15 years ago today. The first YouTube video.

15 years ago today, the first video appeared on YouTube.

ONLY 15 years ago.....a man at the zoo.

More YouTube classics for the weekend? Try Sherlock Holmes with Basil Rathbone.

Say what you like, but there was never ever a better Sherlock Holmes duo, than Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. They are stunning together and between 1939 and 1946 they made 14 Sherlock Holmes films. I've seen them all, many times.

But again they're all on YouTube for free (and I've added some below) just if you're looking to see classic movies this weekend.

The first one was 'The Hound of The Baskervilles' but the second was 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' which really defines it all and that's the one on top. A quick look will give you a sense if they're for you. 

The duo came together as radio shows originally and it was Rathbone who ended the partnership when he simply thought, they had just become too predictable, too formulaic. 

Nigel Bruce you might know from Hitchcock's 'Rebecca' (a fab film) and 'Suspicion'. He died in 1953. 

Rathbone was more of a Shakespearean actor (and South African in fact, but fled to Britain after he father was accused of being a spy in The Boer War) and known as 'Ratters'. 

He served in The First World War where he was the British Army fencing champ and so his acting career became more of a 'swashbuckler' (Robin Hood, The Mark of Zorro, for example). Very brave, he won The Military Cross. 

Hi died suddenly in New York of a heart attack at 75, in 1967.

They're great films, have a look and they're free! You won't see a better Sherlock Holmes... 

YouTube full of free movies like this one, 'Dear Murderer'.

We keep saying it but don't forget it...YouTube is awash with free movies and especially if you like classics. Always worth a search.

This one is free, 'Dear Murderer' and it's great. A 1947 British film noir that has such a love triangle, someone has to die. And they do.

The title seems odd but when you see it, you'll find a letter is part of the story. 

Jack Warner is the terribly British Policeman ('Dixon of Dock Green' if you remember that) but we have to say, the Brits made some great movies with fine acting. Dennis Price (you might know him as Jeeves?) is in it too with whom we made a TV Commercial many years ago, for 'Cookstown Sausages'. There ya go.

Either way, it's great and it's free and it might get you thinking YouTube when you're bored with Netflix. Other YouTube tips on this blog recently - like 'Witness for the Prosecution' - check it out. 

It's worthy for a change. 

Something for the Weekend? Try Witness for The Prosecution.

Just for these peculiar times, yesterday we mentioned that YouTube was a good source of movies or online, if you get bored with TV or indeed, Netflix. A lot of them are free, especially classic movies.

Yesterday we talked about Billy Wilder's 'Double Indemnity' so here's another, 'Witness for The Prosecution'.

Marlene Dietrich a german anti-Nazi star of the silent era, steals the show but so too Charles Laughton (Mutiny on the Bounty, Night of the Hunter)) as the typical Rumpole of The Bailey defence barrister and that's not to take away from the murder accused, Tyrone Power (who died at 44 and this his last film). The housekeeper is Una O'Connor from Belfast. 

They're all great in this 1957 Courtroom drama.

Based on an Agatha Christie play, you don't know the real story until the shocking very end and theatre goers then, were asked not to reveal it. Because it's a great, great ending to a superb picture. You'll never guess it...Duckie....

Another Billy Wilder classic. And classic it is, if you're looking for something different to take your mind off things. This one will. 

A movie deadlier than the virus...The Amazing Double Indemnity.

We all think TV and Netflix, but few of us ever remember to go to free YouTube and there's lots of movies there, that you don't get anywhere else! Lots and free. 

Notably classic movies and film noir. So go on a search of discovery on YouTube and you'll hopefully find this one because it's one of the greatest and considered the first film noir. 

Double Indemnity is the clause in some insurance policies that doubles the payout in unusual deaths - like falling off a train....

It's 1944 directed and written by the great Billy Wilder of course (The Apartment, Sunset Boulevard, Some like it hot, etc) and the great film noir writer Raymond Chandler (Philip Marlowe books) a recovering alcoholic at the time. Although they didn't get along on this film, Chandler has a cameo in the film looking up from a magazine as Neff walks past. 

(If you want to see another Billy Wilder superb film noir classic, go to 'Witness for The Prosecution' on YouTube - Marlene Dietrich/Tyrone Power. It's fab too.)

Edward G is Walter Neff the insurance chief but gets little screen time. Fred Mac Murray is the insurance salesman and Barbara Stanwyck (one of the most popular Hollywood actresses IN Hollywood) is the femme fatale.

There's lots of dark techniques like the Seitz 'venetian blind' lighting and you'll see it in the trailer above.

But go looking on YouTube because sometimes, an Insurance salesman can be more dangerous than a virus....but DO NOT miss it. 

YouTube overtakes TV for 18-34 year olds. No surprise unless you're in the TV Propaganda Dept.

YouTube is bigger than TV and they're going to prove it.

A study due later this week, will take data from Comscore and BARB to show that YouTube reaches more 18-34 year old Brits, than any other commercial TV Channel. It's based on an analysis of 'monthly averages' in Q1 2016.

YouGov in a survey of 16-34 year olds recently showed that 41% would pick YouTube over TV (only 27% prefer TV). 58% found things they are passionate about on YouTube....but if you've kids, you'll know that already. Common sense. 

There are 190 YouTube UK Channels with more than 1 Million subscribers each - a +50% jump on last year. Simply because it's obviously easy to find what you're looking for on YouTube and not on scheduled, linear TV.

So if you want to reach this younger, important demographic, you need to switch advertising money off TV and onto YouTube.

And if you want to be active on YouTube, get a video!

Streamabout.com

Food glorious Food. It's big on Video

Food videos attracted 23 Billion Video Views last year (mostly on YouTube and Facebook) according to data published in The Financial Times. Pinterest of course is huge on Food (and Fashion) as indeed is Instagram. 

So popular are they, that a threat from the BBC to remove them from its website (as part of an effort to save £15m a year) saw 100,000 people sign a protest petition.

Streamabout knows that too, Cooking delivers high audiences on video and recipes are replayed/shared a lot.

It's a category that's ideal for grocery retail through showing the recipe video and then delivering the ingredients on a click through. Or indeed any complementary products (wine, water, tableware, coffee, safe food organisations, brands looking for conviviality and so on).

Food video are huge. And they're going to be huge...r.

YouTube has a problem....with Video (!)

YouTube have a problem....with Video.

Although they've always said they don't want to be a 'programmer' in the Netflix vein, their problem is that they've lots of content but it's hard to find and possibly not as "entertaining". 

Lots of video about rather mundane things but.... you need to know what you're looking for. 300 hours of video uploaded every minute (!) and there's over a billion videos on the platform all lacking categorisation.

It doesn't have a 'series' to push like 'Narcos' or 'House of Cards'.

Their Channel strategy was in itself, an attempt to collate videos in one place, to be easy to find. But it's been slow.

Added to that, video competition from the likes of Twitter, Facebook, Vimeo, Snapchat has in some ways, diminished the YouTube effect. 

But because video is hard to find, advertisers are having a job spending money too.

So YouTube is re-organising. Developing Apps to highlight popular sections (like gaming), 360 degree video and a subscription 'Ad free' service which is probably an attempt to deal with Ad Blocking software too.

They realise that they need to be better programmers as it turns out. They are planning some bespoke content and possibly re-broadcasting TV content with what seems, an emphasis on kids content.

Interesting that the king of video now has a problem with it.....

Facebook Video to take on YouTube. More good news for video Ads!

Facebook are having a go at YouTube.

Whilst they have been using video on autoplay in feeds for a year now, they now want video creators to upload more video and make money from them. Same as YouTube.

So they'll share the Ad revenue generated by the video in the first place, both with the video creator and Media placer.

Those Ads are not pre-rolls, but rather an overlay that appears under the video that you initially watch and making further recommendations based on what you've watched (further relevant content). Those recommendations will include sponsored ad video.

It's a 45% split to Facebook and 55% to others.

Early days though as it's unclear how much revenue is generated when you watch part of a video and so on. But the intent is there.

Facebook is going to monetise video and therefore, encourage more video.
That will work.

And it's good for online digital video companies such as Streamabout as clients will want to make more for Facebook. And that can't be bad....

Is Facebook taking YouTube's Video fast forward?

YouTube is 10 years old and without it, businesses like Streamabout, simply wouldn't exist. So hats off to YouTube...but....

What seems to be changing its dominance, is market behaviour and audience reaction. Bought by Google for 1.6 Billion usd in 2006, it's still not profitable despite revenues of 4 billion usd in 2014 - that's about break-even (which is ridiculous even in itself).

Faced with competition such as Vimeo, Vice, Vine, Snapchat and so on, makes life a bit harder for YouTube but their biggest threat is Facebook. The point is that when I see a video on a friends page on Facebook, it's probably something that I might like too - because they're friends and because they'll be 'like minded'. On YouTube, I have to search and search albeit through subscribed channels. So the viewing relevance is very different.

Facebook looks like a video sharing site, YouTube looks like a video hosting platform especially as you can upload video to Facebook directly rather than sharing a YouTube link giving Facebook ownership of the Ads.

The recent YouTube kids version marks a great initiative which brings back audience relevance as does, some of the channels - notably in Sport. But it's not as effective as Facebook even with over a billion monthly views. Facebook has 50% more views and produced nearly 3 billion usd in profit last year.

The growth of autoplay on Facebook (where videos automatically play when you see them) and currently on trial with Twitter - but not on Youtube - is a big failing. 

One wonders is YouTube becoming complacent? 

But one thing is for sure - it's all about Video, Video and more Video.

Twitter Video Ads coming with a clever Preview Idea. And If you need a video ad....

By all reports, Twitter are considering video previews for their new Video Ads.

What it means is that when a video ad pops up in your feed, you'll get an automatic play (auto play) of 6 seconds like a trailer. Then, if that interests you, you click it, to play the video in full.

And advertisers will only be charged when the Ad is clicked so they'll benefit from the 6 second trailer, for free.

Facebook video ads are fully autoplay, whereas YouTube's are click-to-play and so Twitter is really doing the best of both. It's a really good, clever idea too.

It also means that advertisers will only be paying for those who really, really want to see the video because they'll have been interested by the preview trailer. 

It's a great way for Twitter to get into that growing, exploding digital video ad space. And if you need online video ads....it's what Streamabout do!

A new competitor to YouTube launches.

Vessel is coming to take on YouTube and Vimeo.

Although ad-supported, they will also charge 2.99 us dollars a month to be able to watch your "favourite" YouTube stars first. In other words, they'll have video before anyone else (by at least 3 days).

What makes it a serious contender is that it is being founded by Jason Kilar, the former Hulu CEO. 

Video creators will get a cut of the ad and subscription revenue by holding off on posting their content until it has been shown on Vessel. They currently get 55% from Google's YouTube although it's generally poor and they will be encouraged by Vessel's promised revenue.

Although one wonders will subscribers be prepared to pay for content they'll probably see free some days later?

Not sure. But having said that it's a new model that very much highlights online video as now being 'programming' and having value.

So in every sense, it's to be encouraged.

And anyway, do like the logo.....

180 million + views. Now that's what you call a viral video

Whilst this link shows 162m views, I've seen the video reposted on YouTube so many times with one repost receiving over 20 million alone.

It just shows too, the style of video people want, to be entertained and that applies equally, to brands. Tell them a story and brighten the day.

It also shows what can be achieved. There's no media budget that can achieve 200 million views. None.

Except online digital video.

New BusinessInsider Report. Video Ads replacing TV.

Video Ads are growing faster than any other medium according to a new report from the reliable BusinessInsider. It is exploding.

Not only that, they're replacing TV and have the highest click-thru than any other digital format.

As TV declines by circa -3%, Video Ads are growing +100% year-on-year and will reach 5 Billion usd by 2016 (from 2.8 Billion in 2013).

That's much faster than any other form of digital display as the medium attracts more advertisers. Programmatic buying, RTB is also driving their usage and viewability as well as new video platforms.

This is simply part of a story of an ongoing trend that sees Video online becoming the new advertising driver. They're becoming easier to find (YouTube is the second biggest Search engine after Google), easier to share and more engaging than a traditional 30 seconds of TV commercials. 

They're also much lower cost delivering a full mediaplan significantly (-70%) less than a TV expenditure and delivering higher audiences with full analytics regarding reach/frequency.

They do more, for less.

You'll get the report here 
http://www.businessinsider.com/digital-video-advertising-performance-and-growth-trends-2014-8?nr_email_referer=1&utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=emailshare

But you'll get video ads from Streamabout.

Disney spends 950 million on Marker Studios for YouTube online video. Nothing Mickey Mouse about it.

Disney is buying Marker Studios for a rumoured 950 m usd, which in itself isn't unusual except that Marker is probably the largest supplier of short-form video content on YouTube.

So here is the established brand Disney, recognising that it too needs to be in digital online video. 

Marker started only in 2009, but today has about 380 million subscribers with 55,000 youtube channels and wait for it, 5.5 Billion views a month....around 4% of youtube's monthly output.

And of course, Disney wants to reach out to those active subscribers. It also will change future online video consumption and production - but in a real positive way. Notably too, these subscribers will be young adults, right smack into Disney's market. Disney already own 'Club Penguin'.

It's a real shot in the arm too for youtube being able to up their game with rich Disney content and further proof, if it was needed, of the bright future of online video.

A 950 million bright future.

As online video advertising explodes, Twitter is making NO money from it. Are you?

It's a real issue for Twitter but it's also an issue for a lot of online publishers - monetising Video, which is the biggest growth in advertising inventory.

When you share video on your site, exactly as Twitter allows you to do, those videos need to contain some form of advertising in order for the site owner to make money. If you control the video, you control the advertising. But if you don't control it, because you're linking it, you get nothing. Nada.

Whether it's a sponsored sting, or a sponsored mention in-video or a pre-roll....whatever, but if you're embedding someone else's video (like YouTube or Vimeo) you're giving them the Ad money instead. And it's so easily fixed.

When you think of the huge Twitter video sharing audience every day, it's pretty shocking that they are not making any money from it. And particularly after their IPO where they need to start reversing losses and turn profits. 

Cisco forecasts that the video audience will grow to over 13 billion views by 2016 - we know it's huge - and that's a lot of eyeballs, a lot of advertising.

Video advertising is probably becoming the key way to generate Ad money and yet Twitter and publishers, aren't doing it? They hand that money to YouTube - so Twitter is generating cash for YouTube. Mad?

Vine, which Twitter owns, doesn't sell advertising so there's no way Twitter can make money on the explosion of Video. Equally too, online publishers who are linking to video sharing sites, such as YouTube, are doing the same - handing over advertising dollars, pounds and euros to someone else who is monetising that audience in turn.

The cost of hosting video and having your own player is tiny. Not only that, but there are deals out there to allow you to provide a player for free and split the revenue. If Twitter did that today, it would generate millions in advertising, today. 

Equally any online publishers, starved for cash, can do the same. By uploading their own video, rather than linking it, they can turn those viewers into advertising money. Perhaps develop sponsored video sections nevermind pure in-video advertising. Advertisers want it too.

A publisher should be putting up all Video it can and there's enough brand/corporate/PR video out there to do so now. In fact, those PR/Brand companies WANT it seen so they provide it for free.

It's an easy trick, easy to fix that even Twitter is missing. 
Are you?

Amazon announce 2 new original series. Another threat to traditional TV.

Original online content is growing, to compete with traditional TV, just as expected.

Following Netflix with 'House of cards' and others, Amazon have announced two new original series which they're producing.

Alpha House, a comedy about US Washington Senators (with John Goodman), goes out on November 15th on Amazon instant. It is written by the great Garry Trudeau of Doonesbury fame.

Betas, a series about social media start ups (yep, could be good), starts at the end of November. Silicon valley friends have their moment in setting up a new Social Media play. 

Both have 11 episodes. They've also 3 kids shows in production.

This is the first time Amazon have produced their own original Series and no doubt, follows Netflix. It allows the online broadcasters to compete for viewers with good, quality programming and is great news again, for the online digital video sector.

But it's more bad news for TV.

Already being hit as viewers switch over to online low cost, programming on subscription, as well as, an ongoing obliteration of their audience by Social Media, now they have a content challenge. Their only hope was to retain viewers because of the content traditional TV offers and even this, is being eroded.

Furthermore, Netflix and Amazon are sitting on big cashpiles, and we understand that they're going to compete to buy broadcast rights for live events - notably big sporting occasions. TV will not be able to compete with them here either.

Even as content providers, the recent YouTube deals show that online broadcasters, as YouTube is, are prepared to pay TV stations less for their content. So that revenue stream, small as it might be right now, is definitely reducing.

And as sure as night follows day, Advertising money follows audience. More and more of it is going online.

Yet, TV Stations persevere in the hope that terrestrial broadcasting will "see off" the continuing online challenge as they try to spin "good news" that's just not credible. They continue to live off in some cases, huge state aid, instead of getting into the space, embracing it and being prepared to re-formulate their model. Like newspapers have been prepared to do.

The ticking clock, just got a lot louder.

YouTube are changing their deals with TV Stations and Movie providers. But in doing it, they're encouraging that old no no. Media brokering.

YouTube is starting to flex its muscle.

In the past, it encouraged TV Stations and Movie makers to put their content up on YouTube in return for what was called a "sweetheart" deal. Basically the content provider (Movie Studios/TV Stations) got 70% of the Ad revenue in return. More favourable terms than other content providers got....but YouTube got good content.

Movie clips, TV programmes, etc.

Not any more.

As those content contracts are being renewed, YouTube are now offering them, 55% of the advertising, with YouTube retaining 45% - so down from the 70%. 

Basically these are now, the same terms YouTube offers everyone else - so no longer "special deals" for the networks anymore.

However, (I think this is most dangerous part,) YouTube have agreed to "cap" this share - to limit the YouTube take. So they'll take the 45% to a certain amount of money and after that is reached, the TV stations/Movie makers can keep 100% of what's left. Therefore, if the movie/TV stations (content providers) get more Ad money than the "cap", they keep it all. What's being called the "threshold".

So if the content producers sell more advertising at higher prices, they benefit in full. And this deal encourages them to do that. They will charge their advertisers more than they're actually paying.

In my mind, this is media brokering at its worst. An activity which has always been frowned upon, if not considered illegal, and certainly considered sharp practice. 

The traditional Ad Agency model of commission (and in this case, the TV stations can be considered Ad Agencies because they're "selling on" other media), is based on a % of the true media cost. An advertiser rightly expects that the Ad Agency to be paying the media the exact price shown on the invoice and simply deducting a commission.

If for example, an Ad is 100 quid, it's charged to the client at 100 quid, less 15% commission (or whatever the agreed commission is). Transparent, above board. 

In this way potentially however, if the same Ad is 100 quid, but the seller negotiates it for less, say 70 quid, and yet still charges the client the 100 quid, that's media brokering. You're charging more than you're actually paying.

Ad Agencies could have made fortunes (I could have) if we behaved as media brokers. Wholesaling media if you like.

And the same TV networks would be livid if they saw Ad Agencies inflating their prices to advertiser clients. Now they might be doing the same thing. In fact, it's a condition for Ad Agencies not to behave like that in the original Ad Agency licence agreements with the same media. And yet, it seems, that's now how media will operate in this deal - if they accept it.

In this YouTube case now, the advertiser would be paying a very probably, higher inflated price to the TV network for their YouTube advertising because the TV network will want to exceed the YouTube "cap". The more they get from advertisers, through higher pricing, the more they keep.

In order to "blur" these transactions, I'd expect to see the TV networks hide from transparency by "bundling" the YouTube airtime with other advertising as "packages". Which ironically, they in turn will probably try to sell on to Ad Agencies!

So if it's accepted, it's a very dark, dubious practice to say the least. And reflects badly on YouTube for suggesting it. For facilitating it. For encouraging it. 

If of course, I'm not misunderstanding it.
Doubt it.....

The Trouble with TV.

The role of "Television" or "Broadcasting" is changing and indeed, those terms need new definitions. No longer should we think of "Television" being the sole domain of "Television stations".

After all, consumers are now watching content in a variety of different ways. It's these changes in distribution, that's the core issue.

Whether we watch content through a traditional TV set currently, it's more likely that viewers will be watching via a connected device such as Xbox or the very excellent, Apple TV next. Indeed, the myriad of choices offered by Apple TV alone, encourages viewers to watch other content than traditional TV broadcasts. It brings a lot of movie sites, YouTube channels and Social Media into the livingroom, which in turn, brings consumers massive choice. Apple TV, for a low investment, is just stunning.

Where there's global choice of content, there's likely to be less viewing of domestic traditional TV "broadcasts" and the major US networks continue to lose audiences. 

Social Media is also getting in on the act.

Twitter is trying to close the gap by becoming more involved in traditional TV through real-time conversation. Mind you, a tweet yesterday from Twitter UK saying "great to see the Xfactor bringing audiences closer and turning up the show's social soundtrack" was instantly slammed by users. Twitter are trying to become friends of the TV industry and it will fail.

Twitter wants to be the 'TV Social network' that helps build audiences which in turn, means bigger audiences for Twitter. Indeed, they're showing 60 second Ads during TV shows on Twitter as an "add on" to the programming and encouraging advertisers to sync their advertising. Take a spot at a particular time on the traditional TV show and sync it with one on Twitter.

In my view, they've tied their colours to the wrong mast.

What connected "broadcasting" devices are bringing is choice and choice that may come without Ads (such as the current online DVD boxset "binge"). A choice that means you never miss the start, the end, or forget to record a programme because online content is not hamstrung by TV schedules. 

In the online world you get content, when you want it, rather than when a broadcaster decides to push it out. That is the main structural problem with traditional TV - Scheduling....rather than viewing freedom. And it's a difficult problem for TV stations to deal with, being so ingrained in their culture.

Of course too, content makers (which includes traditional TV stations) have to get used to a new model, where they're prepared to give out that content to other networks, with the copyright/royalty issues that come with that. But they will in effect, become content providers rather than "broadcasters". 

BBC are starting on this path allowing 30 days access to content rather than a week, announced last week. Moreover, they'll allow some content to be viewed online before it has been traditionally broadcast. That's the sort of thinking required.

The development of "live" programming (notably Sports) is going to be interesting too. At the moment, few online channels, outside of traditional TV stations, have shown an interest in providing live content because of both cost and technology issues. But they might buy it in.

The difficulty with "TV" is that distribution has changed and will change completely. If TV stations are to survive it, they have to be prepared to change their model and few, it seems to me, are. They'd rather rubbish the online experience in the hope that it will go away, which it won't. And whilst they take the seat of Nero, everything changes around them, quickly.

Netflix develop original, exclusive content (winning Emmy's for their content such as 'House of Cards') but they're not the only ones as Amazon and Hulu now do the same. Big budgets too, so their content is real TV competition.

Binge viewing is driving online as well, as all the content of a particular show (the full series for example) is available same day. No longer do you have to wait for weeks to get to the ending. Movie releases are following suit with some Studios releasing Movies online first.

YouTube channels are developing at pace allowing ordinary content providers (be they members of the public or production companies) opportunities to broadcast. Awesomeness TV, a children's channel, now has a staggering 60 million viewers a month on YouTube. One YouTube gaming channel has 251 million. So these YouTube viewers have to be watching less traditional TV.

Social Media such as Twitter and Facebook are venturing into the space albeit in a collaborative way, for now. But they will develop their own content in time with News content being their initial entry.

Without any doubt, traditional TV has to change and become more online enabled and involved. Rebroadcasting of today's programmes via an App or online, doesn't cut it. It requires a complete re-think about how they create content, how they broadcast it and how they need to ditch their scheduling.

Perhaps too, they have to re brand and realise that their future lies not on what they broadcast on TV sets, but rather through their website. It's their website that's king and critically, how that content is being made available. To prioritise the web over traditional, will require in traditional broadcasters, a massive mindset shift.

All in all, it may be too late.....and in the eyes of this writer, it probably is because there is no sign of any dawn of realisation. 

None. 

It's gone past time to fight it. 

YouTube Music Awards November 3rd. They're killing Television.

If ever you wanted an example where digital broadcasting is eating into traditional Television, here's one.

YouTube have designed the 'YouTube music awards' on November 3rd, a lovely idea in itself because of their younger profile and the fact that music is a such a big YouTube driver. A lot of stars would never have got a music deal (such as Psy) were it not for exposure on YouTube.

However, the show which features Lady Gaga, Eminem, Arcade Fire and loads of other top acts, will be broadcast live.....on eh,YouTube. The 90 minute show will be driven by awards from votes and data about viewership on YouTube.

YouTube will also be showcasing contending artists in the build-up. And some of those artists will not be hugely well known generally but big on YouTube.

But this will be bigger than MTV. 

So here is a digital channel that's generating its own awards that it will broadcast itself. So no need for traditional TV there at all and in fact, they're being left out in the cold as they won't have the content. They won't be able to broadcast the show.

So when they tell you TV viewing is growing, be careful out there.

Cause it sure won't be on November 3rd amongst that younger audience who'll be glued to YouTube. 

YouTube and exclusive content on Netflix are killing Television.
This is only the start.