SourceInternet and entertainment thieves（ID：TMTphantom）

The author is the head of the strange theft regiment, Yu Pei

Head chart, "Mommy" movie poster

Under the ravages of new crown pneumonia, the 2020 Spring Festival is in full play, and all films have been withdrawn. Xu Wei director's "Mom" suddenly announced the transition to the "headline system" short video platform (jitter / watermelon / volcano) premiere, triggering the industry and the people eating melons of common concern and hot discussion. The 630 million yuan purchase price proposed by the headline department (said to be the bottom) apparently exceeded market expectations, leading to a surge in the share price of the production side Happy Media.

Many people believe that this is not only a symbol of the headlines into the long video and film industry, but also the Internet industry to the traditional film and television "renovation" symbol. At least a few dozen people in my circle of friends retweeted the news. Of course, while hailing this "great innovation", the three long video platforms have been routinely trampled on - investors believe they are inefficient and smelly, far less than the vibrant cloud of short-video platforms.

Let me put it this way, given the limited time available during the Chinese New Year, start with a simple start and move forward slowly.

First of all, anyone who has seen "Mommy" should admit that this is a very mediocre film, neither funny nor new. If the Spring Festival file has not been cancelled, even relying on Xu Wei this gold signboard, it is difficult to achieve the top three box office results. If you don't approve, please go and see the film (you can see it for free now).

The headliner made a 630 million yuan offer, equivalent to more than 1.6 billion yuan at the box office. Frankly, I think the chances of "Mommy" getting $1.6 billion in theaters are very low. Please note that the third-place finisher in the 2019 Spring Festival, "Flying Life", also has a total box office of only 1.7 billion, and the various production parties have invested a huge announced budget. For Xu wei and Happy Media, the business is a steady and business-minded one.

Last year's third-place finisher in the Spring Festival, "Flying Life," also grossed only $1.7 billion at the box office

Second, for the headline department, the purchase of "Mom" this movie is also good price/performance ratio. The huge topical effect of this event has already been worth hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising - at least a hundred people in my circle have retweeted the message. This procurement not only brings traffic to jitters/watermelons/volcanoes, but also enhances the overall reputation of the headline system: it is praised for its efficiency, flexibility of thinking, and short decision-making processes.

During the Spring Festival, The Clippers committed $1 billion to their red envelope budget, and announced a $2 billion investment. Tencent, Ali, Pindo, B station also carried out a large number of guest investment. The intake input can be roughly divided into two categories: the first is the direct purchase/pull-back flow, and the second is brand promotion (product announcement). The headline is the purchase of "Mom", at least a beautiful product announcement, may also directly obtain new registered users. Well done.

Third, especially for the headline-grabbing watermelon video, it's a good idea. The headline system has three short video applications, of which the shaking sound heat is the highest, the volcano owner hit the sinking market (positioning close to the fast hand), so what about watermelons? Historically, watermelons have been more PPC-biased; in recent times, it has clearly expanded into long videos, introducing home-made varieties and home-made dramas. The second column on the watermelon video home page is "The Screening Room", which is the content of the long video. Shaking sound, volcanic play "Mom" may just give the user a fresh picture, watermelon play "Mom" may mean a continuous, fundamental change in platform positioning and tone. I reckon most of the audience who actually watched Mom may have watched it in watermelons (looking forward to the follow-up data).

It's positive above, it's negative below. My view is simple: the headliner bought the rights to the premiere of "Mommy" as a successful tactical event that may have a bit of strategic tentative significance; it doesn't constitute a strategic impact on the entire video industry or even the pan-entertainment industry. Further, it is not a symbol of "innovation" in the film and television industry, nor has it changed the industry trends of the past few years.

Below is the time to enter the happy "Breaking Bad".

First of all, the headline-grabbing purchase of the premiere rights to "Mommy" is nothing new for the video industry. Over the past five years, the three video platforms have been sourcing, customizing or home-made head content at increasing cost, from episodes and variety to movies. "Platform solo broadcast" is not a new thing, the three video platforms have long been not satisfied with the world with TV. For a handful of S-class dramas, the platform is perfectly willing to pay sky-high prices for the exclusive rights - and, of course, because of the platform's limited budget, they can't do it all.

In 2019, for example, Chang'an's 12th Hour, Chen's Order and Qing Yu's Year are only broadcast on the video platform, and have not yet landed on TV (probably never). Some people think that this is affected by the TV series "restriction order" - this view is wrong. As far as I know, at least Chang'an 12 hours in the production stage confirmed by Youku exclusive broadcast. The purchase price of such S-rated solo dramas can often reach more than 10 million yuan per episode and 4-500 million yuan for the whole play;

Second, the video platform on the film content is not without investment - "Red Sea Action" "Wandering Earth" network broadcast rights have sold a relatively high price; Of course, the video platform invests far less in movies than in episodes and variety. Why? Because the movie content to the user's length of time occupied less, and is a one-time viewing, does not meet the three major video platforms at this stage of the strategic objectives.

A 45-episode head drama that can be broadcast on a video platform for at least 15 days in a row takes about 30 hours of user time; On the other hand, no matter how well-made or significant the topic effect, a movie can generally only occupy 2 hours of user time, and after watching it is over. Video platforms require user stickyness, especially "continuous" content that attracts users' attention and pays. In this case, the movie is certainly not the best choice.

As early as 2018, the network broadcast rights to the blockbusters will be overpriced

Third, the film - I mean the length of about 120 minutes, non-stop, high industrial standards of film content, naturally the most suitable scene is the courtyard line. Since more than 100 years ago, the film has been prepared for quiet, dark cinemas, and audiences want a more complete, undisturbed, focused viewing period. Even when watching movies at home, the best way to experience it is to close the curtains, turn off the headlights, and watch with a high-definition display or projection. Smartphone screens and fragmented time are naturally not suitable for movies, so it's never a good idea to broadcast movies exclusively on the mobile side, especially on short video platforms.

If one day, the cinema this consumer scene is eliminated, users no longer need "complete, undisturbed, focused" video entertainment? Then the movie will die (hopefully that day won't come) and other forms of video entertainment will take their place. Any era, any kind of scene will produce a unique form of entertainment, rigid set of "cross-platform transplant" is no way out. Imagine what it would be like if you ported the console platform's 3A action games to your phone without modification or optimization. It may be novel at first, but it's not a long-term solution.

Finally, the business model of buying off head content at a high price has proven unsustainable in the online video industry. Over the past few years, the big three video platforms have lost huge amounts of money because advertising/VIP pay-per-view revenue doesn't cover content costs. In the production and broadcast of sky-high dramas, almost all enterprises are losing money: the platform bears huge costs, the show company's cash flow is not good, advertisers are not getting a good return. Only stars in making a lot of money - before the introduction of salary restrictions, a big drama pay 1-2 billion has been common, the industry is working for the stars!

Long video industry to form a sustainable business model, must not rely on sky-high content procurement. At present, the more mature, there is a certain breakout business model is: relying on PUGC and vertical professional content and good community atmosphere, to achieve a higher user sticky and better cost control, representing China's B station, the United States YouTube; Note that China's three major video platforms are very different from Netflix's business model.

There is no Netflix benchmark in China, and none of the three major video platforms are

All in all, "Mommy" is a successful business conduct for the production side, a successful promotional campaign and tactical action/strategy test for the headline department. The headlines are carefully testing the water-length video industry, but it's watermelon videos that should be the main task, not the gimbals that many people fantasize about. "Mom" network solo broadcast, has not changed the past years formed a sky-high procurement model, for the video industry and the film and television industry, there is no innovative change. Moreover, history has repeatedly shown that sky-high buy-outs are a stopgap measure that can build popularity in the early stages, but does not create a sustainable business model (at least in China at this stage).

Of course, many people put forward, from the "Mom" network broadcast this matter can be seen how high the executive power of the headline system, how strong determination, how backward the traditional film and television industry, the three video platforms how slow the response speed, and so on. These views may make sense, but I'm not very interested in them, and I don't have first-hand information.

This content is the author's independent point of view, does not represent the tiger sniffing position. No reprints may be made without permission, please contact hezuo@huxiu.com

End