, N.D.). This was quite a comeback and I believe Netflix is stronger because of the move. Since Netflix started streaming we have seen Hulu plus, Amazon Prime, Google TV, Apple TV, and a few other streaming sites pop up to in order to start charging for streaming services. I believe the Stop Online Piracy ACT (SOPA) had a great deal of influence with the new online streaming service charges of recent years. It just so happens that after SOPA was introduced; companies took advantage of other sites, such as Megavideo, shutting down free content to the masses. Now fees can be charged while free sites are now considered illegal. This of course brings up a controversial issue of how much freedom is allowed on the internet and what can (or cannot) be shared. Was the information I stated factual? I guess the reader may need to check the facts.
"Netflix, Inc. (NFLX)." yahoo finance. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NFLX+Interactive#symbol=NFLX;range=5y
please note*
DeleteThe claim made by Seabrook near the end of this writing has much truth to it.
also ACT should be Act
The author makes the claim, “But, big as the streaming-video business became for Netflix, its potential was even greater.” He supports his claim by explaining how Netflix has grown since they originally emerged as a DVD mail service. Netflix has now progressed into a streaming site with a DVD by mail subscription available. Although, he also mentions that the consumer base was outraged when Netflix decided to offer separate subscriptions for the services that were previously combined for an affordable $7 a month. The author further supports his claim by explaining the advancement in technology and how the way people consume information and entertainment has evolved. With the invention of the smartphones and smart televisions, Netflix had new platforms to offer their services on. Today, Netflix can be streamed on a phone, a TV, a computer, or a game system and is a common item in a home. As time goes by, Netflix will have other ways to change and make things easier for their customers. In fact, Netflix has already changed to allow more than on profile on a single account. This allows multiple users to use the service without the frustration of a friend or family member logging on and ending their streaming. It is comforting to know that Netflix listens to their customers and makes changes accordingly. Other streaming companies such as Hulu, Amazon, and Blockbuster are desperately trying to gain on Netflix’s consumer base but the customers are generally satisfied with the service. A flat low monthly fee and a lack of commercials strongly appeals to the fast paced generation the company is targeting.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1960’s and 1970’s, it was common for three major networks would capture more than two thirds of the prime time audience. However, there are now different ways in which entertainment is delivered to the public and they differ from more than just with television. The various options now available ranging from Netflix to Hulu, the author claims that “the business of TV advertising has had to learn to cope with audience fragmentation.” In other words, in order to more precisely target an audience, advertisers have to find new ways in which advertisement reaches an audience. Although, this might be difficult since American Idol, the most popular show on TV only had less than nine percent of all television viewers in the United States. Niche shows draw the largest number of audiences, yet it seems it is difficult to advertise to those audiences, unless the message is successfully targeted and modified for the audience. This method of advertising is an efficient way to reach a smaller audience, yet companies keep focusing on reaching a large and broad target group.
ReplyDeleteThe one claim I found is, “If YouTube could get people to stay on the site longer, it could sell more advertising, and raise the rates it charges advertisers for each thousand views, which are known in the industry as C.P.M.s.” The evidence that supports this issue is that advertisers spend some sixty billion dollars a year on television; they spend only about three billion on online video. The more people on YouTube and the longer they stay on site, they will make more money by charging higher rates from the advertisements if viewed by thousands of people. It is also beneficial for advertisements due to the fact that they will save a half of what they spend on TV for advertising compare to online video. YouTube also have higher number of users, but it is still behind HULU on C.P.M.s, which is another site to watch favorite TV shows. However, by having too much advertisement, this makes the audience leave the site faster than they should be. To prevent that from happening on YouTube, the advertisement should only last for 8-10 seconds because it drives me insane by watching those before watching a chosen video on YouTube. However, not all people have an access on the internet and some people prefer to watch TV on their comfortable couch with a huge screen in front of them than actually watching online on a small screen on their computer. But YouTube already have solution by connecting YouTube to YouTv which they believe will attract more viewers when it is completely done.
ReplyDeleteThe author makes the claim that by "watching YouTube it was nothing like watching TV. It was user-generated anarchy." In my opinion, i would agree with the author's claim because YouTube allows you to watch and listen to practically anything that is current. If you wanted to listen to the new Miley Cyrus song you would be able to search is on YouTube in a matter of seconds. Whereas the TV has a strict schedule of when channel will be aired and limits the choices of the viewers. The author backs up his claim with supporting statistics like youtube is growing massively when Kamangar took leadership. Today YouTube generated 8 hundred million users a month, and generates more than 3 billion users a day. He also supports his claim by saying that YouTube is growing rapidly that it is beating other competitions as well such as Hulu and remains to be the most prolific media platform.
ReplyDeleteThe author made the claim "People prefer niches because “the experience is more immersive". The author backs up the claim by giving an example of a certain niche. The evidence is as follows: "For example, there’s no horseback-riding channel on cable. Plenty of people love horseback riding, and there’s plenty of advertisers who would like to market to them, but there’s no channel for it, because of the costs. You have to program a 24/7 loop, and you need a transponder to get your signal up on the satellite. With the Internet, everything is on demand, so you don’t have to program 24/7—a few hours is all you need". The evidence used to back up the claim has a good point. Viewers in the 21st century are looking for their own particular niche, and like when they can find the content quickly and easily. I personally like videos that show you how to do DIY projects. It's nice to start a project and then be able to refer back to a step by step video whenever you get stuck. Having YouTube available means that you have all sorts of knowledge and entertainment at your fingertips. The overall claim that this piece also makes is that internet entertainment is the thing of the future. It makes many claims throughout the article and states that the cheap, user friendly style of YouTube will make it the new TV set. I agree with this claim. Although I use it more as a learning tool, I would be willing to watch shows on YouTube, much like I do Netflix. YouTube has grown and expanded their business so quickly over the last decade. I think we will be seeing a lot more improvements over the next couple years. It will be interesting to see what the future holds for the internet.
ReplyDeleteOne claim that the author made was that YouTube expanding to YouTV might be a risk for them. Their goals is to "increase the watch time, attract more viewers, and provide advertisers with as customized a customer as possible." Knowing this, it means that they are going to control and take data knowing what advertise to use because of what we watch. Other big companies have failed like MySpace adding more advertisement or Netflix splitting the streaming and DVDs costs. I was a Netflix member until they decided to split streaming and DVDs. I just did not thought it was worth it. The author believes that YouTube will might head into the same direction as MySpace and Netflix, unless they work really hard. It will take a lot of work to continue their success. When it comes to more advertisement, it turns people off. Nobody wants to watch an advertisement before they actually watch their video. Most people want things right now. Like they say, free comes with a price and spying on you to know what advertisement to use is the price.
ReplyDeleteA claim Seabrook makes is, "YouTube had won the gold." By this he means that YouTube has become a major internet contender against other networks that also show video on the internet. This claim is supported throughout his article. Seabrook explains that in 2006 "Google bought YouTube, for $1.65 billion." This shows that YouTube is extremely valuable. It is shown it's worth and growth from it's first video in 2005 to present. According to Seabrook, "Today, it has eight hundred million unique users a month, and generates more than three billion views a day... It is the first truly global media platform on earth." YouTube has grown in popularity and has become more popular than other well known companies. There are loyal viewers that are committed to those who watch those who post on YouTube often, certain YouTubers have even become more well known than some actors and actresses. Unlike other companies, YouTube videos are very cheap to create. A majority of the time videos are made by individuals from all around the world, so YouTube rarely spends money on videos. They get to make whatever they want whenever they want, with only a few limitations. Also, there are more options available for people to watch things like YouTube videos, for example, laptops, phones, and gaming devices. Televisions are not as easily potable and most do not allow internet access. YouTube has shown that it has grown to become an important and enjoyable part of the world today.
ReplyDeleteThe author claims, "If YouTube could get people to stay on the site longer, it could sell more advertising, and raise the rates it charges advertisers for each thousand view, which are know in the industry as C.P.M.S.s…". Youtube struggles to kept their views online longer. The author states, "The average 'Tuber spends only fifteen minutes a day on the site-- paltry showing when compared with the four or five hours the average American spends in front of the TV each day. If Youtube could get their viewers to spend more time on the site then the advertising market will go up for them as well. Advertising is what brings in the money for Youtube. As stated in the reading, "Advertisers spend some sixty billion dollars a year on television; they spend only about three billion on online video. This clearly show that these companies are only interested in the dollar signs. While they try to entertain us and battle between television world and online viewing, these moguls will continue to battle for success. I find it absolutely fascinating how the online companies are reaching as far as wanting us the consumers to view Youtube like we do television. The one who can entertain the best will clearly be around for many more years.
ReplyDeleteThe claim "YouTube had won the gold" is the most glowing statement in the article, I believe. What he basically means by this is that YouTube has become one of the most important competitors in the entertainment business, not just the internet. The ease of watching YouTube far outweighs the available options of cable television. Phones, gaming systems, laptops; the list goes on and on. Cable can create high production shows that reel in millions of people, but YouTube embraces creativity and the internet. People legitimately have reasons for cancelling cable subscriptions and focusing on YouTube as their main entertainment device because of the diversity the product brings to the world. Seabrook states, according to Kyncl, "there's no horse-back riding channel on cable. Plenty of people love horseback riding, and there's plenty of advertisers who would like to market to them, but there is no channel for it, because of the costs." This backs up the claim in a way that Google and co. hit the gold because of the variety on YouTube. The majority of content on YouTube is user generated. People can create their own shows, their own music, their own opinions, and broadcast them around the world to target specific people that have been dying to watch something that fits their interest. They hit gold because they have a hit website that can satisfy every single person in the world. The user generated content that gets uploaded to the site never ends because of advertising and no price-wall that hits users in the face when they want to create something. While Kyncl and Seabrook make it a point that, yes, they probably will not be able to produce historic shows such as "Friends" or "24", they will always have the creativity of the world beside them to constantly upload more content, something cable cannot do because of the price barrier. That is why YouTube legitimately hit gold.
ReplyDeleteOne claim that the author makes is that YouTube is creating the future of television. He claims that YouTube has a chance of becoming the future place for watching television by stating the advantages that YouTube already has over television and the possible increased success it will have when it incorporates the new Channels that will be named as YouTV. He talks about the success of YouTube by highlighting its advantages over television which includes more viewers and less focus on quality of production but quantity. YouTube therefore has an advantage in the cost of the contents displayed on their network than television does. He states that YouTube is the future of television if they can successfully make YouTV work for the audience. YouTV will be better than television because people can make a choice about what they want to watch versus what is on the channel. There is much greater freedom and accessibility but the creators of YouTV must first figure out how to make the viewers tune in longer.
ReplyDeleteThe author makes the claim that the average YouTube viewer spends an average of fifteen minutes on the website while the average American TV viewer spends four to five hours watching TV per day. He backs up this claim by giving the average length of content shown on both YouTube and TV. He further explains that an average block of TV programming is only about twenty two minutes and on YouTube it’s about three minutes. Since TV content is generally longer, compared to YouTube content, it is understandable that viewers will spend more time watching the shows on the television. A YouTube viewer can watch videos from multiple content providers in a shorter period of time since the videos are not as long. Another reason the author gives as to why YouTube viewers spend so little time watching videos is because the videos can be watched on demand. The videos can be watched whenever someone has some free time. As the article points out, YouTube is a worldwide platform. Content on the site can get upwards of a hundred million views while TV programs are heavily restricted by region and copyright, making them less accessible. A YouTube viewer might be spending less time watching videos, but the amount of views per video adds up. I think a better comparison would have been television and streaming sites such as Hulu and Netflix. If these streaming sites are taken into account, online programming will have a similar, if not higher, time-watched-per-day count.
ReplyDeleteOne claim that the author makes is that “…YouTube “airtime” is infinite, content costs almost nothing for YouTube to produce, and quantity, not quality, is the bottom line.” This statement is backed up by the fact that “it’s up to the audience, not the executive gut, to decide what’s worth watching.” YouTube “shows” are infinite because there really isn’t a limit to the number of videos a person could upload, and the length of the post is unlimited. A video clip could be three minutes, or last three hours. On TV, the shows that air are judged based on the viewer ratings and popularity that it receives. YouTube is so easy to use, it is not surprising to find the kind of videos that are stored there. Anyone could upload basically anything on the site, whether it is a makeup tutorial or a video of the family cat yawning. I agree with the author’s statement because one could find millions of “random” video clips while navigating through YouTube. The fact that “people are willing to trade fidelity for utility” also supports this specific claim. People tend to gravitate towards less complicated search engines. For YouTube users, all one has to do is type in a key word on the search bar, and pages of videos containing or relating to the key word pop up in less than two seconds. Nonetheless, YouTube is one of the most popular sites used and visited.
ReplyDeleteOne claim made and supported in this article is that television watching is on the rise. The article states that the increase has been from four to five hours and they believe it will continue to increase. They support this claim by bringing to mind the amount of screen time that Americans enjoy each day. From computers to phones, tablets and televisions, screen time is a large part of our days. Kyncl's goal is to make YouTube into a large competitor for TV.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of creating YouTube channels is a brilliant way t make that goal a reality. As a customer of TV, I am looking for something that is entertaining and is readily available in a way that fits into my schedule. This is why I am such a fan of Netflix and Hulu. Expanding little niches is one way that YouTube plans to gain an advantage over cable and satellite television. The quote at the end of the article is inspiring with its positivity. Kyncl quoted one of his friends that had recently been hired at one of the networks and he said that at least YouTube was "swinging for the fences". It will be exciting to see the dynamic changes that will come over the next ten years in home entertainment.
From the article Kamangar made the claim saying " That's the trend more screen time and that will benefit Youtube. He mentioned how screen time in general was going to expand. TV watching has increased from 4 to 5 hours. Kyncle has met with content creators to participate in making youtube channels. They are looking for a hundred new channels to pick. One channel is with Jay Z. Amy poehler has also created a channel called Smart Girls at the party. The goal is to have this new type of channels that can engage viewers for a longer period of time.
ReplyDeleteThey also mention “The average 'Tuber spends only 15 min a day on site compared to the 4 to 5 hours the average American spends on t.v each day. T.V has an advantage when it comes to advertising because of the more screen time. Advertisers spend 60 billion a year on t.v and only 3 billion on online video.
The claim that stood out to me the most in this article is “People prefer niches because the experience is more immersive”. The author gives an example of someone who likes horseback riding or skateboarding or comedy suddenly being provided with a channel that is custom just for him/her feeling like they no longer need cable because there is no custom channel there. The author talks about how youtube offers more than a way to look up tv shows and movies like Netflix but also music to listen to and a group to belong to. In my opinion this is revolutionary in the world of entertainment because people are so used to tv where they experience a limited percent of entertainment that appeals to them, another percent of advertisements and the rest is just entertainment they learn to put up with. The author talks about how people don’t even realize that the creators of you tube are using the statistics of what is most popular to emphasize certain niches and get people even more involved in them.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that I observed the author make is that YouTube is revolutionary. I agree with this claim simply because I for instance I have not had cable in five years and I can still enjoy shows, movies, and music videos at my own convenience with Internet connection. Internet is much cheaper and more convenient than cable television. It has seems lately that there are many more commercials before every video you watch on You Tube. The author explains valid points in regards to You Tube losing viewers due to too many advertisements. You Tube used to be commercial free, then it went to ten second long commercials, then fifteen seconds, but you used to be able to skip after five seconds, and now there are commercials that are not optional of skipping. Come on we live in a world where waiting for food to cool for one minute after microwaving it for only two minutes is too long. You Tube can be time consuming without you noticing, you can start out by searching ”how to clean with a Kirby vacuum” and end up two hours later watching bum fights. The author supports his claim by using statements that are relevant to anyone who has ever searched the world of You Tube.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that I found to be the most interesting in this piece, was that Google bought YouTube for 1.65 billion dollars. That is an insane amount of money to put into a company that had not be in existence for very long. It is crazy to think that something that was such a little brand and was not flourishing almost 10 years ago, is now this huge thing!! It is crazy to think how much money is brought in just by the ads that are used on the website daily. From reading this article, it really brought to light how many legal issues there were in the early days of YouTube. The office that they describe in this article almost seems unreal. It sounds like a fun place to work at. I think that YouTube will continue to only grow in success as technology and the web becomes more and more popular. I am not a big user of YouTube, but it seems very beneficial to the world.
ReplyDeleteThe main point of the article was that YouTube might lose viewers in its attempt to create television competitive channels that audiences do not want. Author John Seabrook explained that YouTube is getting more and more niche-specific viewership because that is what the audience is seeking. He states that although increasing secure content might increase viewership total time, increasing niche targeted (audience-based) advertisements and professional niche channels might not sit well with viewers. Seabrook explained that the audience is looking for more common, unprofessional video from YouTube, and by opting to go more professional with its channels and content might backfire. He reminds the reader that privacy of the history of internet viewership might cause viewers to reject such targeting. Regarding the YouTube channels becoming more professional rather than just the common-person posting interesting things from ordinary and real lives might cost viewer appreciation. In all, the author is stressing that many of the major changes that YouTube is looking into in order to expand internet to the television and compete with current television might become its own undoing. He is stressing that YouTube take heed in past examples of other internet services jumping the gun to expand to an audience that might just not be ready for such changes.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that I found interesting was, YouTube may end up internally ruining it's self by trying to reach for bigger things. They used the example of Netflix. When Netflix decided to make their DVD and Streaming capabilities separate features they lost a large amount of their following. They feel that although YouTube is at a good place, it could ruin its' own following. They also used Myspace as an example. Myspace changed their format and added a lot of adds and other things. This in turn brought them down. YouTube has a good chance of doing this to its self.
ReplyDelete