As networks move to video, content creators become stronger and start earning
All social platforms are fighting for quality video, but only a select few are able to issue it. And this means that if platforms wish to receive such products, they will have to pay for them.
In December, a group of well-known “stars” of the Vine app (posting seven-second videos on iPhone and Android) came to the headquarters of Twitter in San Francisco for an unprecedented meeting. These "stars" who helped make Vine popular, creating a unique kind of entertainment that matches its short cyclic format, finally wanted to get paid for their work. Other social networks had in their work plans payouts to content creators, and our “Weiners” were aggressively pursuing the same. It was a turning point: after many years, when the platform acted as the supreme ruler, the mechanism began to change.
At the meeting, the newly-minted "stars" informed Twitter: Facebook, Instagram and Snapch also want our videos; if you intend to keep us, then, please, check on the table. “We made a cultural phenomenon out of Vine,” one of the “Weiners” told a representative of our BuzzFeed News. “We would like to finally make a living by acting with the platform.”
')
This meeting showed something new, with which the largest social companies are now forced to start reckoning: very few people, in fact, are capable of regularly creating fascinating videos that others want to watch. And since social platforms tend to saturate their feeds with videos — reality or otherwise — rather than just putting pictures and text, they essentially compete for the same limited set of good videos. Thus, the one who creates high-quality material may require payment.
In recent weeks, such payments have gone. Twitter and Facebook began to distribute millions of dollars for getting high-quality video content on their platforms. Twitter announced earlier this month that it will invest millions for reality watching 10 National Football League (NFL) matches in the 2016 season. And Facebook offers six-digit checks to celebrities who agree to use its streaming video application. In an interview, the Periscope CEO also did not rule out payment for the services of content authors in the future. When the above-mentioned Vine stars marched to Twitter headquarters on Market Street in San Francisco and demanded financial compensation for their work, it was not a “blowout”. It was a new reality.
“From the videos, we see how difficult it is to make good content that people are willing to watch again and again,” Josh Elman, a partner at venture capital firm Greylock Partners, which invested in the Meerkat video streaming application, tells us. “With this in mind, the platforms are starting to compete for several hundred or thousands of creative authors, instead of waiting, that one of them will ever become a star.”
The demand of the “vainers” at their meeting with Twitter was similar to the negotiating requirements of TV companies supplying content. Viacom, for example, last week threatened to remove its content (including Comedy Central and MTV) from the Dish network, if the satellite provider does not start paying more for the right to broadcast. If Dish had not paid, the ban from Viacom would have made Dish competitors more attractive in the TV broadcast market. Dish agreed to increase the payment, and Viacom stayed on this network.
Multichannel video providers — Comcast, Verizon, Dish Network, DirecTV, and others — give their products to homes where people live. But they pay content producers and programmers to fill in the broadcast, and they do not have 1,000 channels of a direct open access line. Sounds familiar? Just replace Twitter with Dish, and “Weiners” with Viacom. Social platforms also do not want to fill their lines with hours of boring video.
In the digital world, social platforms are content guides to the masses, and the relationship between them and content creators is similar to that of a boss and subordinate. But people, in the end, are concerned about good content, not who distributes it.
(Of course, the analogy at the top is not quite accurate: people pay for cable TV, but they don’t pay for using social platforms. And cable TV relies entirely on professionals, and it has almost no user-generated content.)
However, as social networks switch to video, they are going to gain (or lose) users based on the quality of the video they show. This means that they are ready to bet on high-quality video content that can attract users, even if this approach does not allow making money directly from it. Take, for example, the recent agreement of Twitter with the NFL on the reality video of several matches that can cost Twitter more than it earns on advertising.
“What Twitter is doing with the NFL is an engaging game,” said Peter Stabler, lead analyst at Wells Fargo Securities. “They hope to bring back hundreds of thousands of Twitter users who are gone.”
Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat - they all want to use the same attraction: high-quality videos that work well on their platforms. “They compete for attention, they compete for attraction,” says Stabler.
It seems more likely that these companies will rely on videos from a limited group of talented authors from networks (see, for example, DJ Khaled) or from professional media companies to get the desired effect. For Facebook, this situation may arise earlier than expected. The sharing of original products on this platform is significantly reduced according to a report in The Information; those. people simply click the share button instead of publishing original text, photos, and videos. The massive decline in content creation makes professional training even more valuable for this social networking giant.
Facebook is already paying media companies and celebrities for posting their commercials through its live video products. The company offers approx. $ 250,000 for 20 posts per month for 3 months, according to information from one source who knows the terms of the agreement. (BuzzFeed is in the Facebook Live partner media group.)
Kavon Beikpur, CEO of Periscope, a streaming video application owned by Twitter, in a recent interview with our BuzzFeed News publication did not rule out the possibility of paying for content authors. “Perhaps we, as Periscope, will experiment with this specifically later,” he said, adding: “It’s really important for us to make sure that we are creating some product that people want to use without being financially stimulated.”
“I think we see a kind of renaissance for content authors,” said Athen Stephanopoulos, president of the electronic media company NowThis. “Facebook has done a good job of connecting the lines to consumers, as well as Snapchat, Twitter, Instagram and Vine. Now we need to fill these “pipes” with quality content. ”
At the F8 Facebook Developer Conference this year, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that in the coming decade "the video will become the same leader in changing the way we all collaborate and communicate what mobile devices have become in their time." And although Zuckerberg is targeting the product to receive more videos from ordinary people (live video), he is also confident that this direction will become more attractive for professionals due to payment and switching from telephone cameras to professional-level equipment.
Such a shift does not necessarily mean that media companies will find an answer to their difficulties in generating income from electronic media, but this, nevertheless, means that the time comes when those who post high-quality content begin to receive payment from social platforms, and not from advertisers for their kind of editorial work. And this is a great thing!
“Our platforms know that without strong, independent, unique personalities, they simply have nothing,” said our publication Nicholas Megalis, one of the well-known authors of Vine. “Such people are the most important part of any scheme. We can move mountains. ”
In December, a group of well-known “stars” of the Vine app (posting seven-second videos on iPhone and Android) came to the headquarters of Twitter in San Francisco for an unprecedented meeting. These "stars" who helped make Vine popular, creating a unique kind of entertainment that matches its short cyclic format, finally wanted to get paid for their work. Other social networks had in their work plans payouts to content creators, and our “Weiners” were aggressively pursuing the same. It was a turning point: after many years, when the platform acted as the supreme ruler, the mechanism began to change.
At the meeting, the newly-minted "stars" informed Twitter: Facebook, Instagram and Snapch also want our videos; if you intend to keep us, then, please, check on the table. “We made a cultural phenomenon out of Vine,” one of the “Weiners” told a representative of our BuzzFeed News. “We would like to finally make a living by acting with the platform.”
')
This meeting showed something new, with which the largest social companies are now forced to start reckoning: very few people, in fact, are capable of regularly creating fascinating videos that others want to watch. And since social platforms tend to saturate their feeds with videos — reality or otherwise — rather than just putting pictures and text, they essentially compete for the same limited set of good videos. Thus, the one who creates high-quality material may require payment.
In recent weeks, such payments have gone. Twitter and Facebook began to distribute millions of dollars for getting high-quality video content on their platforms. Twitter announced earlier this month that it will invest millions for reality watching 10 National Football League (NFL) matches in the 2016 season. And Facebook offers six-digit checks to celebrities who agree to use its streaming video application. In an interview, the Periscope CEO also did not rule out payment for the services of content authors in the future. When the above-mentioned Vine stars marched to Twitter headquarters on Market Street in San Francisco and demanded financial compensation for their work, it was not a “blowout”. It was a new reality.
“From the videos, we see how difficult it is to make good content that people are willing to watch again and again,” Josh Elman, a partner at venture capital firm Greylock Partners, which invested in the Meerkat video streaming application, tells us. “With this in mind, the platforms are starting to compete for several hundred or thousands of creative authors, instead of waiting, that one of them will ever become a star.”
The demand of the “vainers” at their meeting with Twitter was similar to the negotiating requirements of TV companies supplying content. Viacom, for example, last week threatened to remove its content (including Comedy Central and MTV) from the Dish network, if the satellite provider does not start paying more for the right to broadcast. If Dish had not paid, the ban from Viacom would have made Dish competitors more attractive in the TV broadcast market. Dish agreed to increase the payment, and Viacom stayed on this network.
Multichannel video providers — Comcast, Verizon, Dish Network, DirecTV, and others — give their products to homes where people live. But they pay content producers and programmers to fill in the broadcast, and they do not have 1,000 channels of a direct open access line. Sounds familiar? Just replace Twitter with Dish, and “Weiners” with Viacom. Social platforms also do not want to fill their lines with hours of boring video.
In the digital world, social platforms are content guides to the masses, and the relationship between them and content creators is similar to that of a boss and subordinate. But people, in the end, are concerned about good content, not who distributes it.
(Of course, the analogy at the top is not quite accurate: people pay for cable TV, but they don’t pay for using social platforms. And cable TV relies entirely on professionals, and it has almost no user-generated content.)
However, as social networks switch to video, they are going to gain (or lose) users based on the quality of the video they show. This means that they are ready to bet on high-quality video content that can attract users, even if this approach does not allow making money directly from it. Take, for example, the recent agreement of Twitter with the NFL on the reality video of several matches that can cost Twitter more than it earns on advertising.
“What Twitter is doing with the NFL is an engaging game,” said Peter Stabler, lead analyst at Wells Fargo Securities. “They hope to bring back hundreds of thousands of Twitter users who are gone.”
Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat - they all want to use the same attraction: high-quality videos that work well on their platforms. “They compete for attention, they compete for attraction,” says Stabler.
It seems more likely that these companies will rely on videos from a limited group of talented authors from networks (see, for example, DJ Khaled) or from professional media companies to get the desired effect. For Facebook, this situation may arise earlier than expected. The sharing of original products on this platform is significantly reduced according to a report in The Information; those. people simply click the share button instead of publishing original text, photos, and videos. The massive decline in content creation makes professional training even more valuable for this social networking giant.
Facebook is already paying media companies and celebrities for posting their commercials through its live video products. The company offers approx. $ 250,000 for 20 posts per month for 3 months, according to information from one source who knows the terms of the agreement. (BuzzFeed is in the Facebook Live partner media group.)
Kavon Beikpur, CEO of Periscope, a streaming video application owned by Twitter, in a recent interview with our BuzzFeed News publication did not rule out the possibility of paying for content authors. “Perhaps we, as Periscope, will experiment with this specifically later,” he said, adding: “It’s really important for us to make sure that we are creating some product that people want to use without being financially stimulated.”
“I think we see a kind of renaissance for content authors,” said Athen Stephanopoulos, president of the electronic media company NowThis. “Facebook has done a good job of connecting the lines to consumers, as well as Snapchat, Twitter, Instagram and Vine. Now we need to fill these “pipes” with quality content. ”
At the F8 Facebook Developer Conference this year, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that in the coming decade "the video will become the same leader in changing the way we all collaborate and communicate what mobile devices have become in their time." And although Zuckerberg is targeting the product to receive more videos from ordinary people (live video), he is also confident that this direction will become more attractive for professionals due to payment and switching from telephone cameras to professional-level equipment.
Such a shift does not necessarily mean that media companies will find an answer to their difficulties in generating income from electronic media, but this, nevertheless, means that the time comes when those who post high-quality content begin to receive payment from social platforms, and not from advertisers for their kind of editorial work. And this is a great thing!
“Our platforms know that without strong, independent, unique personalities, they simply have nothing,” said our publication Nicholas Megalis, one of the well-known authors of Vine. “Such people are the most important part of any scheme. We can move mountains. ”
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/300534/
All Articles