Less than a year after Mark Zuckerberg paid millions to media companies to promote online live video coverage, the Facebook founder is changing tack


This article titled “Is Facebook Live dead and buried?” was written by Peter Preston, for The Observer on Sunday 22nd January 2017 07.03 UTC

Remember the time (actually only last April) when Mark Zuckerberg launched Facebook Live and paid 140 or so media companies around the world some $50m to provide video coverage that made Live live. Ah! welcome to the surging, dominant video age. Except that now the major news analytics player, parse.ly, has just concluded that audiences spent 30% less time engaging with online video, on average, then they did with short, medium and lengthy text posts. And engagement, of course, is supposedly the crucial thing, the gold standard measure of involvement and commitment.

Facebook (the Poynter Institute reports) isn’t renewing those media contracts. Facebook is thinking more about “longer premium video content”. And so the wheel turns again: continuing proof that, digitally, last year’s amazing breakthrough can be this year’s febrile bust.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.


Lead Image: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Photograph: Esteban Felix/AP

 

This article titled “Is Facebook Live dead and buried?” was written by Peter Preston, for The Observer on Sunday 22nd January 2017 07.03 UTC

Remember the time (actually only last April) when Mark Zuckerberg launched Facebook Live and paid 140 or so media companies around the world some $50m to provide video coverage that made Live live. Ah! welcome to the surging, dominant video age. Except that now the major news analytics player, parse.ly, has just concluded that audiences spent 30% less time engaging with online video, on average, then they did with short, medium and lengthy text posts. And engagement, of course, is supposedly the crucial thing, the gold standard measure of involvement and commitment.