RE: Pay per view: PH Blog
Discussion
Good luck with the venture. I'll be signing up and hoping it doesn't go the same way Drivers Republic did.
I'm not sure about the wisdom of declaring costs to make videos - it just opens the door for people who aren't investing their own real time and money into similar ventures to speculate on how easy (or not) it is to make millions (or nothing) through charging for content.
I just ask one thing: Please don't get drawn into the "Flashy, big budget video" game. Whilst the example of the expensive F40/50 video is being quoted, I personally enjoyed the P1 tech talk (geek fest) and Singer Porsche videos far more and would love to see more of the same. Bonus of course being they're cheaper than thrashing supercars round a track!
More expensive doesn't always mean better!
Looking forward to the videos
I'm not sure about the wisdom of declaring costs to make videos - it just opens the door for people who aren't investing their own real time and money into similar ventures to speculate on how easy (or not) it is to make millions (or nothing) through charging for content.
I just ask one thing: Please don't get drawn into the "Flashy, big budget video" game. Whilst the example of the expensive F40/50 video is being quoted, I personally enjoyed the P1 tech talk (geek fest) and Singer Porsche videos far more and would love to see more of the same. Bonus of course being they're cheaper than thrashing supercars round a track!
More expensive doesn't always mean better!
Looking forward to the videos
Chris Harris said:
This is a business that has proved the model developed by YT doesn't work for more expensively produced content. Much as I like you all, why would I keep spending my own money creating videos that lose money?
Nobody really expects that, I hope.So, the problem seems to be YT's greed?
Sounds a bit like what Bernie is doing to F1. The content is good, but the wrong people get the money.
That's why I wonder how much they let you keep of the subscription fee. For me, that's one important factor in deciding to sub or not.
No better paying platform available? The core tech for delivering vids is trivial nowadays.
Chris Harris said:
I suppose deep-down I've become saddened that my wider industry has found itself in a position where its output is considered worthless. That good content should just swirl around for free because, well, that's what the internet is all about.
Personally, I think e.g. your piece on the 962 alone (long live Norbert!) is easily worth a yearly sub fee. I'd very happily pay that if:
a) I actually could (I'm in Germany and at the moment: no go)
b) I could do it without giving my credit card and personal details to Google.
Regarding the expectations: no surprise it is the way it is. People, in general, aren't discerning. So they'd rather have the free low quality content (of which there is enough out there) than the costly stuff. Especially if paying is made even in the slightest way inconvenient.
The question now: is the niche audience big enough to support the model.
Dunno.
Viel Glück!
b14 said:
Chris, I love your videos, and will probably subscribe (depending on price), but it's difficult for me to reconcile this with all the stories about your many expensive cars - leases on FFs, shiny Range Rovers, M3 rally cars, 2CVs, M5s, 512TRs, etc etc.
I know, you aren't going to personally fund the Drive videos and I get that, but you many need to manage this perception in order to avoid a negative view on this story.
I tend to agree. Nobody should expect anyone to work for free, but similarly the pricing needs to be fair and no-one should make excessive profit. I stopped reading EVO because it became all about the expensive cars the editorial team were driving and it felt like the high cost of the magazine maybe delivering excessive profits. It was once about the thrill of driving then it became about the thrill of owning expensive cars.I know, you aren't going to personally fund the Drive videos and I get that, but you many need to manage this perception in order to avoid a negative view on this story.
The key thing is perception though... I don't know how profitable EVO was, but I do know how much money it costs to own those cars. Perception was 2+2=4.
I don't begrudge anyone being successful, but there's a fine line between profit and excessive profit.
I love the CH drive videos and I'm happy to pay for great content, but the rest of drive wasn't for me. I'm not sure I can justify the cost for the bits I like which is a damn shame.
Edited by parsot on Wednesday 30th July 22:42
I would like some more transparency here. YouTube funded the first 2 years so CH had the most enjoyable time of his life for free?
Now he want us to pay for him to keep having the time of your life?
In the business model, how much is used to fund the videos and how much goes to the people behind the scenes?
Personally, I think whoever allowed this to be advertised on PH should be ashamed. Any post on the forums deemed to be advertising is deleted. One rule for us, another for CH?
How much of the subscription goes to PH?
No thanks.
Now he want us to pay for him to keep having the time of your life?
In the business model, how much is used to fund the videos and how much goes to the people behind the scenes?
Personally, I think whoever allowed this to be advertised on PH should be ashamed. Any post on the forums deemed to be advertising is deleted. One rule for us, another for CH?
How much of the subscription goes to PH?
No thanks.
Ryanodine said:
Personally, I think whoever allowed this to be advertised on PH should be ashamed. Any post on the forums deemed to be advertising is deleted. One rule for us, another for CH?
Every single story posted in the news section of this website by PH themselves is in essence advertising. So yes, there is one rule for them and another for us.They post all sorts of videos to this website from Bridge to Gantry and others.
Fag packet calc ..
Over the three years they have had 193 million views @ £2.50 cost per thousand
= £483,000 estimated rev from advertising.
In the future three years they need to generate 19300 subscribers at £24.99 to generate the same out of revenue at the last.
Unless Chris Harris is a business partner in this it's a bad move for his career to limit his exposure.
Over the three years they have had 193 million views @ £2.50 cost per thousand
= £483,000 estimated rev from advertising.
In the future three years they need to generate 19300 subscribers at £24.99 to generate the same out of revenue at the last.
Unless Chris Harris is a business partner in this it's a bad move for his career to limit his exposure.
Don't see this as a good idea. Many people will get pissed, free content won't be interesting (3-4 min, really? You know that there's other free content on YouTube, don't you) and best of the videos will be pirated anyways.
Issue #1 - some people only want to see Chris or only some of his videos, they won't pay for the whole package when they'd watch 1/4... Plus only those videos cost real money, not those when you sit and talk...
Issue #2 - I'm not the only one who has noticed that Chris is not the same Chris from the few years back, with Ferraris etc. - and its an issue cause soon he may stop being that 'average dude who loves cars but can't afford them so we like him and imagine ourselves being him', not that I want him to be poor but when you ask for money, you gotta be authentic. This sounds mean but I dont mean it in a bad way, its marketing, its who he is. Average bloke who gets to drive cars we all want to drive - part of that image is that he is "lucky" and "like one of us".
Issue #3 - costs, those are crazy. You can film those cars in your backyard, who cares. No one wants to pay you for 'plane tickets'. In other words, IMO you are trying to go toooo big.
Issue #4 - your presentation, webpage in particular. If you ask this kind of money, you need to offer MUCH more, pictures, wallpapers, discussion on forums (with presenter himself), other info blablabla, these are just first that pop in my head, you just need to DELIVER.
Issue #1 - some people only want to see Chris or only some of his videos, they won't pay for the whole package when they'd watch 1/4... Plus only those videos cost real money, not those when you sit and talk...
Issue #2 - I'm not the only one who has noticed that Chris is not the same Chris from the few years back, with Ferraris etc. - and its an issue cause soon he may stop being that 'average dude who loves cars but can't afford them so we like him and imagine ourselves being him', not that I want him to be poor but when you ask for money, you gotta be authentic. This sounds mean but I dont mean it in a bad way, its marketing, its who he is. Average bloke who gets to drive cars we all want to drive - part of that image is that he is "lucky" and "like one of us".
Issue #3 - costs, those are crazy. You can film those cars in your backyard, who cares. No one wants to pay you for 'plane tickets'. In other words, IMO you are trying to go toooo big.
Issue #4 - your presentation, webpage in particular. If you ask this kind of money, you need to offer MUCH more, pictures, wallpapers, discussion on forums (with presenter himself), other info blablabla, these are just first that pop in my head, you just need to DELIVER.
Edited by FunTomCZ on Wednesday 30th July 23:26
Edited by FunTomCZ on Thursday 31st July 00:00
I enjoy /DRIVE, but I, like a lot of other people, have a few concerns that perhaps only a viewer (not a content creator) can address.
The first of those is that a lot of your content is geared towards the US. That's fine in principal, but that content just does not appeal to me. Reading this thread reveals that I am not alone in this opinion, and that anything other than Chris Harris on Cars is passed by. That's fine when the content is free, but when it then becomes 'premium' it means that we're only eking out 1/3 (assuming CH on Cars totals 1/3 of your videos) of the premium that I'm asked to pay - the other 2/3 is wasted on series that most of us don't watch. I'm essentially throwing £16.33 away in this case and whilst it isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things (or in relation to the content provided) it is wasting money. Would you put £5 down the drain because it's a relatively small amount?
The second concern is that the 'premium' model doesn't actually add anything extra, or premium to the experience - it may have been more warmly received if it did because then we, as consumers, are paying for something quantifiably different from what came before. Perhaps gradually weening content off of /DRIVE and onto + would have been more advantageous, as then the rug hasn't been pulled out from underneath us in one fell swoop.
We understand that this content needs to find funding from somewhere but at present I think people are treating it like being given a free meal, only to have it taken off you at the first bite and price slapped on it.
I don't mind paying for quality content and after my free trial is up I will more than likely subscribe. What I feel it is important to mention though is that to really see the adoption rates rise you're going have to offer more unique content that actually makes being a subscriber worth it beyond continuing to watch your full length videos.
The first of those is that a lot of your content is geared towards the US. That's fine in principal, but that content just does not appeal to me. Reading this thread reveals that I am not alone in this opinion, and that anything other than Chris Harris on Cars is passed by. That's fine when the content is free, but when it then becomes 'premium' it means that we're only eking out 1/3 (assuming CH on Cars totals 1/3 of your videos) of the premium that I'm asked to pay - the other 2/3 is wasted on series that most of us don't watch. I'm essentially throwing £16.33 away in this case and whilst it isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things (or in relation to the content provided) it is wasting money. Would you put £5 down the drain because it's a relatively small amount?
The second concern is that the 'premium' model doesn't actually add anything extra, or premium to the experience - it may have been more warmly received if it did because then we, as consumers, are paying for something quantifiably different from what came before. Perhaps gradually weening content off of /DRIVE and onto + would have been more advantageous, as then the rug hasn't been pulled out from underneath us in one fell swoop.
We understand that this content needs to find funding from somewhere but at present I think people are treating it like being given a free meal, only to have it taken off you at the first bite and price slapped on it.
I don't mind paying for quality content and after my free trial is up I will more than likely subscribe. What I feel it is important to mention though is that to really see the adoption rates rise you're going have to offer more unique content that actually makes being a subscriber worth it beyond continuing to watch your full length videos.
Chris Harris said:
I don't have any of the answers old bean. I'm just trying something new. The YT SVOD hardware works on subscriptions, that's what we have to use. Clearly you don't think the videos are worth squat, I have to believe they are or I wouldn't bother getting up in the morning.
You might be proved right, but at least we're having a go.
Worth a lot more than the formulaic crap Topgear has been producing for decades, and those boys are on obscene amounts of money. Television will be your real income stream if you can get the viewing figures. Jay Leno seems to sing your praises so why don't you chaps make an appearance on his show or do a little collaboration on his YT channel? Best way to get new viewers in the US I think. You might be proved right, but at least we're having a go.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff