What the ‘Pivot to Video’ Looks Like at Condé Nast | Hacker News Reader

What the ‘Pivot to Video’ Looks Like at Condé Nast

nytimes.com

16 pointsdsgerard3 comments

"Videos that are somewhere between the length of a social media post and a 60-minute special thrive on YouTube, Mr. Duckor said. A significant chunk of viewers are consuming them not on a cellphone or computer but on a television. “Twenty percent of people watched that cheesesteak video on a television, whether on a smart TV, a game console, Roku or Apple TV,” Mr. Duckor said, referring to a video in which a Bon Appétit editor ate 16 Philly cheesesteaks in 12 hours. “Coming across something in your Facebook feed and stopping on it for three seconds can count as a view, but when we talk to advertisers, they want people who are actually connecting with what they’re doing, not just happening upon it.”"

This chunk right here left me thinking "what the hell is the point?" It's interesting they said "not facebook" here, that's what caught my eye. Also interesting that youtube reports so many people are watching on a TV, I guess it's not surprising, and at only 20% it's not a huge number, but why they single that out as "A significant chunk" I don't quite get. (I'd bet cell phones are higher, though maybe not?)

But then it's about some cheesesteak video with and they end it with the sad reminder that so much of everything on ... well I was going to say the web ... but so much of everything we see everywhere is just there to get us connect to advertisers.

Because TV advertising is in the crapper, but the physical TV and the behaviors that surround it (group watching, longer average viewing events than mobile, etc.) are still very attractive to advertisers. Could this be a way in?

I cut the cord 12+ years ago, and would never go back.

I watch quite a bit of YouTube, a mix of regular channels that produce content I enjoy and random things I discover. I watch 80+% of that on my TV via my Apple TV.

And while I use an ad blocker on the web and on my phone, it's not too bad on YouTube. They let you skip most ads after a few seconds, only forcing you to sit through every X number of them.. That seems fair enough for free content.

I'm also way more inclined to sit through an ad if it's presented during a long(ish)-form video that I'm interested in, rather than something I'm skimming past on Twitter (I'm not on Facebook).

I do hope they get smarter about figuring out where to insert them though (maybe creators can set suggestion markers?) because sometimes they show up at awkward times..

So yeah, anecdotal evidence of course, but based on how I consume video, what Conde Nast is doing makes a lot of sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com