|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 16, 2020 12:05:20 GMT
BBL TV was all of the games live (apart from at Manchester I think?) No it wasn't. I think you're getting confused with the more recent LiveBasketball.TV effort. BBL TV broadcast one live game a week. I think that increased slightly in it's second year of operation, but it never even got to the dizzy heights of two games a week before it closed. Sorry was assuming it was livebasketballtv that cost 120k but only brought in 20k |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 12:10:26 GMT
Another reason a TV doesn't work is the teams Scenario A you watch a game, you enjoy it and you want to go see a game live. You watched Leicester V Plymouth. You thought wow I want to be a Plymouth fan because I have taste. But you live anywhere north of Torbay you won't go a game. Nobody's travelling more than half hour for a game. So you decide to follow them on TV when they're on. You never get the feel for the club like we all have for ours. You watxh a few more games but the magics gone. Scenario B you watxh a game and go christ this was amazing! I have to watch this live! You Google the bbl and after half an hour of confusion you end up on the British site instead of the German. No BBL club is near you, there's only 11 covering 4 countries so chances are there isn't going to be. You think you'll just Google the 2nd division. There isn't one, you realise there's an 11 team league and no team can get promoted or relegated like they do in football, you give up. Scenario C you watxh a game and go christ this was amazing! I have to watch this live! You Google the bbl and after half an hour of confusion you end up on the British site instead of the German. No BBL club is near you, there's only 11 covering 4 countries so chances are there isn't going to be. Luckily you really like the Plymouth team and find their wiki page and you realise they used to play in the ebl, you follow that link and find 3 divisions of more teams, fantastic! Even better 1 is really close to you so you decide to book tickets, only the team can't tell you the venue as they play in 3 different ones. That's OK tho they're all nearby, can't see a place to buy tickets. Somehow you manage to find it all because you really want to watxh after that amazing game on TV, only the kits looks 5 years old, there's a 100 different court markings and there's only 20 people in the crowd. There wasn't a programme and you cant find out the other teams full name, you only know them from their name on the scoreboard 'Guest No scenario brings in new fans, tv deals may get someone watching on TV but that's it. It would take an incredible amount of luck for that fan to then turn up to a game. Clubs need to do more to build their own brand, be the best night out, best sporting attraction in your city/Town. That's how you build You weren't kidding about being on a rant!  Trying to look for the positives in your scenarios Scenario A - Even if people don't actually attend games, more eyeballs on the league and teams creates better brand awareness and better sponsorship opportunities. Scenario B - At least it might grow interest in basketball in this country, at whatever level. Which should ultimately improve the professional level. Scenario C - Again, an increase in people's interest in basketball at any level is a positive. You can't turn the BBL into the NBA overnight (or even in 100 years) with just one course of action. Ok, I'm being overly optimistic to match you being overly pessimistic. A TV deal alone won't save the BBL. But it would at least give it a nudge in the right direction. Absolutely mate but tv deals need to be fast to success, ours won't be. Best bet for us would be all game available on netflix |
|
|
|
Post by connors on Jul 16, 2020 12:35:22 GMT
for me the benefit of basketball being available on TV is that it should (if the teams get their acts together) at least increase their chances of sponsorship AND it should assist in relation to bringing more kids into the sport.
Totally unscientifically and without substantiation.......I would put forward the golden eras of basketball in this country were when the sport was most accessible on TV. So one of those was the late 70's/80's when it was regularly on Grandstand etc and the other was in the 90s when SKY had it. For different reasons. I cannot really back any of that up with evidence but just my gut feeling :-)
I agree that it will have limited impact on generating more BBL fans for specific teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Jul 16, 2020 13:50:29 GMT
You weren't kidding about being on a rant! Trying to look for the positives in your scenarios Scenario A - Even if people don't actually attend games, more eyeballs on the league and teams creates better brand awareness and better sponsorship opportunities. Scenario B - At least it might grow interest in basketball in this country, at whatever level. Which should ultimately improve the professional level. Scenario C - Again, an increase in people's interest in basketball at any level is a positive. You can't turn the BBL into the NBA overnight (or even in 100 years) with just one course of action. Ok, I'm being overly optimistic to match you being overly pessimistic. A TV deal alone won't save the BBL. But it would at least give it a nudge in the right direction. Absolutely mate but tv deals need to be fast to success, ours won't be. Best bet for us would be all game available on netflixWhy is everyone obsessed with Netflix? It's never made a profit, has $12 billion debt, puts content behind a pay wall, and has expressed no interest in sports or marketing itself towards sports fans. It absolutely wouldn't be the best place for the BBL. The previous BBC deals (along with iPlayer) were better for the BBL that Netflix would be. |
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Jul 16, 2020 13:54:36 GMT
for me the benefit of basketball being available on TV is that it should (if the teams get their acts together) at least increase their chances of sponsorship AND it should assist in relation to bringing more kids into the sport. Totally unscientifically and without substantiation.......I would put forward the golden eras of basketball in this country were when the sport was most accessible on TV. So one of those was the late 70's/80's when it was regularly on Grandstand etc and the other was in the 90s when SKY had it. For different reasons. I cannot really back any of that up with evidence but just my gut feeling :-) I agree that it will have limited impact on generating more BBL fans for specific teams. I agree with all of that, although I'd be cautious of anything that would put the BBL behind a pay wall (e.g. Sky). That model only really works when you've already got a popular product. To give you some substantiation, it was the terrestrial coverage in the 90s (NBA on Channel 4, and occasional BBL games on Grandstand) that brought basketball into my life. I'll admit times are a little different now, but ultimately it's about getting as many eyeballs on british basketball as possible. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 14:24:34 GMT
Absolutely mate but tv deals need to be fast to success, ours won't be. Best bet for us would be all game available on netflixWhy is everyone obsessed with Netflix? It's never made a profit, has $12 billion debt, puts content behind a pay wall, and has expressed no interest in sports or marketing itself towards sports fans. It absolutely wouldn't be the best place for the BBL. The previous BBC deals (along with iPlayer) were better for the BBL that Netflix would be. everything to watch aside from youtube is behind a pay wall. Netflix would allow whole weekends of games uploaded with no schedule making it easy to pick and chose what you wish to watch |
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Jul 16, 2020 15:00:05 GMT
Why is everyone obsessed with Netflix? It's never made a profit, has $12 billion debt, puts content behind a pay wall, and has expressed no interest in sports or marketing itself towards sports fans. It absolutely wouldn't be the best place for the BBL. The previous BBC deals (along with iPlayer) were better for the BBL that Netflix would be. everything to watch aside from youtube is behind a pay wall. Netflix would allow whole weekends of games uploaded with no schedule making it easy to pick and chose what you wish to watch iPlayer isn't behind a paywall, and targets sports fans, if you want to disregard traditional terrestrial television channels. Netflix would insist on a certain quality of coverage, a quality that would cost >£100,000 for a single weekends worth of games. And it would be the BBL paying for that, there's no way Netflix are interested in actually paying to have the BBL on their platform if they allowed it in the first place. Netflix also doesn't target sports fans or make any effort to appeal to them. So any viewers would be coincidental, which isn't a great marketing strategy if you're trying to actively grow a sports league. And Netflix are very good at marketing things they want to be successful - House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Narcos, Stranger Things etc. But when they don't you end up with a lot of things you've never heard of - Chambers, Shadow, Soundtrack, Spinning Out, all of these are Netflix originals that they actually spent a lot of money on but I suspect you've never heard of them. The BBL would be so hidden amongst an ocean of content you'd only watch it if you knew it was there to look for. So the chances of picking up new followers is very low. And if you still think Netflix would be the best deal for the BBL, we'll have to agree to disagree. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 15:14:33 GMT
Netflix would not be interested. Overtime TV might be when they expand outside America.
|
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Jul 16, 2020 15:20:28 GMT
Netflix would not be interested. Overtime TV might be when they expand outside America. I don't know much about Overtime TV, but doesn't it just distribute it's content (high school level stuff mostly) via existing social media platforms, including YouTube? So I'm not sure how that would bring any advantages over the current BBL YouTube channel. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 17:26:36 GMT
Not the best deal mate I see it as a viable deal which millions of households have.
I player you need a tv license and therefore a paywall
|
|
|
|
Post by youngrocks on Jul 17, 2020 7:39:43 GMT
Would be interested to see what amazon prime would do. They are dipping their toe into sport but basketball probably doesnt add anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintpat on Jul 17, 2020 9:50:13 GMT
Would be interested to see what amazon prime would do. They are dipping their toe into sport but basketball probably doesnt add anything. I thought about them too, they could do coverage FOC, they did for recent premier League game! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 10:30:44 GMT
I looked at some old footage on BBC Sport, seems the best place for BBL so what happened? Why are they not back on?
|
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Jul 17, 2020 11:13:17 GMT
Would be interested to see what amazon prime would do. They are dipping their toe into sport but basketball probably doesnt add anything. I thought about them too, they could do coverage FOC, they did for recent premier League game! Amazon Prime in a lot of ways would be better than Netflix. They're already interested in providing sports coverage (whereas Netflix aren't) and are marketing their service accordingly. They've already got sports rights for the Premier League, the NFL, and numerous tennis tournaments, as well as investing in some aware winning sports documentaries. They're also, with no offence intended to the BBL, always looking to boost the hours of content they offer with any old rubbish alongside their more premium content - just to allow them to say they offer hundreds of thousands of hours of entertainment, when in reality most people are only ever really likely to be interested in 25% of that. But given the BBL would likely only be considered 'filler' even if Amazon were interested (which, unfortunately, I don't believe they would be), and that Amazon Prime requires a subscription, I don't really see any advantage beyond what last seasons YouTube coverage provided. Or the BBC iPlayer even (where the BBC actually did some promotion for the BBL). On a side note, Amazon's free Premier League coverage was a one off due to the current circumstances. All Premier League broadcasters got rights to additional games for free - with Amazon and Sky passing that on to viewers by offering them free of charge. As did the BBC. The only ones who didn't were BT Sport, who kept the additional games they were given for free behind their usual subscription pay wall. |
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Jul 17, 2020 11:30:14 GMT
I looked at some old footage on BBC Sport, seems the best place for BBL so what happened? Why are they not back on? Bit of history on this... For starters I think you need to know that the BBC don't pay anything for their BBL coverage. Or if they do, it's a minimal token gesture. The BBL produces the coverage, or should I say pays 'televideo' to produce the coverage, and provides it to the BBC. There are different levels of production that televideo provide to the BBL. Let's call the first one the low quality one - a single camera, two off screen commentators, and basic graphics. Let's call the second one the high quality one - multiple cameras with replays, two off screen commentators with a possible on-screen presenter, and better graphics. Obviously the two options come a different costs. In the first year of the BBC deal all of the games were produced using the high quality option - at great cost to the BBL. In the second year of the BBC deal all the games were produced using the low quality option - at a lesser cost to the BBL. With the exception of the Cup, Trophy and Play-Off finals - these were produced using the high quality option. Last year the only games on the BBC were the the Cup, Trophy and Play-Off finals - these were produced using the high quality option. My conclusion from all this is that the BBC will only really accept BBL coverage if it's of the high quality option. I suspect the low quality option isn't really seen as good enough for their platform. And this was all before the Keemotion coverage, which I think we'd all agree is below the quality of even the low quality option, so the BBC wouldn't even consider that as close to acceptable. So the BBL likely has a dilemma. Pay for the high quality option and get their games back on the BBC. Or stick with the low quality option, or even lower Keemotion option, and seek a platform that has no quality control - i.e. YouTube. Last season they went for a middle option, just produce the Cup, Trophy and Play-Off finals in high quality production and get them on the BBC, and do everything else in low quality an just put them on YouTube. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 12:08:43 GMT
I looked at some old footage on BBC Sport, seems the best place for BBL so what happened? Why are they not back on? Bit of history on this... For starters I think you need to know that the BBC don't pay anything for their BBL coverage. Or if they do, it's a minimal token gesture. The BBL produces the coverage, or should I say pays 'televideo' to produce the coverage, and provides it to the BBC. There are different levels of production that televideo provide to the BBL. Let's call the first one the low quality one - a single camera, two off screen commentators, and basic graphics. Let's call the second one the high quality one - multiple cameras with replays, two off screen commentators with a possible on-screen presenter, and better graphics. Obviously the two options come a different costs. In the first year of the BBC deal all of the games were produced using the high quality option - at great cost to the BBL. In the second year of the BBC deal all the games were produced using the low quality option - at a lesser cost to the BBL. With the exception of the Cup, Trophy and Play-Off finals - these were produced using the high quality option. Last year the only games on the BBC were the the Cup, Trophy and Play-Off finals - these were produced using the high quality option. My conclusion from all this is that the BBC will only really accept BBL coverage if it's of the high quality option. I suspect the low quality option isn't really seen as good enough for their platform. And this was all before the Keemotion coverage, which I think we'd all agree is below the quality of even the low quality option, so the BBC wouldn't even consider that as close to acceptable. So the BBL likely has a dilemma. Pay for the high quality option and get their games back on the BBC. Or stick with the low quality option, or even lower Keemotion option, and seek a platform that has no quality control - i.e. YouTube. Last season they went for a middle option, just produce the Cup, Trophy and Play-Off finals in high quality production and get them on the BBC, and do everything else in low quality an just put them on YouTube. Thanks for that explanation. I would have thought that at least the BBL would not have to pay for production to be on TV. That signals either there just is no sponsor interest or the product is really poor. How long las the BBL been around 20 years? Speaks volumes. Not dissing but somethings wrong with this picture. |
|
milehigh
Bench Player
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take
Posts: 184
|
Post by milehigh on Jul 17, 2020 13:30:10 GMT
TV companies, and media groups generally, dislike paying for media rights, unless they are sure that the product will bring them viewers, and advertisers.
Sadly there are very few sports events that meet that criteria, Premier league football, Champions League Football, Six Nations Rugby, Rugby, Cricket and Football world cups and the Olympics, along with Wimbledon and the Open Golf in the UK context.
|
|
|
|
Post by connors on Jul 17, 2020 13:32:49 GMT
Considering some of the niche content on the BBC I have long thought they should be looking to do more to cover so called minority sports.
Ultimately as a public funded organisation that should be part of their remit. They have the ability to do sport well. Big championships for sport including Wimbledon are always good so they have plenty of sports resource they could call on. It would be a useful way of plugging some gaps of their weekend daytime schedule as well.
Obviously against a background though where they are cutting costs and find their exclusive funding under threat we are not likely to see that. Commercial TV such as ITV etc wouldn't want it. Its tricky.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that no sport has a given right to expect to be popular or looked after. We have a quite diverse sporting landscape in the UK and our sport is sadly way down the pecking order. Its such a shame. The amount of people who have zero interest in sport even who have mentioned The Last Dance to me is incredible!
|
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Jul 17, 2020 13:36:32 GMT
Bit of history on this... For starters I think you need to know that the BBC don't pay anything for their BBL coverage. Or if they do, it's a minimal token gesture. The BBL produces the coverage, or should I say pays 'televideo' to produce the coverage, and provides it to the BBC. There are different levels of production that televideo provide to the BBL. Let's call the first one the low quality one - a single camera, two off screen commentators, and basic graphics. Let's call the second one the high quality one - multiple cameras with replays, two off screen commentators with a possible on-screen presenter, and better graphics. Obviously the two options come a different costs. In the first year of the BBC deal all of the games were produced using the high quality option - at great cost to the BBL. In the second year of the BBC deal all the games were produced using the low quality option - at a lesser cost to the BBL. With the exception of the Cup, Trophy and Play-Off finals - these were produced using the high quality option. Last year the only games on the BBC were the the Cup, Trophy and Play-Off finals - these were produced using the high quality option. My conclusion from all this is that the BBC will only really accept BBL coverage if it's of the high quality option. I suspect the low quality option isn't really seen as good enough for their platform. And this was all before the Keemotion coverage, which I think we'd all agree is below the quality of even the low quality option, so the BBC wouldn't even consider that as close to acceptable. So the BBL likely has a dilemma. Pay for the high quality option and get their games back on the BBC. Or stick with the low quality option, or even lower Keemotion option, and seek a platform that has no quality control - i.e. YouTube. Last season they went for a middle option, just produce the Cup, Trophy and Play-Off finals in high quality production and get them on the BBC, and do everything else in low quality an just put them on YouTube. Thanks for that explanation. I would have thought that at least the BBL would not have to pay for production to be on TV. That signals either there just is no sponsor interest or the product is really poor. How long las the BBL been around 20 years? Speaks volumes. Not dissing but somethings wrong with this picture. All it really tells you is how little interest there is in British basketball right now, for whatever reason. The BBC deal is a good one because it benefits both parties. The BBC get to claim, as a public funded broadcaster, it provides coverage of a wide range of sports - and not just the mainstream ones. And the BBL get's some coverage with a broadcaster on a significant platform. So it provides 'value' to the BBC and the BBL. Unfortunately though the BBC clearly don't think that 'value' warrants them actually paying money for it. Lack of interest doesn't necessarily equate to a poor product though. The BBC has a similar deal with the NFL, in that they broadcast weekly highlights, some of the London games live, and the SuperBowl - but don't pay any money for it. In fact the NFL actually give the BBC money to produce their coverage. The fact the NFL are essentially paying the BBC to broadcast their sport makes it a 'worse' deal than the BBL one. But again, it's a deal that ultimately benefits both parties. And if you're into American football I don't think you can say the NFL is a poor product. |
|
|
|
Post by rideralex on Jul 17, 2020 14:20:44 GMT
I thought about them too, they could do coverage FOC, they did for recent premier League game! Amazon Prime in a lot of ways would be better than Netflix. They're already interested in providing sports coverage (whereas Netflix aren't) and are marketing their service accordingly. They've already got sports rights for the Premier League, the NFL, and numerous tennis tournaments, as well as investing in some aware winning sports documentaries. They're also, with no offence intended to the BBL, always looking to boost the hours of content they offer with any old rubbish alongside their more premium content - just to allow them to say they offer hundreds of thousands of hours of entertainment, when in reality most people are only ever really likely to be interested in 25% of that. But given the BBL would likely only be considered 'filler' even if Amazon were interested (which, unfortunately, I don't believe they would be), and that Amazon Prime requires a subscription, I don't really see any advantage beyond what last seasons YouTube coverage provided. Or the BBC iPlayer even (where the BBC actually did some promotion for the BBL). On a side note, Amazon's free Premier League coverage was a one off due to the current circumstances. All Premier League broadcasters got rights to additional games for free - with Amazon and Sky passing that on to viewers by offering them free of charge. As did the BBC. The only ones who didn't were BT Sport, who kept the additional games they were given for free behind their usual subscription pay wall. Amazon prime alone wouldn't be great in the sense that it is behind a paywall of sorts and clearly wouldn't be premier content. That being said Amazon have promoted some rather obscure tennis tournaments on the home page of prime video at times so there is a reasonable chance that any BBL coverage will get more internal promotion than it ever got on the BBC website. While I would agree that Amazon won't be continuing to show much if any premier league free of charge due to the cost of rights and need to make a return, they do seem interesting in developing a live sports element to Twitch so they may well be interested in showing part of any cheaper to obtain sports content, such as the BBL, through the service as part of a bigger deal that gives wider access to games for prime. The other possibility of a amazon deal including elements on twitch may be some level of access to twitch partners to host virtual watch parties for finals in the same way that they have done with some of the premier league audience which could give these games a guaranteed not insignificant audience amongst teenagers and young adults which could attract more of this generation to the BBL. |
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Jul 17, 2020 15:21:45 GMT
Amazon Prime in a lot of ways would be better than Netflix. They're already interested in providing sports coverage (whereas Netflix aren't) and are marketing their service accordingly. They've already got sports rights for the Premier League, the NFL, and numerous tennis tournaments, as well as investing in some aware winning sports documentaries. They're also, with no offence intended to the BBL, always looking to boost the hours of content they offer with any old rubbish alongside their more premium content - just to allow them to say they offer hundreds of thousands of hours of entertainment, when in reality most people are only ever really likely to be interested in 25% of that. But given the BBL would likely only be considered 'filler' even if Amazon were interested (which, unfortunately, I don't believe they would be), and that Amazon Prime requires a subscription, I don't really see any advantage beyond what last seasons YouTube coverage provided. Or the BBC iPlayer even (where the BBC actually did some promotion for the BBL). On a side note, Amazon's free Premier League coverage was a one off due to the current circumstances. All Premier League broadcasters got rights to additional games for free - with Amazon and Sky passing that on to viewers by offering them free of charge. As did the BBC. The only ones who didn't were BT Sport, who kept the additional games they were given for free behind their usual subscription pay wall. Amazon prime alone wouldn't be great in the sense that it is behind a paywall of sorts and clearly wouldn't be premier content. That being said Amazon have promoted some rather obscure tennis tournaments on the home page of prime video at times so there is a reasonable chance that any BBL coverage will get more internal promotion than it ever got on the BBC website. While I would agree that Amazon won't be continuing to show much if any premier league free of charge due to the cost of rights and need to make a return, they do seem interesting in developing a live sports element to Twitch so they may well be interested in showing part of any cheaper to obtain sports content, such as the BBL, through the service as part of a bigger deal that gives wider access to games for prime. The other possibility of a amazon deal including elements on twitch may be some level of access to twitch partners to host virtual watch parties for finals in the same way that they have done with some of the premier league audience which could give these games a guaranteed not insignificant audience amongst teenagers and young adults which could attract more of this generation to the BBL. I'm in my mid-30s, so I'm old, and don't really know what Twitch is - apart from being a streaming service primarily targeted towards video gaming. Is there anything to stop the BBL streaming games on both YouTube and Twitch? Google doesn't authorise what's streamed on YouTube, does Amazon authorise what's streamed on Twitch? Being available on both would certainly increase reach, at no extra cost. |
|
|
|
Post by rideralex on Jul 18, 2020 0:10:33 GMT
Amazon prime alone wouldn't be great in the sense that it is behind a paywall of sorts and clearly wouldn't be premier content. That being said Amazon have promoted some rather obscure tennis tournaments on the home page of prime video at times so there is a reasonable chance that any BBL coverage will get more internal promotion than it ever got on the BBC website. While I would agree that Amazon won't be continuing to show much if any premier league free of charge due to the cost of rights and need to make a return, they do seem interesting in developing a live sports element to Twitch so they may well be interested in showing part of any cheaper to obtain sports content, such as the BBL, through the service as part of a bigger deal that gives wider access to games for prime. The other possibility of a amazon deal including elements on twitch may be some level of access to twitch partners to host virtual watch parties for finals in the same way that they have done with some of the premier league audience which could give these games a guaranteed not insignificant audience amongst teenagers and young adults which could attract more of this generation to the BBL. I'm in my mid-30s, so I'm old, and don't really know what Twitch is - apart from being a streaming service primarily targeted towards video gaming. Is there anything to stop the BBL streaming games on both YouTube and Twitch? Google doesn't authorise what's streamed on YouTube, does Amazon authorise what's streamed on Twitch? Being available on both would certainly increase reach, at no extra cost. I am not 100% sure on the exact details but I think you can stream on Twitch and YouTube at the same time but I don't think Twitch allows monetisation of content from those who also stream elsewhere, although they do allow people to monetise streams on Twitch while continuing to upload prerecorded content (including stream highlights) on other platforms. Twitch has historically been predominantly a platform for people to stream themselves playing video games, but it is thought that Amazon wants to expand the service into other areas of live content. Twitch has also been known to make a more traditional style deal to obtain the rights to show sporting content on the platform including the right to allow other users to use the live video in their own streams in a way that YouTube are not interested in doing. The other thing to note when talking about the Twitch vs YouTube debate is that it is commonly thought that moving live streams away from Youtube while continuing with other content on the platform will often help that content perform better as the inevitable lower retention rate of typically longer live content compared to shorter prerecorded content reduces the likelihood that YouTube will push videos on a channel, in ways such as the sidebar or on the homepage (the retention rate is thought to be one of the major factors in deciding which videos and channels to push as a higher retention rate means more viewers stick around to the mid video adverts and therefore makes YouTube more money). |
|
