[Stockland Hillman]

I'm probably going to against majority but the move to YouTube is actually a good move. His viewing is pretty good on there and his reach is going to be bigger. He's got a decent base to grow further.

Guido Fawkes has an interesting point:
"To get those short clips he needs an expensive hour long show from which to extract a short “money shot” that might go viral. The fact of the matter is that the economics of YouTube won’t support the show budgets he is used to working with. YouTube pays between $1 to $10 per thousand views. Ali Abdaal, one of the most successful British YouTubers with 5 million subscribers, says last year he made $596,460 averaging at about $8 per thousand views. Which would mean Piers could look to make from his most successful interview ever some $48,000. Not enough to cover the costs of production for that interview alone"

Solid explanation on the economics. With traditional linear media you get a foundation to produce content, revenue from radio reach, traditional TV reach, linear TV via IP that gets higher £/$ per audience AND those viral clips to earn from social platforms.

Talk TV/Radio would bring in around $4 per thousand, TV $3 ish ($ used to help comparison). That's a solid foundation that pays to make the content that 99% of the time isn’t not a viral hit.

I never understand media people who dis traditional broadcasting. Its an additive environment, online allows additional scale and viability for things you make, it's just dumb to chase online 'digital' only content because 1 in 100 things you do gets thousands time more reach than boring old linear. Like a cat chasing a laser pointer - it looks exciting but it's not really there. [See also BBC News execs, for same illiterate logic]

order-order.com