
YouTube CEO on Facebook video ambitions: 'They should get back to baby pictures' - smacktoward
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/13/youtube-ceo-on-facebooks-video-they-should-get-back-to-baby-pictures.html
======
steve-benjamins
YouTube has been an incredible place for building an audience for me. I
started publishing videos in November of last year and growth has been
dramatic (for me at least— my content is pretty niche, I review website
builders): [http://s3.amazonaws.com/sitebuilderreport-
assets/images/file...](http://s3.amazonaws.com/sitebuilderreport-
assets/images/files/000/000/016/original/stats.png?1518544653)

Facebook on the other hand turned my Facebook "page" into a payola scheme
where I had to pay to access my audience. Lame.

~~~
Siecje
Assuming no new growth, in 10 months you will be able to make money from
YouTube.

Do you think the 4000 watch hours in the past 12 months is too high or just
right?

~~~
steve-benjamins
I'm probably not a good person to ask. I make money through affiliate links in
my video descriptions— so I have no plans to use Youtube's official
monetization programs.

~~~
newbuser
If your goal is affiliate clicks, why do views & mins of engagement matter?

Seems like the measure would be which platform generated more clicks that
convert.

------
ilamont
She may be right.

Facebook has a lot of problems on its plate right now, but one of the worst
trends has been the poorly thought out march to video. It came from Zuckerberg
(1 and 2) and was repeated by senior FB executives, and then became a mantra
for publishers. Many made large investments in video programming for Facebook,
only to find the money isn't there and Facebook later decided to demote
publisher content (3 and 4).

This is not just large media companies that got burned, I know some smaller
producers who believed the "five years the feed will be all video" baloney and
shifted their efforts accordingly. Some were doing really important work, too,
around causes or local news. What a waste.

Meanwhile, it seems that overall video consumption in Facebook is declining,
and it's the one percent that get the most engagement, regardless of who the
publisher is (5).

I personally would not mind if Facebook turned back the clock 10 years, when
most conversations seemed to be personal and text-based, and the truckloads of
memes, ads, gaming achievements, real and fake news, and videos of cats
playing the piano had yet to be shoved down Facebook's maw and into our feeds.
Old-school text discussions seem to work for HN, why can't it work for
Facebook?

1\. [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-
faceb...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-
news-feed-784376)

2\. [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/facebook-shares-up-
re...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/facebook-shares-up-revenue-
growth-970957)

3\. [https://www.recode.net/2017/1/17/14269406/facebook-live-
vide...](https://www.recode.net/2017/1/17/14269406/facebook-live-video-deals-
paid)

4\. [https://digiday.com/media/digiday-research-publishers-
making...](https://digiday.com/media/digiday-research-publishers-making-money-
facebook-video/)

5\. [https://www.wochit.com/blog/social-video-performance-
index-2...](https://www.wochit.com/blog/social-video-performance-index-2017/)

~~~
eropple
_> Old-school text discussions seem to work for HN, why can't it work for
Facebook?_

People don't really read in the same way as you might have previously
expected. ("Reading a short blurb or a tweet" is not the same thing.) Can't or
don't want to, I don't know, but they don't. You see the edges of it here, too
--tl;drs on HN posts, sometimes, that are less than a screenful of text. And
people think you're "spending a lot of effort" when you bang out a post about
as long as yours is--and, sometimes, try to frame it as a bad thing.

I tend to think Thomas Pettitt has a point[1].

[1] -
[https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/the_future_is_medieval.ph...](https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/the_future_is_medieval.php)

------
minimaxir
That particular comment has generated a lot of appropriate snark in light of
YouTube's recent controversies involving disturbing children videos and Logan
Paul:
[https://twitter.com/cwarzel/status/963268727646035968](https://twitter.com/cwarzel/status/963268727646035968)

------
rrggrr
Facebook isn't going away. However it seems to be coming apart because its
hard to argue that FB improves, rather than burdens, people's lives. Its
simply easier, less distracting and often happier connecting outside FB's
walled garden. For example:

    
    
      Messenger --> rampant competition from about a dozen apps.
    
      Community --> reported audience declines. From participation fatigue, privacy concerns, and competing sites.
    
      Publishing --> push-back from content providers and publishers who don't wish to be assimilated into the 'borg'.
    
      Payments --> no real competitive offering.
    
      FederatedID/SSO --> rampant competition from Google, LinkedIN, Github, etc.
    

I really believe Facebook is grossly overvalued as an internet property, much
in the same way MySpace and AOL were in the 'old days'. I also suspect that
Twitter remains undervalued in terms of influence and - importantly - 2nd/3rd
order reach (eg. republishing).

There's something to be said for building products that make people's lives
easier and truly happier, and I'm not sure that FB does either anymore.

~~~
dfabulich
> _I really believe Facebook is grossly overvalued as an internet property_

You could have made this exact argument in 2012 when FB was worth $20/share.
Was this argument wrong in 2012 but correct in 2018?

~~~
rrggrr
Yes. Look at FB earnings per share and tell me where that growth is going to
come from. I note FB is down today. The market is slow to catch on in both
directions, but when it does...

~~~
dfabulich
Where did the growth come from in 2012?

------
Splines
IMO Facebook video is a non-starter because of branding. Facebook is not a
destination for video.

Facebook is to video as youtube is to social networking.

~~~
stale2002
This is true. There was recently a huge controversy in the Dota 2 community,
because a major tournament exclusively moved to Facebook livestreaming (away
from twitch).

One of the most common complaints was something like "I'd never use Facebook,
because I hate the company!"

Also, frankly, the tech product for livestreaming isn't anywhere near feature
competitive.

------
mad44
Oh my God. She just gave Mark Zuckerberg a rallying chant; he will write this
on all Facebook walls and rally developers to improve Facebook video.

~~~
jrs95
IMO that’s probably good for Google because it’s likely going to be a wasted
effort. Even if they built great stuff, I can’t see this being more successful
than something like Google+ or Facebook’s attempts at making an Android
launcher. There’s just no motivation for users to get on board with this. In
terms of video, I think they may be able to do something similar to what
Snapchat has done, but that’s about it.

------
cflewis
Disclaimer: Am Googler

My 2c is that for mass consumption, streaming is where the puck is going, not
short-form videos. Kids are watching Minecraft streaming, they're not watching
punks like Logan Paul until they are in their teens, and my guess is as those
younger kids get older, tastes will change and Paul et al will be done. And
even when you think about teens, streamers like Dr Disrespect seem to capture
far more zeitgeist than YouTubers. Is Casey Neistat really a thing anymore?

IMHO Facebook really should be doubling-down on local sharing and improving
that experience, Google Photos is far and away the best photo product for me.
Replicating YouTube won't work, the quality of the platform and the network
effects are too strong. Whether Facebook can do something disruptive like
Twitch I don't know. Maybe IRL streaming of C-list celebrities like Snoop or
Kylie Jenner?

~~~
MarkMc
> IMHO Facebook really should be doubling-down on local sharing and improving
> that experience, Google Photos is far and away the best photo product for
> me.

Do you mean that Google Photos is a better way for you to share your photos
than Facebook?

~~~
cflewis
It's better for my immediate family, worse for my social network as a whole.

------
hugh4life
I actually think there is a huge opportunity for there to be competition with
youtube... but not directly under the facebook brand. It'll have to be
something like Instagram.

~~~
mslate
Why?

~~~
ibdf
Because a lot of people don't want all the other stuff that comes with having
a facebook.

~~~
Splines
Youtube gets this right and puts the content first, on all endpoints. I see a
youtube video and click it, I get a video.

If I see a facebook link, there are many problems:

\- I don't know if it's a video

\- I don't know if I'll see a login page or if I'll get to the content

\- I don't know if the content is viewable by me because of privacy settings

And then this works the other way - why should I share a video on facebook
when I can't tell if my recipient will be able to see the video? I don't know
if they'll get a login prompt. I don't know if they have the permissions to
see the video.

All this friction doesn't exist with youtube, or at least is extremely
minimal.

~~~
racl101
Agreed. I'm always weary of clicking on a Facebook video because I don't want
a history of that going on my wall or some other kind of trail. I don't want
all the baggage that comes with Facebook.

And a small 10s commercial on a YouTube video is a small price to put up with
in comparison to the rest of the shit that comes with being in the Facebook
ecosystem.

Only reason I still have an account is to be in touch with some high school
friends and that's something I barely do these days.

------
ggg9990
Interestingly, we don’t post any baby photos on Facebook because it’s too
toxic of an environment. We use WhatsApp, which is still owned by Facebook but
much harder for them to monetize.

------
mmackh
Instagram is Facebook's attempt to dethrone YT as the dominant player in the
video sector. Once they remove time limits and allow some form of basic player
controls, we're probably going to see some sort of shift. Instagram's UX/UI
is, in my opinion, smoother than that of the YT app.

~~~
jrs95
If the content and discoverabilty isn’t there, it’s not going to matter. No
matter what Microsoft does with Bing, they’re not going to win for the same
reason.

------
osrec
There is certainly space to compete with YouTube. I think YouTube ads are
getting a bit annoying, especially when you can't skip them. If a valid
challenger were to arise, I feel monetisation strategy is where this battle
will be lost or won. The least annoying/intrusive will win every time.

------
thrillgore
Oh man, don't be this smug. You be this smug, you regret it later.

------
oh_sigh
"I mean" said 7 times. Maybe that is the benefit of "umm" \- when you have
that verbal tic, it usually isn't included in transcriptions.

------
solarkraft
Facebook isn't a good contender, not on its main website, but YouTube is
falling quickly and this talk just motivates competitors more.

------
cgarduno1
Youtube isn't perfect but the facebook video player is terrible.

------
dmitrygr
Underestimating competition is never a good idea, especially publicly like
this. Horse carriage drivers also laughed about automobiles... initially

~~~
IntronExon
The early automobiles were a joke, so they called it like they saw it. You can
hardly blame people for not seeing where it would lead, often beyond their
professional lives. Take for contrast the reaction of French factory workers
when automated textile production started to come online, or cabbies when
automated fare metering hit.

------
jsnk
I cannot believe I am saying this, but I am rooting for Facebook to build a
competition against Youtube.

~~~
pythonaut_16
Youtube seems to be one of the more egregious parts of the Google ecosystem.

Like sure Gmail has its problems, but ultimately it is an excellent web based
email system that's hard to beat because it's a great product.

Youtube's main strength seems to be primarily its first mover advantage, and
the fact that building a video hosting site is a rather costly venture.

Neither of those are a very defensive moat against competitors like Amazon and
Facebook

~~~
holydude
I do not think gmail is an excellent product. For me it's backed by a giant
that guarantees its availability and functionality almost anywhere in the
world (looking at you China). I would use something else in a blink of an eye.

