Sunday, April 17, 2016

Post TV and Making Web Series apart from Netflix &Hulu

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/louis-ck-horace-and-pete-ends-1201755083/

So since we are talking about Post Television this week, I figured I should post an article about television outside of broadcast and cable and even Netflix and Hulu which can be considered channels in its own way.  Whether it is Youtube or personal websites, creators post entire series for fans to consume for free, hoping to become noticed, make money from advertisements, or  through their own merchandise. In the example I am posting, here is an already established celebrity posting a web series online.  In the case of people who create series without relying on star power, their focus is to gain a strong fan viewership so that the show can gain traction, but for some reason, Louis CK, although clearly holding a fanbase, did not have enough viewership to warrant a successful production.  Perhaps it is because his program was sold on his own site, and when it is not available on Netflix or free, it is really easy to say, "well I ain't paying for that".  Not sure really why his didn't become successful - I mean he did not really market anything - but nonetheless it is very interesting to take note of.  ( I am honestly hoping it becomes available for free or on a streaming site I am already paying for).  Transactional Video on Demand just seems so excessive, no?

5 comments:

  1. No disrespect to Louis C.K. but I can't say I'm surprised that the web series ended. I didn't know about it until now but the fact that viewers would have to pay per episode seems a bit much. I think our society has gotten accustomed to feeling they are getting their money's worth through a subscription or a free site rather than paying per episode. I'm sure it would've been a great series but maybe having it picked up by a OTT or putting it on YouTube or Vimeo would've been an option. The Misadventures of Awkward Black Girl was a miniseries on YouTube that did pretty well for awhile. He could've had something similar and bigger especially with his name attached to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the web series didn't end because of viewership; it ended because it reached the end of its story. I was conceived as a one-off sorta thing. As for it being a success or not, now that the show is done and he's selling it in its entirety, most writers seem to think that he'll reach ultimately reach profitability not to mention various awards the show may garner come Emmy season. K going into debt to fund the show isn't rare for a show because of the debt, but because he funded it out of pocket. This is not to say that it may not be seen as a failure down the line (personally, I adored the show), but it's simply too early to tell.

      Delete
  2. Interesting article, Ray. It made me think about what we heard in our business class about the experiment with YouTube Red, and the tendency of streaming platform to charge for better services. You said -- and I agree -- creators make their web series available for free to get their work noticed, but what happen when they are already famous? If YouTube is relying on partnerships with famous youtubers to make people purchase their content, do you think in a long term we won't be able to access any popular video for free? I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that it kind of subverts the first purpose of YouTube, the free sharing of videos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Your question also brings up another one, which is whether there's really such thing as the "free" sharing of videos. User-produced content on “free” sites like YouTube becomes that platform’s core asset, its source of advertising revenue, and eventually its brand (through the willful moderation of content by users). In that sense, users still might be laborers – just unpaid ones. So even while labor is being used and capitalized, the idea of a “free” video-sharing site persists.

      Delete