OT New Yorker feature on YouTube's plans
Original web series is a new fast growing medium. It's new to YouTube but there's lots of stuff out there.
And MANY more.
This is interesting about acting in web series
Their main site.
I don't this is off topic at all. This is fundamental to the changing aspect of "Broadcast" and "Feature Film" "Professional."
There's going to be lots of movement towards original web series content. It won't replace Movies nor Broadcast but, like Cable once was thought of, there'll be an expansion in content, targeting of niches, the work will be Professional but the budgets will likely be smaller for the time being.
There are many talented people, probably including actors and producers you might recognize, who are already headed in this direction for some of their content. They are doing things that, for various reasons, can't be sold to TV, yet they have much more creative freedom. Granted it's not a big money maker at the moment but, as the Youtube article alludes to, there's no network approval process to get in the way. You produce the content. Market it. Let the audience determine if it's "a hit."
I think this is, at least in part, the world that FCPX will enter into.
true and all, thought it was notable that the best charlie sheen bit in that crazy time was his skit for funny or die.
its hard to argue with him threatening his kitchen knife with his pocket knife.
still and all - funny or die do apparently edit on avid....
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
But Aindreas, everyone knows FCPX is much better at selecting "whoosh." FCPX's auto whoosh feature just can't be beat. It analyzes the files on import and generates them for you.
Yikes. I'm always surprised at how bad magazine writing can actually be. I'm trying to think of a buzzword for "vague assertions".
But thanks for this, Steve, it does follow up on the brief discussion around your earlier post.
By way of introduction there is this statement:
"For the past sixty years, TV executives have been making the decisions about what we watch in our living rooms."
… followed immediately by:
"[Youtube] has recruited producers, publishers, programmers, and performers from traditional media to create more than a hundred channels …"
... and if the irony was clear, later:
"Although most of the entertainment channels fall into the variety-show format (a staple of the early years of television), some creators are attempting long-form dramas."
What I'm understanding here is that all of this will look an awful lot like television.
That aside, there is good stuff buried in there:
"Kamangar … told me … “Our data suggests TV watching is on the rise,” he said. “It seems to have increased from four to five hours in recent years, and we think it will keep increasing."
"The average ’Tuber spends only fifteen minutes a day on the site—a paltry showing when compared with the four or five hours the average American spends in front of the TV each day. The standard block of programming on TV lasts twenty-two minutes; on YouTube, it’s three minutes."
It isn't until near the end that the model is actually laid out:
"Early in 2011, Kyncl began meeting content creators in a variety of media—film, TV, music, print—whiteboarding the future of television, and inviting them to participate in it by creating new YouTube channels. He offered several million dollars in funding, in the form of advances against future ad revenues, to be used as development money. Once the advances are earned back, YouTube will share ad revenues with the creators. YouTube will have an exclusive right to the content for a year, but the creators will retain ownership. YouTube will be responsible for selling ads but will not invest in promoting or marketing the channels in the way that traditional television channels do. (There will be no lavish premiere parties, and no billboards in Times Square.)"
... and finally the challenge:
"In its attempt to increase watch time, attract more viewers, and provide advertisers with as customized a customer as possible, YouTube risks alienating its core constituency."
So the idea is for traditional producers to take the financial risk and share the revenue with the distributor. I would think this will lead to smaller budgets and fairly conservative decisions, but really, who knows? It'll be interesting to see how it develops.
The monetary aspect is the most interesting piece of the puzzle, IMO. Like the article mentions, ad revenue is based on scarcity and if an episode of your show is available 24/7, as opposed to Tuesday at 8:30pm, it is abundantly available so it is worth much less in the eyes of an advertiser. Another option is to rely more on sponsorship and/or product placement but then you have a corporate sponsor that will most likely want influence because they are footing the bill and they want to make sure the content stays in line w/what they want their brand associated with.
The article seemed a little more in depth than others that I've read and I'm glad it stay away from the now getting tired "TV is Dead!"mantra and actually showed the situation for what it is. The beginning of a new 'era' of entertainment delivery laced with uncertainty and the lure of being at the forefront of the next big thing.
3.2GHz 8-core, FCP 6.0.4, 10.5.5
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (6.8.1)