'Revolutionary' Video-Streaming Service Quibi is Up For Sale Six Months After Launch; Apple, WarnerMedia, and Facebook Have Turned Down the Offer (theinformation.com) 46
The Information: Six months after launching his revolutionary video-streaming service, Quibi, Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg is looking for a buyer. So far, he is coming up short [paywalled; alternative source]. Over the past few weeks, Katzenberg has pitched several tech and entertainment executives about buying Quibi, only to be turned down. Among those he approached was Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of internet software and services, and WarnerMedia CEO Jason Kilar, according to people familiar with the situation. He and his partner in Quibi, former HP CEO Meg Whitman, also made formal presentations to executives at other tech companies, including Fidji Simo, head of the Facebook app, only to get rejected there as well, the people said.
It's possible Katzenberg will still strike a deal. Other companies, including in the gaming industry, could be interested. A spokeswoman for Quibi had no comment. The stakes are high for Katzenberg, a veteran of Hollywood. Quibi was an ambitious idea: a service aimed at people on the go, airing episodes of everything from news programs to dramas with episodes of just a few minutes each. Major talent including Kevin Hart and Chrissy Teigen made shows for the service. Katzenberg raised $1.75 billion to fund the service, including from major entertainment companies including Disney and Warner Bros., Chinese internet giant Alibaba and Madrone Capital, the private investment fund of Walmart heir Rob Walton. But Quibi has struggled to gain traction.
It's possible Katzenberg will still strike a deal. Other companies, including in the gaming industry, could be interested. A spokeswoman for Quibi had no comment. The stakes are high for Katzenberg, a veteran of Hollywood. Quibi was an ambitious idea: a service aimed at people on the go, airing episodes of everything from news programs to dramas with episodes of just a few minutes each. Major talent including Kevin Hart and Chrissy Teigen made shows for the service. Katzenberg raised $1.75 billion to fund the service, including from major entertainment companies including Disney and Warner Bros., Chinese internet giant Alibaba and Madrone Capital, the private investment fund of Walmart heir Rob Walton. But Quibi has struggled to gain traction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What was revolutionary about it? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure they could have found some successful youtubers, given them a boatload of money for exclusivity and had high quality content made for the format.
It wouldn't even shock me if there were some YouTubers that would love the opportunity to make shorter videos and make money rather than the medium length videos that seem to be the sweet spot for revenue.
Instead they hired a bunch of talent from old media that didn't know what to do with a shorter format that didn't need specific lengths. So these people made full length content and awkwardly chopped it up.
I don't think the problem was concept, but instead that they had no idea what they were doing, it ended up being worse youtube rather than curated youtube.
Re: What was revolutionary about it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Quibi" is a horrendously stupid and meaningless name that sounds like some cheap useless bullshit that someone slapped together.
All the good names are already registered trademarks. The stupid names are just going to get worse and worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What was revolutionary about it? (Score:2)
Of one has the right type of content you can make money even if posting straight to yours be wouldn't be.
HBO makes money on a subscription for example. I find it highly suspicious that they'd be able to profit on Game of Thrones if it was a YouTube series.
Subscriptions pay far more than ads (that's my understanding with Spotify at least). I'm not sure why you don't think high quality short form content isn't something someone may subscribe to. No sponsors, no ads, no (or much less) garbage.
Even i
Re: (Score:2)
This is probably redundant, but this sounds like a Meg Whitman special.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, the pause button. Even if it's been a while, I can usually rewind a couple of minutes, and it puts me back into the story.
Re:What was revolutionary about it? (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing that is revolutionary is that you can't watch their short form videos on a big computer. You have to use a small computer instead.
Like much "web 3.0" garbage of today it uses a misfeature to set itself apart from it's competition. Another suicide-by-business-plan is sure to follow.
Re: (Score:2)
TikTok and Vine had the same limitation, but they did ok. That said, the idea someone would *pay* to watch longer TikToks and Vines, even if it has Kevin Hart doing the floss while cracking jokes for 5 minutes, that vision I’m not seeing. The mind blower is enough people saw something to throw $1.75B into the flames. I’m pretty confident there’s no way to parlay a $1.75B investment in “disrupting the pause button” into anything other than a total loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Their idea was that they would make content you could watch on a phone, on a vertical screen and in very short episodes rather than a full 22 minute commitment.
It was as bad as it sounds. Crap, shallow, uninteresting content, awkwardly shot to fit the vertical form factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not user generated content, it's all professionally made, scripted stuff. Like Netflix but complete bollocks.
Re: What was revolutionary about it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone want professionally made content shot in portrait... it isn't hard to rotate a phone for viewing. There's already TikTok and Facebook for unprofessional content shot in portrait...
Well, it started off badly... (Score:2)
And went downhill from there with a stupid idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it even related to Quibids the absolutely-not-a-scam-we-pinky-swear biding site?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed....once I saw Meg was at the helm, I knew it was headed for obscurity.
Oh wait, you meant the company name...same deal. :)
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding...why would anyone use a "Q" name for anything, Nobody will ever know how to spell or pronounce it. If you have have to explain your name, you've already failed. "Zune" comes to mind, not a "Q" name, but WTF. But I guess all the good names are either taken or un-defendable.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised at the existence of some pseudo-science field out there which focuses on product and service naming. It could have had some serious scientific foundation, until it was invaded by hipster-woke-new_wave-2.0 individuals who fucked it all up.
Re: (Score:2)
why would anyone use a "Q" name for anything
Quisp [wikipedia.org] was one of my favorite breakfast cereals.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe "Q" was cool in 1965. I have never, ever heard or seen Quisp, and I was both a television and sugary cereal lover. Maybe it didn't get sent up to the Northwest...
Re: Well, it started off badly... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is worse than you think. A few minute long video with ads at the start and the end, ads get the same airtime as videos. The sales pitch, those sheeple, we will get them to watch more advertisements than content and you can make the content advertisements, mwah hah hah.
Yeah google struggles with ads, people are sick to death of them. Really truly honestly people should accept reality and the more that is done to curtail advertising, so the brakes will be thrown on overconsumption. The biggest readi
It's tough to sell a losing idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
Quibi was the idea that no one wanted to begin with. Then the pandemic happened, meaning even "those one the go" had plenty of time to watch real television if they so desired, and the short program thing just doesn't mean a damn thing to anybody.
So they have a few months worth of data, and they clearly aren't making a profit. They also don't have any "must watch" programs that people are just dying to see. Has anyone heard positive chatter about a Quibi program? You don't try to sell something that's literally got zero going for it. The name is relatively unknown outside of tech circles. What's to sell?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least it only took six months for these two to realize their idea was crap and it's time to bail.
An internet startup that doesn't really do anything new and is spearheaded by two people that really have no real insight into what the internet actually is - yeah, what could possibly go wrong?
And yes, I am saying the former CEO of eBay and HP doesn't actually understand the Internet. She does seem to know about selling products, but so do a lot of other people. And the fact that she was the best Katz
Re: (Score:2)
That was literally the only thing I was interested in watching on the platform, but I figured I'll just wait for it to inevitably be popped up on one of the services I already subscribe to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it's easy.
You guys just don't understand the new economy, and are stuck in bricks and mortar.
Pets.com will just do another round of financing and buy it out on its path to global domination . . .
Just wait until the 21st century hits, we'll show you old fogies that profits and sales aren't important!
oh, wait . . . :)
hawk
What is the revolutionary part? (Score:4, Informative)
Well there was the length... (Score:1)
As far as I can tell the main schtick for Quibi is you could rotate your phone between landscape and portrait and the video would occupy the full screen.
That and the short form content only, which was kind of new so that anything you watched there you knew would be the same length of time...
The whole rotating thing seemed like a massive gimmick to me, that must have added a ton of cost to video production to do well - and I had read a number of shows did do custom work to make it do something as you were wa
Re: (Score:2)
Was the video square, or were they simply cutting off the sides or the top+bottom depending on the orientation?
The first one is nothing special, any moran could have (and has) thought about doing that. The second option is just asking for trouble unless you're 100% sure your content is always within the middle square, in which case you're better off with the first idea anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea, but couldn't they have shot it in both formats right from the get go? That would make editing etc a pain, but it's probably not too hard for shorts like what they were making.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Family Guy (Score:2)
"Shut up, Meg" - Peter Griffin
He sure will strike a deal! (Score:2)
> It's possible Katzenberg will still strike a deal.
Yes, with a US federal bankruptcy court.
It's pretty tough to sell a business that has no product, no customers, and expenses including celebrity endorsements.
If he was stupid like Branson, he'd sell part of SKG to fund Quibi... but he's smarter than that.
E
Quibi was an ambitious idea (Score:2)
Lol wut? How is a video streaming service that's unique feature is it's limited to short clips ambitious?
Nobody is wasting their lives on TV (Score:1)
Content ok (Score:2)
Sagging bandwagon (Score:2)
Turns out it was already standing room only on the bandwagon.