Chronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 108,104

…in reply to @morisy
morisy swodinsky Because video is expensive to make, distribute, & monetize. & it's ineffective at retention. Also, they don't promote it on front & rarely above the fold. I wouldn't be surprised that they are bringing in significant $ from video, but it is accompanied by significant costs.
On twitter.com 2019 Jul 31 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @Chronotope
morisy swodinsky (Also, look at the spread of content over date stamps.)
Permalink On twitter.com 2019 Jul 31 Mood 0

…in reply to @Chronotope
morisy swodinsky (Also... if the Gizmodo videos are any example, they are high work, low re-use video, a bad sign for a sustainable pace. Efficient operations would shoot long form, release short-form spread over time to increase output and match topics)
Permalink On twitter.com 2019 Jul 31 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @Chronotope
morisy swodinsky Digital only news sites doing video if they are to have any chance of making real profitability out of it need to take a shoot-once publish many many times approach. Video production is expensive, ad CPM is higher, but not high enough.
Permalink On twitter.com 2019 Jul 31 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @Chronotope
morisy swodinsky Pretty sure they lack a real studio too, which incurs its own editing-time costs. No insult intended, I've been without more than once, but I know that creates real sound and quality issues that take work to correct.
Permalink On twitter.com 2019 Jul 31 Mood -2 🙁

Search tweets' text