Why Silicon Valley and Hollywood Don’t Get Each Other

http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2012/11/05/why-silicon-valley-and-hollywood-dont-get-each-other-and-who-will-win-the-future/

by dmor • 14 years ago

27 14 14 years ago

bothsidesofthetable.com

allbombs2• 14 years ago

Where does your 5.3 stat come from? I've heard that number recycled, but never confirmed the actual source of the report

shalmanese2• 14 years ago

Nielson: http://nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports-downloads/2012/the...

allbombs2• 14 years ago

thank you

will need to dig up the latest report as that one is almost 1 year old

doctorpangloss4• 14 years ago

An aside: I work between Hollywood and tech companies in Cambridge, MA.

But many of our videos get predictable traffic like this Gates vs. Jobs rap battle at 33 million views (and climbing) or my favorite Mr. T vs. Mr. Rogers at 36 million.

He lost me at "predictable." If an audience's taste is so predictable, go get funding for a multi-million dollar blockbuster. I think all he has shown is that he is lucky: that anyone can bruteforce various kinds of cheap content cheaply, but his bruteforcing just happened to hit the right tone.

You can A/B test your videos, your copy, your thumbnail images.

Nevermind that A/B testing is hilariously inefficient (ANOVA anyone?) and virtually impossible for creative content (what, are you going to permute individual lines in a ninety page script?). Hollywood has statisticians. Focus groups and audience testing has been going on for decades. Web distribution expands your population size, but it also greatly increases the variables to control. If it were as easy as he says, then of course there would be truly data-driven content by now.

And video views now produced and managed by these 5 companies totals more than 4 BILLION per month. With a B.

But who's paying for that content?

Hollywood looks at YouTube and says, "Ok, what does content funded by Google's auction adwords ads look like? Oh, it looks like those link farm websites, which is precisely exactly content paid entirely by auctioned ads."

Don't we want something cooler than literally spam?

One could point to Hulu and say, perfect platform. But there is no original Hulu content. It is still largely funded by cable ads. And Hulu's profitability depends entirely on how an owner like Disney values the free broadcast licenses Disney gives Hulu. If Hulu had to pay for its shows, it would be deep in the hole.

But I digress. Data-driven content works for Wikipedia one-line banner ads. It isn't going to work for video longer than 30 seconds for a very, very long time.

doctorpangloss4• 14 years ago

I guess what Silicon Valley doesn't get about Hollywood is that you can't program a good TV show. Period, full stop.

noelwelsh3• 14 years ago

I'm with you on A/B testing being hilariously inefficient (and have founded a startup to do better: http://mynaweb.com) but I disagree you can't test creative content. There are two things:

1. Delivering content in movie or TV episode sized chunks is an artefact of inefficient distribution mechanisms. Smaller units of content are easier to test, easier to produce, and less risk if they tank.

2. Any script contains numerous decisions. You can test the main ones. It's viable to do this if you aren't making big bets on big chunks of contents.

doctorpangloss4• 14 years ago

I'm not sure if content chunking is an artifact of inefficient distribution mechanisms. It would be impossible to tell the Illiad through tweets, for example, for anything other than an intellectual exercise. But to be less radical, consider that there don't really exist ads longer than 1 minute.

Content dictates length, not the other way around...

brianchu• 14 years ago

I'd agree that there is a large opportunity in direct-to-online distribution of original video content.

But I think the article is somewhat overselling the content aspect. The article gives two examples of "hits" from Maker Studios: both are funny rap videos that clock in at less then 3 minutes. These are great videos - viral, easily digestible, and they've gotten tens of millions of views. But ultimately they're just a quick diversion for me; there isn't the sort of deep engagement that you would see with a 60 minute TV show (45 minutes with commercials).

interg12• 14 years ago

Mark Suster is one of the most compelling VCs in the business and is worth following closely. His blog is pure substance too.

kijin• 14 years ago

> But here's what Silicon Valley doesn’t get about Hollywood: No matter how much it bothers you, people do like to entertain themselves with a "lean back" experience. As humans we like story telling. And we like to be entertained.

Spot on. I'll bookmark this and link to it every time I hear somebody claim that books and movies are dead because gaming (or whatever interactive technology they're currently into) is so much better.

Yes, I am fully aware that if you play a game, you can actually be the hero instead of simply following the hero, and you can actually write a story instead of simply consuming somebody else's. But does this mean that the future of entertainment is going to be all interactive? No, I don't feel like blowing shit up myself tonight, I want to sit back and watch Bruce Willis blow shit up.

Why Silicon Valley and Hollywood Don’t Get Each Other

Related Stories