Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube: Our Primetime Audience Is Bigger Than the Top 10 TV Shows Combined (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the growing-trend dept.

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki: "Today, I'm happy to announce that on mobile alone YouTube now reaches more 18-49-year-olds than any network -- broadcast or cable. In fact, we reach more 18-49-year-olds during primetime than the top 10 TV shows combined. At a time when TV networks are losing audiences, YouTube is growing in every region and across every screen." Ben Popper, writing for The Verge: Those numbers are a bit vague. We don't know exactly how many people are watching, or whether any individual channel comes close to matching the reach of network TV programming. Most importantly, that doesn't break out what percentage of the audience is watching Google Preferred content, the pre-approved brand-safe stuff that nets big ad dollars, versus the long tail of cat videos and home movies that have steadily dwindling value. Still, it seemed clear that YouTube's clout was not lost on the agencies handling big budgets. Wojcicki used her time on stage to announce that Interpublic Group, one of the world's largest ad holding companies, planned to shift $250 million from traditional TV networks to YouTube over the next year.

46 comments

  1. That's because TV is for LUDDITES. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modern app appers watch apps using OTHER apps, like AppTube, NOT LUDDITE TVs!

    Apps!

    1. Re:That's because TV is for LUDDITES. by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      You know that TVs have appy apping apps these days itself as well?

  2. Oh good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Whereas the networks and cable are limited to time locked programming YouTube can serve up MILLIONS of shows immediately. It's not a fair comparison.

    Nor is it a fair comparison because 99.2% of them are cute animal videos being watched!

    I watched YouTube prime time last night - not because I felt like "Hey, let's see what's on YouTube" but because somebody had uploaded scenes from a 20 year old show that few people know about and fewer ever watched regularly. Did I watch that because of YouTube's super smart employees knowing to put that there? No. Did I watch that because YouTube recommended it to me? No. I would've preferred to watch the actual show but I was content with a VCR - digitized copy on YouTube.

    Susan Wojcicki seems to have forgotten that the people made it great and now she and google are trying to capitalize on their efforts much like Gracenote did with CDDB.

    1. Re:Oh good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whereas the networks and cable are limited to time locked programming.

      No they aren't. They chose that method of programming more than 60 years ago, when there was no other way to do it. And now they stubbornly stick to it despite being able to do things differently now.

    2. Re:Oh good grief... by Dadoo · · Score: 2

      YouTube can serve up MILLIONS of shows immediately. It's not a fair comparison.

      Completely irrelevant, if you're an advertiser. The only thing that matters is where the eyeballs are.

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
    3. Re:Oh good grief... by rsborg · · Score: 1

      Whereas the networks and cable are limited to time locked programming YouTube can serve up MILLIONS of shows immediately. It's not a fair comparison.

      It's only "not fair" because those networks choose to limit themselves this way to promote a select few shows.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    4. Re: Oh good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's fair. Most cable companies have on demand, it just sucks. The guide gets all wonky and slow when you go to the on demand menu, it's full of crap that you didn't even bother to DVR it when it came on, and the selection is very low. They also don't pay content creators as well as YouTube, or else there would be more.
      Too bad youtube's endgame plan is to become that.

    5. Re:Oh good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whereas the networks and cable are limited to time locked programming YouTube can serve up MILLIONS of shows immediately.

      So? Bo-hoo? Completely irrelevant.

      It's not a fair comparison.

      Ah. Bo-hoo, it is. Still completely irrelevant.

      Nor is it a fair comparison because 99.2% of them are cute animal videos being watched!

      [citation needed]

      I do watch a cute animal video now and then (because I like cute animals, duh) but the majority are non-mainstream music that I like, science and mathematics, and a bunch of other things.

  3. So tired of the 15 second ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    15 second ads for a couple of minutes of potentially uninteresting or poorly edited content seems excessive.

  4. I didn't realize cat videos were that popular by mykepredko · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The human race is doomed, Doomed, DOOMED!

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
    1. Re:I didn't realize cat videos were that popular by Livius · · Score: 1

      At the beginning of cinematic technology, the leading edge was a few minutes of poor-quality video on a screen smaller than the size of your hand. Cat videos were leading the way back then, too.

    2. Re:I didn't realize cat videos were that popular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dirty digger?

    3. Re:I didn't realize cat videos were that popular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After 10 years of youtube, the uploaders still haven't figured out that single camera angle videos are boring as hell for 5 minutes straight. Learn something about the techniques of film-making before uploading a video.

      And these types of videos are supposed to replace broadcast TV? Good luck with that. That's like saying /. is a replacement for novels.

    4. Re:I didn't realize cat videos were that popular by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Since you apparently know how to make better videos, I am sure your videos are top ranked on Youtube while generating millions of dollars for you to live off of.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  5. Makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the cost of YT Red + a decent pipe, I can watch a lot of content, no ads. For bang/buck for hourly entertainment, this is very hard to beat, especially for stuff that is off the beaten path, or just off-the-wall stuff like tossing junk onto a hydraulic press and see what squashes. There is also a lot of instructional stuff as well. For example, I managed to dig up a video on how to pull the carb on a generator that was having issues, clean it, and get it back together, having it all work.

    I don't bother watching TV... why do I want to spend my time watching ads for crap I don't want, and try to find shows that are worth watching. Between Youtube, Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon, the cord is cut.

  6. me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is the only one in universe never seen youtube who has computer and inet. never never.

  7. Simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is better? Watching YouTube during primetime or sex with a mare?

    I'm sure this post will be censored to -1 because Slashdot users don't want to admit they like having sex with mares.

  8. so, what you are saying is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Youtube releases a meaningless blurb, disguised as "news", and even though you seem to be aware of that total lack of content, you still deem it worthy enough to publish an article. ?

    This is what's wrong with news-sites. They rather post nothing about something now, than something about something later.

  9. How in the heck do that many people have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internet connections fast enough to watch YouTube without annoying and constant pauses? I live in the Seattle area, and I don't know anyone with a connection fast enough to do that.

    1. Re: How in the heck do that many people have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then move out of Seattle. I did, and I love having cable TV and Internet. Dialup in 2014 before I moved was just painful.

    2. Re: How in the heck do that many people have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Install youtube-dl. It's how I watch videos using my dialup connection.

    3. Re:How in the heck do that many people have... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      well Seattle is 'special' this way. The rest of us don't have this issue.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re:How in the heck do that many people have... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Have you tired a wired connection? Fixed my youTube speed issues. The amount of interference on Wi-fi in populated areas is a serious problem.

  10. The Young Turks rock by gQuigs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They have a YouTube Channel (with almost 3 million subscribers)
    https://www.youtube.com/user/T...

    And a whole network of channels
    https://www.tytnetwork.com/

    I really enjoyed the Open Debate they participated in
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  11. Translation: More Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay !

  12. shot across the bow by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    Earlier today, the FCC and Tom Wheeler finally gave the go-ahead for the merger between Time-Warner cable and Charter Communcations.

    The timing of the statement from Youtube is interesting; its a "shot across the bow" (a warning) IMHO directed towards the big content + delivery cartels. And Youtube may in fact win in the long run, just IMHO.

    --
    C|N>K
  13. All this proves is how many have no taste by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Most of the 'content' on YouTube is garbage, isn't it?
    We sure this didn't come from some North Korean knock-off of YouTube? Sure sounds like Best Korea flavor of bragging to me.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:All this proves is how many have no taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the 'content' on YouTube is garbage, isn't it?

      Yep. but most TV shows are garbage too so it isn't really hard to beat them.

      TV viewership has been declining for decades now and the channels are just now starting to panic, wondering why they don't get any new viewers.
      There will be attempts to drag in fresh blood with e-sports (Streamed gaming has more viewer minutes every month than superbowl has the entire season.) and other stuff, but both the video on demand format and the livestream with integrated chat is superior to traditional TV.

      So yes, YouTube content might be mostly garbage but it doesn't matter when everything else is worse.

    2. Re:All this proves is how many have no taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of just about everything is garbage. You need to be sophisticated enough to find the good stuff.

    3. Re:All this proves is how many have no taste by Livius · · Score: 1

      Most of the 'content' on YouTube is garbage, isn't it?

      I.e. better than most of what's on television. (With a few exceptions on both sides.)

    4. Re:All this proves is how many have no taste by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I know I'm probably feeding a troll by asking you this, but if 'everything is garbage' then how about you give a few examples of what YOU think is good?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    5. Re:All this proves is how many have no taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know I'm probably feeding a troll by asking you this, but if 'everything is garbage' then how about you give a few examples of what YOU think is good?

      You are the one who started by claiming that most stuff on YouTube was garbage. Doesn't that make you the troll, and doesn't that mean that it would be appropriate for you to start mentioning a few examples?

    6. Re:All this proves is how many have no taste by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      We are entirely sure you have something as simple to do as a podcast to show us made by yourself, right? OH! how about you create a video log teaching people to create av content. I'm sure linux has 100% of the toolset required to create TOTL content so whats limiting any of the people that bash youtube quality in here? Thats the point, if you think you can do better, you do, and people decide, if people don't know better you can blame education, education decided by those who you vote for, so, if anything, I blame *you* for the north koreization of youtube.

  14. It's crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even worse than TV shows.

  15. havent seen tv for almost 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and still get informed and seen the trending series

  16. Many TVstations tried to reach quality rock bottom by ffkom · · Score: 1

    ... but failed, because anyone with an IQ > 90 could working there just not imagine how incredibly stupid you need to make broadcasts to reach the masses of those who are either naturally

    But YouTube succeeded! Now you can choose between countless hours of totally senseless videos, way dumber than any game show or advertisement has ever been before! Now, at last, content is produced by the braindead, for the braindead!

  17. Good choice of words, Ben! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " ... the long tail of cat videos ..."

  18. Re:Many TVstations tried to reach quality rock bot by ffkom · · Score: 1

    (I have no idea why my above posting is missing half a sentence after "naturally". I typed it, Slashdot ate it.)

    ...either naturally under IQ 90 or are (due to sleep deprivation, alcohol or exhaustion) when they switch on television.

  19. Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > the pre-approved brand-safe stuff that nets big ad dollars, versus the long tail of cat videos and home movies that have steadily dwindling value.

    There's a lot of small channels in between that on youtube providing a lot of good quality, personable videos, that once I add all those together gives me a good number of hours per week of enjoyment to consume their content.

    1. Re: Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, check out "Numberphile"

  20. shitty french joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had sex with your mere last night.

  21. Or you could watch by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    any one of several excellent channels on game design like Extra Credits or Game history like Kim Justice.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  22. You seem to be confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry you thought this was a news site. No headlines break here. We are just here to discuss things.

  23. Re:Many TVstations tried to reach quality rock bot by crimson30 · · Score: 1

    YouTube will recommend shitty videos to you if you watch shitty videos.

    I suppose if you're just getting started, it will assume you're an idiot and recommend terrible content from the start; in which case, where were you around 2005-2006?

  24. Re:Many TVstations tried to reach quality rock bot by ffkom · · Score: 1

    (a) I of course do not allow Youtube to associate me with a previous session - that's what "self destructing cookies" are for. (b) I have never clicked on a video "recommendation" from Youtube. But I have taken a look at videos that were referenced as particularily successful by other media, and that was sad enough...

  25. Typical evening for a lifetime gamer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I get home from work I do the following:
    -Get undressed
    -Use the bathroom
    -Make dinner
    -Watch Youtube videos from the channels I subscribe to (Red subscriber for zero ads)
    -Watch GiantBomb videos and listen to BombCast/BeastCast (Premium member for zero ads and access to Premium-only videos)
    -Watch Twitch streams from streamers I follow (Turbo subscriber for zero ads)

    Certain days, usually weekends, I also watch the following using an AppleTV:
    -Watch PBS shows (Passport subscriber for access to back-catalog)
    -Watch HBO shows and movies (HBO Now subscriber)
    -Watch Crackle shows and movies (would subscribe for zero ads if they would offer it)

    I "cut the cord" 10 years ago and never looked back. The extent to which I watch any regular television are shows I watch on AppleTV. I don't bother with Hulu or Netflix since their content doesn't interest me (too similar to mainstream television.) Any exposure I get to new shows is usually the result of visiting my brother over the Holidays since he just torrents the F out of everything. If Aereo had succeeded in offering broadcast TV over the Internet for $10-$15 a month I would have signed up for that since there are some PBS shows and a local channel that have content not available via AppleTV or via any kind of direct subscription. I'm not going to pay $39 for a service like Playstation Vue which doesn't carry that same content either. As it stands, the only cable channel I would pay a monthly subscription for service similar to HBO Now for would be Comedy Central. Don't care about Sports, don't care about fake reality TV shows, don't care about CNN/Fox/MSNBC/etc..., and most certainly don't care about ABC/CBS/NBC/UPN/WB/etc... nothing but crap for the stupid masses.