Facebook signs BuzzFeed, Vox, others for original video shows | Hacker News Reader

Facebook signs BuzzFeed, Vox, others for original video shows

reuters.com

38 pointsggiaco29 comments

This is creepy, but I'm not sure why.

Maybe because it's the place that gives a huge chunk of the population 100% of their news and communication also giving them "art"?

I would be very uncomfortable if Fox made a well-funded Facebook clone, but because it's the reverse no one seems to mind.

Yep especially when it comes to politics people should not be trusting these sites but they increasingly do.

I find it extremely dystopian that Zuckerberg will likely run in 2020

It would be a massive loss for him. Especially with the Democrats in the middle of a war on all fronts, which is the most pressing issue of the next 2020 candidate. I doubt Zuckerberg could navigate the internal politics to find solid support. He would not make it past the primaries. He has a bigger trust perception problem than Hillary. He should wait it out a few cycles, wait for his child to get older and craft a family man image to replace his current image.

A culture enigma, with more money than political experience, that is worshipped by a large demographic for just being rich would suffer a massive loss? I can't help but see history repeating itself. I look forward to 2020's r/The_Mark

>r/The_Mark

How oddly appropriate that it also happens to be the term used by con artists to describe their intended victim

He hasn't proven himself to be politically savvy like past candidates and he lacks key differentiations like Trump or Hillary. If he attempts to storm to the top without currying favor it will fracture the DNC and if he wins he could have a situation akin to Trump.

Every time someone mentions Zuck running for president I think of this clip from the code conference where he's asked about privacy and he just about faints. Obviously he has matured since then but I just wonder how he could hold up in a debate.

Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbOwdjSodeU

People started theorising this the day he announced that "religion is important to him" which I thought was ridiculous, then he hired Obama's campaign advisers, announced tour of the country and then the recent war on fake news. If he doesn't run directly he's definitely reaching for some political clout

Maybe a state political office first. Governor, perhaps?

This makes much more sense. It would be suicide for him to launch his political career in 2020 in form of a presidential campaign. (billionaire vs billionaire election will demoralize the voter base)

Irony being News Corp (owner of Fox) bought MySpace in 2005.

This is very logical.

Starting this year, FB has been experimenting with inserting mid-roll ads in videos[1].

Well, video inventory carries higher CPMs than image formats typically, and mid-roll CPMs can be pretty juicy--many people won't skip the video if they are halfway through it.

So how do you better align the targeting of your video content with the ads you are serving against it, and create some premium direct buy opportunities (which have even higher CPMs) for big brand advertisers?

You guessed it--create your own original video content.

This also potentially paves the way for them to test a subscription model with fewer ads (cough Hulu) or no ads. Although I'm not sure that makes sense since FB's advantage is one of Aggregation Theory[2]. If they can deliver awesome ad-supported content for free, they can compete very well against other video services which are vying for a share of people's finite attention and time. The more time you spend watching something on Youtube, Netflix, Hulu or Amazon, the less you are spending on your FB feed. (Actually who are we kidding, everyone has their phones out while watching things these days anyway).

[1] http://marketingland.com/watch-facebooks-ad-breaks-non-live-...

[2] https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/

This seems like a dumb move for FB. Why would they expect anything worth watching from buzzfeed or vox, take a look at their youtube channels - garbage content, terrible views, tons of dislikes. Yep, sounds like winning entertainment we need more of /s

Facebook knows what their users like. Literally.

I have to say I am subscribed to Vox cause they do good videos from time to time about music, comics, how stuff came to be, etc but they're horrible when they start talking politics

They have a political podcast "The Weeds" which is pretty good - it's very left but they're really knowledgeable about the topics they talk on. I don't watch their stuff on YouTube etc. having seen a few and been disappointed, but that podcast is solid.

You are not their target market.

Is your entire comment supposed to be sarcastic (/s), or just the last sentence?

Yea, but look how many views they are getting. More views = more advertising money, even if they do get downvotes. Those downvotes aren't their target anyways.

As far as I can tell, Facebook seems to have given up on originality. They seem to just be following Snapchat's playbook, a year late.

It's a shame since they have so much money and potential to do world changing things. Instead it's Facebook Stories, and now Facebook Discover.

Facebook began being a ripped off idea that two twin came up with. You know that whole idea that execution is more important than ideas? Well, this is what happens at the extremity. If you have 100 creativity and 0 execution, you're not going to get far. If you have 100 execution and 0 creativity, you're not going to get very far. If someone with higher execution (and perhaps lack of morals is a necessary aspect) then copies someone with creativity, then that execution will only go as far as ideas that are obvious - or they become a copy machine. The problem then is that the resources that should be feeding the creative environment instead feeds the mercenaries. Facebook is and will slowly fill whatever verticals that others have proven - it's happening heavily with messaging, I wonder what areas will be next.

Lotta companies getting into original shows the last few years, some already getting back out. Doing it well is expensive and requires a significant investment in the content acquisition pipeline that'll take a while to really pay off (or just throw even more money at it to bootstrap it, like House of Cards).

They have some established short-form producers, which is a better start than "from scratch," but I'm skeptical that it'll turn into quality long form stuff. Especially when the modus operandi of a lot of these producers is basically "get a 20-or-30 something to do the minimum amount of required research and then put together something expert-ish sounding to 'explain' it to the poor non-Ivy-Leaguers" (cough Vox cough) which could increasingly break down the longer you expect the content to be.

So, all liberal outlets.

I don't see why you're being downvoted - you are correct, and it's doubly interesting because Zuck is telegraphing a Dem run in 2020. In literally any other situation I'd be the first to dismiss this, but it seems convenient that they're going to flood the platform with content to get people on his side.

I have no idea how it would work, but this seems like the kind of thing regulation is ... for.

An indoctrination platform for a group of people that are highly affixed to their shared values, sounds more like a religion.

To me this seems like more of an issue for the people to take care of, getting government involved would be very messy. I don't see much they could do to stop it. All individuals should oppose the concentration of power of this manner.

The "logical" and "correct" outlets...

Yep. Wasn't FB committed in removing fake news? Now it's explicitly inviting bias.

Buzzfeed is the new reincarnation of Gawker.

WWSD (What would Stallman do)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com