RE: Pay per view: PH Blog
Discussion
Ved said:
By the sound of it, and how it's been ran since subscription came in, there was a massive lack of management if anything.
CHoC
Harry's Garage
Mighty Car Mods (still the best)
Roadkill
Evo
That's all you need and cost nothing. Shame there isn't a PH channel worth crowing about... Dan....
I found MCM recently, very good. I have been watching the build of Gramp's recently. I think I was nearly as on edge when it came to starting as Martin!CHoC
Harry's Garage
Mighty Car Mods (still the best)
Roadkill
Evo
That's all you need and cost nothing. Shame there isn't a PH channel worth crowing about... Dan....
Megaflow said:
I found MCM recently, very good.
They definitely have a good chemistry between the 2 of them, and their different characters allow them mix the sensible content with messing about. The main thing though, is that it makes you appreciate the UK car scene due to the shocking prices they have to pay in Australia for 20yr old Jap-crap that is worthless over here.dinkel said:
Funk said:
Drive is sunk, Chris brought most of the traffic and driving talent.
I really wonder if they knew that at forehand: they should analyse this stuff right?If you believe they did either, and how well they did them, is another thing though.
Personally I don't think they did anything except wake up one day and see no money coming from Google then made it all up from there.
Dave
Trying to shake off some of that Ferrari FF image I guess... 
https://twitter.com/harrismonkey/status/5270625000...
https://twitter.com/harrismonkey/status/5270625000...
Quite a mess this has turned out. Truthfully, I mostly just watched /Drive for CH, and with him leaving there really is no point to carry on. The other shows weren't really that interesting. As others have said I think the way Drive+ was handled was pretty terrible. Unlike the free channel there was nowhere near enough content to warrant a subscription, when they only posted 1-2 videos a week, and most of them weren't exactly what we wanted to see.
Still I hope things pick up for everyone and I look forward to CHoC channel.
Still I hope things pick up for everyone and I look forward to CHoC channel.
KarlMac said:
Nosing around elsewhere it looks like Drive weren't the only subscription channel to fall flat on its arse. Youtube look to be reconsidering ite policy/offering after feedback.
No one has yet cracked the nut of how to get PC users to pay for content. The Internet has been in the public mind for 20 years and through all that time has been built in free content. Changing that is frankly a folly. New additions and concepts to the web have been able to arrive monetised, such as apps, and it is in these areas that a modest channel must seek revenue if it wishes to set new revenue streams above the established web models.
A video app with push notifications would be an income stream in addition to advertising. At the same time, why utilise generic distribution advertising with its incredibly low rev share. Monkey is a brand and owns his own camera. I'd be doing tongue in cheek product endorsements at the start of the video with a product offer at the end. If it is done with style then no one is going to object and infact it would be a value add for the consumer.
At the same time I would enter the Christmas DVD market space and look to use crowd funding to raise running capital and generate consumer participation.
I would also use the app to generate feedback as to what cars to go out and Monkey Test. Obviously, most PHers would want to see tests about how much a TDi can be made to look like a GTi
but other people on the web may still hold a genuine interest in real cars. Itunes has proved you can make money from paid content on the internet BUT it involved a shift from people buying whole albums to just single tracks they really like. The end result is less money for musicians than before but it's still some revenue.
I really think the model of paying for the video you want is the way forward and Vimeo seem to have the right model for this, they just need lots of good content creators to get the ball rolling.
I really think the model of paying for the video you want is the way forward and Vimeo seem to have the right model for this, they just need lots of good content creators to get the ball rolling.
HorneyMX5 said:
Itunes has proved you can make money from paid content on the internet BUT it involved a shift from people buying whole albums to just single tracks they really like. The end result is less money for musicians than before but it's still some revenue.
I really think the model of paying for the video you want is the way forward and Vimeo seem to have the right model for this, they just need lots of good content creators to get the ball rolling.
it could be argued that this is the way it should be; pay for what you want without a load of stuff you don't. Most albums tend to be a few standout tracks with filler these days, very few are written as a story or a journey - they're just a collection of songs by various songwriters for money.I really think the model of paying for the video you want is the way forward and Vimeo seem to have the right model for this, they just need lots of good content creators to get the ball rolling.
Mentioning Netflix was interesting as it's causing havoc in the satellite/cable world as companies like Sky are the ultimate in bundling crap together in order to upsell. A recent survey showed that 70% of viewers watched only the channels that would be free or on a basic bundle. That means they're paying for hundreds of channels they never watch. The bundling continues with broadband and phone services as companies try to lock people in to increase average revenue per customer or even just fight to retain customers and stop them moving to new suppliers.
Sky wouldn't leave me alone when I set about cancelling, I almost had to take it a restraining order...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Maybe that's it. Maybe a Netflix or Amazon need to invest in a 'Community Content' channel where they pay proven but non-traditional producers like Chris Harris for content.A Netflix provides the immediate audience for such content. Yes, it's not the potential billions that YouTube ostensibly offers, but it is tens of millions and more importantly, tens of millions of paying subscribers.
In return, Chris and other "successful" producers get the exposure that their videos obviously warrant, without all the fragmentation and lack of scale that comes with each implementing their own revenue scheme.
If even 10% of the number that apparently subscribed to Drive (say, 2,000 people?) took out a Netflix sub on the back of CHoC content, that's over £140k pa to Netflix. After their cut, if Chris is free to include sponsorship or product placement (a tyre brand would be quite appropriate!) and/or seek alternative but complementary distribution (DVDs, teaser vids with pre-rolls on YT that drive people to Netflix etc.) then perhaps there's enough skin in it for him even at that level.
I don't have a problem paying for internet content now that broadband speeds and screen qualities are worthy of watching stuff on for more than 5 minutes. I've been meaning to take out a Netflix sub for ages... reckon I'll do it this weekend actually.
What I did have a problem with was massive promises and zero delivery. I'd still pay to watch stuff online, no problem, but it needs to be consistent. Drive+ fell over due to bad communication more than anything else but maybe also setting out a very ambitious stall that they couldn't control on their own... but crucially they didn't realise this until it was too late. Real shame.
Vimeo looks to be better than YouTube for more "serious" content though and I reckon it might become more commonly used pretty soon. I'm considering moving my YouTube channel onto there but it costs a bit to have that (albeit it looks to be worth it).
Andy
What I did have a problem with was massive promises and zero delivery. I'd still pay to watch stuff online, no problem, but it needs to be consistent. Drive+ fell over due to bad communication more than anything else but maybe also setting out a very ambitious stall that they couldn't control on their own... but crucially they didn't realise this until it was too late. Real shame.
Vimeo looks to be better than YouTube for more "serious" content though and I reckon it might become more commonly used pretty soon. I'm considering moving my YouTube channel onto there but it costs a bit to have that (albeit it looks to be worth it).
Andy
I don't think Netflix is a good example. People traditionally paid for content like movie rentals, it's just the delivery method that has changed. Good movies have rarely been free (legally) via the internet. I think newspapers is more interesting. People paid for news in physical form, they went on the net and made the same content free. When they tried to charge for it again, few people paid for it. The Times sells access alongside physical copies now to make it attractive for buyers. If a viable free alternative exists why would you pay?
Youtube was sold as a community video platform, its always been free. You need something unique to get people to part with money. There are lots of places on youtube I can watch someone hooning a Ferrari for free, why would I pay?
Youtube was sold as a community video platform, its always been free. You need something unique to get people to part with money. There are lots of places on youtube I can watch someone hooning a Ferrari for free, why would I pay?
I don't think Netflix commisioning its own series is as far fetched as it first sounds. They commissioned House of Cards, which was a critical success (not sure about financially). When you consider Discovery has its own Turbo channel and has a constant stream of variations in the Fast N Loud model, you can see the pitch for a high quality car program.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No, of course not.But look at it from another angle. Microsoft sells consoles on the back of the boxed AAA titles that cost £50 a throw. That's where the money is and what people buy them for.
However, they also make their platform available to indie developers who can take advantage of the promotion and exposure that Xbox Live offers, but at a price that makes it work for both parties. The games may only cost a few quid and may only attract a few hundred thousand players, and it costs Microsoft a chunk to enable and maintain that channel, but it is worth it in terms of the added value to the overall service and, who knows, the chance of uncovering a superstar of tomorrow with the advantage of a pre-existing commercial agreement, meaning they're well placed to exploit it (look at Mojang).
Yes, the model is slightly different for streaming video, and no-one is saying that having niche stuff like CHoC would make someone sub just for that, but having community/indie content would add another facet to a Netflix offering. This would make it all the more compelling to those who do value that niche content, whether it be cars, science explanations, learning music or whatever, meaning they're more likely to sign up.
If the content is high quality I reckon it could stand up.
DonkeyApple said:
Monkey is a brand and owns his own camera. I'd be doing tongue in cheek product endorsements at the start of the video with a product offer at the end. If it is done with style then no one is going to object and infact it would be a value add for the consumer.
Or just a sponsor at the start of the opening credits, seem's to work for Harry's Garage. 
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff