RE: Pay per view: PH Blog
Discussion
Gandahar said:
Drive will be up against some stiff competition which is free, at least so far, so I hope they have better luck than Drivers republic
Evo just released this in the past few days
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1LhUzL3qdU
For free that's not too shabby I am sure you will agree
They do have the annoying banner adds though. But even so, it's the best single video representation of the Evo article in print from the magazine article I have seen in a long time.
Perhaps this is where the real niche is. You get it in print so you can sit on the bog reading it and imagine it in your mind and then next month you get the video to put meat on the bones. What you lose with not being able to report as quickly with a magazine you make up for with real in depth coverage in print and then video. Less pictures and more words in the mag and then the video to say a thousand words.
I'd be happy.
And so would my toilet seat, being kept so warm.
You know, when I get my copy of Evo, I sprinkle rose petals over the toilet and light scented candles, then it is just the three of us, man, plastic commode and wood based paper products for the glorious un-interupted time......
What a great video that was! Thoroughly enjoyed watching that for the past 15mins... all for free and in full HD quality!Evo just released this in the past few days
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1LhUzL3qdU
For free that's not too shabby I am sure you will agree
They do have the annoying banner adds though. But even so, it's the best single video representation of the Evo article in print from the magazine article I have seen in a long time.
Perhaps this is where the real niche is. You get it in print so you can sit on the bog reading it and imagine it in your mind and then next month you get the video to put meat on the bones. What you lose with not being able to report as quickly with a magazine you make up for with real in depth coverage in print and then video. Less pictures and more words in the mag and then the video to say a thousand words.
I'd be happy.
And so would my toilet seat, being kept so warm.
You know, when I get my copy of Evo, I sprinkle rose petals over the toilet and light scented candles, then it is just the three of us, man, plastic commode and wood based paper products for the glorious un-interupted time......
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 3rd August 16:26
I'm not against charging for quality content, as long as it is just that..quality. If you are making people pay for the privilege then it should be a step up from the free stuff available.
The Vambo said:
Bet nobody reads that.
Read the first two paragraphs and wasn't going to read the rest, but then I saw your post and took it as a challenge! 
I think it was an interesting and insightful post, especially as a first-time poster. It actually posed some intelligent questions and concerns, as opposed to simply spewing some vitriol merely complaining about the situation.
I, for one, don't have a credit card. Even if I did, I wouldn't be spending it on youtube vids, no matter how good. 25 GBP when converted to USD sounds a bit rich for internet videos. Then again, maybe I'm just a luddite as I don't do netflix or anything like that. I'd rather watch programming on my 55" TV than my computer screen and not have to worry about internet speeds and buffering issues.
I like CH, but it's not like I can't live without watching his vids, especially as I only heard about him fairly recently and only due to his affiliation with this site. I do look forward to hearing about his bike trials and tribulations, mainly because I'm also thinking of "biting the bullet" and going for my bike license, as well. I'll also continue to read his new column ("Quick Limey") in Road & Track (the predominant magazine for Americans who like racing that involves turning both ways).
My only slight annoyance is that they chose the TheFerrari as the first vid under the new pay scheme. It's very clear that this was pure marketing to draw in viewers to the pay scheme, as no doubt they're thinking that it'll likely draw more hits. I'd imagine that that vid would've drawn multi-million hits pretty quickly in the free format, given the long wait between the car's announcement and when journalists are finally getting their hands on it.
Best of luck to CH and I look forward to future PH articles and magazine columns, but you can count me out of pay-for-view vids, sorry.
I have to wonder why Harris is persisting with the Drive channel. Is he contracted to it for a certain time period, or does he truly believe in the concept?
Logically, to me at least, now would be the time to break free and go it alone with a dedicated CH on Cars channel. The initial Drive free-to-air experiment has failed, and his reputation is now, for the time being at least, at an all-time high to capitalise on the moment. The funding issue would still exist, but without the burden of the rest of the America-centric Drive channel surely there would be an opportunity for a closer tie-in with PH/Haymarket?
Provide a mix of new car reviews, shot expensively on location, with the cheaper to make, and often far more entertaining stuff like the 2CV review. In fact, a regular series of such 'home-made' videos of his own ever-changing fleet, and maybe even the odd PH reader's car, could be a big hit, much like the old HM Diaries on the Evo channel were among the best stuff they did. Written stuff for the website backed up by the videos.
Hell, I may even stump up 50p per month to watch that, rather than £2.49 for 80% drivel that I don't want that Drive is offering.
Logically, to me at least, now would be the time to break free and go it alone with a dedicated CH on Cars channel. The initial Drive free-to-air experiment has failed, and his reputation is now, for the time being at least, at an all-time high to capitalise on the moment. The funding issue would still exist, but without the burden of the rest of the America-centric Drive channel surely there would be an opportunity for a closer tie-in with PH/Haymarket?
Provide a mix of new car reviews, shot expensively on location, with the cheaper to make, and often far more entertaining stuff like the 2CV review. In fact, a regular series of such 'home-made' videos of his own ever-changing fleet, and maybe even the odd PH reader's car, could be a big hit, much like the old HM Diaries on the Evo channel were among the best stuff they did. Written stuff for the website backed up by the videos.
Hell, I may even stump up 50p per month to watch that, rather than £2.49 for 80% drivel that I don't want that Drive is offering.
GTID said:
Gandahar said:
Drive will be up against some stiff competition which is free, at least so far, so I hope they have better luck than Drivers republic
Evo just released this in the past few days
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1LhUzL3qdU
For free that's not too shabby I am sure you will agree
They do have the annoying banner adds though. But even so, it's the best single video representation of the Evo article in print from the magazine article I have seen in a long time.
Perhaps this is where the real niche is. You get it in print so you can sit on the bog reading it and imagine it in your mind and then next month you get the video to put meat on the bones. What you lose with not being able to report as quickly with a magazine you make up for with real in depth coverage in print and then video. Less pictures and more words in the mag and then the video to say a thousand words.
I'd be happy.
And so would my toilet seat, being kept so warm.
You know, when I get my copy of Evo, I sprinkle rose petals over the toilet and light scented candles, then it is just the three of us, man, plastic commode and wood based paper products for the glorious un-interupted time......
What a great video that was! Thoroughly enjoyed watching that for the past 15mins... all for free and in full HD quality!Evo just released this in the past few days
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1LhUzL3qdU
For free that's not too shabby I am sure you will agree
They do have the annoying banner adds though. But even so, it's the best single video representation of the Evo article in print from the magazine article I have seen in a long time.
Perhaps this is where the real niche is. You get it in print so you can sit on the bog reading it and imagine it in your mind and then next month you get the video to put meat on the bones. What you lose with not being able to report as quickly with a magazine you make up for with real in depth coverage in print and then video. Less pictures and more words in the mag and then the video to say a thousand words.
I'd be happy.
And so would my toilet seat, being kept so warm.
You know, when I get my copy of Evo, I sprinkle rose petals over the toilet and light scented candles, then it is just the three of us, man, plastic commode and wood based paper products for the glorious un-interupted time......
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 3rd August 16:26
I'm not against charging for quality content, as long as it is just that..quality. If you are making people pay for the privilege then it should be a step up from the free stuff available.
You are both correct, I'm much happier with this model of someone else paying for my free viewing but if at some point Gandahar and the 2% of viewers who bought the mag realise they are subsiding the rest of us then I'm happy to pay my way. As long as possible please can everyone who still buys magazines carry on to ensure the rest of us can watch "free" videos.
Seems to me CH is trying a new business model which looks pretty fair, you pay for what you get, only time will tell if it works and I think there is a pretty big question on how to monitise content at the moment so who knows where it will go. Good luck to the guy, if it works and he also happens to make millions then even better as its always good to see someone do well out of something they love doing.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I suppose the question then is, do you get invites based on any metric, or do you need real volume in your readership?What got Drive into some great places over the last few years was probably millions of subscribers, if those numbers drop will they find it just as easy to get access/invites to make interesting videos?
Lots of variables.
I'm all for CH doing what he does and succeeding if he can make it work... but after looking it seems there is a lot more to Drive that I'm simply not interested in at all.
I can see now why many people are talking about having to pay for stuff they don't want to watch... and I can see why!
Lets hope if Drive fails CH will find an outlet to do what he does pretty well by himself!
Dave
Good post that. But the Sky TV example you made is a bit different to how I see it
Compare the football on terrestrial TV (the example above) before Sky and compare it now. We had "free" football but it was very, very limited compared to what specialist subscription channels now offer. We never had anything like the product we have now back in the old 4 channel days. Nowhere near it. The YouTube thing is similar but a lot smaller. Funding from customers opens all sorts of doors to raise content to another level and the product may well be unrecognisable from its current format in a couple of years.
That's my take on it anyway.
Compare the football on terrestrial TV (the example above) before Sky and compare it now. We had "free" football but it was very, very limited compared to what specialist subscription channels now offer. We never had anything like the product we have now back in the old 4 channel days. Nowhere near it. The YouTube thing is similar but a lot smaller. Funding from customers opens all sorts of doors to raise content to another level and the product may well be unrecognisable from its current format in a couple of years.
That's my take on it anyway.
andyp79 said:
Good post that. But the Sky TV example you made is a bit different to how I see it
Compare the football on terrestrial TV (the example above) before Sky and compare it now. We had "free" football but it was very, very limited compared to what specialist subscription channels now offer. We never had anything like the product we have now back in the old 4 channel days. Nowhere near it. The YouTube thing is similar but a lot smaller. Funding from customers opens all sorts of doors to raise content to another level and the product may well be unrecognisable from its current format in a couple of years.
That's my take on it anyway.
I would imagine the difference being, a very large number of the population want to see the football, can the same be said of a guy going sideways round a track?Compare the football on terrestrial TV (the example above) before Sky and compare it now. We had "free" football but it was very, very limited compared to what specialist subscription channels now offer. We never had anything like the product we have now back in the old 4 channel days. Nowhere near it. The YouTube thing is similar but a lot smaller. Funding from customers opens all sorts of doors to raise content to another level and the product may well be unrecognisable from its current format in a couple of years.
That's my take on it anyway.
It's niche nature maybe it's downfall?
LaFerrari as the first paid for video strikes me as a poor choice. The content isn't particularly new now and being brutally honest, I don't know what CH offers that Richard Meaden or Steve Sutcliffe don't. A couple of great videos in the bag for the paid switch would have softened the blow.
Wollcage said:
LaFerrari as the first paid for video strikes me as a poor choice. The content isn't particularly new now and being brutally honest, I don't know what CH offers that Richard Meaden or Steve Sutcliffe don't. A couple of great videos in the bag for the paid switch would have softened the blow.
I'm sure CH intends to do more of the Gp.B/2CV/Singer/Fintail/Chris Goodwin interview type stuff. Freed from the need to do a weekly supercar slidey vid to generate views, I'm hoping for a lot more of this kind of video.What worries me slightly is that, even after this clarification it still seems that my £2.49 won't allow me to see all the stuff on DRIVE as some will be exclusive to NBC. Or will it? The video still doesn't make it clear!
If I'm ponying up for DRIVE you better be sure I'm expecting to 'consume' all of their 'content'.
Edit to fix the link
Edited by loudlashadjuster on Monday 4th August 11:27
Truckosaurus said:
They've said that they will show the NBC content 2wks after it airs on television, although whether it will be on the free or paid for channel is anyone's guess.
Yes, later in the video they say it will be on the free channel, but this contradicts what is said earlier about NBC showing "exclusive content you can't find anywhere else". They don't say that NBC will air videos before they are available online or anything like that.Basically, they've not made a very good job of publicising these changes and the last thing they need are any more barriers to people signing on the dotted line.
p.s. I fixed the link in my previous post.
chrispmartha said:
I would imagine the difference being, a very large number of the population want to see the football, can the same be said of a guy going sideways round a track?
It's niche nature maybe it's downfall?
Yip, that's what I was wondering too. The niche thing is the key... is it better to pay for a niche that would otherwise die off? Or is a niche by its very definition always going to have a limited lifespan?It's niche nature maybe it's downfall?
I dunno... I do think pay-per-view would be better at a modest pricing level but I'm still happy that I chose to subscribe for the moment. I know for sure that I couldn't justify this across more than (say) 4 or 5 of these channels. My limit is probably 2 to be honest.
I cannot believe this has generated so much hot air.
It's £25 a year.
When you consider you can spend £3something on a weekly copy of autocars press-release-and-made-up car-in-photoshop weekly it's not really a lot of money. Last time i went to the cinema i was about £30 down before the opening scenes.
Being a car enthusiast isn't cheap, in the grand scheme of things £25 a year is nothing compared to servicing, petrol and tyres.
If you don't want to pay, you don't pay. You don't get the vids and the world keeps turning.
You decide you do want to pay, you get the vids and it may or may not work...........but even if it's s
te it's still only £25.
I'm sure if we all used the loud pedal a little less on our way to work we'd save that in 12 months no bother at all.
EDIT : I've subscribed by the way. I subscribe to EVO too. You can thank me later.
It's £25 a year.
When you consider you can spend £3something on a weekly copy of autocars press-release-and-made-up car-in-photoshop weekly it's not really a lot of money. Last time i went to the cinema i was about £30 down before the opening scenes.
Being a car enthusiast isn't cheap, in the grand scheme of things £25 a year is nothing compared to servicing, petrol and tyres.
If you don't want to pay, you don't pay. You don't get the vids and the world keeps turning.
You decide you do want to pay, you get the vids and it may or may not work...........but even if it's s
te it's still only £25. I'm sure if we all used the loud pedal a little less on our way to work we'd save that in 12 months no bother at all.
EDIT : I've subscribed by the way. I subscribe to EVO too. You can thank me later.
Edited by Lazydonkey on Monday 4th August 13:49
Edited by Lazydonkey on Monday 4th August 13:50
I'm one of those people who doesn't like paying for things I don't want or use, just because it's been 'bundled'. I got rid of Sky for this reason (about 950 channels I never watched) and then shortly after, the TV licence completely - I don't watch any live TV any more, all my consumption is online.
I've watched a few episodes of CH on /Drive and on the whole I've enjoyed them (aside from some occasionally slightly 'iffy' production). Normally I've picked up on them because they've been linked from here. I think I've watched a couple of other vids by Matt Farah but none of the other stuff that's been mentioned - and I'm unlikely to, it doesn't interest me. So here's the rub; I can't really see paying £25 a year for a handful of CH videos as being good value; not because of CH himself but because I don't want to pay a large chunk of that to Youtube and a large chunk to subsidise channels I have no interest in. What was interesting was reading TST over on Reddit - CH's videos account for a LOT of the traffic /Drive enjoys currently so he's clearly the major 'draw'.
Someone made a very pertinent comment earlier about 'only £25/yr' - it is, but it's £25 for one channel. What happens when everything moves to this model (as it surely will)? All of a sudden 20 channels is costing me £500 a year... You need micro-payments on a per-user basis; little and often.
Patreon looks like a good way to go as it also allows content creators to know what they'll earn from an upload (and I guess they can still put ads around it as well?). It would mean that if I said to CH I'd pay 50p a video and he does 25 a year, he knows what he'll be getting from that in advance (ad revenue is a complete unknown depending on the success/virality of your video) and I get to support the person who makes the videos I like. I would definitely subscribe to something like Patreon which would mean I could support Chris's videos (and he'd see more of that cash than through Youtube's SVOD). The videos were an entertaining way to while away 20 mins here and there but I'm afraid that I'm one of the 98% (and I won't bother with the 'teasers' either I'm afraid, knowing they're going to be light on substance which will be saved for the paying subscribers).
It's a really tough situation to face but unfortunately I think /Drive has made the wrong call - there are other ways to make the money needed to fund such an endeavour. I hope I'm wrong for those involved and those who enjoy the content enough to subscribe but I don't think closing the doors in this manner is the answer. It just seems a shame to have built such a large subscriber base (no easy thing in and of itself) only to watch most of it disperse to other channels.
It's a tough call; someone, somewhere has to pay for things at the end of the day. The only ones coining it in here are Google.
I've watched a few episodes of CH on /Drive and on the whole I've enjoyed them (aside from some occasionally slightly 'iffy' production). Normally I've picked up on them because they've been linked from here. I think I've watched a couple of other vids by Matt Farah but none of the other stuff that's been mentioned - and I'm unlikely to, it doesn't interest me. So here's the rub; I can't really see paying £25 a year for a handful of CH videos as being good value; not because of CH himself but because I don't want to pay a large chunk of that to Youtube and a large chunk to subsidise channels I have no interest in. What was interesting was reading TST over on Reddit - CH's videos account for a LOT of the traffic /Drive enjoys currently so he's clearly the major 'draw'.
Someone made a very pertinent comment earlier about 'only £25/yr' - it is, but it's £25 for one channel. What happens when everything moves to this model (as it surely will)? All of a sudden 20 channels is costing me £500 a year... You need micro-payments on a per-user basis; little and often.
Patreon looks like a good way to go as it also allows content creators to know what they'll earn from an upload (and I guess they can still put ads around it as well?). It would mean that if I said to CH I'd pay 50p a video and he does 25 a year, he knows what he'll be getting from that in advance (ad revenue is a complete unknown depending on the success/virality of your video) and I get to support the person who makes the videos I like. I would definitely subscribe to something like Patreon which would mean I could support Chris's videos (and he'd see more of that cash than through Youtube's SVOD). The videos were an entertaining way to while away 20 mins here and there but I'm afraid that I'm one of the 98% (and I won't bother with the 'teasers' either I'm afraid, knowing they're going to be light on substance which will be saved for the paying subscribers).
It's a really tough situation to face but unfortunately I think /Drive has made the wrong call - there are other ways to make the money needed to fund such an endeavour. I hope I'm wrong for those involved and those who enjoy the content enough to subscribe but I don't think closing the doors in this manner is the answer. It just seems a shame to have built such a large subscriber base (no easy thing in and of itself) only to watch most of it disperse to other channels.
It's a tough call; someone, somewhere has to pay for things at the end of the day. The only ones coining it in here are Google.
Edited by Funk on Monday 4th August 13:49
theangrybaboon said:
Some very good stuff in a loooooooooong post
Congratulations, that's just about the first decently reasoned argument and point I've read thus far in this thread. This, more than all the whining, b
hing and moaning, is the post that CH and JF should respond to.Beefmeister
Drive+ Subscriber
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff