The TikTok phenomenon is an evolution of reality TV that started in the 90s. New technologies like apps and the internet have simply allowed for the exploitation of previously untapped entertainment value in billions of back yards. There’s probably not much a studio can do to compete with the new small-bite grassroots content itself, since the reality — a kid catching a huge fish in a drainage ditch on a snoopy pole in Thailand or some Florida man sitting in a lawn chair in a creek hand feeding alligators—is the reason we watch. The principle opportunity for the traditional media company is to become a platform for user generated content, rather than a creator of that content. I’m hopeful that there will still be a place for highly produced film and television, but the market share for traditional top-down studio produced entertainment will inevitably shrink.
Thanks a lot Doug - enjoyed this point of view. The hierarchy of preferences of every consumer changes dramatically with the context - what you watch for eg with a kid is very different from what you watch when alone and is layered with personal mood/values etc. There is also an element of Say's Law in this - more supply creates more demand leading to changing definitions.
Relevance to the consumer is likely weighted heavily in the subconscious algorithm used to define quality. Consumers are no longer constrained to get news from a dozen local/broadcast/cable shows largely covering the same stories. They can now get relevant news from talent that looks like them, lives where they live and is passionate about what they are passionate about. It raises the bar for what consumers expect.
Great stuff, as usual, Doug. One intersecting piece that I couldn't get out of my head when reading this was Derek Thompson's latest in The Atlantic, "The Anti-Social Century." Focusing on "self-imposed solitude" and how it is different than loneliness reinforces my thought that this shift to the creator economy (especially since COVID) is a cry out for community as "third places" begin to evaporate from our culture — less hanging out at bars, places of worship, cafes, pick-up sporting facilities, etc. Not only does this lead consumers to scratch that authenticity and reliability itch as you laid out, to me, speaking anecdotally as a millennial/GenZ cusper, it also scratches a "I could easily create something like this if I really wanted to" itch as traditional barriers to quality shrink. Consumers already have the main piece of equipment they need to create the types of content they are consuming — the smartphone. Obviously, the next dopamine hit, which is just one scroll away, is much more tempting than getting up, calling up friends, and convincing them to also step away from the dopamine printer to create a prank video, or whatever they have in mind. But they could, in theory... We see this in younger kids now, as surveys have documented more kids want to be YouTubers/Vloggers today than astronauts, at least in the Western world. Anyways, just something I was chewing on while reading. Thanks for the post!
If I like it, it’s quality to me. Almost no “professional” I’ve known since my days at the beginning of MTV has ever agreed.
The professional POV is “if i make it, that’s quality.” And not for nothing, that includes YouTubers as often as the “upper class” of TV folk. It’s true of record producers who think garage band music is beneath their consideration, or Mr Beast.
Successful people believe that they are the only ones who define quality.
I didn’t write this in the post, but I’ll add that a lot of people who are in a position to opine on quality (not just in media, but any domain in which quality isn’t quantifiable) are in roles that are self selecting for people who already thought they had great taste. That view just gets reinforced at each step up the ladder and further entwined with their identity. So, acknowledging that the consumer definition of quality is diverging from theirs is not an intellectual exercise, it’s a psychic wound.
If it’s free which YouTube is for most then people don’t care about quality. In fact you probably shouldn’t go too far if you’re creating content free to consume.
MrBeast show in Prime is just another brick in the road because you have to pay for see it.
His followers -apparently 300 million plus didn’t care to pay for. For the “quality” they don’t want to pay for it. They get the same entertainment value for free.
(All social media numbers I feel are bogus-I have YT channel which I use to just watch so the 300 or whatever followers I have know at this point I don’t post. But they are still listed as followers. How many of them are still active? None. I don’t post. Point is I can subscribe today to your page today watch four hundred hours of videos then stop and never watch again but I never unsubscribe so I’m counted as a “follower”. This also applies to tiktok. Are they all that or is two sets of books Enron style?). Also my nephew a decade ago when he was 14 wasn’t watching what he watches now. He’s closing in on 30. I don’t know what I was watching in 82(6). But it was very different by 89 (13). We gotta add much more context. I watch YouTube and streamers. In the same day. A 20 minute video to kill time works. Just like I’d read a magazine article while waiting for the train.
Now it’s a podcast. But none of this means these things are going reshape like how radio, photography and telephony did in the 1920’s. There’s no Blockbuster of the hotel industry. (Of my friends & family no one listens to podcast as much and as often as I do, they run into them as part of their time on SM -they don’t subscribe though)
And yellow cabs still dominate Manhattan.
If they were blockbuster they’d be gone and my nephew would need pictures for reference.
The TikTok phenomenon is an evolution of reality TV that started in the 90s. New technologies like apps and the internet have simply allowed for the exploitation of previously untapped entertainment value in billions of back yards. There’s probably not much a studio can do to compete with the new small-bite grassroots content itself, since the reality — a kid catching a huge fish in a drainage ditch on a snoopy pole in Thailand or some Florida man sitting in a lawn chair in a creek hand feeding alligators—is the reason we watch. The principle opportunity for the traditional media company is to become a platform for user generated content, rather than a creator of that content. I’m hopeful that there will still be a place for highly produced film and television, but the market share for traditional top-down studio produced entertainment will inevitably shrink.
Thanks a lot Doug - enjoyed this point of view. The hierarchy of preferences of every consumer changes dramatically with the context - what you watch for eg with a kid is very different from what you watch when alone and is layered with personal mood/values etc. There is also an element of Say's Law in this - more supply creates more demand leading to changing definitions.
Good insight 😌 Can i translate part of this article into Spanish with links to you and a description of your newsletter?
Sure, feel free!
Sharp as usual, Doug.
Relevance to the consumer is likely weighted heavily in the subconscious algorithm used to define quality. Consumers are no longer constrained to get news from a dozen local/broadcast/cable shows largely covering the same stories. They can now get relevant news from talent that looks like them, lives where they live and is passionate about what they are passionate about. It raises the bar for what consumers expect.
Thanks Seth, hope you are great!
Great stuff, as usual, Doug. One intersecting piece that I couldn't get out of my head when reading this was Derek Thompson's latest in The Atlantic, "The Anti-Social Century." Focusing on "self-imposed solitude" and how it is different than loneliness reinforces my thought that this shift to the creator economy (especially since COVID) is a cry out for community as "third places" begin to evaporate from our culture — less hanging out at bars, places of worship, cafes, pick-up sporting facilities, etc. Not only does this lead consumers to scratch that authenticity and reliability itch as you laid out, to me, speaking anecdotally as a millennial/GenZ cusper, it also scratches a "I could easily create something like this if I really wanted to" itch as traditional barriers to quality shrink. Consumers already have the main piece of equipment they need to create the types of content they are consuming — the smartphone. Obviously, the next dopamine hit, which is just one scroll away, is much more tempting than getting up, calling up friends, and convincing them to also step away from the dopamine printer to create a prank video, or whatever they have in mind. But they could, in theory... We see this in younger kids now, as surveys have documented more kids want to be YouTubers/Vloggers today than astronauts, at least in the Western world. Anyways, just something I was chewing on while reading. Thanks for the post!
Thanks for the comment Spencer - certainly sounds plausible to me...
If I like it, it’s quality to me. Almost no “professional” I’ve known since my days at the beginning of MTV has ever agreed.
The professional POV is “if i make it, that’s quality.” And not for nothing, that includes YouTubers as often as the “upper class” of TV folk. It’s true of record producers who think garage band music is beneath their consideration, or Mr Beast.
Successful people believe that they are the only ones who define quality.
Their loss.
I didn’t write this in the post, but I’ll add that a lot of people who are in a position to opine on quality (not just in media, but any domain in which quality isn’t quantifiable) are in roles that are self selecting for people who already thought they had great taste. That view just gets reinforced at each step up the ladder and further entwined with their identity. So, acknowledging that the consumer definition of quality is diverging from theirs is not an intellectual exercise, it’s a psychic wound.
Excellent, thank you.
If it’s free which YouTube is for most then people don’t care about quality. In fact you probably shouldn’t go too far if you’re creating content free to consume.
MrBeast show in Prime is just another brick in the road because you have to pay for see it.
His followers -apparently 300 million plus didn’t care to pay for. For the “quality” they don’t want to pay for it. They get the same entertainment value for free.
(All social media numbers I feel are bogus-I have YT channel which I use to just watch so the 300 or whatever followers I have know at this point I don’t post. But they are still listed as followers. How many of them are still active? None. I don’t post. Point is I can subscribe today to your page today watch four hundred hours of videos then stop and never watch again but I never unsubscribe so I’m counted as a “follower”. This also applies to tiktok. Are they all that or is two sets of books Enron style?). Also my nephew a decade ago when he was 14 wasn’t watching what he watches now. He’s closing in on 30. I don’t know what I was watching in 82(6). But it was very different by 89 (13). We gotta add much more context. I watch YouTube and streamers. In the same day. A 20 minute video to kill time works. Just like I’d read a magazine article while waiting for the train.
Now it’s a podcast. But none of this means these things are going reshape like how radio, photography and telephony did in the 1920’s. There’s no Blockbuster of the hotel industry. (Of my friends & family no one listens to podcast as much and as often as I do, they run into them as part of their time on SM -they don’t subscribe though)
And yellow cabs still dominate Manhattan.
If they were blockbuster they’d be gone and my nephew would need pictures for reference.
wrote something tangential to this. If Netflix bought Tik Tok quality would surely be at risk, but maybe there are ways the partnership could elevate content? https://jokepaul.substack.com/p/netflix-should-buy-tik-tok?r=17tfw0
Smart! Helpful! Your Hotel vs AirBnB analogy is dead on. Thank you.