RE: Pay per view: PH Blog
Discussion
As a recent mover to the USA, I can say that this is the future for content - be it audio, written word or video.
We will consume our content in a number of ways, but one-hit purchases is unlikely to work. Therefore the subscription model is the way that many are going. On arrival here, I signed up to my local cable company to get some TV and a decent channel selection. I have to say that I really don't watch it that much. Most of my content is now via NetFlix or via the Amazon TV that I bought at launch. To be honest, I spend a small fortune on my cable service for 98% crap channels and I will go days without even turning it on - even they now do an on-demand service via tablets....
I have to say its got the traditional media companies worried. Consuming content can be done anywhere and its getting diverse and targeted. Its not for all and some don't have the choice, but I decided to take the plunge and get a decent home internet service. As a result, I can do this, but this is very much the future and its coming, even if we don't want it.
So I will be subscribing. I like the idea and I love the programming. The only small bit of doubt that I have is that I also have NBCSN as part of my cable package and I do need to work out what I already get and what I don't. Watching a video on a 23" computer monitor is one thing, but watching it on a 50" HDTV is a different one. Would prefer the TV content, but needs must as the saying goes.
DRIVE team, Chris and everyone else linked to the project - the best of luck and I hope it works out!!!
We will consume our content in a number of ways, but one-hit purchases is unlikely to work. Therefore the subscription model is the way that many are going. On arrival here, I signed up to my local cable company to get some TV and a decent channel selection. I have to say that I really don't watch it that much. Most of my content is now via NetFlix or via the Amazon TV that I bought at launch. To be honest, I spend a small fortune on my cable service for 98% crap channels and I will go days without even turning it on - even they now do an on-demand service via tablets....
I have to say its got the traditional media companies worried. Consuming content can be done anywhere and its getting diverse and targeted. Its not for all and some don't have the choice, but I decided to take the plunge and get a decent home internet service. As a result, I can do this, but this is very much the future and its coming, even if we don't want it.
So I will be subscribing. I like the idea and I love the programming. The only small bit of doubt that I have is that I also have NBCSN as part of my cable package and I do need to work out what I already get and what I don't. Watching a video on a 23" computer monitor is one thing, but watching it on a 50" HDTV is a different one. Would prefer the TV content, but needs must as the saying goes.
DRIVE team, Chris and everyone else linked to the project - the best of luck and I hope it works out!!!
Justices said:
I am subscribing. The content CH puts together is more than worth it to me. That there will be more of it is a bonus.
Not to have to listen to the awful droning, monotone reviews from guys who clearly don't belong in front of a camera (Autocar lot especially) is reason enough to sign up.
Get subscribing, you tight arses! Perhaps a tv show will come of it for Harris if they can keep it going.
:yes;Not to have to listen to the awful droning, monotone reviews from guys who clearly don't belong in front of a camera (Autocar lot especially) is reason enough to sign up.
Get subscribing, you tight arses! Perhaps a tv show will come of it for Harris if they can keep it going.
I have only been able to bear to read a few pages of this thread, such is the tightness and self-entitlement evident in so many of the posts.
I always felt that it was too good to be true watching CH's Drive videos free and sure enough, it was funded by youtube to help get the channel established. Youtube used to just be about people uploading their own videos - that will continue and is of course free, but stuff like the Drive videos are proper entertainment with some proper value and it astonishes me that people feel that it should be free.
Personally I haven't seen any other motoring videos online that are as engaging and as good to watch, so nothing else that is free can really compete with what CH produces. I guess I'll be subscribing then.
tomjol said:
North West Tom said:
Stuff like this annoys me. They make it sound like a chore, and that we should sympathise that they're using 'their own' (Youtube funded) money to drive these exclusive supercars and travel the world. JF used HIS OWN air miles to fly to Abu Dhabi to drive a Mclaren P1! Blasphemy! Poor guy! Nobody is forcing Chris Harris to drive a LaFerrari. Nobody is asking Matt Farrah to road trip in an Aventador to Vegas. Nobody asked Mike Spinelli and JF Musial to start up Drive and put on a show for us without us paying them. The paid subscription has received negative feedback, and now they are throwing a hissy fit saying that we owe them money, and are trying to make us feel guilty for not wanting to pay.
If anybody sounds like they think they are owed something, it's you.These videos cost money to produce. If they are going to continue, an alternative method of funding must be employed. How difficult is this to understand?
People make money back by advertising and sponsorship.
Many very successful channels manage fine with YT adverts and then sponsorship.
Yes they may lose some independence, but plenty still give great reviews of products/services despite that fact.
Being fully independent with a small audience is likely to not attract invites to even review content to begin with, especially if the notion is that by being independent they can then slate the products.
So if they need to be generally 'nice' to get invited to review products, then their independence is irrelevant.
I've already un-subscribed from their offerings now.
I only watched CH and now the videos by him are all trimmed down adverts in themselves they have no value at all... more so to think that I'd now be sending revenue their way to watch an advert of their commercial videos that I have to pay for to see the full thing! The irony!
If they can't give me more than an advert which they get money for me watching to begin with, they can bugger off.
Dave
Justices said:
I am subscribing. The content CH puts together is more than worth it to me. That there will be more of it is a bonus.
Not to have to listen to the awful droning, monotone reviews from guys who clearly don't belong in front of a camera (Autocar lot especially) is reason enough to sign up.
Get subscribing, you tight arses! Perhaps a tv show will come of it for Harris if they can keep it going.
It's got nothing to do with being a tight arse, it's simply not worth subscribing for me, as it represents no value, I would watch the odd video but rarely all the way through as I find harris a tad boring.Not to have to listen to the awful droning, monotone reviews from guys who clearly don't belong in front of a camera (Autocar lot especially) is reason enough to sign up.
Get subscribing, you tight arses! Perhaps a tv show will come of it for Harris if they can keep it going.
The reason I'm replying is I find the topic interesting and will be interesting to see how it pans out.
As I've said previously I don't get why it's subscription or nothing, I may have bought the odd video for say 75p on iTunes or similar but they seem to be putting all the eggs in one basket.
kenno78 said:
Because as ridiculous as it sounds, I can't abide by 'waste'. I'd be paying for stuff I don't actually want and frankly can't stand. Say there are 5 streams to drive and its split equally. Only 50p goes towards the content I want to have produced and viewed. I'm much rather Chris and Neil got £2.50 and have more of what they have to offer.
Fair dos. Sorry, my post was a wee bit blunt - thanks for taking it in the way it was intended. I was genuinely curious but my post was pretty argumentative, sorry about that. I think your logic is similar to mine but distilled down even more. This is where the micro-transaction / pay-per-view model idea might be better. I'd pay for a fair few but pay less overall with that idea.Mr Whippy said:
tomjol said:
North West Tom said:
Stuff like this annoys me. They make it sound like a chore, and that we should sympathise that they're using 'their own' (Youtube funded) money to drive these exclusive supercars and travel the world. JF used HIS OWN air miles to fly to Abu Dhabi to drive a Mclaren P1! Blasphemy! Poor guy! Nobody is forcing Chris Harris to drive a LaFerrari. Nobody is asking Matt Farrah to road trip in an Aventador to Vegas. Nobody asked Mike Spinelli and JF Musial to start up Drive and put on a show for us without us paying them. The paid subscription has received negative feedback, and now they are throwing a hissy fit saying that we owe them money, and are trying to make us feel guilty for not wanting to pay.
If anybody sounds like they think they are owed something, it's you.These videos cost money to produce. If they are going to continue, an alternative method of funding must be employed. How difficult is this to understand?
People make money back by advertising and sponsorship.
Many very successful channels manage fine with YT adverts and then sponsorship.
Yes they may lose some independence, but plenty still give great reviews of products/services despite that fact.
Being fully independent with a small audience is likely to not attract invites to even review content to begin with, especially if the notion is that by being independent they can then slate the products.
So if they need to be generally 'nice' to get invited to review products, then their independence is irrelevant.
I've already un-subscribed from their offerings now.
I only watched CH and now the videos by him are all trimmed down adverts in themselves they have no value at all... more so to think that I'd now be sending revenue their way to watch an advert of their commercial videos that I have to pay for to see the full thing! The irony!
If they can't give me more than an advert which they get money for me watching to begin with, they can bugger off.
Dave
Most of these guys have been around the business for some time, so I have a certain amount of faith that they've considered such matters as whether the audience will be sufficient for manufacturers to lend them products to review. Perhaps that faith is misplaced. There have certainly been times when I've wondered if anybody is really steering the ship.
What I don't understand is why so many people seem personally offended by the whole thing, and claim that they don't owe Drive anything when nobody suggested that they did. This stinks of entitlement mentality; I've had these videos for free, now they're taking them away, so I'll stamp my foot like a child
Personally I am happy to pay a few pounds per month for quality, niche content. I understand that others may not be; that's their prerogative. However, I find all the moaning a bit pathetic.
If you had a YT channel with well over 1 million loyal and grateful followers, then what would you do?
Would you:
a, sell a little bit of your soul to not be completely independent, but have sponsors support videos. Ie, bake actual adverts into the video, say 'sponsored by Michelin' or something.
b, make it so 90%+ of your subscribers now only get to watch partial reviews/content while still supporting your channel because they will be exposed to advertising, and bringing in exactly the same revenue as before but getting half a video, or even a video that is more an advert in itself for the paid for content.
It's not moaning or b
hing at all, it's about respecting your customers. Even if they don't pay, they are still customers because they are generating your revenue by being exposed to advertising.
By doing what they have done they have turned their million+ subscribers into a cash cow. Hey everyone, watch our partial videos that are more like adverts, provide us with loads of money, and then if you want to watch the full videos you need to pay money instead, even though probably half the costs are being covered by the people watching the adverts, in both senses.
It just strikes me that they are looking at the easy way out and using their subscribers as an income source.
It doesn't feel like a two way street to me.
Why one earth they can't seek sponsorship is beyond me... but that whole argument about staying impartial just seems bks to me.
If CH drives a Ferrari and hates it, he just won't get invited again. Good business for Drive? No.
So he's already gonna be partial in his reviews to be able to even drive the damn cars people are paying to see him drive!
Dave
Would you:
a, sell a little bit of your soul to not be completely independent, but have sponsors support videos. Ie, bake actual adverts into the video, say 'sponsored by Michelin' or something.
b, make it so 90%+ of your subscribers now only get to watch partial reviews/content while still supporting your channel because they will be exposed to advertising, and bringing in exactly the same revenue as before but getting half a video, or even a video that is more an advert in itself for the paid for content.
It's not moaning or b
hing at all, it's about respecting your customers. Even if they don't pay, they are still customers because they are generating your revenue by being exposed to advertising.By doing what they have done they have turned their million+ subscribers into a cash cow. Hey everyone, watch our partial videos that are more like adverts, provide us with loads of money, and then if you want to watch the full videos you need to pay money instead, even though probably half the costs are being covered by the people watching the adverts, in both senses.
It just strikes me that they are looking at the easy way out and using their subscribers as an income source.
It doesn't feel like a two way street to me.
Why one earth they can't seek sponsorship is beyond me... but that whole argument about staying impartial just seems b
ks to me.If CH drives a Ferrari and hates it, he just won't get invited again. Good business for Drive? No.
So he's already gonna be partial in his reviews to be able to even drive the damn cars people are paying to see him drive!
Dave
I don't have such a channel, do you?
Perhaps, if either of us did, we might have considered the various options a few times, in conversation with our colleagues. We might even have spent more time doing so than the few days since it was announced. Between us, we might have decades of experience in the industry to call upon.
You're talking as though somebody is forcing you (and a million other people) to watch their videos (and adverts), or to pay a subscription fee. Furthermore you appear to feel owed something in return.
Customers we may be, but we are not generating enough revenue for the previous model to continue. You may disagree with their new choice of model, but it is their decision to make, and as you may have gathered from the previous point I suspect they're in a better position to make it than we are.
More generally, isn't having more money to spend on making videos a good thing?
Perhaps, if either of us did, we might have considered the various options a few times, in conversation with our colleagues. We might even have spent more time doing so than the few days since it was announced. Between us, we might have decades of experience in the industry to call upon.
You're talking as though somebody is forcing you (and a million other people) to watch their videos (and adverts), or to pay a subscription fee. Furthermore you appear to feel owed something in return.
Customers we may be, but we are not generating enough revenue for the previous model to continue. You may disagree with their new choice of model, but it is their decision to make, and as you may have gathered from the previous point I suspect they're in a better position to make it than we are.
More generally, isn't having more money to spend on making videos a good thing?
Edited by tomjol on Saturday 2nd August 00:01
Edited by tomjol on Saturday 2nd August 00:01
I don't if anyone has pushed this angle (i try not to read these threads end to end, some of the people on pistonheads make me want to kill all humans). But is the yearly subscription not similar to that of 2 Christmas time Clarkson DVD's? I'd say a years drive subscription is worth at least 2 Clarkson DVD's.
I would add though, if it was half the price, would double the people (at least) subscribe, equalling more happy customers, and a similar end result?
The one thing holding me back at the moment is that if i pay, and /drive folds in a month because nobody subscribed, i'd be irked, though i guess this idea makes me part of the problem.
Ps - more stuff like my life as a rallyist please, Gotta be cheap high value entertainment.
I would add though, if it was half the price, would double the people (at least) subscribe, equalling more happy customers, and a similar end result?
The one thing holding me back at the moment is that if i pay, and /drive folds in a month because nobody subscribed, i'd be irked, though i guess this idea makes me part of the problem.
Ps - more stuff like my life as a rallyist please, Gotta be cheap high value entertainment.
Sorry, just not buying this, in every sense.
£9000 might be the cost of organising a shoot with privately owned supercars such as the F40/F50 thing as Drive had to pay for circuit hire, new tyres, fuel and presumably transportation to Anglesey and back. Very few drive videos fall into this category. A manufacturer organised launch is a very different proposition. The only costs here are Chris Harris's fees plus those of his cameraman and editor (if they're not the same person). If Drive isn't making enough money it's because it's struggling to cover Harris's fees! This notion of making a loss or doing it for free is a really cheap shot - Harris got paid every time and youtube were picking up the bill until recently!
I have a solution Mr Musical - you can film me driving super cars for half of Harris's fee and Drive stays free to watch!
I have no issue with paying £25 for really good, unique content.
But given Drive had youtube backing I think they really dropped the ball. They tried to do it on the cheap when they should have been raising the bar - yes even if it cost them money to begin with. I've no idea about how Petrolicious is funded but they pulled Drive's pants down creatively. A merciful lack of wannabe Top Gear presenters, the car is always the star and the money is spent on filming and editing.
Frankly Drive owes me money for the time I wasted watching The Monaco super cars thing! It was woeful. A toe-curling, low budget Top Gear rip off minus the wit.
I just don't see why Chris Harris's P1 video would be worth more than Steve Sutcliffe's or Richard Meaden's for example? They all do big slo-mo skids, only theirs are free to watch.
£9000 might be the cost of organising a shoot with privately owned supercars such as the F40/F50 thing as Drive had to pay for circuit hire, new tyres, fuel and presumably transportation to Anglesey and back. Very few drive videos fall into this category. A manufacturer organised launch is a very different proposition. The only costs here are Chris Harris's fees plus those of his cameraman and editor (if they're not the same person). If Drive isn't making enough money it's because it's struggling to cover Harris's fees! This notion of making a loss or doing it for free is a really cheap shot - Harris got paid every time and youtube were picking up the bill until recently!
I have a solution Mr Musical - you can film me driving super cars for half of Harris's fee and Drive stays free to watch!
I have no issue with paying £25 for really good, unique content.
But given Drive had youtube backing I think they really dropped the ball. They tried to do it on the cheap when they should have been raising the bar - yes even if it cost them money to begin with. I've no idea about how Petrolicious is funded but they pulled Drive's pants down creatively. A merciful lack of wannabe Top Gear presenters, the car is always the star and the money is spent on filming and editing.
Frankly Drive owes me money for the time I wasted watching The Monaco super cars thing! It was woeful. A toe-curling, low budget Top Gear rip off minus the wit.
I just don't see why Chris Harris's P1 video would be worth more than Steve Sutcliffe's or Richard Meaden's for example? They all do big slo-mo skids, only theirs are free to watch.
Bobby Shaftoe said:
Sutton said:
FWIW I personally think that the production quality as brilliant as it is, is too high. This has to be where the money can be saved and the 'free' watching of vids better (with revenue via adverts)
I'm fairly certain there is bugger all to be saved here at any rate. Looking at the credits the full crew for the F40/F50 shoot was 4; Harris, 2 x cam ops and and editor.With equipment you're looking at ~£700 each for the camera operators. Skipping through the F40 vid, there only appeared to be some Go-pro drone stuff in addition, no tracking vehicles, no russian arm, no aerial stuff so no significant costs. The alternative is self shot on consumer level stuff, which imho is perfectly fine for MightyCarMods and the like, but no good here (and the value is more in the operator than the equipment).
Not sure how they manage to get to £9k for that vid, track hire may have been a significant cost, and production insurance may well have not covered such expensive vehicles.
Edited by Bobby Shaftoe on Friday 1st August 15:38
The Pits said:
I have a solution Mr Musical - you can film me driving super cars for half of Harris's fee and Drive stays free to watch!
Except that I'm not sure anyone wants to see you driving supercars, free or otherwise. The Pits said:
I just don't see why Chris Harris's P1 video would be worth more than Steve Sutcliffe's or Richard Meaden's for example? They all do big slo-mo skids, only theirs are free to watch.
If you can't see the difference between free videos that are backed by major print publications (which funnily enough, people pay for) and those that are are produced by an organisation which is relying purely on YouTube revenues, then I would recommend you never consider a career of any sort in commerce. A few months ago when the drive videos stopped, Harris had just driven the M4 and the LaF. There's was lots of wailing over the journalist embargo on the LaF if I recall. Harris was then tired and taking a break from the videos according to PH and the man himself - this may have something to do with the 12 specials commissioned for some American cable channel?
Now drive is back, a free vid on how to drift together with a sob story about how it can't continue blah blah, but wait, you all pay £25 a year it can! Cheekily starting with the LaF vid, made all those months ago when YT was picking up the bill. Pretty sure the M4 will be up soon.
This whole sorry saga is simply about greed, plain and simple. An attempt to turn YT hits into cold hard cash. To keep the videos going or to line pockets? I don't particularly care about the lining of pockets, everyone has to earn a crust, it's the way they going about it that sticks in the craw.
Now drive is back, a free vid on how to drift together with a sob story about how it can't continue blah blah, but wait, you all pay £25 a year it can! Cheekily starting with the LaF vid, made all those months ago when YT was picking up the bill. Pretty sure the M4 will be up soon.
This whole sorry saga is simply about greed, plain and simple. An attempt to turn YT hits into cold hard cash. To keep the videos going or to line pockets? I don't particularly care about the lining of pockets, everyone has to earn a crust, it's the way they going about it that sticks in the craw.
I agree with the earlier comment regarding Petrolicious always making the car the star. Those videos are on another level. Chris's P1 video wasn't particularly well shot, and the Porsche 991 GT3 review - which was filmed hastily with one camera - are two of my favourite DRIVE videos purely because of the car. I've heard the full-length LaFerrari video isn't exactly amazing quality either, but the months of teasing a 'CH going sideways in a LaFerrari' video was the channel's bait to hook potential paying subscribers. And those who've shelled out for the privilege will no doubt say it's worth it...
Chris's videos are the best thing on DRIVE, but the rest of the channel is filled with people I'd want to avoid at a party. For someone who likes all of the presenters, paying a subscription might be an attractive proposition, and I know it's not a large amount of money, but I can't bring myself to fund so many videos that I know I will never, ever view.
As with iTunes, DRIVE needs to find a way of letting fans cherry-pick specific content while avoiding the 'filler tracks', because it's carrying too many passengers.
Chris's videos are the best thing on DRIVE, but the rest of the channel is filled with people I'd want to avoid at a party. For someone who likes all of the presenters, paying a subscription might be an attractive proposition, and I know it's not a large amount of money, but I can't bring myself to fund so many videos that I know I will never, ever view.
As with iTunes, DRIVE needs to find a way of letting fans cherry-pick specific content while avoiding the 'filler tracks', because it's carrying too many passengers.
Ryanodine said:
A few months ago when the drive videos stopped, Harris had just driven the M4 and the LaF. There's was lots of wailing over the journalist embargo on the LaF if I recall. Harris was then tired and taking a break from the videos according to PH and the man himself - this may have something to do with the 12 specials commissioned for some American cable channel?
Now drive is back, a free vid on how to drift together with a sob story about how it can't continue blah blah, but wait, you all pay £25 a year it can! Cheekily starting with the LaF vid, made all those months ago when YT was picking up the bill. Pretty sure the M4 will be up soon.
This whole sorry saga is simply about greed, plain and simple. An attempt to turn YT hits into cold hard cash. To keep the videos going or to line pockets? I don't particularly care about the lining of pockets, everyone has to earn a crust, it's the way they going about it that sticks in the craw.
Every film of mine since the Mercedes C63 507 I have underwritten myself. As in I paid for it, not YT - me. I think that's 13 films. I did so to give the ad. supported model the very best chance to work. Bear in mind we at DRIVE never had control over our sales inventory. Within that body of work we shot the P1 which was always going to be the 'big one'. The fact that a film with so many views could barely wash its face told its own story. It also bodes badly for the variety of content you can broadcast - if you have to chase raw numbers then people will just ignore anything but GT3s and super cars. Which sadly was the route I was being forced down, and I find that rather one-dimensional. One of the best days of the past year was seeing how well the 2CV video did.Now drive is back, a free vid on how to drift together with a sob story about how it can't continue blah blah, but wait, you all pay £25 a year it can! Cheekily starting with the LaF vid, made all those months ago when YT was picking up the bill. Pretty sure the M4 will be up soon.
This whole sorry saga is simply about greed, plain and simple. An attempt to turn YT hits into cold hard cash. To keep the videos going or to line pockets? I don't particularly care about the lining of pockets, everyone has to earn a crust, it's the way they going about it that sticks in the craw.
Like I said, this is an experiment. There has never been any suggestion of seeking pity. I'm immensely proud of the work the whole team produced for the 2 yrs YT supported the venture. But we need to forge a new business model with one revenue stream being paid content. If it works I think we can deliver some really memorable films. If it doesn't work, hey-ho, we'll all find other stuff to do and look back on a very enjoyable period in our working lives. I don't really understand the anger out there.
One question worth asking: how long do you think people will continue giving away longer-form video content for free if it makes a loss?
Fingers-crossed. And thanks to the many people who have signed up. M3 next week!
bigfatnick said:
Ps - more stuff like my life as a rallyist please, Gotta be cheap high value entertainment.
Apart from when you're filming said rally car, the steering arm fails, and you shunt. Then 4 days later you fail to reach the start of the first stage because of a dodgy fuel pump! That film has cost a fortune!!The Pits said:
Sorry, just not buying this, in every sense.
£9000 might be the cost of organising a shoot with privately owned supercars such as the F40/F50 thing as Drive had to pay for circuit hire, new tyres, fuel and presumably transportation to Anglesey and back. Very few drive videos fall into this category. A manufacturer organised launch is a very different proposition. The only costs here are Chris Harris's fees plus those of his cameraman and editor (if they're not the same person). If Drive isn't making enough money it's because it's struggling to cover Harris's fees! This notion of making a loss or doing it for free is a really cheap shot - Harris got paid every time and youtube were picking up the bill until recently!
I have a solution Mr Musical - you can film me driving super cars for half of Harris's fee and Drive stays free to watch!
I have no issue with paying £25 for really good, unique content.
But given Drive had youtube backing I think they really dropped the ball. They tried to do it on the cheap when they should have been raising the bar - yes even if it cost them money to begin with. I've no idea about how Petrolicious is funded but they pulled Drive's pants down creatively. A merciful lack of wannabe Top Gear presenters, the car is always the star and the money is spent on filming and editing.
Frankly Drive owes me money for the time I wasted watching The Monaco super cars thing! It was woeful. A toe-curling, low budget Top Gear rip off minus the wit.
I just don't see why Chris Harris's P1 video would be worth more than Steve Sutcliffe's or Richard Meaden's for example? They all do big slo-mo skids, only theirs are free to watch.
Yes yes yes!£9000 might be the cost of organising a shoot with privately owned supercars such as the F40/F50 thing as Drive had to pay for circuit hire, new tyres, fuel and presumably transportation to Anglesey and back. Very few drive videos fall into this category. A manufacturer organised launch is a very different proposition. The only costs here are Chris Harris's fees plus those of his cameraman and editor (if they're not the same person). If Drive isn't making enough money it's because it's struggling to cover Harris's fees! This notion of making a loss or doing it for free is a really cheap shot - Harris got paid every time and youtube were picking up the bill until recently!
I have a solution Mr Musical - you can film me driving super cars for half of Harris's fee and Drive stays free to watch!
I have no issue with paying £25 for really good, unique content.
But given Drive had youtube backing I think they really dropped the ball. They tried to do it on the cheap when they should have been raising the bar - yes even if it cost them money to begin with. I've no idea about how Petrolicious is funded but they pulled Drive's pants down creatively. A merciful lack of wannabe Top Gear presenters, the car is always the star and the money is spent on filming and editing.
Frankly Drive owes me money for the time I wasted watching The Monaco super cars thing! It was woeful. A toe-curling, low budget Top Gear rip off minus the wit.
I just don't see why Chris Harris's P1 video would be worth more than Steve Sutcliffe's or Richard Meaden's for example? They all do big slo-mo skids, only theirs are free to watch.
We're filming a fast Lotus at Hethel soontime. We know you like those. I'd pay good money to have you do the review and post it on DRIVE! Send contact details, pretty please.
Chris Harris said:
One question worth asking: how long do you think people will continue giving away longer-form video content for free if it makes a loss?
Fingers-crossed. And thanks to the many people who have signed up. M3 next week!
There will always be someone, who is good, but not well known who will be willing to invest in the future.Fingers-crossed. And thanks to the many people who have signed up. M3 next week!
Wish you well, but i would have offered a rate of £10 pr annum for PH members (perhaps of 2 years standing) as PH was sort of the launch pad. Win-win.
And not just drifting, more informationals/educationals.
Chris Harris said:
One question worth asking: how long do you think people will continue giving away longer-form video content for free if it makes a loss?
People have been saying this for years though. Piracy will kill everything! Years on, it hasn't. It has made business models more refined, more competitive and with less wastage, and dare I say it less scope for people to make obscenely disproportionate profits. The consumer is king now, finally.This whole pitch is imo disingenuous, but has hooked quite a few sycophants. The big bad YouTube who provides hosting & bandwidth for millions of views of HD content with 24/7/365 worldwide availability taking 45% of the cut? How dare they!
You talk about this like you're put upon. The poor entitled 1%ers doing a job flying around the world driving cars most of us will never see let alone drive. I'm sorry you haven't found a way to generate more pageviews than you've already had, perhaps the content is lacking? You're not providing a public service, and you're only a celebrity in your own mind. There are plenty of YT channels making money hand over fist, so the model works.
Then there's the cost. £2.49 a month? That's a bit out of whack with the whole "oh god our supercar hooning video has only made ~50% of its costs back to date, we'll have to eat rice next month kids" pitch. How will you possibly make up this shortfall? Maybe it's by charging an amount commensurate with this shortfall, not pulling people's pants down. £2.49 p/m in context with everything else available for nominally around the same price and what THEY provide (ie. Netflix, BBC, SKY, etc) is excessive.
Bottom line you seem to be expecting to charge top dollar money for an average YouTube channel content. In today's world that's just not going to fly.
Bring on the Harris fan club/"£2.49 is less than a Costa coffee" straw man crowd...
Edited by Durzel on Saturday 2nd August 12:02
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff