Snapchat Ad Length: In Average about 8 Seconds Long

Advertising intelligence company MediaRadar has analyzed Snapchat brand activity and issued a report showing that the average Snapchat ad length is eight seconds.

No other social platform makes it as easy to bypass video ads, so marketers need to grab the viewers’ attention by the first frame. Simply tapping on a Snapchat ad lets viewers bypass it and get on to something they’d rather watch. Some Snapchat advertisers are running ads that are less than 5 seconds long, says MediaRadar. The majority of ads on the platform-60 percent-are between 8 and 10 seconds long.

MediaRadar also looked at where advertisers put their ads on Snapchat. Some of the platform’s Discover channels are far more popular than others. For example, the iHeartRadio channel was the most popular, getting placements from 61 advertisers. The CNN channel was the least popular. It’s no surprise, then, that CNN ended its Snapchat Discover channel in late December.

The data MediaRadar looked at was for ad placements carried out through its platform from November 2017 through January 2018. In that timeframe, 397 brands placed video ads on 52 Discover channels. The average buy was for 4 or 5 channels, and the largest was for 29 channels.

“We found almost no examples of a brand buying across all of a single publisher’s Snapchat channels. For example, no advertiser buys both Wired and Vogue (Condé Nast), or Cosmo and Esquire (Hearst). This reinforces the idea that buys are gender targeted,” MediaRadar’s report says.

Brand categories advertising on Snapchat most often are media and entertainment (48 percent), technology (13 percent), and retail (12 percent).

For data on much more than just the average Snapchat ad length, download “MediaRadar’s Snapchat Snapshot” for free.

read more here:

Three reasons every major TV Station will launch a DTC service

CBS has done it, Disney is doing it, and Discovery is thinking about it. Launching direct-to-consumer services is the new wave of television. Here are three reasons why every major TV programmer will take the DTC plunge.

Discovery CEO David Zaslav is a man on a mission to maximize the value of the massive library of content his company controls. He has pay TV distribution and TV Everywhere delivery covered. Now he is turning his attention to online delivery with direct-to-consumer (DTC) services. He is testing the waters through Amazon Channels in Europe with the Eurosport and Discovery brands. He is also expanding the Motor Trend brand to worldwide online delivery.

Mr. Zaslav is not the only TV executive looking at DTC delivery. Here are three reasons every TV programmer will likely launch a direct-to-consumer service in the coming months and years.

Reason #1: Audience segmentation

All viewers are not created equal, yet that is how traditional television treats them. Some viewers are passionately devoted to a channel brand or show delivered by that channel. Others have only a casual relationship with a channel. Linear television delivery and pay TV treats these two types of viewers the same.

Direct-to-customer apps allow a content provider to segment viewers and, most importantly, identify the most committed customers. Les Moonves, CBS chairman, understands the principal and is beginning to monetize the opportunity. Two million of CBS’s most committed fans are paying $5.99 a month to subscribe to CBS All Access. Many are paying $8 a month because $2 of their pay TV subscription goes to CBS for almost the same set of content. CBS is also allowing these most valuable viewers an opportunity to spend more. For example, All Access subscribers can pay $4 extra to watch on-demand shows without ads.

Simply put, a DTC service allows a programmer to identify their best customers and upsell them to additional content and services.

Reason #2: Flexibility

Mr. Zaslav has two of the three main distribution outlets covered. Discovery and Scripps content is a mainstay of traditional pay TV service. vMVPDs like Sling TV and DirecTV Now already offer Scripps content, but Discovery channels are only available in the newest entrant, Philo. Mr. Zaslav is working to correct that.

Discovery also has a robust suite of TV Everywhere Go apps available. Pay TV customers can watch the live channels and a library of on-demand content but must sign in with their pay TV credentials to watch. These channels are delivering a sizable millennial audience according to Mr. Zaslav:

“They deliver a meaningful millennial audience that we get to sell to you, and the length of view is often two or three times that of traditional TV.”

Unfortunately, younger viewers are leading the cord-cutting trend. The 9% of the U.S. population that has never had pay TV (cord-nevers) has an average age of 34, according to GfK. Since many young people rely entirely on internet resources for video, the cord-nevers group is liable to grow quickly. In other words, TV programmers risk completely missing their future audience. Launching a DTC service gives Discovery a tool to reach those younger viewers as they continue to lead a pay TV-free existence.

Reason #3: Provide the experience viewers expect

To be sure, compelling content is critical to holding a viewer’s attention. According to Paywizard, however, the experience is equally important. In a recent survey, the company found that 79% of U.S. survey participants thought that experience factors were as important as content. Issues such as flexibility, attention to customer preferences, billing, sign-up, and cancellation are examples of these factors.

read more here:

How Vevo Stays At The Top Of The Charts On YouTube

As a joint venture between Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group, Vevo creates and distributes more than 330,000 music videos across YouTube and its owned-and-operated channels. Vevo gets access to YouTube’s massive audience, and YouTube gets a cut of the revenue.

With 30 million viewers per day and 116 million per month in the US, according to comScore, Vevo has a valuable audience to sell.

“We package up the top stars in the world and sell that to advertisers,” said Kevin McGurn, chief sales officer at Vevo. “The mass majority of what we do is on audience and the media around it.”

Vevo’s valuable audience and artist relationships have allowed it to thrive through YouTube’s brand-safety debacle. It sustained reach and traffic on the platform, even when YouTube consolidated Vevo subscribers under artists’ accounts in January.

Vevo has maintained 20-30% growth for the past few years, and its inventory recently became available to a broader base of buyers through Googled Preferred.

“We’re a growth story in what is otherwise a massive amount of shrinkage in TV,” McGurn said.

But YouTube isn’t the be-all and end-all for Vevo. While the network has allowed music labels to capture many of the eyeballs that left networks like MTV and VH1 during the rise of the internet, Vevo is still vying to bring them back to the living room.

“YouTube is the largest video search engine in the world, but DirecTV Now, Sony PlayStation Vue and others have the potential to allow users to curate their own music video experiences,” McGurn said. “We watch them closely and think about how we can maximize that.”

How do you differentiate your sales strategy on YouTube?

KEVIN MCGURN: We sell sponsorships against the catalog we represent from Universal Music and Sony – the audience Vevo represents – as a standalone. In most cases, brands buy us first and then go to Google Preferred to get that broader reach.

Most buyers see us as well-differentiated as a legacy, and we enhance that with new products. For brand safety, we offer advertisers the ability to buy on TV content ratings.

We also offer guaranteed reach. Marketers have asked for a long time to limit the frequency of their campaigns. We’re able to fulfill that and transact on it. That helps us differentiate from the traditional go-to-market for Google Preferred.

Did your reach take a hit when YouTube moved all of Vevo’s subscribers from your channel to individual artist accounts?

We haven’t seen tremendous fluctuation in traffic. We track with the growth rate of YouTube because we’re such large percentage of their viewership. It fluctuates with channels and creators, but we have so many channels and so much content on a weekly basis [that] our growth continues to be strong.

How did YouTube’s brand-safety issues affect you?

We’re probably beneficiaries of the changes. YouTube is making maneuvers that will point to a video that’s brand-safe and monetizable. We would be that video in many cases.

We’ve always been brand-safe. We have the world’s largest celebrities. We have a network of folks looking at every video before it goes live and algorithmic curation.

How do you balance the traffic you drive to YouTube versus your own site?

I look at YouTube as an MVPD much like Comcast or DirecTV. At the core, it’s just SEO – trying to figure out ways for the recommendation and search engines to point to your videos more than others. That’s standard practice on YouTube. The platform is fairly agnostic to the buyer. We try to grow all of the channels that we think are relevant to the end user.

What could cause your YouTube traffic to decline?

A change in the algorithm. YouTube is trying to optimize for the most time spent and the highest traffic. They have a lot of controls to point people in the direction of content they feel might get a higher level of engagement.

The influx of content can change how much you’re getting shown. The recency and frequency of video uploads is a good indicator of viewership. We have a pretty eternal spring of content based on our partnership with music labels, so we ride above that ebb and flow that other markets might suffer from.

Brands hate that you can’t measure advertising on YouTube. What metrics are available to you?

We generally just sell audiences measured by Nielsen. I know about the other struggles with who gets to measure what inside the walled garden. There’s definitely more work to do. By no means is measurement where we want it to be.

What can YouTube do better as a media platform?

User-generated and premium content should be treated differently. The production quality, expenditure and talent that professional content represents should be separated.

I’m not a proponent of training viewers to skip advertising. I don’t think it represents the appropriate tax a user should pay to access professional content. YouTube doesn’t offer the ability to change the amount of skippable or TrueView ads called to professional content. That should be a control of the content provider, not the platform, regardless of the user experience.

The economics of MVPDs are a nod toward the production quality and spend it takes to generate these videos. It’s why you don’t see full-length TV shows on YouTube or Facebook. They don’t have an economic equation that warrants a multimillion-dollar episode production.

Why work with them if they don’t treat your content fairly?

It represents the largest distribution opportunity in the world. A music video is ripe for piracy if you don’t allow it to exist on the biggest-reaching platform. You want people to access it in a brightly lit environment.

But that environment has to treat it differently than user-generated content. I would never say YouTube isn’t the right place for music videos. It just so happens that YouTube has been the only game in town for the past 12 to 13 years, but that could change.

read more here:

Netflix Q1 exceeds expectations

Netflix’s Q1 numbers show that the OTT operator is growing as fast as ever. It added a net 7.4 million global subs during the quarter, only slightly down on the previous quarter’s record-breaking 8.33 million.

US new additions were also healthy at 1.96 million. Overall, this latest quarter year were the second-biggest ever, and the quarter-year exceeded all consensus expectations, and to a total of 125 million subs. International operations now generate 50 per cent of revenues, and 55 per cent of its subscribers.

Netflix generated $290 million (€234m) net income on revenue of more than $3.7 billion. That compared to net income of $178 million and revenue of $2.63 billion during the previous-year Q1 period.

Netflix’s CEO Reed Hastings and Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos took the analyst call with Benjamin Swinburne of investment bank Morgan Stanley, and confirmed that they would be spending “upwards” of $8 billion this year on content.

As to the recent bundling of Netflix into the pay-TV operations of Comcast and Sky, Gregory Peters, Chief Product Officer, said: “We love the fact that we can work with these partners to access whole new groups of consumers, make it easy for them to find out about Netflix, to sign up and have a great way to access the service and watch more and more. So you’ll see us leverage that sort of evolving strategy not only in the markets that we’ve been in for many years, but also in these new markets.”

Netflix confirmed that it will be launching a dedicated service to mobile phones. Peters said: “We definitely want to have a mobile experience which allows us to access more of that market and access a group of consumers who basically only want to have their relationship with Netflix on a mobile device. And so whether that is making sure that our apps are lightweight enough so they load really quickly and have a great experience there, to making sure that our encoding is very, very efficient, so that even if you have a less-than-great network connection, you can still get a really incredible video experience on that mobile phone.”

read more here:

Global pay-TV revenues ready to plunge

After peaking in 2016 at $205 billion, and despite the number of pay-TV subscribers projected to rise by 9% over the next five years, global pay-TV revenues are set to fall by 11% to $183 billion by 2023, says a report from Digital TV Research.

The Global Pay-TV Revenue Forecasts report says that the key driver for the decline in revenues per subscriber is due to more homes converting to bundles. It estimates that eight of the top ten countries will lose pay-TV revenues between 2017 and 2023, while revenues will decline in 47 of the 138 countries covered in the report between 2017 and 2023. Twelve countries are set to lose more than 10% of their revenues leading to a total global decline of $19 billion.

Looking at specific territories, Digital TV Research found that US pay-TV revenues peaked in 2015, at $102 billion and forecasts a $22 billion decline between 2017 and 2023 to take its total down to $75 billion. By contrast, China will gain nearly $1 billion in pay-TV revenues between 2017 and 2023 to bring its total to $13 billion while India will provide the largest increase in pay-TV revenues at $1.6 billion. Revenues will more than double for six countries between 2017 and 2023. Eight of the top ten fast-growth nations by percentage increase will be in Africa.

On platforms, Digital TV Research believes that satellite TV and digital cable TV revenues will continue to be broadly similar. Revenues for the former were $83 billion in 2017; falling to $77 billion by 2023 and digital cable TV is set to supply $76 billion in 2023; down from $85 billion in 2023. The Global Pay-TV Revenue Forecasts report rates IPTV as the pay-TV revenue winner, with revenues increasing from $25 billion in 2017 to $27 billion in 2023.


TV ad spending will continue its decline this year, according to eMarketer’s latest US advertising forecast.

With cord-cutting accelerating and over-the-top (OTT) viewing on the rise, outlays on TV ads will slip 0.5% in 2018 to $69.87 billion. As a result, TV’s share of total US media ad expenditures will drop from 33.9% in 2017 to 31.6% this year.

TV ad spending will see a slight uptick in 2020 (due to the US presidential election and Summer Olympics in Tokyo), but it will sink back to negative territory in the following years and fall to less than a quarter of total ad spend by 2022.

“The shift of audiences to OTT viewing is changing the climate of the TV ad market,” said eMarketer senior forecasting director Monica Peart. “As ratings for TV programming continue to decline, advertiser spending will also continue to see declines, especially in years that do not boast major events such as presidential elections and Olympic games.”

Meanwhile, total digital ad spending in the US will climb 18.7% this year to $107.30 billion. OTT platforms, which have a small but growing share of the market, will continue to play an important role. This year, Roku’s US ad revenues—mostly video but including some other display formats as well—will surpass $293 million, up 93.0% over 2017. And Hulu’s US ad revenues will increase by more than 13% to reach $1.12 billion. Overall Hulu’s ad business is increasing as well as the company revenue from subscriptions.

“Over-the-top platforms are growing in number and size, and many compete directly with pay TV by offering bundles of live channels at attractive price points,” said eMarketer principal analyst Paul Verna. “Consumers who want to cut or shave the cord now have a wealth of options that didn’t exist a couple of years ago. And we expect the offerings to become even more robust as more players enter the market.”

read more here:

5 Things To Learn From Mark Zuckerberg’s Congressional Testimony

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg spent several hours answering questions from dozens of U.S. senators in Washington, D.C. The questions varied from explaining the basics of ad-tech to answering whether Facebook would support bills strengthening privacy laws.

Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress comes nearly a month after Facebook banned the British data firm Cambridge Analytica after it allegedly improperly accessed the data of as many as 87 million users. Questioning is expected to continue for another couple of hours with another entire day of testimony scheduled for Wednesday before the House of Representatives.

Some lawmakers are considering regulation

Several lawmakers today suggested Facebook might need to be regulated in order to protect consumers’ privacy. While some suggested that Facebook needs to prove it can regulate itself, others tried to get Zuckerberg to commit to supporting future legislation that would let users opt in to providing data rather than its current opt-out model. One example of that is the proposed CONSENT Act, introduced today by U.S. Sen. Ed Murkey. The bill would require opt-in consent from users before a company could use, share or sell personal information. It would also require companies to notify users of all data collected and shared and notify them if there’s ever a breach. Zuckerberg said he agrees in general with some regulation and even offered to provide a list of ways it might make sense.

Lawmakers don’t all understand how Facebook works

A lot of questions today revolved around how data is collected, used or deleted. Several lawmakers suggested Facebook sells user data, but Zuckerberg said the company doesn’t. Zuckerberg and lawmakers were often at odds about the idea of how users are able or not able to consent to how their data is used.

Robert Mueller has questioned Facebook

Zuckerberg was asked if anyone at Facebook had been subpoenaed or interviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, which is currently investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. At first, Zuckerberg briefly hesitated before saying yes. He then clarified that he wasn’t sure about the subpoenas but confirmed some employees had been interviewed. (He said he was not among those interviewed.)

Facebook hasn’t thrown out the idea of a paid model

At least two lawmakers followed up on COO Sheryl Sandberg’s comments last week suggesting that Facebook would need a paid model if users want to opt out of ads. Zuckerberg did not directly answer whether it’s currently exploring a paid model. However, he didn’t totally shut down the idea, saying there will “always be a version” of the platform that’s free to use.

Wall Street was happy with Zuckerberg’s performance
While some wondered how the interview-averse Zuckerberg might perform in front of a few dozen lawmakers, Facebook’s stock price jumped during the hearing, increasing 4.5 percent to close at $164.98 per share.

read more here:

More Than $1B in Fines Loom in Facebook Scandal

As Mark Zuckerberg prepared for his Tuesday Senate testimony and Wednesday House hearing, The Washington Post reported there’s a call for the Facebook CEO’s ouster and that record fines may loom for the embattled social media giant. (For full coverage of Zuckerberg’s Tuesday appearances before the Senate Commerce and Judiciary Committees, click here and here.)

The Post reports that Scott Stringer, New York City’s comptroller and custodian of the city’s $193 billion pension fund, which holds $895 million in Facebook stock, wrote a letter March 27 pushing Facebook to add three new independent directors and replace Zuckerberg with an independent chairman.

“Part of my fiduciary role is to ask questions of this company as it relates to issues they’re facing,” said Stringer in an interview last week about his letter. Regarding the Cambridge Analytica revelations, he said, “There’s regulatory risk. There’s revenue risk. There’s reputational risk. And there’s also a genuine risk to our democracy.”

The paper also reports that three former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) officials said Facebook’s disclosure that its search tools were used to collect data on most of its 2.2 billion users could potentially trigger record fines and create new legal vulnerability for not having prevented risks to user data.

Those officials, all of whom were at the FTC during the privacy investigation that led to a 2011 consent with Facebook, said the company’s latest mishap may violate the decree’s provisions requiring the implementation of a privacy program.

But Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, dismissed concerns about the fines in an interview with Bloomberg News, “I think we’re very confident that that was in compliance with the FTC consent decree,” she said.

Still, David Vladeck, who was head of the FTC’s bureau of consumer protection when the decree was drafted and signed by Facebook, told The Washington Post it is possible that this episode is a violation of the consent decree and that Facebook may face fines of $1 billion or more.

“The agency will want to send a signal … that [it] takes its consent decrees seriously,” Vladeck said.

In another blow, Charter Communications Chairman and CEO Tom Rutledge, blogged Monday that he hopes Congress cracks down on Facebook and privacy issues.

“Despite our reliance on websites and social media, the truth is, most people don’t know that when they engage in these activities online, many internet companies are collecting a significant amount of information about them and selling it to others for advertising, research and even voter persuasion purposes,” Rutledge writes. “So we are urging Congress to pass a uniform law that provides greater privacy and data security protections and applies the same standard to everybody in the Internet ecosystem, including us.”

Facebook continues efforts to regain trust. On Monday, it announced a new research initiative with seven nonprofits to study the effect of social media on elections. Under the new initiative, social science researchers will propose research projects for peer review based on a set of general research goals. If a proposal is approved, the researchers will receive the anonymized data from Facebook and accompanying funding from the foundations.

Crucially, Facebook “will not have any right to review or approve their research findings prior to publication,” although it may have influence over which projects are approved.

read more here:

YouTube TV seeks Digital Publishers

YouTube’s $40-a-month live TV streaming service, YouTube TV, reportedly wants to add channels from digital-native publishers like Cheddar, Tastemade, and The Young Turks (TYT) Network to its package of network offerings, Digiday reports. The skinny bundle service is now testing up to six new channels from such publishers.

YouTube deployed the service last year amid a wave of launches of similar services, known as vMVPDs (or virtual multichannel video programming distributor) or “skinny bundles,” that offer a smaller package of networks than the traditional pay-TV bundle, for less money.

Adding popular digital-native publishers to its package could give YouTube TV greater cachet and potential uptake among young viewers, while further legitimizing these publishers by opening them up to broader, more linear-based viewership — and bigger advertisers — as vMVPD subscribers more often watch through connected devices on TV screens.

By adding live streams from digital-native publishers, YouTube TV could differentiate its service in a way that rivals haven’t. Despite the many skinny bundles out there, none are markedly different from the others. Moreover, vMVPDs are arguably not only offering nearly identical services among themselves, but they are also practically identical to the traditional bundle, aside from being cheaper and delivered over-the-top (OTT). YouTube TV could therefore stand to gain subscribers, particularly millennials, who are likely to be more familiar with digital-first publishers and to want their video product as a viewing option.

Meanwhile, digital publishers are seeking revenue diversification, as Facebook proves to be an increasingly unreliable partner, as Adweek recently reported.Earlier this year, Facebook de-prioritized publisher content in News Feed, which has long driven significant traffic to publishers’ sites. Additionally, publishers that have agreed to produce content for Facebook Watch aren’t relying on those partnership deals — which typically run a year — as a long-term revenue source, per Digiday. This means these publishers are in search of new distributors, which YouTube TV could provide.

Digital publishers may also be enticed by YouTube’s strong reputation as a video destination, as well as its historically consistent monetization model, with 55% of ad revenue going to publishers. vMVPD players have structured deals with networks similarly to traditional ones with cable companies, wherein the distributor pays a carriage fee on a per-subscriber-per-month basis. In the case of these six digital publishers, YouTube isn’t paying a carriage fee yet, but will implement an ad share model, with both YouTube and publishers selling inventory.

How To Make Money From Live Online Newscasts

A handful of major news companies are trying to figure out how live news broadcasts fit in digital media.
The challenges are steep. Streaming live news requires large, ongoing investments, and it’s difficult to monetize audiences, as live news can be a hotbed of brand safety concerns.

Plus, Facebook’s recent algorithm shift lowered the ratio of news content on the platform. Co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said at the time the change was meant to elevate content that drives positive sentiment.

“If you think about the mission of a news reporting company, sometimes the news isn’t going to entertain people or make them happy,” said Yaser Bishr, executive VP of digital media at Al Jazeera Networks.

Can it pay?

Late last year, Bloomberg unveiled its Twitter-based news channel TicToc, which is the only social news network that broadcasts 24 hours a day.

But TicToc is nothing like a linear, 24-hour news network. It’s built more as a repository for video packages shown throughout the day. When news breaks, the newsroom jumps into action.

For Bloomberg, the goal is to win early mind share among online news consumers and to use it to pull viewers into owned-and-operated sites or apps, where there’s packaged video content and video ads.

But monetizing live news itself can be difficult or downright counterproductive.

TicToc gets large live audiences when big news breaks, but it gets more bang for the buck with on-demand clips and short packages that people can watch asynchronously during the day, said M. Scott Havens, Bloomberg’s global head of digital.

TicToc’s live coverage of breaking news is often related to natural disasters, terrorist attacks or general tragedy, which is unappealing to advertisers, Havens said.

Linear broadcasters have an easier time anticipating potential brand safety issues, like pulling an airline commercial if they know it’s going to follow a segment on a plane crash.

And viewers who are watching on their phones, tablets or laptops are turned off by ads in a way that linear TV news channels aren’t. Plus, digital viewers might be using ad blockers.

But Bloomberg is still committed to live news online because of the gigantic opportunity to cement itself as the go-to online source when news breaks, Havens said.

Online audiences accumulate extremely quickly compared to linear.

In linear TV, conventional wisdom suggests that it takes about 25 minutes for a big audience to show up for breaking news events, said Dan Colarusso, Reuters’ executive editor and digital head of global programming.

For live mobile coverage, especially after the explosion of news notifications, scaled audiences can be aggregated in a minute or two.

Platform partners … or prisoners

When advertisers can plan for positive breaking news and partner with YouTube, Facebook or Twitter, digital streams can pull in live audiences that match top linear news programs. The lack of ad inventory can be supplemented with a presenting sponsor, as CNN did with Volvo during its eclipse coverage.

But live news can’t be seen without a place to host it – and often that means working with the social media platforms, where ensuring discoverability can be expensive.

Competing live news streams and on-demand videos often end up “mixed up and pushed to the feed,” Bishr said.

So without a pre-planned promotional campaign orchestrated with the social media platform and day-of ad spend to drive traffic, live news is easily buried or swamped by topical on-demand content.

Also, social media platforms don’t always present the most seamless interface for live news. Facebook is building news content in Facebook Watch, the platform’s video hub, but Bishr said it’s a big change in habit to get people accustomed to scrolling through their news feeds to click on the Watch section, then to a news section and then to a media company’s page.

The ideal situation is for publishers to own their own live news platform rather than rely on Twitter or Facebook.

Reuters prioritizes driving viewers from social or search channels to Reuters TV, its OTT app with live broadcast, Colarusso said. Social platforms may generate more ad revenue per view and high raw viewership numbers, he said, but viewers of Reuters TV are higher-value: They tend to watch for longer periods of time and become return viewers, while social platforms may include tens of thousands who merely zipped past in their feed.

The Reuters TV app’s superior engagement and attention metrics “are what we hope to monetize when the platform has a little more scale to it,” Colarusso said.

So publishers like Reuters and Bloomberg know that while their investments might not pay dividends today their learnings could advantage them in the future, especially when platforms start to aggressively compete for exclusive content.

Exclusive distribution rights are becoming a more common feature in platform distribution deals or content partnerships, Havens said, and “usually come with better terms than the platform’s undifferentiated content.”

But exclusivity can also box in media companies. Snapchat attaches exclusive rights to many media partner programs in the app, for example, but it’s hard to promote content and build an audience if you can’t feature the shows elsewhere.

And Bloomberg’s TicToc could theoretically be distributed on a platform other than Twitter, but a big part of TicToc’s value is derived from Twitter, which often autoplays TicToc in desktop sidebars or promotes the stream atop user feeds.

BuzzFeed produces a daily live news program on Twitter called “AM to DM,” and the social platform “provides tremendous support and investment,” said Cindy Vanegas-Gesuale, the publisher’s head of programming.

read more here: