People still want the TV and movie experience offered by traditional studios, but social platforms are becoming competitive for their entertainment time—and even more competitive for the business models that studios have relied on. Social video platforms offer a seemingly endless variety of free content, algorithmically optimized for engagement and advertising. They wield advanced ad tech and AI to match advertisers with global audiences, now drawing over half of US ad spending. As the largest among them move into the living room, will they be held to higher standards of quality?
At the same time, the streaming on-demand video (SVOD) revolution has fragmented pay TV audiences, imposed higher costs on studios now operating direct-to-consumer services, and delivered thinner margins for their efforts. It can be a tougher business, yet the premium video experience offered by streamers often sets the bar for quality storytelling, acting, and world-building. How can studios control costs, attract advertisers, and compete for attention? Are there stronger points of collaboration that can benefit both streamers looking to reach global audiences and social platforms that lack high-quality franchises?
This year’s Digital Media Trends lends data to the argument that video entertainment has been disrupted by social platforms, creators, user-generated content (UGC), and advanced modeling for content recommendations and advertising. Such platforms may be establishing the new center of gravity for media and entertainment, drawing more of the time people spend on entertainment and the money that brands spend to reach them.
Our survey of US consumers reveals that media and entertainment companies—including advertisers—are competing for an average of six hours of daily media and entertainment time per person (figure 1). And this number doesn’t seem to be growing.2 Not only is it unlikely that any one form of media will command all six hours, but each user likely has a different mix of SVOD, UGC, social, gaming, music, podcasts, and potentially other forms of digital media that make up these entertainment hours.
I feel like creator content isn’t about quality, but form. People watch the same TV shows from decades ago because they are familiar. Creator content is kinda like that, it’s cozy. It’s something you can just put on and zone out to. It’s interesting and entertaining, but it’s not very intense. Its usually people sharing their passions, so it feels very human and relatable too.
But also there’s probably something to be said about how much it cost to get started on YouTube vs how much it cost to produce a TV show or movie.
Stop making junk, and start making good content, and we’ll watch it. But, as it stands, Creators with zero budget are making better content that the studios with nearly unlimited budget.
Let’s go fediverse!
Honestly most recent movies and tv shows look like scenarios were generated by AI or some barbie sweet happy life generator so there is nothing entertaining. Creators on the other side, I feel like they do the stuff without script, just making their raw videos without asking if they can put something in the video, it’s entertaining because they make mistakes or have controversial opinions that you can’t see in modern tv.
I think people feel more connected because they feel something when watching person talking on the screen whatever they want to talk about instead of person reading from script.
Honestly most recent movies and tv shows look like scenarios were generated by AI or some barbie sweet happy life generator so there is nothing entertaining.
A lot of slop has wide appeal. And let’s not pretend soap operas and sitcoms and trope genre fiction don’t routinely have wide appeal. The theory that AI can seamlessly replicate pulp fiction / scripted reality TV seems to have held up for the most part, because so much of this content is a canned and formulaic to begin with.
What AIs lack, more than anything, is a face and personality that is distinct to the line of work. There is no real AI “House Style” that gets adhered to. I can pick up a dozen Brian Sanderson novels and get roughly the same experience. But if I ask a Chatbot to “write me a chapter of a Brian Sanderson novel”, what I’m really going to get is a generic jumble of Harry Potter, Star Wars, and Marvel with a few Brian Sanderson tropes thrown in.
I think people feel more connected because they feel something when watching person talking on the screen whatever they want to talk about instead of person reading from script.
So much of the “spontaneous” content is still heavily scripted and acted on delivery. What makes professional acting impressive is the range - a single person embodying a wide range of personalities and mannerisms. I don’t watch Gary Oldman or Daniel Day-Lewis because I’m looking for unpolished delivery.
But the Auteur experience is what draws people in and makes certain works rise above their peer materials. AI has no real artistry. All it does is cut, copy, and paste from a grab bag of established popular materials, hoping it’ll trigger enough nostalgia to be recognized as good.
As styles and tastes shift, I have to wonder what AI is going to look like, given how rooted it is in the moment of instantiation. The long tail will drag, while younger and historically unburdened artists will be out experimenting.
You’re right that good actor makes a difference in average movie. I just want to add that Gary Oldman and Daniel Day-Lewis are 67. So those old guys started in theaters where you need to improvise to make people imerse in the play. All they had was a text and their own imagination.
Maybe this lack of improvisation is killing movie industry as I think smaller creators need to improvise a lot and maybe young actors are just like puppets, don’t have this background where they need to put themselves in the role without all this technology around where you can look on everything how other people did it.
Number of technology stimulants these days are insane.
Is it our complete lack of originality and obsessive wholesale rehashing and incessant rebooting and remaking of already existing movies that’s to blame?
No, it’s the children who are out of touch.
I’m 54 so not that young but I find myself watching more very specific videos of subjects I’m interested in than more mainstream movies or tv shows. I mean occasionally I’ll watch a movie or show but probably 90% of the time I’m watching content creators on YouTube or the like.
Personally I find real people and everyday life more interesting than the bland reboots and sequels of movies from my youth.
I think it also makes me a more aware person to watch content from people whose lives are totally different than mine, in different countries, with different abilities.
The only good movies and shows I watch are based on sci fi books or computer games that already did the work of building a plot and characters. And there’s a few really comedic writers that do great work- mostly on Apple TV.
Same age and my wife and I tend to watch old movies or YouTube. When there are free channels for any well-produced fiction you care for like Omeleto, why bother with Hollywood?
Lil younger but same. I should cancel Paramount.
Translation:
Big Social is unsurprisingly winning the competition for individuals’ attention.
Even more reason to seed fedi!
💯
Yay, my 50 something butt is a younger people.
No it isn’t … 😂 (I’m in the same boat by the way).
If you can injure yourself sleeping, you are NOT younger… 🤣
Sleeping? You should see me get out of bed, stumbling around hunched over for 10 minutes until all my parts agree that, no, it’s not that painful, and, yes, we’ll all start playing nicely soon enough.
I’ve said it before: there’s good and then there’s good enough. Content that’s “good enough” but easier to access will overshadow content that’s maybe light-years better but harder to acquire. That and attention spans are getting shorter. My kid has the entire Disney library at his fingertips but he’d rather flip between YouTube channels.
Yay I feel young!
Over the years I always hear people in real life tell me how much they loved Parasite, Fight Club, Being John Malkovich, Harold and Maude, Everything Everywhere at Once. They never seem to be able to find movies they like. They never put much effort finding things they’d like
They’re all movies that are from indie filmmakers that managed to get mainstream recognition. Movies like O Brother Where Art Thou, There Will Be Blood, Pulp Fiction, etc. Auteur led movies making original movies. There are tens of thousands of movies being made with passion outside of just return on investment a year. Uncut Gems had some popularity some years ago.
I can confidently say with certainty that at least a couple hundred a year are good to great. Almost none of them make more than like $5 million at the box office worldwide in their release year. Most barely get screens and even in AMCs they show to theaters of like 3 people
Discovery issue but also even marketed with great trailers, people aren’t going taking the risk of being disappointed. Either it goes viral or people aren’t watching it. Japanese movies to non-Japanese people might as well just be anime adaptations and the latest Godzilla movie
Korean movies was for a period just Old boy to people that googled and then just Parasite. Maybe the Wailing.
Every other country in the US may as well not exist when it comes to movies. Like 1000 feature length movies a year from the US but the only ones people know are like 5 blockbusters a year where they may watch 2 and then when the Oscars come around they learn of a handful of indie movies and maybe try the best picture winner. That’s it. Even a movie they like, they can’t come up with the idea of seeing who directed or wrote it and see what else they’ve done. We can complain about studios all we want but time and time again we are shown that the general consumer including the whiners in here will not try to find what isn’t already popular. Same with music, television, books, etc.
Unless it has a cookie cutter easy to see the appeal hook, very few people will show up. Celebrities they think are attractive and action. Way more competition now though. I don’t think romance movies are major anymore. Plenty of good content, you just don’t know it and you don’t take risks. That includes everyone complaining about Netflix. There’s plenty on there and Amazon Prime. There’s plenty that hits the AMC or other major chain. You just don’t watch it. You’re a part of the problem.
Do you have recommendations for fixing discoverability? I can browse by category on streaming apps, but that just shows the top ten or twenty titles. Beyond that it’s search by name or scroll alphabetically.
I’m far far far from a younger consumer, and I find that I too have moved almost entirely to online content, mostly in the form of True Crime podcasts and YT channels, History Documentaries, etc…
Especially in non-fiction content, there’s pretty much nothing that paid TV can offer that Social Platforms cannot. It’s the only place where I think this whole internet experiment is actually working as intended; the democratization of knowledge.
True Crime podcasts and YT channels
Female detected! I joke, but I don’t know any men into that content, and I’m ceaselessly amazed at the variety of women who love it. My wife will soon be home, in bed and totally absorbed in watching white trash confess (while trying to lie) to cops about their heinous acts.
yep, i guess manga/comics/manhwa is somewhat user generated content? but i mostly read those and watch contetn creators aswell
feel like the golden age of movies are over, now its repeative bugdet movies that sell to netflix and so on
I don’t know that I would say “as intended” but it is better than live TV, especially in the educational department. Neil Degrasse Tyson’s yt channel is better than anything on the discovery channel these days. Countless podcasts are better than anything on the history channel. I don’t think they even try to do history anymore. They just air pawn stars reruns 24/7.
I remember a time when the discovery channel, the science channel, and Animal Planet actually had stuff worth watching. I’m pretty sure they’ve replaced it all with garbage reality TV since the business model of cable is basically filling the airwaves so Boomers don’t realize they’ve been paying for something they aren’t watching anymore and finally get around to calling to cancel.
Others have touched on this but this also feels downstream from the capitalist hellscape. Most people don’t have a lot of spending money. Movies are pricey and a bad money:time ratio.
I bet if wages were up, more people would go to the theater. I don’t want to spend $40 to watch a movie and eat popcorn, but I’d consider it for $3.
And if they actually produced and marketed original movies rather than generic superhero movie #69
I was going to say something similar to that too. Specifically, the consolidation of power means there’s less smaller companies taking risks. You’d think a big company with Disney money could afford to be weird and experimental, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
I say this despite enjoying superhero movies
People are buying the tickets for the sequel slop. If no one bought them then they would have to be weird and experimental but that will only happen if enough of us said no more to these live action remakes and sequels.
That’s another result of people not having enough money to be experimental with their movie choice. If movies are too expensive for you to go regularly, of course most people would choose those that they know are gonna be safe for them to enjoy instead of giving unknown original movies a try.
That’s a bingo! I’m only taking the time and spending the money for a movie I know damned well I’ll enjoy. Guess I’m part of the problem.
Any plan that depends on “and then the common person develops discerning taste” is doomed to fail. Especially considering that even people who are usually picky might enjoy something basic from time to time
The problem is that this applies to news and information. People are listening to Joe Rogan, who doesn’t try to report the facts, not journalists.
I’m conflicted about Joe Rogan, or at least the concept he had at the start. Clearly he’s fallen down the right-wing rabbit hole but the original intent he had of letting people defend their weird positions is a good one imo. One could argue that the reason the right-wing funnel exists is because there isn’t really space to talk about some of those things on the left.
For example, it’s not crazy to ask questions about vaccines and how they work. However, when people do that those who are educated on the topic will largely assume ill intent by default and treat the people asking questions as if they’re stupid or malicious. There’s some good reasons for that but such an approach is pretty alienating for those who are genuinely seeking information. That leads at least a portion of those people to listen to more right leaning information because they feel like that is the only group taking them seriously.
We need to do better at meeting people where they are instead of assuming they are trying to spread misinformation. Yes it’s true that all the information you need to develop an informed opinion about the vast majority of topics is available on the internet, but finding and understanding that information does take skills and time that not everyone has. In order to understand why a statement or belief is incorrect or misinformed you have to create a space in which it can be discussed without fear and shame driving people away.
Based on the limited amount of his older podcasts that I’ve been exposed to, I do think that Joe genuinely tried to do that, he’s just not particularly well equipped to handle that kind of environment. Over time he fell victim to the same kind of radicalization that he was intending to subvert by letting people share their actual thoughts instead of assuming he already knew what they were going to say.
the original intent he had of letting people defend their weird positions is a good one imo.
If people were meant to defend their weird positions, that would mean that Rogan was supposed to give pushback.
That was clearly never going to happen, because he’d need to seriously investigate his guests claims beforehand.
So instead we got a podcast that’s filled with obvious misinformation with hardly a critical note from Rogan. Dumbing down his audience with BS. Causing more distrust for experts, and anti-intellectualism.
That’s fair. I suppose a better wording would have been “let people articulate their weird positions in their own words”. I think that’s a good thing in conceptual form. However, as you noted, it doesn’t really work if you aren’t equipped to push back and make them address the counter arguments. That’s where Joe is lacking. He’s good at getting people talking and asking layman’s questions but that’s as deep as he can go. He needs to book the guys who can give the rebuttals either on the same show or immediately after.
The big problem with that is potentially: you get one crank against one serious person, the crank can just gish-gallop and the serious person will need hours just to untangle the web of lies.
Yeah well, that’s pretty much where the whole world is at right now. It’s easier to lie than explain the truth
I can testify on that.
In the last two years, I’ve discovered VTubers and streamers in general.
I’ve discovered Geega’s tech talks, Deme’s videogame playthroughs, Michi Mochievee’s amazing (and shocking) IRL lore, VShojo group gaming sessions, Dokibird’s third wheel viral video, Ironmouse’s gremlin moments with Connor, Melody getting raided at the most inopportune times, Henya’s Minecraft trolling exploits, Veedal and Camila’s hopecore video, Neuro-sama’s singing and otherwise general roasting comments on human VTubers, and wholesome gaming streamers like Beacon of Nick.
Not to mention a number of woodworking youtubers teaching about, or otherwise making mistakes when building or restoring furniture.
There’s content for everyone, and traditional TV doesn’t even come close.
It’s like stepping out of a boring office into Alice’s Wonderland.
The creativity is out there and it’s a joy to see what can be without corporate meddling.
