Is Facebook Watch really the answer to monetising video content?
Today Facebook launches its video on demand platform, Watch. With all the positive rhetoric surrounding the move, Zoe Samios asks, is it really for the benefit of publishers?
The relationship between Facebook and publishers has not been easy. Over the years, small and large publishers alike have spoken about the struggles with over-reliance on the platform, disdain at a de-prioritisation of content in the news feed, and a pivot away from the off-platform tech giant.
They’ve also lamented the failure of Instant Articles, with some describing the return as ‘woeful’.
However, slowly, Facebook began to turn on the charm. Why? Because as much as it doesn’t like to admit it, it’s dependent on publishers to build its ecosystem.
This week Facebook began working on a tool which will help boost publishers’ reach. And today, the platform announced the global launch of Facebook Watch – an on-demand service – which, should it succeed, will become a rival to broadcasters.
And at the same time, Facebook is rolling out its Ad Breaks program, which will allow publishers to insert short breaks – up to 15 seconds in length – during a video. During the break, viewers will see an in-stream ad, and the publisher will earn a share of the resulting ad revenue.
On the surface it seems beneficial: the tech giant will share the revenue with the publisher in a 55% to 45% split in the publisher’s favour.
These developments are a step forward, but the path to monetisation is still long.
On platform, off platform, on platform, off platform. It’s been a tough decade for publishers, which have had to look to other ways to monetise content, due to decreased print advertising spend.
In that time, a number have leapt to tech giants like Facebook, in a bid to boost traffic and hopefully monetise it.
Over-reliance on Facebook isn’t in the best interests of the publisher.
When Facebook launched Instant Articles in 2015, it seemed like a great idea. It promised faster load times for news stories and interactive features, and was said to provide publishers with a number of new features for stories.
See, it doesn’t matter how many times Facebook invents something new. It is always on Facebook’s terms. The publishers are expected to work with them, or leave the platform.
And while Facebook has today announced it will give publishers 55% of revenue for their own content, the split still doesn’t feel fair.
I asked Facebook how the split of share worked, including whether they would charge more for videos which were cut from expensive productions.
Here’s the response: “Publishers and creators in the test can insert breaks for ads in their videos on Facebook and earn a share (55%) of the resulting ad revenue (FB keeps 45%). This is a global initiative.”
Mumbrella asked Facebook whether publishers will need to customise the video for the platform or whether the Facebook team will help place the ads.
Here’s the response: “Publishers can choose to insert ads themselves or use an auto-insert function. Ad formats include mid-rolls and in some cases pre-rolls. Publishers can also elect to have ads inserted into eligible videos in their back catalogue.”
The other thing to consider is Facebook’s dwell time. As a consumer, I don’t spend much time on particular articles or videos in my feed. Publishers can only make money by serving ads inside videos that are at least three minutes long and the ad doesn’t show up until after the first minute.
If the ad can’t show until the first minute, that makes it incredibly hard for publishers to monetise the video. And what about Seven, or Ten, or Nine, which make sizeable investments in television production and are pushing out three-minute videos through Facebook Watch. Do they get the same return as a cat video uploaded from a blog?
Punkee and Buzzfeed also have strong video-led strategies. Will they get the same return for their efforts?
Eligible pages for Ad Breaks only include those which have created three-minute videos which have generated more than 30,000 one-minute views in the past two months, and have over 10,000 Facebook followers. They also must meet Facebook’s Monetisation Eligibility Standards.
By comparison, to advertise on YouTube, creators must have 4,000 hours of overall watch time on their channel within the past 12 months and have at least 1,000 subscribers.
Mumbrella asked a number of publishers what their thoughts were. For the most part, they said it was a “good start”.
“We have been waiting for Watch and expecting it to launch for some time. We see Watch as a great opportunity for Junkee Media, particularly for Punkee which is focused on experimenting with longer-form video on Facebook where we have a highly engaged audience that come back to us for appointment viewing,” said Junkee CEO Neil Ackland.
“Creating video for Facebook is expensive and so having the opportunity to generate some revenue from it is a good start. We are at the very start of the monetisation journey and like all new platforms in their infancy it will take time to develop and mature. We need to land on the right balance that compensates publishers for the audience and content they provide to Facebook, but we are optimistic and looking forward to seeing this develop.”
Chris Wirasinha, co-founder at Pedestrian TV, welcomed the shift, but said it was up to Facebook how much priority the videos are given in the algorithm and whether the product generates “meaningful remuneration”.
“We’re excited about the potential of Facebook Watch and the publisher revenue split is a welcome shift to reward high quality content creators. Like all new social innovations we’ll be experimenting with the platform and weighing it up on a value basis,” he said.
James Bayes, Seven’s digital sales director for OTT video, added: “It’s good to see Facebook now supporting premium content creators. Seven West Media’s social cideo content achieves over 200m global streams every month, which makes us a clear leader in the space. Monetising that growing global audience engagement represents a valuable opportunity.”
Don’t get me wrong, the launch of Facebook Watch and the Ad Breaks program is a first step to monetising content, and it is clear the publishers think so too. But there are still tensions between publishers and the tech giant.
The Australian has reported Facebook has made comments in meetings which reveal it “doesn’t care about publishers” and will end up holing hands with their dying businesses “like in a hospice” – claims the social media giant flat out denies.
Then there’s the ACCC inquiry into the impact of online service providers on Australian media and advertising markets, which will look into the impact of the platform on media and advertising markets and the extent to which it is exercising market power in commercial dealings with publishers and advertisers.
Given how much is still up in the air, and publishers’ ongoing issues with Facebook’s power, I’d be wary before jumping head first into another Facebook ‘innovation’.
Facebook’s Australia and New Zealand news partnerships lead, Andrew Hunter, will be speaking at Mumbrella Publish on September 20. To hear him discuss how the platform will continue to collaborate with publishers, buy your ticket now.
The ‘publishers’ in this context have been perpetually treated by Facebook as advertisers who need to pay to reach not only new audiences, but their very own audience that are interested in their brand. As such they should treat Facebook as an advertising platform, nothing more and nothing less. Publishers should see through Facebook cosying up to them for what it is: further expansion into Youtube / free to air tv ad revenue and an attempt to placate the negative perception that they have been harmful to journalism, the media and businesses that make truly creative content – useful stuff to say in front of Government inquiries.
The only publishers Facebook actually cares anything about are the platform’s users, the billion-odd unpaid free content providers who also provide Facebook with the personal data and preferences that Facebook makes money from.
If I were a ‘publisher’ I’d treat this olive branch as poison ivy, and instead concentrate on building a better product that people want to visit in their own rite and work out how to monetize it, whether that’s through a paywall or a better advertising model. Why on earth a business would invest in another business that has undermined their own existence and continues to do so is beyond me. It’s like offering your own body up as the host for an alien to impregnate in the Aliens movies. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t end well for the host.
User ID not verified.