YouTube Passes Netflix As Top Video Source For Teens (cnbc.com) 97
A new survey from investment bank Piper Sandler found that teens in the U.S. consume more videos on YouTube than Netflix. CNBC reports: Teens polled by the bank said they spent 29.1% of their daily video consumption time on Google-owned YouTube, beating out Netflix for the first time at 28.7%. Time on YouTube rose since the spring, adding nearly a percentage point, while Netflix fell more than two percentage points. The data point shows that the streaming business is getting more competitive, and highlights YouTube's strong position as a free provider of online video, especially among young people. "We wonder if this is a push or a pull in regards to the changing consumption habits, as content on YouTube appears to be improving over time and the streaming industry becomes more and more competitive," Piper Sandler analysts wrote.
Polls don't represent hard data (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we stop reporting noise as if it were fact?
Young layabouts prefer FREE over PAID!! News at eleventy!!!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Not true. Depending on the source you consult, 98% (NPR) or 83% (The Berea Call, aka some Internet rando) or 73% (AtOnce dot com and, separately, Mark Suster) or 85% (GoodReads) of statistics are made up on the spot. Based on the authoritative source of several randos, that's more than 67.3% even before you count statistics that are made up in advance!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep, I agree, and when you dive deeper into a lot of these polls, you'll see it's only a couple of hundred people they asked. And how does one make sure it represents society, as a lot of people just don't care about doing polls and if people are getting paid or lured (by possibility of winning a tablet or whatever) then these polls can be very biased.
If I ask random people on the street, I have no idea if they are also a good representation of society as the ones asked could just as well be all lefties bec
Re: Polls don't represent hard data (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There are really 3 kinds of polls.
1. Internet polls - worthless and manipulated
2. Phone polls - anyone who answers a phone from an unknown number is already suspect.
3. In person polls - Might work if we were not all terrified of in person interaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Polling is a decent way to have a good idea about a broader population if the polling is appropriately random and large enough.
Lying is a decent way of making money now. Therefore polls are done to generate or confirm an expected output, because profits.
It's not even a matter of asking why this is done anymore. Just a matter of believing polls for what they're worth; someone else's profit stream, which now comes in Fact-Free flavor.
Re: Polls don't represent hard data (Score:4, Informative)
This fall’s survey polled more than 9,000 teens across the U.S. in September who average just under 16 years old.
That's actually a pretty large sample size, too. Though with that sample size you still have a margin of error of 1% (with 95% confidence), and the margin between YouTube and Netflix here is smaller than that. So perhaps a better headline is "YouTube and Netflix in a statistical dead heat as a top video source for teens".
Re:Polls don't represent hard data (Score:4, Insightful)
It's possibly picking up on some other trend, e.g. if you polled the same exact individuals over time as they age, that would tell you about that cohort rather than the national average.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, as long as they're 18 or 19....who doesn't?
As long as they're legal and fair game...
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, as long as they're 18 or 19....who doesn't?
I'm fairly certain that age range now falls into Gen Z. You just try getting it up while they're on their phone watching dumb TikTok videos with the volume cranked. "Oh no, oh no, oh no no no no no..."
I'm glad I'm in a relationship with someone from my generation.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just talking banging them...not having a conversation with them...
Re: (Score:2)
Can we stop reporting noise as if it were fact?
I don't understand what is "noise" and what is "fact" according to you.
This survey polled 9000 teens. The answers were that teens self-reported themselves as spending a touch more time on youtube than netflix. Given the survey size, it will have had an error of about 0.5%. It's hard to see reasons for systematic bias that would affect the conclusions.
Therefore, I think we now have a new fact on our hands, that teens now claim to spend more time on youtube than on netflix. Do you count this as a fact or as n
Re: (Score:2)
Can we stop reporting noise as if it were fact?
I don't understand what is "noise" and what is "fact" according to you.
This survey polled 9000 teens. The answers were that teens self-reported themselves as spending a touch more time on youtube than netflix. Given the survey size, it will have had an error of about 0.5%. It's hard to see reasons for systematic bias that would affect the conclusions.
Therefore, I think we now have a new fact on our hands, that teens now claim to spend more time on youtube than on netflix. Do you count this as a fact or as noise?
Yeah, considering Netflix went through a password sharing crackdown a few months ago and the difference between Netflix and Youtube statistics amounts to a fucking rounding error.
Re: (Score:1)
teens self-reported
There. There's your problem. You imagine self-report in polls amounts to anything of value.
Garbage in. Garbage out.
Re: (Score:3)
Young layabouts prefer FREE over PAID!!
Well, also if you have an abundance of free time (as teens often do), it really doesn't take too long before you've binged through all the stuff on Netflix that is actually worth watching.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming teens are sticking to the free tiers of YT. You're also assuming teens are paying for Netflix (rather than riding their parents account). The survey didn't ask anything about the financial angle, so it's a bit of a jump to draw that conclusion.
It's just as likely that teens simply prefer a less curated experience than Netflix.
Re: (Score:1)
So why the BIG NEWS EVERYBODY! schpiel?
It's unsubstantiated noise.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you see "BIG NEWS EVERYBODY!"? That wasn't anywhere in the article that I could see.
The article is substantiated statistical data, not unsubstantiated noise. Let me give you an example of unsubstantiated noise so that you can see what that looks like: "Young layabouts prefer FREE over PAID!! News at eleventy!!!"
Notice how there's no data collection to back this up, it's just the meaningless opinion of some anonymous internet troll. It contains ad hominem instead of mathematically calculated percen
Re: (Score:2)
"Old age and oratory will always beat youth and exuberance. News at eleventy!!!"
Well... can we say "duh"? (Score:3)
If I have to watch ads either way, I'll go with the content I don't have to pay for.
Re: Well... can we say "duh"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I have to watch ads either way, I'll go with the content I don't have to pay for.
For $14 per month you can get ad-free YouTube, plus (some) free movies, and YouTube Music. And it really is ad-free. Well, other than YouTubers who embed ads in their videos. So... I guess not really ad-free, though the ads are skippable :-/
I subscribed to Google Music years ago for $8 per month and am grandfathered in for YouTube Premium and YouTube Music at that rate, which is a great deal, IMO. I recently cancelled all of my streaming service subscriptions except YouTube because I realized it was the o
Re: (Score:2)
I already have ad-free YouTube. And a plugin that takes care of YouTubers plugging some crap. So what exactly could I get out of this deal?
Re: (Score:2)
I already have ad-free YouTube. And a plugin that takes care of YouTubers plugging some crap. So what exactly could I get out of this deal?
The knowledge that you're not a freeloader?
Re: (Score:2)
I already have ad-free YouTube. And a plugin that takes care of YouTubers plugging some crap. So what exactly could I get out of this deal?
The knowledge that you're not a freeloader?
I think google can afford it.
Just Now? (Score:1)
Correction (Score:2)
It's toxic garbage (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube shorts in particular are terrible. It's mostly a bunch of stupid memes with no redeeming social or educational value.
Worse yet, YouTube is starting to block ad blockers on their site, ensuring that you get a watch a 30 second ad before watching a few of these stupid videos.
Re:It's toxic garbage (Score:4, Insightful)
Youtube gets like 500 hours of video uploaded per minute, that's like going into a library, seeing a teenager check out some magazines and saying "this entire library is trash"
There's amazing stuff on Youtube but "The Algorithm" will feed you what you appear to be interested in. Watch trash it'll feed you more trash. That's your nephews problem, not Youtube's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah there is a valid argument to be made that Youtube, especially for kids, will prioritize a bunch of trash in order to keep eyeballs glued to the screen for the maximal amount of time and that is not good. With impressionable minds I could absolutely see it being valid to restrict time on Youtube for a kid like that because they can get manipulated into some bad areas.
There's just such a breadth of impressive stuff on Youtube as well that it's not worth writing off the entire platform, it can be an amaz
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I learned how to fly a helicopter on Youtube!
Great, and I learned how to do brain surgery on Youtube. Want to fly in for a free lobotomy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the vast majority of books and magazines in the library were self-published self-important nonsense it would be fair to call the library trash. Having War and Peace on the bottom shelf doesn't offset putting National Enquirer front and center, never mind all the disinformation, which is pretty hard to duplicate in any library I've ever been in. Equating YouTube to a library is nonsense, IMHO.
YouTube and other platforms ruined the Internet [newyorker.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but my point is if you go into a sufficiently large enough library you can find a bunch of mindless trash, cheap romance novels, bad scifi, alternative medicine and all manner of nonsense. I can also find thousands of lectures from university professors on all manner of topics.
The libraries job is not to curate what they offer based on someone's personal opinions but to collect literature for people to choose. I can agree that the algorithm can lead to bad outcomes, absolutely but that speaks to the
Re: (Score:2)
The libraries job is not to curate what they offer based on someone's personal opinions but to collect literature for people to choose
That may be the libraries job, however, the library has librarians, and when you ask them to help you find materials on [some topic] they're not likely to steer you towards the equivalent of National Enquirer level regurgitated clickbait (best case for algorithms) or outright falsehoods (worst case). Their job is to help you find relevant and accurate information and get you out of there ASAP.
That's what Google originally purported to do. It's very definitely not what YouTube and other platforms do. The
Re: (Score:2)
The librarians job is to help you find what you are looking for. If I am looking for the National Enquirer they will direct me towards it, they're not there to fact check it. They should know where it is and generally what it contains. Librarians are not the algorithm, they're the search bar.
Regardless, having some small amount of redeeming content does not forgive the fact that the vast majority of it is garbage, much less the algorithm that is there to serve the interests of the platform, not yours, mine, or society's.
It's your opinion that the amount is "small". By that metric how much of the content would have to be "redeeming" to tip the scales? My feed is almost pretty 90% of stuff i enjoy and not what I would consider garbag
Re: (Score:2)
That whooshing sound is the point flying over your head. Equating a librarian to a search bar is borderline offensive. Yes, if you ask them for the Natural Enquirer you're going to get that. Duh.
On the other hand, if you tell them you're researching evolution and need a starting point, they're going to, at the bare minimum direct you to 576.82 Darwin. From there you can find numerous related works. A good librarian will go much further and curate a list of titles for you after a few questions to deter
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube and other platforms ruined the Internet [newyorker.com].
Nonsense. YouTube is right up there with Wikipedia as one of the most valuable repositories of human knowledge ever.
YouTube taught me house construction, woodworking, metalworking, CNC operation, 3D printing operation, RV/boat solar power system design and installation and is now teaching me fiberglass layup, gelcoat application and basic boatbuilding. Not YouTube alone, of course, I also end up getting a few books and other resources, and using topic-focused web sites and blogs, but far and away my prima
Re: (Score:2)
"The Algorithm" feeds me nothing. I have watch history turned off to prevent it.
And adblockers still work.
Re: (Score:2)
I find lots of good content on YouTube. Everything from restoring the NASA Apollo guidance computer to people who explore amazing abandoned buildings and structures. Just because all you find is garbage doesn’t mean that represents the whole of YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube and YouTube TV are two completely different things.
YouTube is user generated content....YouTube TV is basically "cable television"...live TV like ESPN...news channels like Fox News, MSNBC...etc.
It's commercial television.
So, each satisfies different use cases.
HTH.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, just clarifying...TWO. different things.
"YouTube TV" is cable television..."YouTube" is not.
Re: (Score:2)
I find lots of good content on YouTube.
So do I, but the recommendation algorithm is absolutely atrocious and pushes you toward clickbait garbage presented by slack-jawed morons. More so, they prioritize recommendations over channels you frequent. So you have to actively search and manually check channels you follow.
Re: (Score:1)
The best way I've found to use YT is to keep a curated list of content creators and check in on them in their videos tab every so often to see what they have uploaded. If you come in through a vpn with a private window, the algorithm will actually be useful for a recommendation or two, which is the main way I find new creators.
I'm surprised there aren't apps that act as "the algorithm" by keeping an off-line database of videos and letting the users of the app tweak what content they want to see, links show
Re: (Score:1)
It's not nice to call your nephew trash like that. YouTube ain't so great either, by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, with billions of videos, there's a wide range of material. I watch various quality documentaries and analyses, from short to long form; sketch comedy, music (sometimes from historic concerts), and there are technical and how-to vids for just about anything. And, of course, lots of garbage. What's that rule, 90% of everything is shit?
I wonder what it is about "woman sitting talking non-stop about nonsense" makes the child want to choose such a channel?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, some of it is, but if you actually bother you'll find a treasure trove of knowledge on any topic you're interested in. YouTube is a fantastic resource and it's easy to sift out what bothers you, what you consider toxic.
Unfortunately I find that it's *not* easy to sift out what bothers me.... at least, if I consider the shitty content to be a bother. Their algorithm constantly recommends shit. If I look for a video about geology, the algorithm is just as likely to promote weird creationist nonsense that *starts out* talking about geology, but then finishes with words to the effect of "and that's how we know the Earth was created in 7 days!" The algorithm will do everything it can to trick you for as long as you keep lookin
chill (Score:2)
Advertising (Score:1)
Better headline (Score:1, Troll)
But yeah, everyone with a brain is done with Netflix's talentless writing and constant pushing of pervy, fringe trash content. On top of that, they lost any media licenses from the last 30 years that's owned by a company bigger than a ma and pa diner. Disney is gone. Paramount is gone. They're on the verge of bankruptcy. So I actually do believe the general sentiment of this "study."
Could be worse.... (Score:2)
It could have been surpassed by TikTok.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds pretty odd that it hasn't been, considering that youtube is at its best in young adults and adults demographics, while kids are mostly on tiktok.
Bold assumption (Score:3)
"content on YouTube appears to be improving over time"
Says who? It seems at least as likely that content on Netflix is declining.
Re: (Score:1)
"content on YouTube appears to be improving over time"
Considering that YouTube have been on a channel-banning spree of political commentary, anyone interested in pushing establishment narratives?
Re: (Score:2)
This actually ended a while ago, and a lot of political commentary was allowed again.
About the only banning spree I can think of lately was the very recent Hamas activist mass purge. But that at least in part because of DSA and everyone's favorite grandma Thierry Breton going full Goebbels with warnings that unless you pull channels that show reality on the ground in much of Europe and in Israel, they have retained a company of shills that will make claims you host "disinformation" and sanction you massivel
Re: (Score:1)
The Israelis are no better. They told people to evacuate and then blockaded the escape routes and started bombing anyone who approached them. All the while they've continued to carpet bomb Gaza indiscriminately in retaliation. Now they've changed their plan of finally sending in troops that could apply discretion and instead decided they will starve Hamas and the people with them.
Both leading factions are genocidal racial theocracies and there are millions of innocent people caught in the middle.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't blockade the escape routes, because Egypt controls them. Egypt doesn't want "rats" (pejorative for Palestinians across Arab world). There are wonderful images of Egypt-Israeli border where Egypt has a fence, vs Egypt-Gaza border, where it's multiple fences, a wall and other obstacles.
This Egypt is on the record saying yesterday that they will not allow any Palestinians in.
On the final note, if your moral compass tells you that Hamas' targeted rape, torture, live burning and beheading of civilians
Re: (Score:1)
"They can't blockade the escape routes, because Egypt controls them."
They've blockaded every path but to Egypt and yes Egypt is blocking those paths but the IDF has been bombing vehicles approaching in any case.
"IDF warning civilians that each area is about to get hit , leave within certain reasonable time frame so you're not hit and then Hamas telling them that they should not leave"
Says the IDF. Their claims about trying to avoid civilian casualties in the past have turned out to be false and I doubt now
Re: (Score:2)
Inshallah brother. Our holy warriors holding the Jewish devils hostage is merely a self defense move. They obviously have no human rights.
How would our holy warriors wash their blood from their hands and their mighty phalluses after raping them to death, when there's no electricity to run the water pumps and no water?
Re: (Score:1)
Israel is unwilling to even consider ceasefire talks. Moreover they were warned 3 days prior to being attacked that it was coming and let it happen, possibly to justify what they are doing now.
"Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has vowed to impose a “complete siege” on Gaza and wipe Hamas “off the face of the Earth.”"
https://www.theepochtimes.com/... [theepochtimes.com]
"On Oct. 12, Gaza’s Health Ministry said that more than 1,400 Palestinians had been killed—and another 6,000 injured
Re: (Score:2)
Inshallah brother. Preach the truth of Allah to the kuffar. They labor under foolish notions that Jewish devils are human, when we all know they're merely demons to be killed. Whatever our brothers in Hamas choose to do to them is jihad at its finest. Their path to salvation, as The Prophet, peace be upon him clearly stated.
Which is why they need to turn electricity and water back on immediately. How else would our holy warriors wash the blood from their hands and their phalluses after showing the might of
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because everyone is either with the jews or against them!
or was it
Right, because everyone is either with the muslims or against them!
I don't take sides in your stupid holy war, I'm not just not that into genocide.
Re: (Score:2)
"Evil triumphs because good men choose to do nothing in the face of it".
Re: (Score:2)
Or in this case, evil triumphs because evil men do evil things in a cyclic response.
Re: (Score:2)
"So your suggestion is to just let the evil win instead?"
So you are saying a not evil response to evil is evil winning and an evil response to evil is evil... losing? That's kind of cool, in this vision evil is apparently a logical operator.
Letting evil win sounds bad I'll admit. But what does that even mean? Define what it is for evil to win. What is the objective of evil and the consequence of it attaining it? Without those answers we can't know what a win for evil is. But I'd contend increasing the amoun
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that YouTube have been on a channel-banning spree of political commentary, anyone interested in pushing establishment narratives?
I really don't think teenagers are on YouTube watching political commentary. I'm a middle-aged adult and still really can't stand watching that crap, even when it somewhat aligns with my political views.
Makes sense... Higher price, crappier content (Score:2)
Netflix keeps increasing price while bringing in lower quality content. At the same time, YouTube you can get more content on YouTube, a lot of it free. Sure, a lot of crappy content on YouTube too but there is a lot more of it, you can buy what you want. A lot of shows have disappeared sure to the new streaming services reclaiming their content and some shows
Cracking down on VPN temporarily bought numbers up but they'll likely bleed subscribers. Unless they fix their price to quality/content ratio, I expec
I am not a teen (Score:2)
and I consume more youtube in average than netflix (yes, i have youtube prime).
Netflix hat 1-3 new seasons of series which i really want to watch per year. Having netflix 1-2 month per year to catch up is enough. 90% of what netflix original content is more of the same which worked 5-8 years ago.
Youtube is better in covering everybody's niche content since the crowd of independent youtubers are more flexible and dont need approval for doing that.
Can confirm (Score:1)
People who care about this (Score:2)
I'm An Old Fogey (Score:1)
I'm 58 and watch more YouTube than Netflix. Then again, I got rid of Netflix quite a few years ago after they started losing a lot of the old TV shows I like.
"Video source"? (Score:2)