Is Youtube Replacing T.V
Debate Rounds (4)
No Rude Manners
R1 is accepting only.
"Besides YouTube uses way to much of the Internet and can drain WiFi (if you are limited)" and what happens if you aren't. Say you get great internet. What happens then? Quality is very important. I see that you didn't mention quality in your entire rebuttal, also 4k is free on Youtube but costs thousands on T.V: "on March 2015, a 55 inch 4K TV was priced at an average of US$1,370, compared to an average of US$2,660" quoted from the http://business.financialpost.com.... So 1000$ to free. Pretty simple choice really. Youtube is the much smarter choice. Check!
So why aren't we drawn to YouTube for long-form content? Primarily because YouTube (and more specifically, AdSense) is heavily optimized for short-form content. YouTube advertising is extremely aggressive and pervasive from the moment you arrive on the site. 30-second ads preempt content, banners fill the bottom of an in-play video and banner ads/paid-placement videos populate the right column.
We've learned to tolerate these interruptions and to filter out most of the annoying, disruptive banners to get to the content. But apply the same or similar advertising tactics to long-format and viewers won't stick around. This is a post-DVR/ Netflix world where users can consume TV shows and movies (even on networks) and either see no ads at all or speed past them at warp 9.1. Could you imagine watching your favorite episode of The Walking Dead and having banner ads surface at the bottom?
YouTube is meant for short video content and not for movies or television shows.
"We've learned to tolerate these interruptions and to filter out most of the annoying, disruptive banners to get to the content. But apply the same or similar advertising tactics to long-format and viewers won't stick around." In actuality T.V has a substantially amount of commercials. The ads on YouTube range from 30 - 40 seconds and 9/10 times it is skip able. On T.V ads however, you can't skip them. According to http://www.nytimes.com...: It says and I quote: "When television began as an advertising medium, the standard commercial length was 60 seconds." End quote. "That may have been 1971, who cares?" Yes the times have been dropped from 60 to 30, but in 2015, there is no skip button to skip commercials. That is my first point.
"banners fill the bottom of an in-play video and banner ads/paid-placement videos populate the right column." It's called pressing the "X" and the right. Yes it may be tedious, but if you are watching long enough to make it tedious, you have been online for way too long. Sitting is bad, but if you are binging or watching episodes of Netflix is the same as watching episodes on Youtube. Also you have pay money for Netflix. YOU. DO. NOT. HAVE. TO. PAY. FOR. YOUTUBE! I grow tiresome of repeating the same point over and over again.
Does anyone remember Vine. The 6 second platform that swept the nation. Well let me repeat myself, it was 6 seconds.
"So why aren't we drawn to YouTube for long-form content? Primarily because YouTube (and more specifically, AdSense) is heavily optimized for short-form content." So wouldn't that be a lot better? Wouldn't that be helpful for that platform. Comparing it to Vine, people make money with that short form content. Look at Felix/PewDiePie and his Salary: (quoted from Forbes, a reliable site for wealth):http://www.forbes.com...: "reached a new high this year when the Swedish newspaper Expresen reported he made $7.4 million in 2014, a little less than double the $4 million the Wall Street Journal estimated he made in 2013." 7.4 mil. That is much more than the average worker. 10 x more roughly. So that is my case. Agree for me. I appreciate all your understanding. GG m8, GG.
Alanna.Kologey forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.