Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Serial meets The X-Files in Limetown, a fictional podcast drawing raves after just one episode
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
Feb. 5, 2014, 1:43 p.m.
LINK: www.beet.tv  ➚   |   Posted by: Joshua Benton   |   February 5, 2014

Interested in the business of high-quality web video? There’s a lot of good stuff from Washington Post video GM Steven Schiffman in this Beet.TV interview about the Post’s broad-strokes strategy for the business side of video.

But maybe the most interesting piece is an idea Schiffman keeps coming back to: For video to be a really significant business for someone like the Post, the key missing ingredient is scale, both in number of videos produced and in number of viewers watching them.

Scale matters both because of the obvious CPM math — More Viewers = More Ad Impressions = More $$$ — and because many potential advertisers won’t bother to engage with a video publisher until the number of eyeballs it can offer reaches critical mass. And individual news organizations, even very good ones like the Post, have trouble producing enough videos and views to matter to advertisers. After hiring more than 30 new journalists to produce video and building a separate video brand, the Post now gets about 5 million video views a month. But as Schiffman says:

Right now, four or five million video starts — even 10, even 20 million monthly video starts is still not enough to make this a vibrant business for premium publishers to do what they need to do to create the type of content in the ecosystem.

So if you need scale, how do you get it? Schiffman throws out a few ideas, but he returns twice to the idea of a video consortium among top publishers:

Perhaps premium publishers, rather than going through very large aggregators, can create consortiums amongst themselves and work together to build aggregate news brands, in the case of The Washington Post and other premium publishers. That’s one idea.

[…]

There’s an opportunity to potentially partner with what might be seen in other industries as a competitor, where other premium publishers along with The Washington Post could band together and create a service that potentially could be very competitive and very valuable to media buyers and advertisers.

In other words, imagine if the Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Time Inc., and other top publishers decided to create a new unified, separate brand for all the high-quality video they produce. Videos could appear under that separate umbrella — what Hulu was for the networks whose content fed it — and they could also appear on publishers’ individual websites. So a great Times video could appear on washingtonpost.com and vice versa.

Maybe then you could then syndicate that total package to other, smaller news sites, with an ad rev share. The potential result would be more good video reaching more people, a pathway to much larger scale, and a way to increase time-on-site across all member publishers’ sites.

That’s an interesting idea! There’d be any number of hurdles to deal with — industry egos not least among them. Business ideas that can be pitched as “Hulu for X” or “iTunes for Y” don’t have the best track record. Other companies, like Watchup, are playing in the same territory; the CIR-led I Files tries do something similar in spirit, but limited to investigative reporting and hard news and set up as a YouTube channel rather than as an independent.

But Schiffman is talking about a very real problem: Producing quality video takes investments in staff and time, and getting people to watch the final product hasn’t been as successful as most news brands would like. If you want to improve the return on that investment, you need eyeballs, and it might be time to think of some nontraditional routes there.

Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
 
Join the 15,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Serial meets The X-Files in Limetown, a fictional podcast drawing raves after just one episode
“Serial had to stay nonfictional. At the end of the show, it didn’t necessarily mean that it had a conclusion. That’s the biggest advantage we have: We’re making it up. So we can give you an ending.”
The Atlantic is returning to blogging
“We missed the kind of writing it represents. We missed the kind of audience engagement it represents.”
The mourning of AJR is less about a decline in press criticism than the loss of an institution
Like the media it covers, journalism criticism has moved from the work of a few established institutions to something more diffuse.
What to read next
2351
tweets
The New York Times built a Slack bot to help decide which stories to post to social media
The bot, named Blossom, helps predict how stories will do on social and also suggests which stories editors should promote.
1287Jo Ellen Green Kaiser: Do independent news outlets have a blind spot when it comes to ethnic media?
The head of the Media Consortium argues that, by defining themselves in opposition to mainstream media, independent progressive outlets miss out on the power of ethnic and community journalism.
1029Newsonomics: 10 numbers on The New York Times’ 1 million digital-subscriber milestone
Digital subscribers are proving to be the bedrock of the Times’ business model going forward. How much more room is there for growth — and at what price points?
These stories are our most popular on Twitter over the past 30 days.
See all our most recent pieces ➚
Encyclo is our encyclopedia of the future of news, chronicling the key players in journalism’s evolution.
Here are a few of the entries you’ll find in Encyclo.   Get the full Encyclo ➚
National Review
Time
The Weekly Standard
Creative Commons
Vox Media
The Daily
El País
CBS News
Investigative News Network
Press+
Honolulu Civil Beat
Zonie Report