Latest news with #NetflixInc.
Deccan Herald
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Deccan Herald
YouTube's victory in the TV wars depends on parents
By Jason a stat that might come as a shock to casual observers of the media ecosystem: The media company that commands the largest percentage of our eyeballs is not the mighty Netflix Inc., the Walt Disney Co. juggernaut or the omnipresent Inc. Prime. It's YouTube. The platform represents 12.4% of audiences' time spent watching television, according to Nielsen Holding Ltd.'s Media Distributor Gauge report for April. That beats Disney's 10.7% (which includes not only the platforms and channels that bear its name but ESPN and Hulu to boot), nearly doubles the 6.8% and 6.7% for Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery, respectively, and pummels the puny 3.5% share for Amazon. But before we hail the platform as another nail in traditional TV's coffin, it needs to accomplish something else: earn the trust of its users, particularly are real problems with the way YouTube works and the suggestions it makes to viewers (especially younger ones). It sets the entertainment powerhouse up for the kind of backlash we're seeing against other dominant but problematic tech you're old enough to remember a pre-YouTube world or when the platform struggled through its initial era of low-res user-generated videos and one-joke viral breakouts, the idea of consuming media primarily through that portal sounds example, Gen Xers like me may use it as little more than a last resort destination: a place to find a clip from a movie that isn't streaming, an episode of a show that we forgot to DVR, the badly-dated music video for a song that was briefly popular when we were in high school or various other goofy little things that aren't substantial enough to exist anywhere I can also tell you, as the father of a tween, that this is not how younger people think of YouTube. For many of them, it (and other social media sites) is the window through which they see the world and the door though which they travel to find whatever they're seeking. The beauty of YouTube circa 2025 is that it has everything, from rentable movies to full, free seasons of television to vast musical archives to daily updates from your favorite horror of YouTube circa 2025 is also that it has everything, from unhinged conspiracy theories to casual racism and misogyny to hours-long videos of ideological indoctrination to sexually suggestive material. Its everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach might not be such a concern if the platform increased efforts (aside from the most basic and easily evadable parental controls) in keeping the scarier stuff viewers are in the thrall of the platform's problematic algorithm, which exists not to enhance the quality of the user experience but the quantity of it. In December, the company reported that people watched more than one billion hours of YouTube on TV daily. That time can often be spent not on the specific video that a user is seeking out but on the videos the platform's algorithm recommends and/or auto-plays at its now, there are well-known stories of how quickly the algorithm can steer viewers toward unrelated, or even worrisome, content. A much-shared 2019 New York Times story detailed the online radicalization of Caleb Cain, who 'fell down the alt-right rabbit hole' on YouTube. A year earlier, the company's then-product chief and now CEO said that the site's recommendations accounted for more than 70% of all time spent on YouTube. (Alphabet Inc.'s Google, YouTube's parent company, did not share updated metrics when asked by Bloomberg Opinion ahead of publication.)And while it may be uncommon for the platform to function as a full-stop radicalization machine — suggesting QAnon screeds to innocent cat video connoisseurs — it's hard to find a user (or a parent) who can't recall at least one head-scratching recommendation or ill-advised curiosity parents or guardians, for example, might turn on an age-appropriate show for their kids to watch on YouTube (there's a reason 28% of the platform's viewers are aged 2-17). Maybe they need to occupy their children's attention while working from home, doing a household chore or two or perhaps just to get a mental break — only to hear or see a questionable video playing before it can be that scenario sound familiar? For at least a segment of the population, this has led to an inherent distrust of YouTube's anything-goes, Wild West approach, which is absent from the sense of curation on conventional television networks or subscription streaming it's hard to overstate the role that the platform's unruly and frequently unmoderated comments section can play in the dissemination of misinformation, to say nothing of the targeted harassment that runs rampant on both the site itself and various third-party tools. Unfortunately, the monopolistic nature of our current tech landscape means that the chances of an upstart video streaming platform replacing the ubiquitous YouTube are slim to none, even if other sites and apps (such as Vimeo, to name the most obvious example) offer a far superior user never forget, it was once hard to imagine any social media website overtaking MySpace, and user enthusiasm for Google's search engine, has cooled of late. The combination of copious ads and insipid, unwanted and frequently inaccurate AI-powered results have sullied the latter brand, at least among users who are paying attention. Some people have begun to seek out alternate web searches, just as many fled the Elon Musk iteration of a similar migration for more ethical online video platforms in the realm of possibility? YouTube should make its algorithm safer for its youngest demographic to avoid finding out.
Economic Times
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Economic Times
YouTube's victory in the TV wars depends on parents
Here's a stat that might come as a shock to casual observers of the media ecosystem: The media company that commands the largest percentage of our eyeballs is not the mighty Netflix Inc., the Walt Disney Co. juggernaut or the omnipresent Inc. Prime. It's YouTube. The platform represents 12.4% of audiences' time spent watching television, according to Nielsen Holding Ltd.'s Media Distributor Gauge report for April. That beats Disney's 10.7% (which includes not only the platforms and channels that bear its name but ESPN and Hulu to boot), nearly doubles the 6.8% and 6.7% for Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery, respectively, and pummels the puny 3.5% share for Amazon. But before we hail the platform as another nail in traditional TV's coffin, it needs to accomplish something else: earn the trust of its users, particularly are real problems with the way YouTube works and the suggestions it makes to viewers (especially younger ones). It sets the entertainment powerhouse up for the kind of backlash we're seeing against other dominant but problematic tech companies. If you're old enough to remember a pre-YouTube world or when the platform struggled through its initial era of low-res user-generated videos and one-joke viral breakouts, the idea of consuming media primarily through that portal sounds absurd. For example, Gen Xers like me may use it as little more than a last resort destination: a place to find a clip from a movie that isn't streaming, an episode of a show that we forgot to DVR, the badly-dated music video for a song that was briefly popular when we were in high school or various other goofy little things that aren't substantial enough to exist anywhere else. But I can also tell you, as the father of a tween, that this is not how younger people think of YouTube. For many of them, it (and other social media sites) is the window through which they see the world and the door though which they travel to find whatever they're seeking. The beauty of YouTube circa 2025 is that it has everything, from rentable movies to full, free seasons of television to vast musical archives to daily updates from your favorite horror of YouTube circa 2025 is also that it has everything, from unhinged conspiracy theories to casual racism and misogyny to hours-long videos of ideological indoctrination to sexually suggestive material. Its everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach might not be such a concern if the platform increased efforts (aside from the most basic and easily evadable parental controls) in keeping the scarier stuff viewers are in the thrall of the platform's problematic algorithm, which exists not to enhance the quality of the user experience but the quantity of it. In December, the company reported that people watched more than one billion hours of YouTube on TV daily. That time can often be spent not on the specific video that a user is seeking out but on the videos the platform's algorithm recommends and/or auto-plays at its conclusion. By now, there are well-known stories of how quickly the algorithm can steer viewers toward unrelated, or even worrisome, content. A much-shared 2019 New York Times story detailed the online radicalization of Caleb Cain, who 'fell down the alt-right rabbit hole' on YouTube. A year earlier, the company's then-product chief and now CEO said that the site's recommendations accounted for more than 70% of all time spent on YouTube. (Alphabet Inc.'s Google, YouTube's parent company, did not share updated metrics when asked by Bloomberg Opinion ahead of publication.) And while it may be uncommon for the platform to function as a full-stop radicalization machine — suggesting QAnon screeds to innocent cat video connoisseurs — it's hard to find a user (or a parent) who can't recall at least one head-scratching recommendation or ill-advised curiosity parents or guardians, for example, might turn on an age-appropriate show for their kids to watch on YouTube (there's a reason 28% of the platform's viewers are aged 2-17). Maybe they need to occupy their children's attention while working from home, doing a household chore or two or perhaps just to get a mental break — only to hear or see a questionable video playing before it can be that scenario sound familiar? For at least a segment of the population, this has led to an inherent distrust of YouTube's anything-goes, Wild West approach, which is absent from the sense of curation on conventional television networks or subscription streaming it's hard to overstate the role that the platform's unruly and frequently unmoderated comments section can play in the dissemination of misinformation, to say nothing of the targeted harassment that runs rampant on both the site itself and various third-party tools. Unfortunately, the monopolistic nature of our current tech landscape means that the chances of an upstart video streaming platform replacing the ubiquitous YouTube are slim to none, even if other sites and apps (such as Vimeo, to name the most obvious example) offer a far superior user experience. But never forget, it was once hard to imagine any social media website overtaking MySpace, and user enthusiasm for Google's search engine, has cooled of late. The combination of copious ads and insipid, unwanted and frequently inaccurate AI-powered results have sullied the latter brand, at least among users who are paying attention. Some people have begun to seek out alternate web searches, just as many fled the Elon Musk iteration of a similar migration for more ethical online video platforms in the realm of possibility? YouTube should make its algorithm safer for its youngest demographic to avoid finding out. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Jason Bailey is a film critic and historian whose work has appeared in the New York Times, Vulture, the Playlist, Slate and Rolling Stone. He is the author, most recently, of "Gandolfini: Jim, Tony, and the Life of a Legend."
Time of India
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Time of India
YouTube's victory in the TV wars depends on parents
Bloomberg Live Events Here's a stat that might come as a shock to casual observers of the media ecosystem: The media company that commands the largest percentage of our eyeballs is not the mighty Netflix Inc., the Walt Disney Co. juggernaut or the omnipresent Amazon .com Inc. Prime. It's YouTube . The platform represents 12.4% of audiences' time spent watching television, according to Nielsen Holding Ltd.'s Media Distributor Gauge report for April. That beats Disney's 10.7% (which includes not only the platforms and channels that bear its name but ESPN and Hulu to boot), nearly doubles the 6.8% and 6.7% for Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery , respectively, and pummels the puny 3.5% share for before we hail the platform as another nail in traditional TV's coffin, it needs to accomplish something else: earn the trust of its users, particularly are real problems with the way YouTube works and the suggestions it makes to viewers (especially younger ones). It sets the entertainment powerhouse up for the kind of backlash we're seeing against other dominant but problematic tech you're old enough to remember a pre-YouTube world or when the platform struggled through its initial era of low-res user-generated videos and one-joke viral breakouts, the idea of consuming media primarily through that portal sounds example, Gen Xers like me may use it as little more than a last resort destination: a place to find a clip from a movie that isn't streaming, an episode of a show that we forgot to DVR, the badly-dated music video for a song that was briefly popular when we were in high school or various other goofy little things that aren't substantial enough to exist anywhere I can also tell you, as the father of a tween, that this is not how younger people think of YouTube. For many of them, it (and other social media sites) is the window through which they see the world and the door though which they travel to find whatever they're seeking. The beauty of YouTube circa 2025 is that it has everything, from rentable movies to full, free seasons of television to vast musical archives to daily updates from your favorite horror of YouTube circa 2025 is also that it has everything, from unhinged conspiracy theories to casual racism and misogyny to hours-long videos of ideological indoctrination to sexually suggestive material. Its everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach might not be such a concern if the platform increased efforts (aside from the most basic and easily evadable parental controls) in keeping the scarier stuff viewers are in the thrall of the platform's problematic algorithm, which exists not to enhance the quality of the user experience but the quantity of it. In December, the company reported that people watched more than one billion hours of YouTube on TV daily. That time can often be spent not on the specific video that a user is seeking out but on the videos the platform's algorithm recommends and/or auto-plays at its now, there are well-known stories of how quickly the algorithm can steer viewers toward unrelated, or even worrisome, content. A much-shared 2019 New York Times story detailed the online radicalization of Caleb Cain, who 'fell down the alt-right rabbit hole' on YouTube. A year earlier, the company's then-product chief and now CEO said that the site's recommendations accounted for more than 70% of all time spent on YouTube. (Alphabet Inc.'s Google , YouTube's parent company, did not share updated metrics when asked by Bloomberg Opinion ahead of publication.)And while it may be uncommon for the platform to function as a full-stop radicalization machine — suggesting QAnon screeds to innocent cat video connoisseurs — it's hard to find a user (or a parent) who can't recall at least one head-scratching recommendation or ill-advised curiosity parents or guardians, for example, might turn on an age-appropriate show for their kids to watch on YouTube (there's a reason 28% of the platform's viewers are aged 2-17). Maybe they need to occupy their children's attention while working from home, doing a household chore or two or perhaps just to get a mental break — only to hear or see a questionable video playing before it can be that scenario sound familiar? For at least a segment of the population, this has led to an inherent distrust of YouTube's anything-goes, Wild West approach, which is absent from the sense of curation on conventional television networks or subscription streaming it's hard to overstate the role that the platform's unruly and frequently unmoderated comments section can play in the dissemination of misinformation, to say nothing of the targeted harassment that runs rampant on both the site itself and various third-party the monopolistic nature of our current tech landscape means that the chances of an upstart video streaming platform replacing the ubiquitous YouTube are slim to none, even if other sites and apps (such as Vimeo , to name the most obvious example) offer a far superior user never forget, it was once hard to imagine any social media website overtaking MySpace, and user enthusiasm for Google's search engine, has cooled of late. The combination of copious ads and insipid, unwanted and frequently inaccurate AI-powered results have sullied the latter brand, at least among users who are paying attention. Some people have begun to seek out alternate web searches, just as many fled the Elon Musk iteration of a similar migration for more ethical online video platforms in the realm of possibility? YouTube should make its algorithm safer for its youngest demographic to avoid finding column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its Bailey is a film critic and historian whose work has appeared in the New York Times, Vulture, the Playlist, Slate and Rolling Stone. He is the author, most recently, of "Gandolfini: Jim, Tony, and the Life of a Legend."
Mint
22-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Trump Movie Tariff Plan Steals Spotlight at Cannes Film Festival
The Hungarian film institute's booth at the Cannes Film Festival has a glossy brochure promoting a studio complex on the outskirts of Budapest. Next to a mock medieval village, it has a cluster of wood-paneled houses described as an 'American suburb.' The set has been used to shoot US productions like Universal's 2022 horror comedy The Munsters at a fraction of what it would cost to make in Hollywood. Hungary, like many other countries, has built up its film industry using tax breaks that have lured big-budget American productions. But that business model has been thrown into question after President Donald Trump announced plans this month to impose a '100% tariff' on films shot outside of the US. Netflix Inc. and Walt Disney Co. shares tumbled in fear of rising production costs, and executives called on the White House to increase federal incentives instead. The proposal was the talk of Cannes' Film Market, where 15,000 movie professionals jostle in a vast, underground conference space to get deals done. Away from the red carpet, representatives from dozens of countries occupy booths to advertise government incentives to attract filmmakers, using Cannes to find financing and distributors, as well as locations and soundstages. Many attendees were perplexed by the potential impact of any such tariffs. Movies are often international efforts, co-produced in many countries, so it's not clear how the tariff would be applied. A quintessential Hollywood blockbuster like Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning, which premiered at Cannes, was shot in the UK, South Africa, Norway and Malta. 'Can you hold up the movie in customs?' US director Wes Anderson asked at a press conference for his film The Phoenician Scheme, shot in Germany. 'I feel it doesn't ship that way.' Robert De Niro had a similar take. 'You can't put a price on creativity, but apparently you can put a tariff on it,' the actor said in a speech when he received an honorary Palme d'Or. 'Of course, this is unacceptable.' Among national representatives at the Film Market, where countries shop tax breaks and incentives to lure big-budget films, there was concern about how much of an impact Trump's policy would have. But it didn't stop them from pitching to American productions. 'Whatever the new US policy is, it is going to affect us, but we wait to see,' said Marysela Zamora, the film commissioner for Costa Rica, in a booth adorned with lush jungle photos. The country now offers a new 90% VAT refund to production companies that spend at least $500,000, which has helped triple money spent shooting in the country, Zamora said. ABC's reality TV show Bachelor in Paradise recently shifted its production to the Central American country from Mexico. At Hungary's booth, a representative said Trump's comments came as a surprise. The central European country offers filmmakers a 30% cash rebate, high-tech sets and a skilled workforce, making it an attractive option for big productions looking to lower costs. Paramount series NCIS and Apple feature film Matchbox, starring John Cena, are currently being shot in the country. Later this year, parts of Dune 3: Messiah will be filmed there. The impact of any tariffs on the film industry won't be felt immediately, and Hungary's facilities are still at full capacity, Csaba Káel, the country's commissioner, said in a statement. At the entrance to the Film Market, Morocco paid for an ad wall touting a 30% tax rebate 'with no cap,' showing a photo of the ancient town of Aït Benhaddou that served as a backdrop to Gladiator and Game of Thrones. On a column in the convention center, Invest India advertised tax incentives of as much as 40% for projects that spend $3 million locally. Saudi Arabia used a big waterfront tent to unveil plans for a sprawling production complex in Riyadh. There were also newer entrants trying to put themselves on the map. Iraqi Kurdistan took a not-too-busy stand near the entrance to launch its film commission, inviting filmmakers to shoot in the region as a 'stand-in for various countries,' including Iran, Afghanistan and Syria. A few steps on, a large white tent facing the Mediterranean sea housed the American pavilion, where guests enjoyed iced drinks and quesadillas on a terrace. There, Colleen Bell, executive director of the California Film Commission, acknowledged that the US has experienced 'some runaway of production' as other markets became more competitive. The main recipe to 'put Californians back to doing the work they love' is Governor Gavin Newsom's plan to expand tax credits to the film and movie industry, Bell said. She declined to comment on Trump's tariff idea. During a 'California Day' at the venue, representatives from the Los Angeles tourism board said the city has a variety of stunning locations that could stand in for Miami, or even Hungary. 'The problem is when Hungary can look like Los Angeles,' replied IndieWire Editor-in-Chief Dana Harris-Bridson. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
06-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Donald Trump vows to meet Hollywood on tariff plan that shook industry
Film and entertainment figures struggled to interpret Trump's directive, which said the American movie industry is 'DYING' and cast foreign films as a national security threat Bloomberg President Donald Trump said he would meet with Hollywood executives after confounding the US film industry over his plan to impose a 100 per cent tariff on movies made overseas. 'So we're going to meet with the industry,' Trump said Monday afternoon. 'I want to make sure they're happy with it, because we're all about jobs.' Film and entertainment figures on Monday struggled to interpret Trump's directive, posted to his social media account on Sunday evening, which said the American movie industry is 'DYING' and cast foreign films as a national security threat that spread propaganda to US audiences. 'WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!' Trump said. Shares of Netflix Inc., Paramount Global, Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. and other media and entertainment companies slid as Wall Street and Hollywood tried to discern what aspect of filmmaking would qualify for such tariffs and why it should be targeted like other industries. The US film and television industry produced $22.6 billion in exports and ran a $15.3 billion trade surplus, according to a 2023 Motion Picture Association report. The industry generated a positive trade balance with every major market in the world, the report said. Trump on Sunday ordered the Commerce Department and the US Trade Representative to 'immediately' begin work on the tariff process. 'Although no final decisions on foreign film tariffs have been made, the Administration is exploring all options to deliver on President Trump's directive to safeguard our country's national and economic security while Making Hollywood Great Again,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said Monday. The statement provided no specifics about how the import taxes would be crafted and implemented, or under what legal authority they would fall — should Trump decide to move forward. The president's assertion that foreign movies threaten national security suggests the administration may rely on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which gives the Commerce Department 270 days to investigate alleged dangers of certain imports. At the end of the probe, the president could impose tariffs. Trump has used the authority to slap duties on autos and metals. Tariffing films, should Trump chose to do so, would prove complicated. Many films from Hollywood studios involve global production, including shooting locations in foreign countries and post-production work that can be done anywhere in the world. Other unanswered questions include whether the charge would apply to films already shot, but not yet released, or only new productions. Stephen Follows, a writer, producer and storytelling consultant, said that Trump 'lit a fire under an issue the industry has rarely confronted head-on. What does it actually mean for a movie to be made in America?' Overseas Productions Many big-budget Hollywood films in the past have been partially or largely filmed outside the US, lured by tax incentives as well as lower cost of labor for everything from actors and crew to post-production work. One of the biggest grossing US movies, 2009's Avatar, was primarily shot in New Zealand while Avengers: Endgame made extensive use of international locations, including Scotland and the UK. Film production has become one of the most globalized industries on earth, Follows noted in a newsletter. Every aspect of the craft routinely crosses borders. 'And while Trump's proposal assumes a clear line between foreign and domestic, the modern reality of filmmaking is a blur.' Trump seemed to seize on the incentives offered by other countries, which are causing the American film industry to die 'a very fast death,' he said in his social media post. 'Our film industry has been decimated by other countries,' Trump told reporters Monday. 'I want to help the industry. But they're given financing by other countries.' He also blamed California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, calling him a 'grossly incompetent man' who 'just allowed it to be taken away from, you know, Hollywood.' Hollywood Struggles Hollywood has been gutted in recent years as film and TV work in the US has fallen 28 per cent between 2021 and 2024 according to data from the research firm ProdPro. After the pandemic, content production recovered faster in places like Canada, Australia and England, leaving Americans to bemoan so-called runaway production, or 'offshoring.' In an effort to boost the industry, anchored in Los Angeles, actor Jon Voight and his manager Steven Paul have been pushing Trump to offer federal incentives for production. These incentives would be on top of existing state incentives and could be bought and sold. Voight, Paul and Paul's deputy, Scott Karol, spent the weekend with Trump at the Mar-a-Lago club, where they outlined plans for such incentives while watching the Kentucky Derby. Trump posted his thoughts Sunday — but instead of offering a carrot, he held out a stick. The US entertainment industry generates billions of dollars annually through exports of films, TV shows, and other intellectual property, said Heeyon Kim, an assistant professor of strategy at Cornell University. In 2024, international markets accounted for more than 70 per cent of Hollywood's total box office revenue and tariffs could spark rounds of retaliation from other countries that result in 'billions in lost earnings, impacting not only major studios but also thousands of jobs in production, marketing, and distribution,' according to Kim. This appears to be the first instance of the US government floating tariffs on services, analysts at Madison and Wall wrote in a note, but jurisdictions such as the EU have already floated doing as much in retaliation for tariffs on goods imported into the US from the EU. China has already announced it will 'moderately reduce' the number of Hollywood films allowed in the country.
