RE: Pay per view: PH Blog

[renaultgeek]

V8 FOU said:

If you think it is too expensive, then carry on watching the endless dire TG repeats on Dave etc.

I think people will do that, and it will kill drive. Chris' videos only get the millions of views because they are free. Top gear only has millions of viewers because it's part of something that's hard to get out of paying for. Most people I know who know who CH is who aren't on pistonheads know him via Youtube searches for the cars, not his name.

Just because Youtube is fleecing Drive, there are better ways of making money that getting people to commit to paying a subscription

[collierrufus]

The Crack Fox said:

collierrufus said:

With reference to this, has anyone seen Harry Metcalfe's twitter and car collection?? Here is one of the veterans of the auto media trade who has earned quite a lifestyle and collection of cars

I might be wrong, but I thought Harry made his money in farming before getting into publishing?

He may well have done, but he also sold Evo for a healthy sum from what I have read. My point is begrudging people making money for providing a great product is churlish and if we all held that thinking then there would be no decent products and services anywhere let alone car journalism. I think people should have more respect for the likes of Chris working hard and coming up with ways of earning the cars we presumably all dream of owning by doing something that he loves.

[TheAntics]

steve_n said:

£24.99 a year is too much based on the numbers outlined. All of a sudden this has the opportunity to turn into a multi-million pound pocket liner when all it would take to support the costs of these shoots is say £1 per person per year.

This is a shame as I really like Chris's work, there's nothing else quite like it as most other journos who try to do the same thing are simply too annoying to listen to!

I disagree....after a very quick look Drive channel produces c.8 videos per month (it varies but looks about right on average) this is across the various program formats, not just Harris videos.

Using the only info we have let's use £9k costs as an average cost per program. As described £9k only just covers costs for Chris so it seems fair.

That's £72k per month or £864,000 per year. Let's call the subscription £25 for the sake of argument.

Drive needs 34,560 subscribers to make this work. The current viewing figures do not represent future subscribers numbers as it is currently free content. I'd be interested to know what proportion of viewers they expect to convert to subscribers. If I was looking at it my guess would be 34K would be exceptionally difficult to gain.

One positive thing about monetising the channel would mean that each video would need to earn it's keep. I personally rarely enjoy the other content and mainly only view harris on cars. If Harris videos prove to be more popular generally then you would expect more of them to be made at the expense of the other poorly viewed content.

[famfarrow]

VladD said:

I have to disagree here. Chris's personal situation is irrelevant. Being a motoring journalist is his job and his living. He's not going to do all of this at a loss just to keep the viewers happy. We don't expect to get Evo magzine free because some of the employees own supercars. Same thing in my opinion.

Good luck Chris, I hope it goes well.

Totally agree with you VladD. I think it's a good idea Chris, the video's are reliably entertaining and fulfilling for petrol(piston) heads. I wish you all the best in this.

Edited by famfarrow on Wednesday 30th July 13:47

[TobesH]

I'm in, can't see what the fuss is about, pays your money, take your choice... the videos are fantastic and if on subscription, more of the same...

On another note perhaps Chris should change his name to Stampy Cat Long Nose

[Porkie]

Love Chris's work and will definitely be subscribing.

[sato]

TheAntics said:

I disagree....after a very quick look Drive channel produces c.8 videos per month (it varies but looks about right on average) this is across the various program formats, not just Harris videos.

Using the only info we have let's use £9k costs as an average cost per program. As described £9k only just covers costs for Chris so it seems fair.

Quite a few of those 8 videos a month are just two Americans sat in front of a laptop talking.

[TomSpecs]

jaik said:

£25 per year is nothing if the quality of the content is what it's been so far. Count me in.

Exactly.

A little over £2 a month for Musto, Farrah and Harris (Even Leo!). Count me in!!!!

Subscribed this morning, but i expected a load of people moaning about how everything should be free so this thread doesn't suprise.
Fact is if you want good content or want to change the face of TV you'll need to pay for it.

I refuse to pay for SKY as its so saturated with adverts its unwatchable

It would be nice if JF balanced the US/EU stuff out a smidge and youtube need to roll out paid subs to more territories, but thats a minor complaint.

Forgot Spinelli's hair. Thats worth £3 a month. Can we have a separate channel?

Edited by TomSpecs on Wednesday 30th July 13:45

[swimd]

mike-r said:

VladD said:

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 have to disagree here. Chris's personal situation is irrelevant. Being a motoring journalist is his job and his living. He's not going to do all of this at a loss just to keep the viewers happy. We don't expect to get Evo magzine free because some of the employees own supercars. Same thing in my opinion.

Good luck Chris, I hope it goes well.

It's not entirely irrelevant, 'We have to pay me X, so the videos cost X+1, I won't get out of bed for X-1'. Obviously we don't have any figures, but my heart doesn't exactly bleed for inflated production costs if the host rocks up in an FF and needs his expenses paying.

I didn’t want to be "that guy" to point this out but I agree... it looks a bit funny when the author posts his monthly £4000 bills for his Ferrari on here and one week later asks for forgiveness because the business can’t make ends meet anymore.

We will see what happens when subscribers see that most of the content will be NBC re-runs like the recent monaco special, not the "old" content they expect. (this guy from smoking tire hinted at this on his twitter)

[btdk5]

TVRinBFG said:

Chris - I really love your videos but there is too much free content out there to watch, so I wouldn't sign up.

I understand that the F40/F50 video at Angelsey cost £9,000 to shoot, and so far has had two million views, grossing just £4,800. But presumably the number of views will continue to grow and eventually like the McLaren P1 video will racked up over 3.6 million; and so eventually be in profit? And then, as you say, cheap to make videos like the McLaren one, make a profit for the expensive to make ones like the F40/F50?

Good luck with the new venture though.

Edited to add: You make brilliant films Chris, I am sure the BBC/ITV/C4/C5 etc will be calling on you soon.

Edited by TVRinBFG on Wednesday 30th July 13:36

Can you let me know what decent free content is still out there?? I can't seem to find it....

Another vote for the option of pay per view.

[sisu]

I think most of these punters saying the equivalent of a pint of beer every month.
I mean FFS this isn't as though they are asking you to offset the depreciation of a brand new Ferrari FF. Chris I will happily sign up for the full year full monty and if we can crowd fund or donate larger amounts then show us where. Sounds like there are a bunch of free loading old men here.

[possibletowel]

I'm in. Its really not that much for what was -and surely will be- excellent content.

However, does anyone know if the subscribers have to wait the week after the videos are on nbc sports or do both come out simultaneously?

I'd say the television company put a clause in the contract saying they(Drive/j.f) had to wait a certain amount of time before they are allowed to go up but I would much prefer if they came out at the same time.

[Watcha]

I will probably subscribe, but will be annoyed if they don't do all they can to protect the media, it sure will grate if you can watch it elsewhere for free a few weeks later.

Also I cant help thinking that it would be better value if I gained enjoyment from the other DRIVE videos. On the whole I found them underwhelming (factory visits/insights aside) and towards the end of last year I would only ever tune in to watch Monkey.

[Muzzer79]

mike-r said:

VladD said:

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 have to disagree here. Chris's personal situation is irrelevant. Being a motoring journalist is his job and his living. He's not going to do all of this at a loss just to keep the viewers happy. We don't expect to get Evo magzine free because some of the employees own supercars. Same thing in my opinion.

Good luck Chris, I hope it goes well.

It's not entirely irrelevant, 'We have to pay me X, so the videos cost X+1, I won't get out of bed for X-1'. Obviously we don't have any figures, but my heart doesn't exactly bleed for inflated production costs if the host rocks up in an FF and needs his expenses paying.

Are you therefore suggesting that the host, who has done well for himself and chosen to buy nice cars, should pay his own expenses and do his job for free??

I find this attitude stunning. A video costs what it costs to make. Those costs need to be recovered and if charging for it is the only way, those who want to watch will need to fork out.

To suggest that it should be cheaper/free because the host has a few quid is nuts.

[TomSpecs]

Poor people make terrible content.

[zeppelin101]

swimd said:

I didn’t want to be "that guy" to point this out but I agree... it looks a bit funny when the author posts his monthly £4000 bills for his Ferrari on here and one week later asks for forgiveness because the business can’t make ends meet anymore.

We will see what happens when subscribers see that most of the content will be NBC re-runs like the recent monaco special, not the "old" content they expect. (this guy from smoking tire hinted at this on his twitter)

But that's the point it's the business that can't make ends meet - presumably the hosts aren't necessarily in the same position. We don't know the individuals financial situation, Harris may well have paid for his car habit out of money that is not involved with Drive at all. It really doesn't matter, what he is saying is that the business is not sustainable as a free service due to the costs involved in making videos. Should they be expected to finance it themselves and make a loss "for the love of it"? There is only so far that an individuals interest in a topic goes where they are happy to finance it themselves with no reward when providing so much to others. That isn't a business model, it's financial suicide.

Without knowing all the financial breakdown (we've been given the merest of snap shots here) how can you comment on whether the subscription is inflated or not? If the aim is to make it profitable and the expectation is that a high %age of people who have watched before will "leave" on the desire of wanting free content, then the cost is probably there or thereabouts.

What also isn't taken into account in the number of views is how many times have they been watched more than once by the same person for whatever reason? You can bet that 3 million + views is not 3 million individuals watching that video.

Only time will tell.

[FrankCayman]

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.

Perhaps you'd like to know how much Chris owes on his mortgage? Perhaps a complete breakdown of his personal accounts - how much he gets paid for his various freelance work/racing etc before you decide if you're to give him your business??

I know 'profit' is a dirty word in this increasingly 'anti capitalist' country, but anyone with half a brain surely realises you have to make money on these things?

[SiGainey]

I'd be ok with a subscription service, but only for the content that's interesting. Chris' videos are always good, yet to see a bad one, but some of the other /DRIVE channel presenters are utter trash in my opinion. There's Matt Farah, whose videos are just a total turn off to me, I feel patronised and then there's Mike Spinelli who bores the daylights outta me and dont even get me started on Leo Parente. There's also a heavy bias towards the septics as shown by "What Are The Best AWD Cars You Can Buy For Under $30,000?"

On the other hand, there's innovative stuff such as '/MY LIFE as a RALLYIST' which was excellent, with the self-proclaimed amateur Ryan Symancek, which I would happily pay for!

So am I going to pay to watch a channel when three quarters of the presenters annoy me? Don't think I need to answer that

[allgonepetetong]

I'll admit I know very little about advertising but 2m hits generates £9.6k and 3.6m hits generates 18.4k in advertising revenue.

I'd say you need a new sales manager as this seems pathetically low income from such a high number of hits.

[ogrimwood]

I will be subscribing as I absolute love Monkey's work, but I can't help feel that he'd be better branching off and doing it himself because especially across this side of the pond, the majority of /Drive subscriptions are for his work only and not the American muscle drivel. That way Monkey could lower prices, gain more followers and make his work more financially viable than being connected with the /Drive network.