What Lies Ahead for Periscope - Monetisation (Part One).

With the recent issues from the fallout of the YouTube demonetisation drama; where talking about certain sensitive topics are discouraged by demonetising a Youtuber's channel. It made me think about the ramifications for Periscopers when it eventually happens to them. I wondered what it would be like if channels on Periscope were being demonetised.

Imagine saying something live that advertisers didn't agree with and they subsequently pulled adverts from your channel instantly. More lovely, juicy, delicious drama local to Periscope!

We know live video isn't the same as edited video. There is actually an extra level of safety for brand collaborations at least on pre-recorded videos (yes advertisers are bailing on YouTube because adverts have been seen against ISIS videos, but how many advertisers knew you could selectively apply who can see your adverts on certain types of content, not many it seems). The stuff managed by bots is a different story.

I'm imagining the outcry from a live-stream, and then witness how quickly the fallout would travel because of the simplicity of informing viewers via live-streams*. A Periscoper would have to be trusted with advertising (I hope), hence the slow rollout of an advertising program by Twitter.

I can see live-streamers changing to conform to the sensibilities of advertisers turning some scopers into daytime television if they haven't already. Maybe scopers will find themselves adhering to guidelines to make sure that happens. I'm also assuming a new approach from Twitter that takes into account more authentic metrics.

Who is Going to Qualify?

Currently only a few accounts can generate revenue from Twitter directly through working with Twitter's advertiser network, Amplify. Only in the US by the way, everybody else will have to wait. It's a first cautious step which harkens back YouTube's rollout (over many years). I'm fine with the pace of the rollout, Twitter should be cautious, because of the nature of instability with live-streaming.

My other thoughts drift to who would actually qualify, (after the celebs and Twitter verified users of course) and whether they are actually worth Amplify's attention (assuming Amplify will be the media handler).

It surprises me from the sentiment expressed in the Periscope slack group and on the platform, that a few scopers expect Periscope to do most of the monetisation work for them. Why is that when it takes less work and less talent to be popular on Periscope compared to YouTube? Don't forget the ease and accessibility with live-streaming, one doesn't have to sit down all day and edit video like YouTubers do, instead scopers can sit down all day and just chat. YouTubers have to fucking grind so much more!

In all sorts of ways because of live-streaming, the bar has been lowered in terms of acquiring an audience, the technical challenges aren't there, the audience is dynamic and current. Do other scopers realise how easy it is compared to YouTubers? That unknowing ease can create a misplaced perception that scopers have talent and a 'value' because they have an audience. 

Some scopers may simply have first mover advantage on Periscope, they may have attractive physical features, or they broadcast so much they gain an audience by default, or they are the only ones broadcasting in their area. People will also watch anything. While it seems I'm making reference to certain scopers, I'm not, I'm just pointing out the minimums to become popular on Periscope. It isn't difficult so if anyone can do it just by putting time into the app, how does a scoper declare themselves a scoper better than the rest?

This leads us to better metrics.

Better Metrics

Periscope have insisted on live views for scopers to determine what is a 'good' scope and a contributing scoper. This is how Periscope allow scopers to become VIPs in the first place; by focusing on live views. On the face of it, live views might sound important in the statistics, but dig deeper and one begins to wonder what is the value for an advertiser if a broadcaster has 30,000 subscribers, only 2-4k in views, with an average watch time of only 20 seconds.

Again, are people being realistic in the face of such metric? Is a scope with a watch time of under a minute worth anything? Are scopers checking their stats? I think 4-5 minutes is the minimum where you can deduce value and expect some kind of payout. Periscope focusing on live views is too simplistic and doesn't inform advertisers of a scoper's ability to keep people's attention would it's worth their while and also sends the wrong signal to scopers that this is what they need to pay attention to!

Importance has to be on replay watch time. Replay watch time isn't something that can be as easily gamed, and YouTube already uses this as one of their most valuable metrics to determine what is or what isn't a good video for the viewer's time and the advertiser's money. An argument can be made for live watch time as well if the tracking of viewers (those viewers who consistently return) is employed, maybe at a severely reduced advertising rate because live view watch times are typically shorter in length because of the sheer number of people coming into a scope live and deciding it isn't for them.

Duh! Don't Wait on Periscope

In the mean time as it will take a while to bring monetisation to the whole Periscope platform, I suggest scopers should seek their own forms of monetisation through PayPal, Patreon or their own merchandise. Especially if they get demonetised for not being PC later on down the road. It's going to happen, I'm not clever in predicting this. I'm just not sleep walking into it. Some YouTubers are currently discovering they shouldn't rely on the YouTube advertising revenue system that provides them with their main source of income, alternative sources of income provides redundancy guys!

If scopers are waiting for Periscope then they are not trying hard enough or thinking in a creative manner, and I would see this as indicator of their general ability to market themselves in the first place, never mind someone else's product! If a scoper can't think to throw out even a PayPal link, then I'm concerned.

If this sounds like I am picking on anybody I'm not trying to. I'm simply trying to point out that scopers shouldn't sit on their hands and wait for something to come to them, they should create their own opportunities instead of waiting to qualify for a native advertising program.

In (a sorta) Conclusion

While I'm concerned about the metrics Twitter/Periscope may employ, I'm more concerned about how we as viewers find entertaining broadcasts. As I write this, Periscope have determined that a 'breathtaking sunset' from Spain and a 'morning walk' in England requires my attention.



*Its an irony in of itself that Periscope doesn't use Periscope to disseminate information to users of its platform.

If Periscope accounts were monetised, what would the criteria be? Let's take a moment to consider one of the biggest changes to the platform, it changes many things. Importantly, mindsets, some Youtubers currently are considering shutting down their channels because they aren't making money. They are willing to shutter everything considering the out lay in equipment. What is the minimum out lay for a scoper? A smart phone. How flippantly can we be as scopers to the detriment of the platform because our real goal was to make money.

There is already drama on the platform because of the way Periscope can't communicate their efforts clearly without money being involved! Enterprising scopers are finding their own ways which negates the issues raised.

For as little as $1 you can be a patreon and support my writing, podcasting and live-streaming. For a single dollar you'll be given access to limited chat broadcasts (on Periscope) and access to the private patreon blog. Link here

I've Seen Tertiary Characters At Star Trek ConventionsĀ Get More Attention.

Viewer: "Are you going to Summit Live"?

Me: "No, it's bullshit".

Events like these have always felt self-masturbatory. Especially at a conference venue. Conferences imply authority, but with live-streaming I'm not sure what anybody can claim to be the authority of exactly, yet. Nobody should be claiming anything from what I've seen put on display this week.

Summit Live for those that don't know, is the live-streaming event for those invested in live-streaming*, it's live-streamers, live-streaming about live-streaming. It shouldn't be too much harder to organise something than the word play at play, right? It's not a puppy convention with some individuals saying, "hey let's stream this to the world". It should be better presented than that.

It's my modest expectation to be able to watch a live streamed event by live streamers, and have it marketed adequately enough to an outside audience, creating that crucial, precious FOMO for when the next one comes around, in order to better build out the next event to an even better degree. 

I'm not feeling anything.

After two years I find the Summit Live events aren't getting better, it's scandalous for two reasons (ignoring all other live-streams ever streamed before to the world in human history).

  1. I'm still watching presentations made available to me from someone's phone sitting in the audience. I understand that's the beauty of live-streaming as it's reactionary to an event. Conferences however aren't dramatic in the slightest, and as these apps develop, so should the manner in which video is streamed.
  2. Why is no one is sitting at the front streaming to at least hide the fact that nobody is turning up to listen? Who is charge of the room? Where are the backseat marketers and influencers saying this is okay? I would want to see a blossoming from a yearly event, not a drying out husk.

What you have then, is one of the best live-streamers, Josh Robert Thompson, (subjective I know, but definitely someone who brings more televisual experience to the event than anybody else, [this is why a woke JRT satirically examined the state of live-streaming in his talk]) and the day before you actually had the Community Manager of Periscope, presenting to not even half-filled conference rooms about upcoming new features; that on the whole are interesting, but who fuck is watching?

Honestly, a write-up on Medium might have been better use of Lili's time. 

Periscope's @lilisalzberg addresses their community at #SummitLive -https://twitter.com/geoffgolberg/status/834925321543643137

The photo above doesn't inspire confidence for further Summit Lives. Especially when Periscope themselves don't even promote their own speaker via the official Periscope account with over 9 million follows. Clearly Periscope didn't regard it as important enough. I've seen tertiary characters at Star Trek conventions get more attention. Would Periscope want to attend again?

There has to be at least 101 marketeers at the event, right?

To the people staging this event, you're not creating any buzz that's reaching the casual viewer. I have a mixture of new and old people attending my scopes who are unaware of what Summit Live is. I'm doubting if you're able to reach enough casual viewers collectively through those attending scopers with their own individual fan base, that it creates a perception that there isn't much FOMO to be shared out.

Getting the word out generally for something like an event via live-streams seems to be a problem endemic to the platform though. Still.

I'm aware of the politics to some degree and qualitative aspects to who was talking and the price and so forth, but I want to just focus on my two issues; the dog-fooding with setting up a stream, and the discovery of live-streams as a casual viewer. Yes I'm aware I'm a prolific scoper, and I'm not really just a casual viewer, but pretend I am one. 

I made no effort to get involved with anybody at the event, and I didn't bother to look up the info on the website. I knew about the event solely through word of mouth inside the Periscope platform. I can't say I tried hard to avoid it either. Further still, I found myself at a loss as to why this event is worthy of my time, as a live-streamer though I can't help but get annoyed for the platform as a whole when the most readily accessible live-streams are from audience members who just happen to be there.

These are the same audience members who by and large are going to get in the way of the subject at hand.

Periscope even featured a scope from San Francisco's Legion of Honor art Museum this week. Within 10 seconds of viewing, I realised the scoper is just part of the tour and is asking periscope viewers if they can hear the tour guide while he actually faces the scoper's portion of the crowd. No wonder it has an 18 second average view time.***

Why is this worthy of being featured? Even if it got better, will viewers see it through and give it a chance? We give movies (we paid money for) we think are bad, a chance.

People can be critical of me for having expectations, (and were critical in the scope I made) but my viewers have that opportunity to dismiss me in that way because I'm voicing my opinion on something that is lacking in general terms. The vast majority of Periscope viewers will simply just end the scope and move on to another one. The qualitative aspects I'm referring to are going to be judged no matter what, some of it with opinion, some with not giving a scope enough attention.

What's my investment in watching a stream if the person holding the phone is talking over the main speaker and/or engaging with the comments? It's amateurish and in my case, its only because I really wanted to watch JRT that I put up with it. It represents a kind of streaming ironically JRT is referring to. It shouldn't represent Summit Live, it's for viewers who don't know any better and don't realise there is an official feed.

Live-streaming it yourself seems like an after thought.

What's that you say? You DID live stream it yourself beyond the capabilities of someone simply holding a camera and pointing it in the general direction and the streams can be found (replays no) on summitlive.live?! Then why wasn't this promoted?

I learnt about the website while making a scope being critical of the event (in the same way here, but with more grunts, lost sentences and umm and ahhs). Once it was pointed out that what I asked for was available, it becomes a marketing problem. It shouldn't feel like an after thought. I can't even go to the website and catch up on past streams. I can on Periscope or Busker. So what's the deal with that?

Building on top of that, why is this web based? Is web traffic that much larger than the phone and tablets we're already using with which to view live-streams? Isn't this a contradiction of sorts when its live-streaming from mobile phones that created this growing new media in the first place? Shouldn't an event about live-streaming show to the world how live-streaming is done? 

Never mind not going next time, I'm probably not watching.

* It's the event by default since there aren't any others.

** Fear Of Missing Out.

*** It could also just be a poor choice generally by the editors at Periscope.