this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
368 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

68130 readers
6243 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

People still want the TV and movie experience offered by traditional studios, but social platforms are becoming competitive for their entertainment time—and even more competitive for the business models that studios have relied on. Social video platforms offer a seemingly endless variety of free content, algorithmically optimized for engagement and advertising. They wield advanced ad tech and AI to match advertisers with global audiences, now drawing over half of US ad spending. As the largest among them move into the living room, will they be held to higher standards of quality?

At the same time, the streaming on-demand video (SVOD) revolution has fragmented pay TV audiences, imposed higher costs on studios now operating direct-to-consumer services, and delivered thinner margins for their efforts. It can be a tougher business, yet the premium video experience offered by streamers often sets the bar for quality storytelling, acting, and world-building. How can studios control costs, attract advertisers, and compete for attention? Are there stronger points of collaboration that can benefit both streamers looking to reach global audiences and social platforms that lack high-quality franchises?

This year’s Digital Media Trends lends data to the argument that video entertainment has been disrupted by social platforms, creators, user-generated content (UGC), and advanced modeling for content recommendations and advertising. Such platforms may be establishing the new center of gravity for media and entertainment, drawing more of the time people spend on entertainment and the money that brands spend to reach them.

Our survey of US consumers reveals that media and entertainment companies—including advertisers—are competing for an average of six hours of daily media and entertainment time per person (figure 1). And this number doesn’t seem to be growing.2 Not only is it unlikely that any one form of media will command all six hours, but each user likely has a different mix of SVOD, UGC, social, gaming, music, podcasts, and potentially other forms of digital media that make up these entertainment hours.

(page 2) 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The problem is that this applies to news and information. People are listening to Joe Rogan, who doesn’t try to report the facts, not journalists.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I'm conflicted about Joe Rogan, or at least the concept he had at the start. Clearly he's fallen down the right-wing rabbit hole but the original intent he had of letting people defend their weird positions is a good one imo. One could argue that the reason the right-wing funnel exists is because there isn't really space to talk about some of those things on the left.

For example, it's not crazy to ask questions about vaccines and how they work. However, when people do that those who are educated on the topic will largely assume ill intent by default and treat the people asking questions as if they're stupid or malicious. There's some good reasons for that but such an approach is pretty alienating for those who are genuinely seeking information. That leads at least a portion of those people to listen to more right leaning information because they feel like that is the only group taking them seriously.

We need to do better at meeting people where they are instead of assuming they are trying to spread misinformation. Yes it's true that all the information you need to develop an informed opinion about the vast majority of topics is available on the internet, but finding and understanding that information does take skills and time that not everyone has. In order to understand why a statement or belief is incorrect or misinformed you have to create a space in which it can be discussed without fear and shame driving people away.

Based on the limited amount of his older podcasts that I've been exposed to, I do think that Joe genuinely tried to do that, he's just not particularly well equipped to handle that kind of environment. Over time he fell victim to the same kind of radicalization that he was intending to subvert by letting people share their actual thoughts instead of assuming he already knew what they were going to say.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Yay, my 50 something butt is a younger people.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] commander@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Over the years I always hear people in real life tell me how much they loved Parasite, Fight Club, Being John Malkovich, Harold and Maude, Everything Everywhere at Once. They never seem to be able to find movies they like. They never put much effort finding things they'd like

They're all movies that are from indie filmmakers that managed to get mainstream recognition. Movies like O Brother Where Art Thou, There Will Be Blood, Pulp Fiction, etc. Auteur led movies making original movies. There are tens of thousands of movies being made with passion outside of just return on investment a year. Uncut Gems had some popularity some years ago.

I can confidently say with certainty that at least a couple hundred a year are good to great. Almost none of them make more than like $5 million at the box office worldwide in their release year. Most barely get screens and even in AMCs they show to theaters of like 3 people

Discovery issue but also even marketed with great trailers, people aren't going taking the risk of being disappointed. Either it goes viral or people aren't watching it. Japanese movies to non-Japanese people might as well just be anime adaptations and the latest Godzilla movie

Korean movies was for a period just Old boy to people that googled and then just Parasite. Maybe the Wailing.

Every other country in the US may as well not exist when it comes to movies. Like 1000 feature length movies a year from the US but the only ones people know are like 5 blockbusters a year where they may watch 2 and then when the Oscars come around they learn of a handful of indie movies and maybe try the best picture winner. That's it. Even a movie they like, they can't come up with the idea of seeing who directed or wrote it and see what else they've done. We can complain about studios all we want but time and time again we are shown that the general consumer including the whiners in here will not try to find what isn't already popular. Same with music, television, books, etc.

Unless it has a cookie cutter easy to see the appeal hook, very few people will show up. Celebrities they think are attractive and action. Way more competition now though. I don't think romance movies are major anymore. Plenty of good content, you just don't know it and you don't take risks. That includes everyone complaining about Netflix. There's plenty on there and Amazon Prime. There's plenty that hits the AMC or other major chain. You just don't watch it. You're a part of the problem.

[–] PlantJam@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Do you have recommendations for fixing discoverability? I can browse by category on streaming apps, but that just shows the top ten or twenty titles. Beyond that it's search by name or scroll alphabetically.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (6 children)

HEY IT'S FREEEEED!!!!!!

Guys. Remember that? Remember Fred? That's how we're going to look back on todays social media content. It will be cringeworthy embarrassments. Meanwhile go watch Fraiser. Go watch Friends. Go watch The Office. Hindsight is 20/20, but those shows hold up decades later. Do you think "Dance hype craze" video 574 is going to be something we remember fondly in 2040?

Holy shit. 2040. I'm going to be so old. My knees are going to hurt.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Do you think “Dance hype craze” video 574 is going to be something we remember fondly in 2040?

Well, I know I remember the Hamster dance website fondly, does that count as a dance hype craze?

I also remember many Youtube videos from many years ago with some amount of nostalgia, e.g. Chocolate Rain or Mocha in "His First Broccoli" or the Yogscast series Shadow of Israphel.

I know some old shows and movies hold up well but others are pretty bad too. And the newer ones have an even worse ratio there.

As far as cringe goes, I think some of the series you mentioned, like Friends, has a good percentage of that too.

[–] ratel@mander.xyz 4 points 1 week ago

Yeah whatever brings positive nostalgia to people will be looked at fondly. I remember early internet fads and viral websites in a positive light that are just as dumb and transient as whatever viral content is being pushed out today. People view things in a different light and some kids in 15 years time will get nostalgic about Skibidi Toilet and talk about how "Dance Hype Craze" fell off after video 983.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I have fond memories of Weebl and Bob and Charlie the Unicorn...

[–] itsathursday@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] cdf12345@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Do ya think so?

[–] kipo@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I would argue that Friends does not hold up so well. It still has funny bits, but it's also quite sexist and is homophobic and transphobic (while also being one of the few big shows to even talk about gay and trans topics at the time).

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The outdated social stuff comes up occasionally but like maybe there's an issue once a season or so, it's not going to be distracting episode to episode.

The bigger problem with Friends imho, is the laugh track. It's just weird watching a show with a laugh track these days, especially when modern comedies have learned to use that time to cram in way more jokes. It just makes friends feel somewhat archaic and out of time, even compared to Seinfeld which objectively looks much older from a cinematography standpoint.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] monarch@lemm.ee 8 points 1 week ago

No but GMM had been producing content for over 10 years and they are still looked at fondly.

If you don't like that example I won't say they are the greatest works ever made but their are so many indie animators that are making whole shows and uploading them for free on YouTube that many people will remember fondly.

Go look at James Lee's channel. He would never be given the freedom to do the weird style he has on tv.

"Badger, Mushroom, Snaaaaake" on the other hand ages like fine whiskey.

[–] humiddragonslayer@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago

Dropout, New Smosh and even most of the video essay YouTubers that are on Nebula would like to have a word with you

[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

There's not enough cowbells! We need more cowbells!

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Yay I feel young!

load more comments