Web series: destination online

Fantastic article! I think the ‘web only’ series will be having something of a coming of age in the next few years. I completely agree with your thoughts on the social elements and the importance of HOW people are viewing media these days. It’s a far more interactive experience than just someone sat on their own watching something, and in a few times I think people will forget that there was once a time when the only people you could talk to about the show you were watching was the people sat in the room with you.

Web series producers need to closed caption so they can have more viewers. More viewers means a higher CPM, which means a larger check from web series hosts like Blip.TV. And the captions need to be edited, quality captions, not just the inaccurate automatic captions from YouTube.

This is one of the best, most thorough articles about online video that I’ve read.

I think the most interesting aspect of online video is the interaction it allows. I don’t think many producers have started incorporating the interactivity into plot lines, though, at least not in the U.S., where I’m located. Maybe Oz is ahead of us.

Another promising application of Internet video is its ability to function within a social networks like http://www.fargotube.com (my employer). People who watch the same video or follow the same band, documentarian or TV show to interact with each other and with the content owner or actors on the show, which is to say that FargoTube can function essentially as a fan site for a content owner or producer.

Here is a recent story from WSJ highlighting the importance of Video On Demand (VOD): ‘For Indie Films, Video-on-Demand Fills in Revenue’ Gaphttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704064504576069472667852508.html

You will see that Magnolia’s “All Good Things,” earned $4 million from VOD and just $367,000 at the box office, from 35 theaters. Many recent Australian films could have generated much greater financial returns if they didn’t just focus on theatrical distribution.

Too many Australian film makers are too singularly focused on the box office. The box office represents only 19% of a films revenue with all the rest coming from downstream channels and not all stories scale to the big screen. However, the box office is generally important in some cases to downstream revenue. But, as my SPAA co-speakers and I outlined at the 2009 SPAA Conference, many movies have done well going to VOD before the box office like Red Cliff which in turn has actually helped their box office returns.

Further, most Australians haven’t been exposed to an environment like the USA which has Netflix and Hulu and uncapped, cheaper broadband.

The Subscription Home Entertainment market in the USA alone was worth USD$70b in 2010.

Hulu as at the end of October 2010:

– 30 million monthly users
– 207 minutes per viewer
– 9.7% of USA population uses Hulu
– 260 million content streams
– 800 million ad streams
– 352 ad partners
– $240 million in revenue in 2010 (estimated)

The last statistic is especially interesting. The $240 million in revenue compares to $25 million in 2008 and $108 million in 2009.

Hulu is available on internet connected TV’s, PC’s via browser, smartphones, iPad, Xbox, PS3 and other devices.

Other Hulu economics:
– In 2010 Hulu will make $200 million to $250 million in gross revenues.
– Hulu’s deals with content providers delivers 20% to 30% of net revenues to Hulu.
– Some one-off deals with content providers have a 50%-50% split on revenues.
– On average, a believable figure is 35% split for Hulu from the gross revenues.
– This means Hulu’s net revenues will hit $70 million to $100 million in 2010.
– Hulu has about 200 staff (50 to 60 in ad sales).
– Hulu’s other big cost outlay is for network and server infrastructures.
– If network partners stream an ad, though, Hulu gets 30% of the revenues, but doesn’t bear any costs associated with it, including network costs.
– With the partner side bearing the cost, Hulu’s profit on its 30% revenue split is almost 100% for these events, which may equate to half of Hulu’s revenues.

Netflix
-16m subscribers @ $7.99 per month
– 66% of subscribers use live on demand streaming of movies
– 2m of Xbox Live’s 30m members use Netflix via Xbox per month
– 2010 revenue will be $2.2b

Netflix Business overview presentation on SlideShare: http://slidesha.re/eEsFPf

I could go on and on with Apple’s iTunes VOD movies as well but I think you get the picture.

The DVD rental market has declined more than 30% over the past 8 years and DVD sales declined 10% from 2009 to 2010.

So, the issue for Australia is quite simple, nobody is providing an equivalent service like Hulu and Netflix (although FOXTEL has been trying but it is in no way a comparable service) because most broadcasters here don’t own the majority of content they broadcast and they have their heads in the sand worrying about cannabilisation of their traditional broadcast channels (a lot like Gerry Harvey’s thinking about eCommerce) and obviously we have caps on broadband plans and an inconsistent broadband speed across the country.

Australia would adopt Hulu and Netflix in a heartbeat and probably at a level higher than the USA if the conditions were right.

Ironically the business case speaks for itself as Netflix will generate USD$150m in profit in 2010 and Hulu will generate approximately $70-100m.

interesting…so much so i have made a video about it.
“Should the government provide funding for people producing unsuccessful online video content?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGwoCkGJAXU
not everyone is going to like my opinion, but it is one backed up with solid facts.

thanks miguel 🙂

and thank you encore for featuring my video on your site 🙂

i have made a followup today after having a minor altercation with one of the production members of futuremachinetv….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oys4FDJR-wU

alys 🙂

Yes Alys great contribution…the same argument could be also said for TV “Should the government provide funding for people producing unsuccessful TV content? About the only thing I agree with during Dr Ruth Harley’s speech about Australian TV, is that yes “it’s mainstream” and that yes “The First Australians” was a brilliant production. As for Australian TV being the best in the world….my god….if influential people think that..then why is just about everybody I know telling me how utterly shite it is? I mean the level of disconnect is just staggering…you can watch the full speech here

http://webcast.viostream.com/P.....Cache=True

That said TV is slowly starting to show some improvement…but my god some mindless slop has been given funding over the years… that’s for sure

hi dolly, thanks for that 🙂 i am checking out the link now…interesting and disturbing at the same time – like you said “australian tv the best in the world???” what! yes, i hardly agree it is the best that is for sure.

something that is happening in the usa with some of the main players of youtube is that they have been offered or are talking about tv / movie deals. this of course has it’s own problems and will be interesting to watch the outcome of what happens.

one of the major players “fred” got a movie deal which was great for him, however the production studio made various changes to the “fred” character his fans knew and loved (or hated) …whilst the movie was a success in it’s own right, his youtube channel suffered greatly.

essentially, the beauty of youtube where the channels are run by the creator who solely write, edits and stars in their own content is that they have total control over everything they do…when a production company is involved what was a great idea can get mangled beyond recognition before it is placed on a tv screen.

online definitely is the way of the future…however australia needs to work harder to catch up to the youtube elite who have been doing this for years and know what the people want and how to best serve it to them.

Also check this out

Seth Godin on standing out

In a world of too many options and too little time, our obvious choice is to just ignore the ordinary stuff. Marketing guru Seth Godin spells out why, when it comes to getting our attention, bad or bizarre ideas are more successful than boring ones.

http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_.....bread.html

Alys – I’d like to correct some of the points you made in your video:

1. There are no endorsed fake accounts that constitute the subscriber based on the OzGirl YouTube channel. You are accusing us of viewer fraud and that is quite a serious allegation.

2. It is important to note that YouTube is ONE of MANY platforms used to distribute content. In our case YouTube was NOT the primary mode of distribution. Our content is across Virgin Australia, Bebo, KoldCast TV, TiVo, Zune and iTunes.

YouTube does not represent the focus of our marketing and distribution due to the demographic we targeted, we identified more suitable platforms.

3. Interactivity was key with OzGirl and the audience were engaged consistently with the characters through social networking devices such as live chat, messages, and comments.

4. In regards to your assessment that The Future Machine and OzGirl are not successes based on their views – TFM is rightly seeking additional funds to market their show. The internet is over-saturated with content and you seem to insinuate that good content will just chance upon an audience without any push or marketing drive. This could not be further from reality. Like any piece of screen content or product for that matter; marketing is paramount to capturing an audience. You will regularly see films that do well at the box office mainly due to a strong and robust marketing campaign as opposed to being quality films (see ‘Due Date’). It is an oversight to think that marketing is not a requisite component of the delivery of online goods. Ask any consumer-oriented businesses if they believe marketing is not key to their business… see what they have to say.

Yes – there are channels that have been enormously popular that have succeeded without a marketing budget. The internet does indeed make this possible.

I will also point out that marketing techniques on the internet do not necessarily cost money.

In my books OzGirl was a success and I also believe The Future Machine (an extremely well made show) is on its way to being one too. I would advise you watch the content of the show (you admit you haven’t) in order to develop an informed opinion.

FYI – we had no money for marketing and distribution.

Nicholas Carlton
Creator of OzGirl
nick@carlton.to

For more debate fodder, please listen to my talk about OzGirl at the SPAA 2010 Conference – http://conference.spaa.org.au/.....clenbr=394

Hi Nicholas, thank you for your feedback.

With regards to the fake accounts, it was mainly to put across a more realistic view of the actual subscribers to the channel rather the number of people who were legitimately subscribed. In no way do I absolutely state that it was you guys that made them or endorsed them.

It is good to know that your content was used on multiple platforms, however my main commentary was working with the idea of things working stand alone online.
Twitter, Facebook etc are free and are absolutely amazing tools – I have observed some very successful campaigns being run on them. I agree that marketing on the internet does not necessarily cost money. However…how did you get 20 000 hits on the preview and then lose all those people to only get 1800 for the first ep?

With regards to OzGirl being a success…with all the additional channels it was on absolutely…that is the thing, it was not solely online. I have watched the first episode and it was not for me, but I am a 34 year old woman so I doubt that I am in your demographic. I found it weird seeing microphones on the girls and the lacklustre delivery of the comp details at the end was odd. I am used to watching people who film themselves and everything they do vlog style though…(ie weird seeing mics and someone else filming)

Yes, correct. bad anything can do well with marketing…but the thing is with youtube yes you may see that initial spike in views, but if it does not capture the viewers attention they are not going to stick around. why did all the people watching The Future Machine NOT subscribe. The view count and subscriber list does not make sense. There would be quite a few of the production crew that make up that 71 subscribers. Like I said, it would be more realistic if there were at least a few hundred subscribers on there.

I still agree with my original observations based on views. If the viewers liked The Future Machine, they would have stuck around, shared it with their friends etc. However, I would be more than happy to see them look for additional marketing IF the views were going up steadily from the first episode. This however has not been happening, hence I strongly disagree with marketing something that (in my opinon only) did not work. The content did not capture my attention either.

With regards to no money for marketing and distribution:

But you would have got money legitimately by selling the content to the various networks? Right? See I have no issues with that, nor would i have any with someone who say got a certain amount of money from a company to use a product of theirs in a production (eg a car company for example).

Alys,

I believe the internet and user behaviour is a lot more complicated than the linear relationship you are referring to.

20 000 Trailer views + 1 000 Episode One views = a failure to engage that audience, yes. But who was that audience? If the trailer was viewed 20 000 times by 34 year old women who, like you are not interested in the series but just happened upon it (because of the thumbnail or title or whatever) than obviously you will not come back. This is where targeted marketing becomes necessary. To target the correct audience. Conversely, if those are 20 000 views from teenage girls (our target audience) than I would accept your proposition.

Similarly something we learned during the release was about scheduling. If you release a trailer too early and wait 2 months before the release of episode 1, then most people will have forgotten about the series. This applies in any medium where advertising a product is critical.

I believe, respectfully, that your thesis is entirely too simple and would encourage you to think about the other variables in play. Ultimately marketing is a requirement for any series. So when is a series a failure? Perhaps if a series is well marketed and failed to create traction you could claim it to be a failure.

Unfortunately in both the case of OzGirl and The Future Machine, both series lack any reasonable marketing budget or resources to properly make an assessment.

FINALLY – I would say that your criteria in principle provides a valid litmus for the entire funding system in Australia. I wholeheartedly believe that funding should be provided to filmmakers to tell stories and make films that audiences WANT to see. The opposite simply does not make any sense. It is a market and you must meet market demands.

Thus I would implore you to think about other valid uses for the internet and the production of web series:

1. Maybe the internet does not provide a profitable ecosystem for short-form content creators (a challenge as you astutely pointed out). Perhaps it is simply a place for filmmakers to be recognized and have a crack at their art. Much like the production of independent feature films, web series can simply serve as a calling card for a different medium.

2. Perhaps it is a testing ground for new ideas and experimentation.

3. What if a web series was only watched by 5, 000 people. Might that not be a success if the series was produced on the cheap? Perhaps the web will not be able to generate mass audiences like television and instead caters to niche audiences.

4. If revenue is desired – perhaps an investment in this medium from the funding bodies can be provided in the form of an infrastructure that allows web series creators to profit from their work (ie. a marketplace to connect brands to creators, or a micropayment destination site).

That’s my rant!

Hi Nicholas,

Firstly, to be totally honest, I would LOVE for an Australian company to produce some successful web content.

In my opinion, content is successful of course if you the producer breaks even or at the very least makes a small profit. Or…I guess as a producer of a show, if at the end of the day you are happy with what you have done, even if you have made a loss I guess that could be deemed a success as well.

Awards also play a part in the percieved success of the show, and I congratulate you on the Streamy (but like I said, Streamys lost all credibility in 2010. BUT that is hardly your fault and to be nominated and win is still a good thing.

My definition of success is solely based on what I can see on Youtube.

There are other networks of course but of course I can not go in and see how many units of OzGirl were sold on the other networks you were referring to. To sell your content to Virgin (if you indeed did) for example is a great result. I am not sure how the koldcast sydnication thing works for example so can not say much on that (ie the eps are all free on itunes for example as a result of whatever sydnication deal you have done with koldcast)

With regards to the 20 000 views on the trailer, I see by looking at the keywords used, you were infact using words that were not related to the show. They are cut and pasted here as follows:

“ozgirl lonelygirl15 australia country jackman kidman hot girl lonelygirl woman show web bebo katemodern melbourne the oc orange county marissa”

That would have assisted in getting people to view your trailer of course and then people would find that it had nothing to do with those keywords…but that would not have necessarily been the major thing to draw people to your trailer.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that 20 000 people viewed your trailer on Youtube that were not in your demographic. It was such a good opportunity to build from that but you lost all those people (nor did you pick up a lot of subscribers from that initial preview).

eg. if the young girl did her own video blogs for example (ie filmed from her perspective by herself with a cheap cam eg a flip for example) and offers to win prizes etc (the prize thing is right at the end of the first episode, I would not have known about it if I didn’t watch all the way through). Blog TV and similar are interesting as well where the girl could web chat interactively with the audience etc. I know you have done some things on social networks, but I don’t know what, so just making some examples.

It is not just about marketing on youtube, it is about quality content that the user wants. eg. judging by the Shane Dawson type content for example, it does not have to be intelligent – that being said however – the content in a lot of cases is not suitable for children – although his demographic is people under 15 (although as a 34 year old I also enjoy it as well as the more intelligent content I can get on youtube)

With regards to any productions on youtube that were made by outside entities, the ones that fool the audience (like lonelygirl for example) that this is real content coming from one user, rather than a production company seems to work. Mind you, if and when the audience finds out they won’t all be happy, but by that stage one would hope that the production achieved what it was setting out to do.

To me, a good start may be that a collective of Australian producers/directors/interested parties got together and made a youtube channel specifically to feature Australian content of this nature. Not limited to series but small sketches for example.

This would build up a regular audience who trusted your content as well as a decent, legitimate subscriber base. Then for example one could feature say The Future Machines first ep on the channel page for example (or it could be uploaded to both channels).

Just an example. I have other ideas, but yes, just wanted to mention a few thoughts.

Nicholas,

I truly believe that online content IS something that can be used successfully.

If the short (or long form content is recognised from it’s online popularity and subsequently sold off to other online networks OR to traditional media, that is of course great.

Will it happen? Well it has happened to some of the major youtubers in the USA, some for the better, some not.

The internet may not be able to solely provide the monetary rewards alone, however for example teamed with a traditional advertising campaign eg. think of a major soft drink company for example agreeing to put money into a project in exchange for using ones content in their ads on tv, online etc.

eg sort of like a cliffhanger thing where people would log on to a youtube channel and or website to watch what happens. this would be served well for example if the video was viral in content…but a talented writer for sure could make it work in the short space allowed of 30 seconds or whatever.

With regards to success on the internet and so forth, that is covered in my above response. I truly believe that if you are doing a series on Youtube the main thing would be that the subcriber base closely matches the number of views on each episode (eg the community channel that I speak of in my first video in more detail).

Selling the finished product on dvd and other merchandise is another way to make revenue, but of course you will sell a very limited amount if there is not the initial interest. Some of the top youtubers do well selling shirts for example as they are very personally involved with their audience. They will suggest viewers to send in photos of them wearing their shirts for example which they will place on their videos or will often retweet a message from someone who has said they got their shane dawson shirt in the mail today for example.

With the backing of movie network here is the hit count of another Australian produced show:

https://www.youtube.com/show/thejesters

Dear Alys,

I have just watched your YouTube diatribe and read through the comments made by yourself, and the responses from Nicholas. I wish I had more energy to allocate for a detailed response, but at the moment, as an independent filmmaker, I am far too busy to find the time to start a dialogue with such an ill-informed and naive person.

I thank Nicholas for taking the time to elaborate on the finer details of creating, producing and marketing a web-series online. He would know. But I will not become embroiled in a conversation with someone who dares criticise a show that she has not even fully watched!

It’s obvious you know very little about creating an audience online, because you only ever see it from the perspective of someone looking at the number of views shown at the bottom of a YouTube video. And for you to imply that we are somehow cheating on our online viewing numbers vs subscribers goes to truly show how ill-informed you are; people on the internet relate to our show in different ways.

I would suggest next time, before you make wild, false and defamatory comments, you could try and approach the producers, in an effort to deconstruct this rather complicated business with accurate information and insight. Thus, in total contrast to what we have all just witnessed fall out of your head, it could lead you to astute, informed and intelligent criticism.

David Barker
The Future Machine
I

David,

I watched three episodes of The Future Machine, as was communicated in my videos.

I did not enjoy them, hence why I did not continue to watch anymore. Why would I when I am subscribed to so much more excellent online content?

Commentary is only defamatory if it is not true. I have not stated that you guys have definitely been involved with any of what I am saying, just that it is interesting.

People seem to misunderstand that everyone is entitled to an opinon.

Prior to the emergence of sites such as youtube you would find it as a review in a newspaper, or it would spread via word of mouth. Basically if you put something out there, expect to get commentary about it. If my commentary was good, you would have been linking my video all over the place, just as Okine did with the Encore article.

Enjoy spending tax payers money to market this if you are indeed successful in receiving the funds you have applied for.

Alys

with any luck you will win a streamy next year matt.

David Barker- If people(the audience) find your show wanting in terms of entertainment value and express this negative opinion in the online realm and you find this criticism a little hard to digest…then all I can say is toughen the proverbial up, maybe listen to what the audience has to say and why, digest it and then move forward…with or without the tax payers dollar. I mean this is social media..and social interaction isn’t always a sycophantic experience, sometimes its purely brutal and ” I would suggest next time, before you make wild, false and defamatory comments, you could try and approach the audience, in an effort to deconstruct this rather complicated business with accurate information and insight. Thus, in total contrast to what we have all just witnessed fall out of your head, it could lead you to astute, informed and intelligent criticism.”
I mean the arrogance of your reply is a bit..well mmm…hard to sympathize with since I also had a watch and well..to be honest wasn’t for me…but might be for somebody..good luck..at least you’re trying…and that is the essence of creativity..to try..to fail…and slowly..after some trial error…hopefully succeed.

Dear alysa , I would to thank you for taking the time out to comment on such matters, i along with a few other people also do have a slight problem with a couple of things that you said .. What do you judge as unsuccessful? Just because not many people have seen the web series YET does not make it unsuccessful. When you have not got much money set aside for promotion word of mouth still takes a lot of time even on the internet. Since you up loaded your video, the future machine trailer has stayed steady at 3,00 views but ep one has gone from 2,500 to 3381. The latest video clip you talk of in your blog is actually a music video from ep 6, so naturally it is going to have less hits as majority of viewers have already seen it, but even still it has gone from 124 to 242. slowly but surely growing again. You say that oz girl has 150 subscribers but only 50 were legitimate, where did you get this fact? . you say that you really REALLY wanted to like the future machine, but you only saw 3 eps? . You couldn’t of wanted to like the show that badly at all.

I find the fact you make between subscribes and actual views is weak and shows a lack of thought. Then to back that up with just saying” IM NOT SAYING THERE CHEATING“ I’ve just seen information on other channels that shows how you can up your views” this is just downright hurtful. Especially when you are clearly implying that we have cooked the books, and tampered with the numbers. When you have put so much work into a project, for someone then to come along and attack the truthfulness of its minor success is just really upsetting. Again just showing a major lack of thought on your behalf.,

so the fact that the views were dropping with the more Epps that were uploaded (not true). Also you’re weak point about potential fixing of the numbers, brought you to your conclusion that the general public did not like this show.?????.

Where was your video blog about the movie “Australia” for example? That had millions of the government’s money injected into it and the majority of people didn’t like that film. Or where was your blog about Australia not wining the ashes this summer. Australian cricket gets loads of money from the government, all for us not to win their biggest sporting event? I suppose you didn’t blog on these 2 things along with many other unsuccessful business ventures form the government because you didn’t see them. But then again you didn’t really see “oz girl” or “The Future Machine” did you ?.

I respect the fact that you find a American teenager more entertaining than “oz girl” or “the future machine”, but please don’t convince yourself that everyone shares this view, as it is clearly not the case. I mean if were to take your argument of only looking at the numbers rather than content. The YouTube clip of a monkey pissing in its own mouth has had 8880 views were your video blog has only had 185. But I am sure due to the feedback you have had, your video clip is more thought provoking than the monkeys.

I was lucky enough to also be a part of a show called “the jesters “ which has recently just put out all of its shows for free on the internet. Now these shows are getting around 8 to 10 thousand hits an ep. And this is with the benefit of promotional money behind it and the start power of Mick Molloy Susie porter and Steve Vizard just to name a few. I guess what I am trying to say is, without a large chunk of money behind promotion these things take time, you have to be patient. The community channel started back in 2006; I would like to see her stats after 2 months of internet time.

I thank you for your time, but think you really should have put more thought into what you were saying, and also left out some of your false accusations out of your clip. Your sincerely Andy Ryan.

Final thoughts 1: Should the government provide funding for unsuccessful online content? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA81LLwpeX4

Final thoughts 2: Should the government provide funding for unsuccessful online content? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIpbvgr7iMM

i have answered the remainder of your comments here (mainly in the second half of the video)

Final thoughts 1: Should the government provide funding for unsuccessful online content? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA81LLwpeX4

Final thoughts 2: Should the government provide funding for unsuccessful online content? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIpbvgr7iMM