Introducing Watch, a new platform for shows on Facebook | Hacker News Reader

Introducing Watch, a new platform for shows on Facebook

newsroom.fb.com

65 pointsdrikerf24 comments

Is there any incentive that Facebook offers to create high-quality content? Every dollar that Facebook makes through ads goes in its pocket. And I don't see any keen interest from their side to create a revenue sharing program. Even though only a few YouTubers might be making sustainable revenues, but at least Google offers some motivation to continue creating.

For anyone publishing on Facebook, the cycle seems familiar: create a page, gain followers, get popular, and get burned out when you realise that it's difficult to make money from what you're doing. I remember when C&H started publishing incomplete video clips to sway the audience towards their website (where they have ads).

I admit that revenue attribution to content on Facebook is not as straightforward as it's on Youtube, but Facebook should invest in making it easier to monetize your content; otherwise, I don't think people would motivated to create anything more than memes.

As a non-FB user, I fear the day when they have finally motivated real and meaningful content that people might expect me to view and that requires one to log in to facebook. So far, I think mostly their greed has kept them in a position of non-mandatory. Keep up the good work FB!

I've seen some Youtubers with high-quality content move away from YT's monetization scheme recently and move exclusively to Patreon and sponsors (eg, Ian's Forgotten Weapons). Still hosting their content on YT but without ads. I think this will just be another channel to reach out.

Does most of the money made by professional "YouTubers" come from Google or is that just a secondary income stream that is completely overshadowed by product placement and the like? This surely varies from show to show, but those where Google is just a minor part could potentially gain a lot more from the increased exposure than what they would lose in formal ads. One might question wether those shows qualify as "quality content", but it's Facebook, expectations are already low (not that they would be terribly high on YouTube). I expect a lot of crossposting.

Linus has a video explaining their income sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t73wXF8IF-8

If you click through to the creator blog you will find: "Over time, creators will be able to monetize their shows through Ad Breaks. We’ve been testing Ad Breaks over the past few months, and we will be slowly opening up availability to more creators to ensure we’re providing a good experience for the community. Creators can also create sponsored shows using our branded content tag."

https://media.fb.com/2017/08/09/introducing-watch-and-shows-...

I think this is a case where Facebook will do poorly. I'm not sure if there are studies done on this, but it does feel nicer when I get a preroll ad or something unobtrusive on YouTube (and of course no ads on Netflix) when compared to the midroll ads on traditional tv or on certain YouTube videos (it's so rare for me though that I thought I had accidentally clicked a different video when a mid roll ad appeared on my phone). Doing 'ad breaks' seems like it is a worse way to handle advertisement, because a user can just go to a different tab and wait, and easily rewind if they accidentally miss some content unlike on traditional tv where you can't just rewind and the incentive to change the channel is less because you can't switch to something like Hacker News on the tv and read a quick article or couple comments during the ads.

I absolutely hate Facebook's adverts. They're all unskippable midrolls with a thing that pops up in the corner counting down "Ad starts in Ns". Really takes you out of the video.

I'd much prefer a pre-roll advert than just interrupting whatever I'm watching.

Around 5 years ago, amidst widespread outcry over how Facebook profits from freebooting, the company promised a revenue sharing solution for content creators was right around the corner. Did that ever happen?

It has, there are people who moved from YouTube to Facebook. In a h3h3 podcast [1] Soflo, a ex-YouTuber who now posts content on Facebook, explains a bit how it works and that he can publish the same content over and over again and still get money for it.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PZSOFsjJRo

It's a lot more than a few Youtubers. Youtube is a creator ecosystem Facebook could never live up to be. Facebook is for brands only.

The show must go on. No, the show must take over everything else we plan to do with our lives so we can sit and Watch it. Hail, Watch. On a serious note, I think any number of platforms for creators to create and promote their content is great. I only hope they put out a good revenue sharing model in place once the wheel starts to spin. Facebook is essentially hoping to keep all users well within it's platform for anything video/photo/chat. But I'm afraid, all it's efforts would wind up like the Messenger app. Not that it's bad, but it'll never be a WhatsApp.

As much as I hate FB I have to admit they're very good at finding ways to keep people on the platform. From the video in the post it seems Watch will provide a better UX than YouTube, especially for comments.

Definitely. It's also interesting that Youtube rolled out in-app sharing and messaging a couple of days ago https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/07/youtube-roll-out-in-app-vi.... Seems like they're getting closer and closer to each other for every day that passes.

Youtube's UX drives me crazy, especially on mobile. They really need to reach this next level of responsive where the length of a video is considered just as screen size has been in the past.

Tv.Youtube is a bit better... but I have faith they will step up as it continues to dominate.

Did a poll of my little cousins at a wedding, they would all rather have a Youtube Red subscription than Spotify or Netflix.

I'm guessing they don't need this to attract more users, rather it's probably more of a defensive move. Add the functionality to keep other possible platforms from coming out of nowhere. FB understands (as does Netflix, HBO, etc) that high quality, exclusive content requires a big investment. I'm sure they'll eventually go that route. Why not? They have the cash and they would already be playing catch-up for a next logical step for a video platform. This will probably be good for content creators. There are only so many superstars that you can chase after. With Amazon, Google, FB and the old guard going after the same pool, there may be some massive payouts going to people who can deliver the hits.

Think of stand-up comedy. Louis CK might take a couple of years to build content for a one hour show. How much would that be worth when you have each of the tech giants bidding out for the rights to that show? Sure, he could get writers, but that wouldn't be Lewis CK (it would be his personality, but not his jokes) and it would have to be for a different type of show. After Lewis CK, there aren't many comics who can draw the same numbers he can.

FB's better off becoming the online Nielson ratings for online video instead of competing with the rest. They can add actual value.

I'll be interested to see where Netflix, HBO, and Amazon end up because right now it seems like a race to the bottom. Netflix is spending billions (I believe $8 billion this year) to create original content. Both Amazon and Netflix want to add more and more premium content while lowering prices. Channels or streaming services are now identified by the shows they have more than the service itself (I'm going to pay for Netflix because I like House of Cards and Stranger Things, HBO because I like Game of Thrones, etc.) Each is only as good as their latest shows and content is increasingly becoming a commodity. Whereas 20 years ago if NBC had a few flops and fell in the ratings it hurt their ad revenue a bit but they still were piped into the same houses, now if Netflix fails to put out hit shows, people will pay a competing service instead.

Wonder if this also will be full of freebooted/stolen content (as Videoes is today), or actually genuine stuff?

Probably freebooted content. They don't seem to care

The biggest problem I have with videos on Facebook is that specific video posts are often impossible to find later and very difficult to share. A trivial tasks like posting a funny video to a group chat I have with friends can be sometimes very frustrating.

Ok. So I host Hack Days (shameless plug: We're at Noisebridge[0] every Sunday -- come out!) and I live stream every weekend on FB (here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/sfhackdays/)

My biggest gripe is cross platform streaming capabilities, stream quality, and the lack of cooperation when we need distribution to increase viewership.

It's a bummer. I hope this is a solution to any of those problems.

[0] https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Hack_Days

Off topic (apologies in advance, I know it's usually poor form for HN threads) but are there any tools out there to analyse text and identify redundancies? This sentence could have been omitted and I'd be just as well informed about "Watch":

> Shows are made up of episodes - live or recorded - and follow a theme or storyline.

Everybody is going after the living room. Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Netflix, Disney... People spend 30% more time on youtube when the content is something produced. And they prefer watching this type of shows on TV, with more people. Advertisers love that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com