[opendtv] Re: News: YouTube's 2 billion daily viewership beats primetime audience of top US TV networks
- From: Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 19:25:29 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Does this mean you disagree with the second part?
> Knowing who is watching, and perhaps even more
> important, what they may be interested in, is the
> Holy Grail for advertisers.
Honestly, I think these adverizers everyone is talking about need to get a
reality check. Assuming they really believe what is being said about them. Get
a clue, advertizers (or those who misrepresent them). At best, all you know
about people watching the YouTube clip is their temporary IP address on the ISP
side of their NAT. You can't even guarantee that the viewer is the same one as
before, when the public IP address is reused. The ads that might appear on the
PC monitor (unless the user watches "full screen") are far more ignorable than
are TV ads. So I just don't buy this "holy grail" idea at all, even if
advertizers believe it.
Here's a comparison. The validity of this "holy grail" is no more credible than
TV networks that pretend they can hold their audience for all 3 hours of prime
time. Old ideas that hold little merit.
> If the market for shotgun advertising dries up, and
> there are many signs this is already happening,
> then TV broadcasting goes away.
More likely, all advertizing models will continue to evolve. What you call
"shotgun approach" is hardly different from the Internet advertizing model,
once you free yourself from the hype. The demographics of who is likely to
watch a certain type of TV show, just based on the content, is every bit as
valid as trying to extract any information at all about an Internet user's IP
address.
The content ultimately reigns. The typical short YouTube clip is NOTHING like
prime time TV drama or sports. If advertizers don't get that, they are more
clueless than I thought.
> The whole point of posting the original thread was
> to illustrate how consumers are changing their
> viewing habits ... And where they spend their time
> with content.
I know, but it fell flat, Craig. The comparison is not valid. If any medium did
lose out to YouTube, it isn't TV. Maybe telephone yellow pages, comic books,
various services that are offered at 800 numbers, perhaps even public libraries
and the basketball hoop down the street, other stuff like that.
> The way [TV] content is paid for is going to change,
> and the ability to search for and watch this content
> on demand is going to largely replace appointment TV
> except for coverage of live events.
I agree with this, of course, but YouTube has little to do with this. Internet
TV, sure. Watching on your own schedule, sure. I doubt one operating system
will reign over all Internet TV, though. People have gotten used to the
Internet being an unwalled garden. Why would they go back to an Apple or a
Google walled garden for Internet TV? Sony made a decent box for this, although
quite expensive, and it used Vista. I don't see how any company can hope to put
this genie back in the bottle - even Google. (I heard the news item about
Google TV on TV last night. I thought, huh?)
Bert
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
