Document Actions
'Prom Queen' Becoming a Modest Hit
The Michael Eisner-backed online video production company Vuguru says that its first Web serial (which consists of eighty 90-second episodes) is clocking about 200,000 views a day, with over 5.2 million views in the past month.
'Prom Queen' Becoming a Modest Hit
Mediaweek notes that while the show's daily audience is not far from a low-rated cable series, individual episodes are still getting far fewer views than popular Web serials like LonelyGirl15, which can see its viewership in the millions.
However, a number that is sure to be encouraging to Vuguru (and the producers of the movie Hairspray, a Prom Queen sponsor) is the 18,000-plus friends that Prom Queen has garnered. MySpace, one of several outlets where fans can stream the show, accounts for nearly 3.7 million of the views generated to date, making the site far and away the leading distributor (MySpace gets each episode 12 hours before other sites do).
Veoh, which hosts a Prom Queen channel, has generated the second largest number of views (854,653), followed by YouTube (232,382) and PromQueen.tv. Other sites streaming the soap are StarStyle.com and Ellegirl.com, as well as Verizon’s V Cast platform. (Mobile streaming figures are not included in these numbers.)
Posted by
An Anonymous Scaredy-Cat
on
May 03. 2007
False
Well, in theory, all of these online shows are great! One of the biggest hits online is itsallinyourhands.com which allows it's users to vote on how the next episode will go. The are clocking at least 500,000 views a month on their numerous placements. Online media is great, but I'm a fan of Satacracy 88 and it's amazing production value, I came across it with the Webby Awards, it won best online drama.
Posted by
An Anonymous Scaredy-Cat
on
May 03. 2007
False
Well, YouTube have already announced they are selling ad space -- it's just distributed across the network with maybe a bit of relevance based on Tags.
Seems as though 40,000 viewers wouldn't attract any advertisers -- not if you look at how audio podcasts have fared. The number is just too small. It's really small. That said, advertisers are spending $$$ in SECOND LIFE for a handful of Avatars to show up and dance, so, who really knows?
These are all baby-steps, as the industry matures. I'd venture that the folks behind PROMQUEEN had projected at least 200K/Unique/Episode, and if only receiving 40K, that's a fairly bad showing. But, that's only a guess.
We will start seeing 100K, then 200K, then, god forbid, 500K/Episode/Unique, on average, across a full Series in the next Year, as Producers keep venturing deeper into this territory. But, PROMQUEEN, like those who preceded it (and, there were a few) is not (yet) a success, despite the headline -- it's just a step in that direction.
Seems as though 40,000 viewers wouldn't attract any advertisers -- not if you look at how audio podcasts have fared. The number is just too small. It's really small. That said, advertisers are spending $$$ in SECOND LIFE for a handful of Avatars to show up and dance, so, who really knows?
These are all baby-steps, as the industry matures. I'd venture that the folks behind PROMQUEEN had projected at least 200K/Unique/Episode, and if only receiving 40K, that's a fairly bad showing. But, that's only a guess.
We will start seeing 100K, then 200K, then, god forbid, 500K/Episode/Unique, on average, across a full Series in the next Year, as Producers keep venturing deeper into this territory. But, PROMQUEEN, like those who preceded it (and, there were a few) is not (yet) a success, despite the headline -- it's just a step in that direction.
Posted by
An Anonymous Scaredy-Cat
on
May 03. 2007
False
Good point about zero dollar productions yielding views, however it is uncommon for those productions to have a serial nature or any reason for viewers to return. A baby fart can get a million hits on YouTube, but how do you sell ads on that? Advertisers like predictability. They want to know what they're buying and who is watching it. That's where series help the online video industry mature.
Posted by
An Anonymous Scaredy-Cat
on
May 03. 2007
False
Good point about zero dollar productions yielding views, however it is uncommon for those productions to have a serial nature or any reason for viewers to return. A baby fart can get a million hits on YouTube, but how do you sell ads on that? Advertisers like predictability. They want to know what they're buying and who is watching it. That's where series help the online video industry mature.
Posted by
An Anonymous Scaredy-Cat
on
May 03. 2007
False
good to see this thread.
the cost-of-production to viewership issue is kind of "over," since, zero-dollar productions have yielded millions of unique views.
the real question is whether professional productions can earn a living working in internet television?
since promqueen appears to have covered its costs through pre-sales of sponsorships, the next question is whether those sponsors are pleased and will return? if they wanted their product seen in 20 out of the 80 episodes with an average viewership of 200,000 PER EPISODE, but, only one of those episodes received big numbers, that isn't what they bought into and they will assess a negative ROI, right?
if promqueen only has 40,000 loyal, unique viewers [their hardcore audience] that is not enough to sustain itself [despite the one-off episode with 1,000,000 views]. the sponsors won't be back for more. and, i agree with most of the comments that indicate the real audience is pretty close to 40,000 and nowhere near 200,000, based on their public metrics.
the cost-of-production to viewership issue is kind of "over," since, zero-dollar productions have yielded millions of unique views.
the real question is whether professional productions can earn a living working in internet television?
since promqueen appears to have covered its costs through pre-sales of sponsorships, the next question is whether those sponsors are pleased and will return? if they wanted their product seen in 20 out of the 80 episodes with an average viewership of 200,000 PER EPISODE, but, only one of those episodes received big numbers, that isn't what they bought into and they will assess a negative ROI, right?
if promqueen only has 40,000 loyal, unique viewers [their hardcore audience] that is not enough to sustain itself [despite the one-off episode with 1,000,000 views]. the sponsors won't be back for more. and, i agree with most of the comments that indicate the real audience is pretty close to 40,000 and nowhere near 200,000, based on their public metrics.
Posted by
An Anonymous Scaredy-Cat
on
May 03. 2007
False
[I don't think Nielsen or Comscore would add up the numbers in the same way. A daily show is a daily show is a daily show, you can't aggregate it into a weekly show and say, voila, success.]
I'm talking about the relationship between cost and viewership. It doesn't matter how Nielsen adds it up; if there's a model that draws more viewers per dollar spent on production/distribution, then there is a future in that model.
[But, what is interesting is trying to think about an internet television series that is successful that doesn't rely on sex, voyeurism or base (frequently juvenile) humor? Anyone?]
i hear you here. once again... give it time.
I'm talking about the relationship between cost and viewership. It doesn't matter how Nielsen adds it up; if there's a model that draws more viewers per dollar spent on production/distribution, then there is a future in that model.
[But, what is interesting is trying to think about an internet television series that is successful that doesn't rely on sex, voyeurism or base (frequently juvenile) humor? Anyone?]
i hear you here. once again... give it time.
Posted by
An Anonymous Scaredy-Cat
on
May 02. 2007
False
To the math in comment:
[For example, most scripted cable shows are weekly, producing 22 - 44 minutes of programming per week. Prom Queen is a daily program, producing 10.5 minutes of programming per week. If the 200K per episode average is true, their weekly average is 1.4 million views (while producing less than half the content). That's more than a modest hit even by cable tv standards. ]
I don't think Nielsen or Comscore would add up the numbers in the same way. A daily show is a daily show is a daily show, you can't aggregate it into a weekly show and say, voila, success.
But, what is interesting is trying to think about an internet television series that is successful that doesn't rely on sex, voyeurism or base (frequently juvenile) humor? Anyone?
It does seem as though the success of a PROMQUEEN episode is directly proporational to the sex alluded to in each title. If they put up an Episode entitled "Danica (in her knickers) kisses Lauren" they could double their viewership in a day.
[For example, most scripted cable shows are weekly, producing 22 - 44 minutes of programming per week. Prom Queen is a daily program, producing 10.5 minutes of programming per week. If the 200K per episode average is true, their weekly average is 1.4 million views (while producing less than half the content). That's more than a modest hit even by cable tv standards. ]
I don't think Nielsen or Comscore would add up the numbers in the same way. A daily show is a daily show is a daily show, you can't aggregate it into a weekly show and say, voila, success.
But, what is interesting is trying to think about an internet television series that is successful that doesn't rely on sex, voyeurism or base (frequently juvenile) humor? Anyone?
It does seem as though the success of a PROMQUEEN episode is directly proporational to the sex alluded to in each title. If they put up an Episode entitled "Danica (in her knickers) kisses Lauren" they could double their viewership in a day.
Posted by
An Anonymous Scaredy-Cat
on
May 03. 2007
False
All fascinating.
But, had to note this one item: Since, I worked at a Major Studio's distribution arm in 1978:
There were no slackers. There were contracts we held theaters to to keep prints on screen longer than they deserved because we could eek out a better percentage in later weeks of release (we made more money with smaller audiences due to better percentages). I don't recollect one casual, slacker release, ever. It was cutthroat.
But, had to note this one item: Since, I worked at a Major Studio's distribution arm in 1978:
There were no slackers. There were contracts we held theaters to to keep prints on screen longer than they deserved because we could eek out a better percentage in later weeks of release (we made more money with smaller audiences due to better percentages). I don't recollect one casual, slacker release, ever. It was cutthroat.
Posted by
An Anonymous Scaredy-Cat
on
May 03. 2007
False
"But will Old Media and advertisers fund the Slacker Approach to distribution? Who knows?"
Films were distributed this way in the seventies. This system allows word of mouth to determine the success of a film rather than the size of the media blitz and opening weekend. I bet some of your "Old Media" remembers those slacker days.
Films were distributed this way in the seventies. This system allows word of mouth to determine the success of a film rather than the size of the media blitz and opening weekend. I bet some of your "Old Media" remembers those slacker days.
Posted by
An Anonymous Scaredy-Cat
on
May 02. 2007
False
Interesting comments.
To the last point, the Comments did not equate an online serial with cable tv programming, the original article did.
It seems to me that the point trying to be made here is that the 200,000 views/day is misleading and DAILY REEL should have picked up on that before regurgitating.
I looked at the myspace #'s and it's true, only a few episodes have any real viewership and those are the T&A hinted episodes. Fair enough assessment.
If you look at the numbers, where you throw out the highs and lows, then average the median episode viewership (I forget what they called that in math class?) it does seem that the episodes are more in the 20,000 to 40,000 range which is a far cry from "success."
I did find the last line of the last comment really interesting since this is the reverse-thinking of film and television models that live/die on their opening weekend or first few episodes. There's a "give it time" mentality in this space that runs counter to the pressures of Old Media. But will Old Media and advertisers fund the Slacker Approach to distribution? Who knows?
To the last point, the Comments did not equate an online serial with cable tv programming, the original article did.
It seems to me that the point trying to be made here is that the 200,000 views/day is misleading and DAILY REEL should have picked up on that before regurgitating.
I looked at the myspace #'s and it's true, only a few episodes have any real viewership and those are the T&A hinted episodes. Fair enough assessment.
If you look at the numbers, where you throw out the highs and lows, then average the median episode viewership (I forget what they called that in math class?) it does seem that the episodes are more in the 20,000 to 40,000 range which is a far cry from "success."
I did find the last line of the last comment really interesting since this is the reverse-thinking of film and television models that live/die on their opening weekend or first few episodes. There's a "give it time" mentality in this space that runs counter to the pressures of Old Media. But will Old Media and advertisers fund the Slacker Approach to distribution? Who knows?
