> Budgeting Supplements: Product Placement

I just wanted to park this info feeder site here before I forgot where I put it in another thread.

http://www.brandchannel.com/brandcameo_brands.asp



What my intention is with this pursuit is to optimize the advantages of film branding linked with the generally perceived disadvantages of film piracy.
My theory model goes along the lines of:
1 - Since indie filmmakers KNOW our low/micro/no budget features are going to be pirated how can we use that to our advantage?
2 - Can indie filmmakers reasonably secure up-front monetization through branding to offset the probable back-end losses through piracy?
3 - Can indie filmmakers develop a credible unauthorized duplication calculator to provide companies likely to benefit from an as yet unstoppable public practice?

Pages 11 & 12 of the following PDF of great interest.
http://austg.com/include/downloads/PirateProfile.pdf
I must admit I'm surprised that 44% of illegal downloads are by females (page 11). I thought it would be considerably lower, and males higher.


Here we go.
The information presented here fits more to my expectations: 71% US males
2004MPAAFilmPirateProfile.png

Source: www.slyck.com/misc/mpaa_loss.doc (Wish this was HTML, but it's not. Gotta download it to read it. Sorry).
 
Last edited:
Has anyone here watched STEAL THIS FILM?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4116387786400792905


http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/steal-this-film/


Sexy PDF!
http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASCAP/Pages/BASCAP-Consumer Research Report_Final.pdf

Bill Maher Defends SOPA: ‘There Is A Moral Dimension To’ Piracy No One Talks About
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-mah...moral-dimension-to-piracy-no-one-talks-about/

Jon Stewart On SOPA: ‘A Plan To Prevent Teen Pregnancy That Fills Penises With Cement’
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stew...een-pregnancy-that-fills-penises-with-cement/



* * * * * *

It is a sad frequency of occurrence for these sort of "social extortion" combined with court costs + attorney's fees vs. settle practicalities.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2011-08-10/news/porn-piracy-bittorrent/
 
Last edited:
LMAO!
As an almost poster child for being a generation Xer conducting rudimentary research into the characteristics of the statistically greatest offenders of film downloading piracy, generation Y (which I politely disdain for dropping the rock N roll ball), I couldn't help but emit an unflattering guffaw at the following:
"The 2000s produced no new, epoch-defining, music genres, unlike past decades... Instead genres such as hip hop and r&b built incrementally on where they were in the '90s. Autotune has been cited as the decade's sole musical innovation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y#Communication_and_interaction

And at:
"The hipster moment did not produce artists, but tattoo artists. It did not yield a great literature, but it made good use of fonts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y#Cultural_identity

:lol:

FYI, studios develop, tailor and market films according to the four quadrant system.

20120213FilmDemographicQuadrants.png


If you didn't already know it, if you're over 25 you're probably an X, under 25 you're probably a Y.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generations#List_of_generations



A li'l bit of good data here:
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/brief_movieclusters_dec08_final.pdf

Love this.
2012021311FilmTypesandtheirQuadInterestWeighting.png


Note the "Related Posts" links:
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/movie-marketers-meet-your-ideal-audience/

More poop:
http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjour...s/cinemas/e3ie3cb96740c26f800a294d7506ba771da

Ah! Gold!: Report: How Americans are Spending their Media Time… and Money:
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire...cans-are-spending-their-media-time-and-money/

Gah!: American Video Habits by Age, Gender and Ethnicity
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/american-video-habits-by-age-gender-and-ethnicity/
 
Last edited:
Economics and the under 25 movie goer:
"It's important to remember that the unemployment rate for teenagers is currently way higher than it is for adults. I think that audience simply doesn't have the same amount of disposable income to throw around that it used to."
http://io9.com/5800530/why-didnt-more-young-people-go-see-thor

20120213BLS16-24yoEmployment.png

(Generate your own fun data here: http://www.bls.gov/data/ )

Hmm... so, I would expect film piracy would become an increasing "economically justifiable necessity" as young adult employment remains suppressed.

The long-term (five year) concern is that piracy will become an entrenched behavior that will not subside as young adult employment improves, whenever that happens, assuming this theoretical model is predicatively accurate.

EDIT: I also wonder if studios will increase their production portfolios of over 25 male & female oriented films.
Expect more comedy and drama.



Meh. IDK. Only the opening is relevant to the title. I guess I just wanted to present someone stating how the film industry divides the audience.
http://www.necn.com/searchNECN/sear...e-business-focuses-most-on-males-under-25.htm



Just keeping track of the trackers;
"Although NRG [National Research Group] continues to be used by the studios for tracking, the post-Farrell regime has seen its position eroded by MarketCast – owned by Reed Business Information – and OTX, an online research company, both of which have poached key talent from the company.

“What is NRG anymore besides the tracking?” asked one industry executive accustomed to dealing with NRG. “In this business you’ve got to have people on the other end of the phone to talk to marketing executives at the studios. And if there’s nobody to talk to at NRG, who cares what it’s folded into?”

The movie market research business represents about $100 million in revenues spent by major and independent studios every year. Research has grown in the television business as well, but is still not as large."

http://www.thewrap.com/media/article/nrg-cuts-30-nielsen-ponders-move-updated-2992
 
Last edited:
I would like some help with some ideas on where to find some blogs and websites dedicated to niché markets.

Horror and SciFi book and film review sites and blogs are a dime a dozen.
Any idiot can find a baker's dozen of each.

2012021311FilmTypesandtheirQuadInterestWeighting.png


But where on Earth do I begin searching for websites and forums dedicated to chick flicks, action adventure... stuff, and/or just any other basic genre?
http://www.imdb.com/genre/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genres
1.1 Action
1.2 Adventure
1.3 Comedy
1.4 Crime
1.5 Documentary
1.6 Erotic
1.7 Faction
1.8 Fantasy
1.9 Historical
1.10 Horror
1.11 Mystery
1.12 Paranoid
1.13 Philosophical
1.14 Political
1.15 Romance
1.16 Saga
1.17 Satire
1.18 Science fiction
1.19 Slice of Life
1.20 Speculative
1.21 Thriller
1.22 Urban

For example, lettuce say I had an idea for an action thriller film.
What kind of meaningful discussion groups would gather to discuss action or thriller subjects?


* * * * *

Just found this and had to include it somewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg6xdi7SfnI

Idiot.
 
Last edited:
A Very Nice Article: The Psychology of Viral Advertising

http://abovethelineproducer.blogspot.com/2012/03/psychology-of-viral-advertising.html

Some good principles in here potentially easily applied to product placement within our films as well as other projects, like PopTent commercials.

"Problem 1: Prominent Branding Puts Off Viewers.
Solution: Through something that Teixeira calls “brand pulsing”, ie, unobtrusively weaving the brand image throughout the ad – which can increase viewership by as much as 20%.

Problem 2: People Get Bored Right Away
Solution: it’s rather obvious, create joy or surprise on the first moments of the ad.

Problem 3: People Watch for a While but Then Stop.
Solution: “Build an emotional roller coaster. Viewers are most likely to continue watching a video ad if they experience emotional ups and downs.

Problem 4: People Like an Ad but Won’t Share It.
Solution: Surprise but don't shock.

Problem 5: People Still Won’t Share the Ad.
Solution: Would be to target the viewers who will share the ad. By identifying “two attributes of people who frequently share ads: Extroversion and egocentricity“!"
 
A lot. :)



  • > Budgeting Supplements: Product Placement: Replies: 8 - Views: 515
  • > The Budget Thread: Replies: 1 - Views: 24
  • > Indie Film Marketing & Promotion: Replies: 23 - Views: 849
  • > VOD Indie Film Distribution Exploration: Replies: 92 - Views: 4,454
  • > 2011 Sundance Feature Film Distribution & Revenue Analysis: Replies: 22 - Views: 1,102
  • > 2010 Independent Film Distribution & Revenue Analysis: Replies: 11 - Views: 753

Considering that most of the replies are my own, I'm guessing from the number thread views that most IT-ers are just staring agape at the manic freakasaurus.

"Hi!" :eek::crazy:
 
Last edited:
Speaking only for myself, I absolutely dig the research threads! I don't have much to say about them in terms of discussion, but I love all the stuff you dig up, and your summaries of them. Lots to learn, lots to think about.

Keep 'em coming!
 
Speaking only for myself, I absolutely dig the research threads! I don't have much to say about them in terms of discussion, but I love all the stuff you dig up, and your summaries of them. Lots to learn, lots to think about.

Keep 'em coming!
Thank you, sir.

Oh! I'm glad you're finding the summaries decent.
Have you read a few of the source articles to verify my distillates are sound?
I'd appreciate a brief eval on that.

Half baked?
Full baked?
Dead on balls?
Close enough?
Whut?


I'll keep 'em coming until I begin running across the same information repeatedly, at which point I know I've hit the bulk of sensibly available information.
Law of diminishing returns and all that. ;)
 
Last edited:
Oh! I'm glad you're finding the summaries decent.
Have you read a few of the source articles to verify my distillates are sound?
I'd appreciate a brief eval on that.

Haven't had time to read through many of them (once again, very glad you're putting them all in clearly marked threads which will make it easy to go back to when I have more time), but from what I've read, you do seem to be getting the meat out of them in your summaries. Which actually is another reason I haven't dug through all of them...your analysis and summaries are good, so I trust your work! Your reasearch chops seem pretty solid.
 
Product Placement vs. Cross Promotion

Short of hunting down a proper definition of each (which you should know I will - eventually), I believe the difference between product placement and cross promotion is that the former has more of a passive "fire it and forget it" approach while the latter has more of an active "yeah, we're working on this on both sides."

Anyhow, much of this is robbed from another thread where the emphasis was on marketing, the part I re-routed here is about supplementing the production budget before & during production via cross promotion - an aspect of this thread's functional mission.

Later this morning I'll take some time to scour that last article to see what more I can uncover.


CROSS PROMOTION: THE AVENGERS, et al
704
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/168239/harley-davidson-follows-the-passion.html?print
"Bernacchi [the Harley-Davidson marketing communication director who helped develop the Chevrolet/Transformers partnership] tells Marketing Daily that programs like “The Avengers” are about reaching people who are interested, but thinking of swinging a leg over a Harley-Davidson motorcycle maybe later on. "We want to get people interested in Harley-Davidson products and lifestyle in a way that makes them think twice, in places they're living in already; Marvel is one of the largest male publications out there, with the average fan literally being 18 to 34 years of age, so it really hits a sweet spot for us."

Marvel fans are also 40% more likely to consider a Harley-Davidson than any other motorcycle brand and almost 25% more likely to be into motorcycles in general than fans of any other general publication, per Bernacchi. "We are focused on scale and on [relationships with] brands whose characters resonate with ours.""

Okay, so someone's already been doing his homework and knows where to go hunting for more customers.
Good boy. Earn your cheddar.


Speaking of cheddar...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Avengers_(2012_film)#Promotional_partners
"Other promotional partners include bracelet-maker Colantotte, Dr Pepper, Farmers Insurance, Harley-Davidson, Hershey, Land O'Frost lunchmeats, Oracle, Red Baron pizza, Symantec, Visa and Wyndham Hotels & Resorts. In total Marvel and its' parent-company Disney secured an estimated $100 million in worldwide marketing support for The Avengers. Notable exclusions include Baskin-Robbins, Burger King and Dunkin' Donuts, who had partnered with Marvel in the past when their films were distributed by Paramount. Disney has long strayed away from pairing up with fast fooderies because it does not want to be seen promoting junk food to kids."

Hmm... the more I look at that the more I'm beginning to wonder EXACTLY what "$100 million in... marketing support" really means.
How much you wanna bet that doesn't really mean the supporting companies are handing over checks to the producers?
Although there might be some nominal product supply as props and mayyyybe some token cash, but how much you wanna bet that really means Company A tells the film producer it will commit to spending the bulk of it's $$ on advertising & promotion along the venues and vectors it already has relationships with?
"You go do your thing, we'll do ours. We'll do them together, but separately."
Kinda like trading service for service with minimal or no cash actually trading.
Good old barter system. I'll give you a supper if you sing me some songs sort of deal.

To be more explicit: Assuming relatively equal effectiveness in reaching customers, whatever $X amount a cross promotional partner commits to spending means you don't have to spend that $X amount out of your budget and allowing you to allocate your own fixed financial resources elsewhere.

Not a total bad deal.
From what I can figure it's actually fairly good.

For example, lettuce say you have a $100k feature budget.
Normal promotional budget would be equal to that amount, which seems rather far fetched in indie world.
(My personal belief is that any budget spent above vacation money and below the semi-official "micro budget film" lower limit @ $4mil is a no man's land of near certain financial death.)
You're looking at a GROSS BUDGET of $200k

$100k Production Budget
+ $100k Advertising & Promotion Budget
= $200k GROSS BUDGET

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's only a Gross Budget since indirect costs/overhead hasn't been factored in to render a Net Budget.
Wanna be nice and call that at $20k? Fine.

$200k GROSS BUDGET
+ $20k OVERHEAD
= $220k NET BUDGET

$220k in revenue or sales required just to break even using the "I'm gonna let this film walk on its own legs" approach.

Now, if you can get a cross promotional partner to commit to... $2k? $5k? of their own in advertising and promotion as they see fit, to more efficiently EXPAND the market you otherwise would have likely reached, assuming a relatively equal bang-for-the-buck/pound/euro/loonie/drachma/peso your break even point just lowered by that amount.

Can you get two or three cross promotional partners? For... $10k?

$100k Production Budget
+ $90k Advertising and Promotion Budget
= $190k Gross Budget
+ $20k Overhead
= $210k Net Budget

$210k in revenue or sales required to break even using the "I'm gonna ask some friends to help sell my movie" approach.

Lop off a zero to all of these and I think you'll have numbers closer to what most of us work with for a feature film.
(Except most of us just consider ONLY the direct costs of the production budget as our ONLY expense to recover - if even.)

I've already got enough shhhstuff to fool with trying to get this independent feature packaged - and they already have the know-how to appeal to their consumer demographic - and their contact knowledge is collectively broader than my own.
That last part is really where the gold is.
Try to have them introduce you to their own advertising and promotion people, for the sake of ensuring the entire program is coordinated.
On subsequent film projects you can ask those contacts if they may know someone interested.
Your informational networking resource pool just exponentially expanded.

Geometric Growth - Red Line
300px-Exponential.svg.png
Exponential Growth - Blue and Green Lines



Citation from the above wiki source led to: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118052078?refCatId=13
Just... read the whole d@mn thing.

This is why I'm peddling cross promotion:
"Studios often rely on partners to target various demographics. In the case of "The Avengers," Acura will help Marvel and Disney reach adults 25-44, while Oracle and Symantec are going after tech savvy males 18-49, Dr. Pepper will target teens and adults 19-24, and Land O'Frost reaches families.

Red Baron enables Marvel to target kids age 6-17 and moms 35-54 with "Avengers"-themed packaging on 13 million of its pizzas and in-store marketing programs at Walmart, Target, Kroger, Safeway, Meijer and Food Lion stores. Company is spending $5 million on its tie-in, which will also have it prominently featured at the April 11 premiere, alongside Harley-Davidson, in Hollywood.

Hershey will target a similar audience as Red Baron with film tie-ins for its Hershey Kisses and other Hershey branded chocolate products, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, York Peppermint Patties.Wyndham will promote the film to guests at the company's 14 hotel brands that include Ramada, Days Inn, Super 8 and Howard Johnson and members of its Wyndham Rewards loyalty program."

  • Acura will help Marvel and Disney reach adults 25-44
  • Oracle and Symantec are going after tech savvy males 18-49
  • Dr. Pepper will target teens and adults 19-24
  • Land O'Frost reaches families
  • Red Baron enables Marvel to target kids age 6-17
  • Red Baron enables Marvel to target moms 35-54
  • Hershey will target a similar audience as Red Baron (Who woulda naturally thought pizza and chocolate kisses have the same/similar market?)
How were you gonna target specific demographics? Through what channels? And with what time resources?
This is the benefit of allowing specialists to do their jobs - just like on the set!

:yes: Jack of all trades = Master of none. :no:
 
Last edited:
Observation from the Variety article, regarding fast food partnerships:
Disney has long strayed away from pairing up with fast feeders because it doesn't want to be seen promoting junk food to kids.
Seems to contradict directly with partnerships with Hershey's and Red Baron. Doubly so given:
Red Baron enables Marvel to target kids age 6-17 and moms 35-54
There certainly is a current cultural stigma regarding fast food restaurants (though any given FF place certainly offers healthier options than a frozen pizza). It does seem a little odd of a stance; no one would argue that a Reese's Peanut Butter Cups is a) not targeted at kids or b) anything other than junk food. I wonder if it is as much the restaurants coming up with numbers that Disney likes, rather than any philosophical standpoint. There's also this:
"The Avengers" doesn't have a traditional fast food partner, primarily because such companies typically shy away from non-PG-rated releases.
Generally true (though I still have (and use) my LOTR goblets from BK. They're nice geeky glasses!)
Not making judgements either way about the decision, just observing. It's interesting seeing how people partner/sponsor/license vs. corporate image.

On the far end of that spectrum, Chumbawamba (a highly political anarcho-punk band, known for their one very annoying, yet widely misunderstood mainstream hit) turned down a reported 1.5 million from Nike for said song. They did take $100,000 from GM for it...and promptly donated the money to CorpWatch for an anti-GM campaign.

Me, I'd take the money where I can get it. Doubly so if it helps cross-promote the product/creation that I DO care about.
 
I wonder if it is as much the restaurants coming up with numbers that Disney likes, rather than any philosophical standpoint.
I believe the better part of strategic business discretion suggests you're correct.
No need in making disparaging remarks in public.
Maybe next time.


Me, I'd take the money where I can get it. Doubly so if it helps cross-promote the product/creation that I DO care about.
It seems the strategic directors at Paramount hold the same belief as you.
IDK WTH Disney's problem is.
It's a PG-13 film, not a little kiddie PG.
Surely Disney's theme park eateries serve equally calorie dense / nutrient deficient food products as any other chain restaurant.


Maybe I'll someday hunt down other cross promotional partners with other Disney films to see if this shucks and jives.
Five bucks says you're right, though: BK et al didn't wanna pony up the cash Disney marketing execs felt was "equitable to the contributions of others." :)


 
Last edited:
Marketing to Pirates... er... I mean College Students

Let's face it: Profiling is not PC, but the stats point to a buncha people in the movie marketing quadrant of males under 25 that are rampant film pirates.

So how can we make money offa these (can I call 'em pr!cks? they're stealing our sh!t and I'm already being not PC by profiling them, so... ?) definitely morally and possibly economically disadvantaged individuals. :cool:

Yeah, yeah, yeah:
A) You/we/I should make the film we want, and
B) You/we/I have enough to think about just getting the d@mn thing written/organized/shot/chopped/distributed.

Yeah, well... First, I ain't talking to you art purists. I'm talking to the unabashed monetizing business oriented pimps and hos who wanna entertain people just like PTBarnum, Walt Disney, and those wacky guys that make Silly String, whoever the H they are. :lol:

And second, I suspect some of those assorted moving pieces to this filmmaking machine are gonna cost a pretty penny, or two. Thousand. :)

Yeah, yeah, yeah I also know all about the (innane) arguments that pirating isn't "really" stealing because they were likely never going to be paying consumers anyway.
Yeah, well... That kinda EXACTLY the aspect I wanna exploit: Make definite financial gains up front by advertising to the pirates themselves to mitigate the possible losses at the end through maybe/maybe not lost sales through pirating.

I'm posing an alternate way of looking at the traditional filmmaking approach.
Traditional: Spend money ---> Make Film ---> Sell tickets & distribution + Pirating
Alternate: Get Money ---> Spend money ---> Make Film ---> Sell tickets & distribution + Pirating

And who are the worst pirates? Males under 25.

That's likely college students. Whether it is or isn't it doesn't matter, I just wanna figure out who's trying the hardest to sell to them and how to market to them.
At this point our REAL interest is now on getting advertising and promotional money from the businesses most desperate to get the consumer money from the under 25 target group who are pirating our d@mn movies!

It doesn't matter WHAT the under 25yo males are buying.
It matters who's spending the most to sell them shhhhhstuff.
It's often not the number one brand spending the most.
It's often the number two or three brand spending the most trying to catch up to meet some sales manager target.
That sales manager is the person I wanna convince to gimme a product or two to put in my film and possibly throw a few Benjamins my way, too.

http://www.webcrawler.com/search/we...e students&fcoid=4&fcop=results-bottom&fpid=2

http://mssmedia.com/overview/

overview-graphic2.jpg




Old article, but I imagine the basic traits of the demographics haven't changed much in 3yrs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/business/media/27adco.html?_r=1
"“Even though people have the opportunity to watch video on their computers and cellphones, TV accounts for 99 percent of all video consumed in 2008,” Mr. Bloxham said. “Even among the 18-to-24-year-olds, it was 98 percent.”

Among younger audiences, there are some leading indicators that the Web is affecting media usage. The data shows that 18-to-24-year-olds — generally college students and new entrants into the work force — watch the smallest amount of live TV of any age group (three and a half hours a day), spend the most time text messaging (29 minutes a day) and watch the most online video (5.5 minutes a day).

Slightly older viewers, those ages 25 to 34, spend the most time of any group watching DVD or VCR videos. People ages 35 to 44 spend more time on the Web than other groups, 74 minutes a day on average. The next demographic, 45 to 54 years old, spends the most time on e-mail. Consumers over the age of 65 watch the most live TV, according to the research. "




4yo article.
http://www.marketingcharts.com/tele...g-civic-engagement-digital-connectivity-5533/


Good Lord. this'll take a lot of digging.
http://www.marketingcharts.com/?&s=college students


Groaaaannn. 5yo article (In case you haven't noticed, I like my news "new" and my data current.)
http://www.marketingcharts.com/tele...ge-students-brands-need-to-use-internet-1389/

burst-media-college-brand-switching.jpg

So, what you do is you have one character state to a friend the price is lower while a third listens.


898
 
Last edited:
Yikes... 3.5 hours a day is the lowest average of hours of TV watched daily!? I know that's not the fact to take away from this thread, and it's encouraging some real thought in how to approach product placement on low budget level, but it's embarrassing how much tv the public watches. I maybe get 3 hours a week, maybe.
 
!!! (Germane) RANT ALERT !!!

Yikes... 3.5 hours a day is the lowest average of hours of TV watched daily!?
Aw, it's worse than that.

You gotta read these things like a lawyer or an armchair statistician:
The data shows that 18-to-24-year-olds — generally college students and new entrants into the work force — watch the smallest amount of live TV of any age group (three and a half hours a day)

It's not just 3.5hrs of TV.
3.5hrs is ONLY the "live" TV part.

Pre-recorded + feature length movies + vidiot games played on TV are all IN ADDITION to the 3.5hrs of "live" TV. :lol:



And FWIW, I don't consider this a detraction from the thread.

I think it's important to both report and read "news" as accurately as possible.
It's a pet peve of mine when I'm reading a so called "news" report and see how stats and figures are sensationalized and given without due qualifiers.

"Government reports indicate a 300%
increase in the number of _______ incidents."

Umm, okay.
So, we went from one to four incidents of _______.
Great.
In a population of XX million exactly how many are affected?
1 to 4? 100 to 400? 1million to 4million? What?
And did the reporting criteria remain the same from one period to the next?
Or did the testing improve? Or did the qualifying criteria expand in scope?
And what exactly is the period length or durration?
Is this a one-off? Or is there a credible trend, all things normalized?

Do I get p!ssed off at the reporter for FUBARing data?
Or do I get p!ssed off at the editor that cut a 1,000 word article from the reporter down to 300 words to fit above the alloted advertising space? Surely something critical was left behind.
Or do I get p!ssed at the moronic readership/viewership that doesn't complain about this kind of shoddy reporting? They just gobble up this calorie dense/nutrient deficient pablum.
@sses.


So, again, no. You are not diverging from the thread's intent by puting effort into fully comprehending what the elephant's left leg "means" in context of the whole elephant.
Too many people just quit at "the elephant's left leg." :grrr:
You're doing EXACTLY what you should be doing. :yes:


;)
 
Last edited:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/upfronts-2012-youtube-google-319445

YouTube says it has commissioned a study, "Generation V," and is beginning to share results of the findings. According to the study, men aged 18-34 are now spending more time streaming video than watching live TV, one third visit YouTube multiple times a day, half subscribe to a YouTube channel and two thirds shared YouTube videos in the past week. The numbers are slightly less for women aged 25-49, where it's reported that 40 percent subscribe to YouTube channels. But the company targets their specific sharing habits, saying that a third of these women regularly share online video with their kids or parents.

"“If you take a look at the phase we’re in now, it sure looks to me like we’re about to see another large explosion in the use of video," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt in a conference call today to discuss the news. "The growth rate is accelerating, the traffic is accelerating, the content is accelerating. And I think it’s because it solves new problems: people are finding themselves using video in everything. It’s changing our communities, it’s changing the way we live.”



1,299
 
Back
Top