YouTube developing free original shows with Kevin Hart, Ellen DeGeneres & others

Posted:
in General Discussion
Possibly concerned about the growing amount of original video on competiting services like Netflix, Hulu, and Apple Music, Google's YouTube has announced plans to premiere six new shows, starring people like Ellen DeGeneres and comedian Kevin Hart.




While DeGeneres will simply offer a behind-the-scenes look at her talk show, Hart will star in "What the Fit," in which he tries different workouts along with celebrity guests, reported.

Ryan Seacrest will meanwhile take charge of "Best.Cover.Ever," a music competition. Established YouTube celebrities Rhett & Link will expand on "Good Mythical Morning" with more guests, correspondents, and challenges, while a series with singer Demi Lovato will cover the writing and recording of a new album.

YouTube is planning to fund over 40 original shows and movies in the next year at a cost of hundreds of millions, one Bloomberg source said.

The company is also said to be spending more money on content for YouTube Red, which on top of original shows offers ad-free viewing, offline and background playback, and a Google Play Music subscription. The Bloomberg source indicated that YouTube has been talking with partners about Red shows budgeted between $3 million and $6 million per hour, on par with what some HBO and Showtime productions cost.

That could make Red more competitive with services like Netflix and Hulu, which spend HBO-like budgets on shows such as "Stranger Things" and "The Handmaid's Tale." Red has so far relied on the appeal of independent creators, and simply being able to use YouTube uninterrupted.

Apple's video efforts are still in early stages. The company is expected to have up to 10 shows and documentaries by the end of 2017, including "Carpool Karaoke," "Planet of the Apps," and films about Bad Boy Records, Clive Davis, and Cash Money Records. "iOS 11" may even feature a redesigned Music app designed to highlight video.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    There is a really fundamental difference between what Netflix creates and what Apple and YouTube are said to be making. Netflix makes really high quality, wide-appeal programming that's as good as or better than what the major networks produce. The YouTube and Apple offerings strike me as just (comparatively) cheap to produce, me-too reality TV stuff that will appeal only to a fairly limited niche market.

    Maybe their intention is just to dip their toes in the market before committing to a head-first dive into production. If so, I wonder if it's a good idea? First impressions are lasting, and it seems like it would be harder to build an audience after a blah start. Better to come out of the gate with a big, splashy, attention-grabbing show. Then even if growth is slow, at least viewers will have formed a positive impression of the service.

    Or maybe this is the result of the executive team being populated with music-centric, teen-market-oriented skill sets, and they think this is what people want.

    Maybe they're right and I'm just not in the target demographic.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 2 of 15
    NY1822NY1822 Posts: 621member
    i highly doubt Apple will just release their game show and Carpool show and call it a day....Especially with Tim Cook stating 2 days ago cord cutting has accelerated faster than expected...
    https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4287870/amp/Claims-say-Apple-looking-buy-studio.html
  • Reply 3 of 15
    macguimacgui Posts: 1,990member
    I really like what Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix have done with original drama content. Their production values have been like making mini movies instead of 'just TV' shows.

    And while I appreciate that Apple is only dipping it's toes into those waters it's not at all an auspicious move, with their Car Pool program. I thought Cordon's version was amazing, and not having him in it is disappointing, just like the American version Top Gear. Granted, not having seen it, I could be blown away when it finally debuts. As of now I'm heavily managing my expectations.

    To me, Car Pool is Apple opening the door to original content, just a crack and asking 'Can I play too?' instead of throwing it open with something great and saying 'How do you like me NOW!' But it's a music show and Apple wants to shine a light on Apple Music.
  • Reply 4 of 15
    Ok, cool...
    if any of them turn out to be decent- I guess I'll wait for rips to post, sans commercials & check it out.
    At this point in my life, it's been well over two decades since I've subjected myself to the grating annoyance of advertising, as a trade off to view programming. I literally cannot imagine what would convince me to go back.
  • Reply 5 of 15
    holyoneholyone Posts: 398member
    macgui said:
    I really like what Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix have done with original drama content. Their production values have been like making mini movies instead of 'just TV' shows.

    And while I appreciate that Apple is only dipping it's toes into those waters it's not at all an auspicious move, with their Car Pool program. I thought Cordon's version was amazing, and not having him in it is disappointing, just like the American version Top Gear. Granted, not having seen it, I could be blown away when it finally debuts. As of now I'm heavily managing my expectations.

    To me, Car Pool is Apple opening the door to original content, just a crack and asking 'Can I play too?' instead of throwing it open with something great and saying 'How do you like me NOW!' But it's a music show and Apple wants to shine a light on Apple Music.
    Agreed, I think there was probably some contractual issues with Cordon and that's why Apple couldn't get him, but yeah the trailers seemed to me like the show is now all over the place with helicopters and Bars kinda loosing some of its charm. But I do like them starting with music oriented shows first, it's a good strategy that Apple is employing it minimizes risk and keeps everything simple and creates a great foundation, hopefully though they build a separate studio or buy one and keep it as far away from Cuppetino as possible the last thing a production studio would need would be to concern it self with the public's image of Apple and it's social politics, just put up some cash and let creative people make great content for everyone. 
  • Reply 6 of 15
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    None of the Apple shows so far strike me as different, creative or exciting. If he wasn't reportedly exploring a 2020 presidential run, I'd request Bob Iger be considered to be either hired away from Disney to oversee production or that he be given his own Apple-owned spinoff entertainment company. One strike against him is that he co-chaired a fundraiser for Hillary's presidential campaign, but I think he's smarter than she is anyway.
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 7 of 15
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    Ok, cool...
    if any of them turn out to be decent- I guess I'll wait for rips to post, sans commercials & check it out.
    At this point in my life, it's been well over two decades since I've subjected myself to the grating annoyance of advertising, as a trade off to view programming. I literally cannot imagine what would convince me to go back.
    Of course, if everyone does what you do there won't be anything to watch. Either you subject yourself to advertising or you pay for the content. If you do neither, creators have no revenue with which to produce content.

    If you're okay with only ever watching whatever people post free to YouTube for fun or vanity, you're good. If you want Game of Thrones or other, similar quality content that is expensive to produce, your approach is actually contrary to your own best interests.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 8 of 15
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member

    None of the Apple shows so far strike me as different, creative or exciting.
    Or even interesting. Just because I like a song, that doesn't mean I care about the process of making it or the personalities behind it. In fact, I usually like a song IN SPITE of the personalities behind it :smiley:
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 9 of 15
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 11,154member
    There is a really fundamental difference between what Netflix creates and what Apple and YouTube are said to be making. Netflix makes really high quality, wide-appeal programming that's as good as or better than what the major networks produce. 
    You're using selective vision -- Netflix also produces a ton of crap. Utter, forgettable crap (didn't they just bring back some '80s ABC sitcoms? In fact I'd suggest that the majority of all the new Netflix content is garbage, and the House of Cards caliber product is the exception to the rule.
  • Reply 10 of 15
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    There is a really fundamental difference between what Netflix creates and what Apple and YouTube are said to be making. Netflix makes really high quality, wide-appeal programming that's as good as or better than what the major networks produce. 
    You're using selective vision -- Netflix also produces a ton of crap. Utter, forgettable crap (didn't they just bring back some '80s ABC sitcoms? In fact I'd suggest that the majority of all the new Netflix content is garbage, and the House of Cards caliber product is the exception to the rule.
    Fair enough. The point still stands, though, which is that opening strong wins hearts and minds. My first impression of Netflix was based on some really good shows -- apparently good enough for me to overlook its flops. I don't see Apple and YouTube making the same impression with their initial offerings.
  • Reply 11 of 15
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 11,154member
    There is a really fundamental difference between what Netflix creates and what Apple and YouTube are said to be making. Netflix makes really high quality, wide-appeal programming that's as good as or better than what the major networks produce. 
    You're using selective vision -- Netflix also produces a ton of crap. Utter, forgettable crap (didn't they just bring back some '80s ABC sitcoms? In fact I'd suggest that the majority of all the new Netflix content is garbage, and the House of Cards caliber product is the exception to the rule.
    Fair enough. The point still stands, though, which is that opening strong wins hearts and minds. My first impression of Netflix was based on some really good shows -- apparently good enough for me to overlook its flops. I don't see Apple and YouTube making the same impression with their initial offerings.
    Agree that Netflix's first offering, House of Cards, was a very good one. 

    However that's their core competency -- Netflix = "good things to watch". Apple's core is awesome gadgets, so I'm less concerned if they dip their toes slowly into content. It doesn't really matter...I see it as a hobby interest and not any kind of bet-the-company offering.
  • Reply 12 of 15
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    StrangeDays said:[...] I'm less concerned if they dip their toes slowly into content. It doesn't really matter...I see it as a hobby interest and not any kind of bet-the-company offering.
    People like you and me who are Apple "fans" and already fairly heavily invested in the Applecosystem (new word I just made up) will be willing to wait and see how it develops. Most people won't. They'll make an assessment based on initial offerings, and if their perception is negative, it will be harder to get them on board later.

    That only matters to people like you and me if we consider a thriving TV production division at Apple to be something we want. There aren't enough of us loyalists to make it successful -- it takes a lot of subscribers to generate the revenue required to produce high-quality shows -- so those who care whether or not it succeeds also care how Apple handles the roll-out. If one doesn't really care whether or not the service ultimately succeeds, how it starts doesn't matter.
  • Reply 13 of 15
    lol "free", it might not have a £/$ cost but you pay for it in other ways.
  • Reply 14 of 15
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,828member
    adm1 said:
    lol "free", it might not have a £/$ cost but you pay for it in other ways.
    Probably the same way you "pay" for watching free TV now. Commercials/ads
  • Reply 15 of 15
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    There is a really fundamental difference between what Netflix creates and what Apple and YouTube are said to be making. Netflix makes really high quality, wide-appeal programming that's as good as or better than what the major networks produce. The YouTube and Apple offerings strike me as just (comparatively) cheap to produce, me-too reality TV stuff that will appeal only to a fairly limited niche market.

    Maybe their intention is just to dip their toes in the market before committing to a head-first dive into production. If so, I wonder if it's a good idea? First impressions are lasting, and it seems like it would be harder to build an audience after a blah start. Better to come out of the gate with a big, splashy, attention-grabbing show. Then even if growth is slow, at least viewers will have formed a positive impression of the service.

    Or maybe this is the result of the executive team being populated with music-centric, teen-market-oriented skill sets, and they think this is what people want.

    Maybe they're right and I'm just not in the target demographic.
    The easiest way to ensure some type of initial success is to pick up production on a show that was somewhat popular but for whatever reason got canceled. Netflix picked up Longmire after A&E canceled it. 
Sign In or Register to comment.