Why does Kirsner think that amateur producers of video on You Tube will give way to the professional big media players?
There are a number of reasons used by Kirsner to support his views that amateur producers will given way to professional big media players. Firstly, it is due to their lack in value-added content.
Undoubtedly, viewers were curious and attracted to the humorous video clips initially but such a ‘market’ has become too saturated and boring as more and more amateur producers try to follow suit.
As such, viewers would switch back to familiar professional productions which are not a waste of time in watching. He felt that people nowadays are more selective as they have more choices and would want to choose the better ones.
This is especially so when these big media players are entering the internet market to bring up the production quality to re-attract the viewers. Kirsner further cited examples where many of the previously popular amateur producers were still ranked high on the web only because they had merged forces with the professional big media players.
or any similar topic only for you
Another reason is that Kirsner believe that amateur producers do not have the large revenue to spend on marketing, unlike the big media players. They could only rely on word of mouth or simply hope that their movie clip was ‘discovered’ by viewers. Thus, it would only be a matter of time before they become forgotten.
Finally, Kirsner mentioned that even if the amateur producers were able to attract a large group of viewers, most of them were usually unable to come up with interesting content to sustain the viewers’ interest.
Therefore, Kirsner believed that it would only be a matter of time before such amateur producers of video on You Tube give way to the professional big media players.
2. Do you think most informed Americans would find Kirsner’s predictions about the big media corporations dominating 80% of viewers compared to 20% for amateur videos is accurate?
In my opinion, I do not think that most Americans would find Kirsner’s predictions about the big media corporations dominating 80% of viewers compared to 20% for amateur videos is accurate.
No doubt, there will be a shift in the viewers’ taste but the shift will not be so great as there would still be unforeseen circumstances when the professional producers were not at hand to film the interesting content such as an earthquake, a tsunami or a hurricane.
Many of such video clips were taken by amateur producers and posted on the internet for viewers as they happened to be at the scene and were armed with a video camera.
3. his prediction of 60/40?
I believe that his 60/40 prediction is likely to be more accurate. As mentioned in his article, the latest professionally produced had nearly attracted 900, 000 viewers daily but that definitely would not account for the majority of the population.
It is likely that the big media players had re-attracted the older viewers but not the younger generations. This is especially so when young people usually do not have the patience to watch long serial. They would rather watch the short humorous video clips by amateur producers. In fact, many of my peers today still discuss and share the amateur productions that they have watched.
There are also many comments and discussions still posted on the internet about the video clips. It could be a sort of peer pressure for them to continue watching as they might feel out of place if they had not watched such clips.
Kirsner had also mentioned in his article that there had already been evidence of amateur producers ‘developing continued series’ (Kirsner Scott, 2006), thus the number of viewers is unlikely to drop too low.
Kirsner, Scott. 2006. As online viewing booms, the amateurs give way to big media. http://mecury news.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/16154786.htm