
Time Warner will spend $100M on Snapchat original shows and ads - janober
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/19/time-warner-will-spend-100m-on-snapchat-original-shows-and-ads
======
dzonga
Active attempt at screwing future generations' attention span!! 3-5 minute
shows, ohh well.

------
celim307
I mean, i could see this being attractive to me if they have daily stories of
behind the scenes. Basically just short clips of actors goofing off or
sets/props being made and tested.

------
philfrasty
„...This deal comes at the perfect time for Snap...“

Yeah what a coincidence.

------
sebbean
lol wtf

------
serg_chernata
Honest question, is this $100M deal even that big for the parties at hand?

Will they spend all of this money on making ads or is this the sum that Snap
will actually receive as payment?

~~~
roymurdock
Snapchat made $150m in revenue last quarter, assuming a straight 4x
multiplication that's $600m in yearly revenue.

Adding $50m in revenue (nearly 10%) per year over the next 2 years is pretty
substantial and you can bet the account director in charge of the TWC account
is having a good day.

------
zitterbewegung
So on the front page [1] it looks like there is a extremely similar deal with
CNN and Facebook. And CNN isn't that keen on playing ball with Facebook. The
revenue sharing seems to be because the fact that Snap isn't playing from a
dominant position. What makes this different revenue sharing? [1]
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-19/media-
com...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-19/media-companies-
are-getting-sick-of-facebook)

~~~
mattacular
Might be related to this deal as CNN is owned by Time Warner (via Turner)

------
wiineeth
_waits for instagram to do the same thing_

------
dmalvarado
But they're a monopoly. Can't they just take $100M and make my bill smaller?

------
htormey
"Snap will take 50% of the ad revenue generated by these shows and the content
partners will keep the other half"

Pretty interesting. Anyone know how this split compares to what FB is offering
its partners to make original video content?

~~~
philfrasty
Think FB pays fixed sums for live content [1]. E.g. Buzzfeed 3.1 million $.
Not sure about other (ad) revenue shares though.

YouTube is 55 (you) 45 (tube) [2].

[1] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-signs-deals-with-
media...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-signs-deals-with-media-
companies-celebrities-for-facebook-live-1466533472) [2]
[http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-
finance/032615...](http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-
finance/032615/how-youtube-ad-revenue-works.asp)

~~~
htormey
Awesome Thanks!

------
sschueller
Next week: Netflix buys Time Warner, cancels Snapchat deal.

~~~
omarchowdhury
Would be quite the interesting merger.

------
jdc0589
what in the shit is a snapchat show.

~~~
Raphmedia
You know when you swipe right one time too many and your screen is filled with
ads? Click on one. That's a Snapchat show.

------
moolcool
What an incredible waste of money

~~~
omarchowdhury
Why? Just because the shows are delivered through Snapchat?

~~~
smpetrey
Yes. I think that is exactly what moolcool is saying. And he's right.
Instagram's (typical users) daily active users just surpassed 700 Million. And
the Stories daily active users just surpassed 375 Million [1]. Now Facebook
has a juggernaut of ad targeting for very specific audiences.

Now if you TW, where would you rather spend your $100 Million on original
content and shows? A fully-sustained cruise liner ($FB) or a rapidly sinking
dingy ($SNAP)?

Sidenote: if any shareholders since the IPO are reading this, sell now. Not
only are your shares non-voteable [2], but they are as ephemeral as Snap's
users. Get out while you can.

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/26/instagram-700-million-
user...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/26/instagram-700-million-users/)

[2] [https://www.recode.net/2017/2/21/14670314/snap-ipo-stock-
vot...](https://www.recode.net/2017/2/21/14670314/snap-ipo-stock-voting-
structure)

~~~
criddell
> Now if you TW, where would you rather spend your $100 Million on original
> content and shows?

That depends on the nature of the content and who you were trying to reach.

If they want to reach me, put it on YouTube or Vimeo. My kids? Snapchat. My
parents? Put it on Facebook or cable TV.

Plus, just because they are pouring $100MM into Snapchat doesn't mean they
aren't also placing big bets on other platforms.

------
6stringmerc
Potential follow-up article: Snapchat stock continues to plunge as teens,
annoyed by Time Warner ads, leave in droves.

~~~
Raphmedia
Very possible. Now when you view one your friend's story it ends with an ads.

I don't want to view a publicity for some products right after I see a video
of my friends.

It was all fine when they added optional publicity feeds/story you could click
on. Since it's forced, I can't see it lasting.

~~~
chipperyman573
In snaps defence, they make it very clear that it's sponsored and you can skip
it (immediately) the same way you skip any other story (sponsored or
otherwise). It's really not a huge deal in my opinion.

~~~
Raphmedia
Is it? Half the time I'm watching a friend showing me a quiet video of his pet
and then at max volume "HI HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THIS PRODUCT?!"

Teens have grown up watching adblocked Youtube and adsless Netflix. Their
tolerance for annoying ads is much lower than people who got used to cable TV.

------
olivermarks
Bet it's fake - saying you are going to spend $100m ad actually doing it are
two v different things. Snapchat has already had all its features ripped off
by the Faceberg empire and has a fraction of their eyeballs...

~~~
accountyaccount
Snapchat has a certain demo cornered though. Kids aren't using Facebook like
their parents are; it's a brand thing more than a feature thing.

~~~
olivermarks
...for now there is a small number of of 'kids' using snapchat, but I suspect
it will never hit critical mass and will be a fad platform. I know a lot of
middle aged marketing types constantly using Snapchat, seeing if it make them
money (even if it's just speeches about it to other marketers..)

~~~
accountyaccount
I wish I were in the position to call 300m+ monthly active users a "small
number of kids"

~~~
olivermarks
I have a hard time believing that number of 300m...

------
warcher
Hm.

Feels like a whole lot of companies are jumping on the Netflix bandwagon with
original content.

And here's the thing that concerns me: Netflix, on a tech level, is pretty
much a solved problem. There's stuff left to be done for sure, rust never
sleeps, but they're pretty much good to go tech-wise. The content side of
their business is an existential struggle, and getting original content right
is IMHO a do-or-die proposition for them. They did a pretty damned good job
because they have to.

All these other guys, they see Netflix doing a really good job on original
content, and they want to duplicate the success. Which is understandable, but
can they devote the focus at the top level that is necessary to do the job? Or
are they going to half-ass it with the expectation that running a content
studio is something any idiot liberal arts major can do?

Snapchat, for me, isn't in the TV game and shouldn't be. Nor Apple. And the
results of their experiments are about what I'd expect out of a couple of big
companies messing around with original content.

~~~
igk
>..., rust never sleeps,...

I am not familiar with this phrase, what does it refer to? Or are you
referring to my current favorite programming language and the need for it to
go mainstream? ;-)

You can also have another perspective on this: with the lack of investments in
moonshots and every less actual work to do, we are now entering the
"entertainment industry" phase of our society.

You could argue that Netflix creates the on-demand-video equivalent of long
form writing, youtube spans from that to shlock novels and comic books...so
with vine gone (it's still gone right?), maybe snapchat or instagram will fill
the video equivalent of tabloids spanning to facebook posts.

~~~
komali2
_cough_ hello rust evangelism strike force _cough_

Rust never sleeps: the idea that nothing is ever "not needing maintenance." In
webdev, this means that even if Netflix is "perfect," it may not remain so if,
for example, the Chrome, Firefox, and Microsoft teams all find critical
exploits in their browser code that forces a push to up to date and legacy
versions of their browsers that breaks the netflix video viewer, or whatever.

No matter how well you paint a bridge, the rust will find a way in.

~~~
igk
> cough hello rust evangelism strike force cough

we also never sleep ;-)

thanks for the explanation...it will be interesting how netflix will handle
it. The "reasonable thing" to do would be to either a) plonk all of those
"superfluous" engineers into creative fun mode ala xerox park or b) set them
onto formally verifying the stack and then sack them slowly/stop hiring, at
least as far as can guess from the outside of the entertainment industry?
Though handling 3D/VR+developing teldedildonics (does netflix do adult
content?) might give the techies continued legitimacy

~~~
komali2
I don't know, but I am definitely stealing teledildonics from you.

------
komali2
Well, that's it then. Either I'm officially out of touch, or Time Warner is
$100M out of touch. Occam's Razor.

Is this what getting old feels like?

~~~
alaskamiller
$100 million for two dozen bets (plus management fees) to catch 300MM MAU that
yields $100k ad slot inventories. 2000 placement a year to break even. 4000 to
double ROI.

TWC has skin in the game to explore a new channel. Snap has skin the game to
make sure their top notch sales team can close those deals. And a couple
hundred kiddie social influencers are gonna get stupid money to play with
instead of being on Youtube or Instagram.

Being old is thinking it's just another form of the horse tracks.

~~~
joshjkim
"TWC has skin in the game to explore a new channel." <\-- IMO, piece that
holds it all together. all media cos have a huge interest in finding and
maintaining channels-that-are-not-Facebook - newspapers/magazines/print
already nearly live/die by FB's feed (mostly the latter...and the living are
now trying to figure out ways to diversify, i truly wish them luck!), and TWC
needs to figure out a way to avoid that same dependence as video continues to
move more and more online. snapchat is not facebook, and that is worth TWC
trying to make work!

------
Animats
Vertical video by the pros.

I wonder if large portrait displays will become available again.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I wonder if large portrait displays will become available again.

Monitor stands for LCD panels that support rotation (and video drivers that do
the same) have never stopped being available.

~~~
eecc
Crystal polarization always makes the viewing in portrait quite odd

~~~
tgb
What's the difference between that for desktop displays and a handheld display
that we frequently reorient without complaint? The smaller range of viewing
angle? Different technology?

~~~
occamrazor
Text has many almost vertical oblique lines, but few almost horizontal ones.
On non-retina displays Cleartype is more useful with vertically oriented sub-
pixels.

