Piers Morgan - owned

TinFoilHat said:
www.bbc.com

Piers Morgan to move TalkTV show Uncensored to YouTube

The broadcaster, who has 2.4m subscribers online, said TV schedules had become a "straitjacket".
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

Off to join the Fucker Carlson/Russel Brand grift.
Click to expand...
"The show's YouTube channel currently has 2.35 million subscribers, many times its estimated daily TV audience."

Ah, there's a journalist who doesn't understand Youtube. Subscribers mean fuck all if they don't watch the videos. And while he occasionally pushes 1 million views, most of his videos are around the 300k mark, with some only in the tens of thousands. While that might be good for a lone creator editing on their laptop, for someone with a professional studio full of employees to pay, it's not likely to cut the mustard.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
"The show's YouTube channel currently has 2.35 million subscribers, many times its estimated daily TV audience."

Ah, there's a journalist who doesn't understand Youtube. Subscribers mean fuck all if they don't watch the videos. And while he occasionally pushes 1 million views, most of his videos are around the 300k mark, with some only in the tens of thousands. While that might be good for a lone creator editing on their laptop, for someone with a professional studio full of employees to pay, it's not likely to cut the mustard.
Click to expand...

Does that really matter though?

It's not a station setup to make money.

The clips will be widely shared, it will generate right-wing nonsense and spread around the internet.

He'll probably still get aired on Sky News Australia (which Murdoch still owns).

Worst case scenario for him is he gets cut loose and then pops up at GB news.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Does that really matter though?

It's not a station setup to make money.

The clips will be widely shared, it will generate right-wing nonsense and spread around the internet.
Click to expand...
If they were being widely shared, he'd already be getting views higher than or touching his subscriber count. Obviously if he focuses more on that, I'd expect him to be able to expand the channel. But you naturally have less control over anything on Youtube. If Youtube doesn't want you to succeed, they can make that happen. Stuff that is deemed 'controversial' (which often includes sensitive topics in the news) is regularly demonetized on Youtube, because advertisers don't want to appear on it. And while you might say that they don't really care about the money (not sure I agree), when stuff falls into the bracket, it also doesn't get recommended by the algorithm meaning less people see it.

I remember during covid, all sorts of channels, even something as innocuous as a photography channel were avoiding saying the word 'covid' because it would be picked up and that was instant demonetisation, even when they were only mentioning it in passing. I imagine stuff relating to Israel-Palestine or the war in Ukraine have to similarly walk on eggshells on Youtube.

And from a financial point of view (which I think the Murdochs do care about), what is better? The full advertising revenue from 50,000 TV viewers, or whatever crumbs Youtube are willing to throw you from 350,000 views (some of which might be as little as 30 seconds). And Youtube is by far the most generous of the online platforms. No doubt he'll be able to advertise in the videos themselves, but again, I'm not sure the economics of a single sponsor on a mid-sized Youtube channel compared to 10 minutes of adverts from all different advertisers on a small TV channel, but I suspect the latter is much more lucrative.
 
Last edited:
I'm With Stupid said:
If they were being widely shared, he'd already be getting views higher than or touching his subscriber count. Obviously if he focuses more on that, I'd expect him to be able to expand the channel. But you naturally have less control over anything on Youtube. If Youtube doesn't want you to succeed, they can make that happen. Stuff that is deemed 'controversial' (which often includes sensitive topics in the news) is regularly demonetized on Youtube, because advertisers don't want to appear on it. And while you might say that they don't really care about the money (not sure I agree), when stuff falls into the bracket, it also doesn't get recommended by the algorithm meaning less people see it.

I remember during covid, all sorts of channels, even something as innocuous as a photography channel were avoiding saying the word 'covid' because it would be picked up and that was instant demonetisation, even when they were only mentioning it in passing. I imagine stuff relating to Israel-Palestine or the war in Ukraine have to similarly walk on eggshells on Youtube.

And from a financial point of view (which I think the Murdochs do care about), what is better? The full advertising revenue from 50,000 TV viewers, or whatever crumbs Youtube are willing to throw you from 350,000 views (some of which might be as little as 30 seconds). And Youtube is by far the most generous of the online platforms. No doubt he'll be able to advertise in the videos themselves, but again, I'm not sure the economics of a single sponsor on a mid-sized Youtube channel compared to 10 minutes of adverts from all different advertisers on a small TV channel, but I suspect the latter is much more lucrative.
Click to expand...

You're approaching this from the mindset of streaming Vs TV. But that's like comparing Manchester City with Maine Road FC.

There's no competition. They aren't going to be getting the advertising revenue because traditional advertising is collapsing, that's before you take into account their aversion to buying space between the toxicity of right wing news programmes.

He signed a contract worth £50 million over three years. They definitely don't care about the money.

www.google.com

Piers Morgan to leave TalkTV show to focus on YouTube

Some interviews will still be shown on TalkTV but Morgan calls commitment to daily show ‘unnecessary straitjacket’
www.google.com www.google.com

Figures from ratings body Barb show that the audience averaged just 11,100 for a Monday in January, compared to 58,000 for GB News, 62,500 for Sky News and 76,000 for BBC News.
 
Face it - he has been sacked - like Tucker was off Fox. If you cost or could cost Murdoch you are surplus to requirements - on your own - gone.

Harry and his legal team keep calling him out - he can't sue them because without his rich valuable uncle to back him and in any event what he knows will have to come out in court and it will like as not be the opposite to what he claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.