1. YouTube Exits The Original Content Game
Six years after it launched its original programming division, bringing on Lifetime’s Susanne Daniels to run what was originally going to be a Netflix challenger (maybe), Google announced both Daniels’ departure and the end of the division.
The official reason given was that YouTube wanted to devote more of the money it makes from the ad-free YouTube Premium subscription to creators and creator content.
In lieu of flowers, mourners can subscribe to Netflix and watch Cobra Kai.
Why It Matters
Remember GooglePlus?
That was the social media platform Google launched back in 2011. You needed an invitation to join at first and it was the New New Thing for about 20 minutes.
Then Google seemingly got bored of it or otherwise distracted and moved on to something else, leaving GooglePlus, which had a decent amount of buzz at first along with some useful and popular features, to wither on the vine.
Leopards don’t change their spots.
Remember when "The Interview," that Seth Rogen/James Franco movie about North Korea, debuted on YouTube in 2014 and people were surprised to learn that YouTube actually had a sizable number of movies for rent or sale? Would you be surprised to learn they still do?
Leopards don’t change their spots.
Google launched their original programming division with all good intentions, and even had a hit with "Cobra Kai," the Karate Kid spinoff.
And then they moved on, the latest example of what I’ve been calling “Google Magpie Syndrome” — the need to always chase after the next bright shiny object.
Now you can argue that YouTube was never a great vehicle for original content, but the truth is "Cobra Kai" wasn’t their only successful original. Showtime’s "On Becoming a God In Central Florida" and Starz’s "Step Up" both had their debuts on YouTube.
They then, of course, pivoted to making unscripted programming, none of which really clicked, and now they’re shutting it down.
The one thing YouTube never did, or didn’t do a whole lot of, which I always found curious, was to try and transition some of their more popular creators to scripted programming. (I mean they had tried that with YouTube Red at one point, but I’m thinking more like actual network-quality scripted programming, not “Scare PewDiePie.”)
YouTube doesn’t need to challenge Netflix to be successful, and given the massive costs of the current content war, the decision was likely a wise one, as the division was going nowhere.
Still, it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if they had tried, and actually managed to get something going. If nothing else, a tie-in with an original content division and their YouTube TV vMVPD would have presented a compelling counterweight to Hulu + Live TV.
What You Need To Do About It
If you’re Google, you still might think about that idea above—taking your top creators and seeing if any of them actually fit into a standard scripted show. Given that Disney’s no doubt already got eyes on many of them, you might as well try something too. (Maybe a co-production deal with Viacom’s Nickelodeon?)
That, and don’t do the magpie thing with YouTube TV. People seem to really like it and vMVPDs will continue to keep on growing for the next while so it’s a solid revenue stream.
Oh, and while you’re at it, maybe promote the fact that people can rent movies from YouTube every once in a while. Seems like a massively untapped revenue stream, given that the YouTube app is on so many smart TVs and connected devices.
Final bit of advice: those “upgrade to YouTube premium” offers you show me Every Single Time I watch a YouTube video? At this point they are so annoying you’d have to pay me a five digit figure to sign up.
If you’re Susanne Daniels—best of luck on whatever comes next. You did an amazing job creating something from nothing and that’s no easy feat.
If you’re one of the other Flixes—breathe a small sigh of relief. Google and its billions are no longer a potential competitor.
2. Banning Surveillance Advertising Act Takes On Silicon Valley
In a move that could be far more devastating to the digital ad industry than the Death of Cookies, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) introduced a wide-ranging bill this week, dubbed the Banning Surveillance Advertising Act.
The proposed bill bans advertisers from targeting consumers based on “personal information” which they define as data “linked or reasonably linkable to an individual or connected device” including “contents of communications” (e.g. email), internet browsing history, and “unique identifiers” (cookies and ad IDs). It also prohibits advertisers from targeting ads to members of protected classes (race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation.) And finally, it shuts the door on getting around the above by buying said data from third parties.
While it is unclear what odds the bill might have of passing in its current form, lobbyists from Facebook and Google are no doubt donning their battle armor and the IAB has already termed the proposed legislation “devastating.”
Why It Matters
It should be clear from the language of the bill that it is designed to be a great big slap in the face to Google and Facebook. (Because really, who else targets people based on the content of their email?)
The disastrous hearings the tech companies had last fall, coupled with the testimony of the “Facebook Whistleblower” have given this sort of legislation much impetus, and it’s easy to see numerous Republicans piling on, as “bashing big tech” promises to be as popular an issue as cutting taxes.
On a more practical note, the bill highlights some of the lesser known (to the average person) but fairly insidious tracking techniques the tech giants use, which may also help it to win support.
On the other hand, there are all those lobbyists.
What You Need To Do About It
If you are Iris.TV, GumGum or another company involved in creating a market for contextual advertising, rejoice! This could be a big win for you and, if nothing else, will immediately get marketers to start paying much closer attention to what you’ve been preaching. (NB: Contextual advertising, e.g., advertising targeted based on the type of viewer the content is likely to attract, is allowed under the bill, as is location-based targeting, e.g., targeting residents based on zip code or similar.)
If you are the television industry, this is good news for you as well, given that you have no way of reading people’s emails and all that. And TV shows, with their large audiences, lend themselves to contextual ads far more readily than websites.
OTOH, as Qonsent founder (and OG TVREV-er) Jesse Redniss notes, “you will also want to think through how you are using device IDs and IP addresses from the OEMs and set top boxes to ensure that you are targeting consumers who have given consent to have those identifiers used for advertising purposes. Otherwise, you’ll be just like Google and Facebook.” (Not to mention a target for future legislation.)
If you are Google and Facebook, realize that this is just the first volley of the first battle you will be fighting with Congress over the next decade(s). You have no one but yourselves to blame, Facebook in particular, so give those lobbyists some extra “Likes.”
They’re going to need them.