What Do Folks Think About A Skeptics Channel?

I’ve lived with the Roku for a while now and find that it is really good for getting a minority opinion on news. (It is good for other things, too, but that’s the one that really works well for me).

You can get Netflix just about everywhere on anything, and it covers 90% of our “entertainment” needs, so the Roku is just ‘yet another method’ for it. The other needs divide into about 5% CBS shows (when the new Star Trek comes out we’ll be buying the CBS deluxe package, whatever it is called) and 5% of “misc. stuff”. Realistically, the rest of the “entertainment” on the Roku ranges from a ‘nice to have’ for things like old movies and some B&W TV Reruns, down to “OMG – delete that one” for things looking like a collection of old VHS Horror Movies turned into a ‘channel’ by someone. So that, for me, leaves the dozen or so news channels as the really special bit.

Where it shines, IMHO, is the news channels and minority interest channels. There are a dozen channels or so of “local communities” where someone has put up a set of the local kids ball games, local town council meetings, local parades, etc. Yeah, basically useless to me, but to folks in or from the community, a real treat. Out of town when your cousin is in the county fair parade? No problem, you can tune in. Similarly there’s a Vegan Food Show that would have a hard time finding a spot on a national network. There’s also a “Real News Network” with a fairly obvious left wing bias, and there’s Red State Radio that wears its POV on its name. Then there are Religious oriented channels for all comers. My spouse can now ‘attend mass’ at any of a half dozen churches should she not feel up to driving in. We even found that the church my son attends has a channel.

This got me thinking. Why not a Climate Skeptics Channel?

So that’s the question I’m asking folks: Do you think there would be any interest in, or benefit from, a Skeptics Channel?

FWIW, I’m not seeing me as they guy making one. I’m not equipped with the artistic talent needed for either the stage presence or the “production values” needed. Seeing me sitting in my living room reading web pages would not be compelling TV… This is more of an idea ‘for the community’. It would take a team, though IMHO it could be a small team of 3 or 4, to make this a success. Video tech skills, producer / director, stage talent, and content creators – both climate savvy and video / arts savvy. So it is more fishing for “others” to do…

Now you might ask “Why not just do YouTube?”. Well, that’s a fine way to go, but you get lost in the massive size of it, and Google is in command. Not thinking they would be that helpful with keeping you in the “suggested” list… The Roku does require buying their device, and that means a more limited audience; but I suspect it also would mean a lot less “trolls” to fend off as there isn’t a “comments” section to deal with. Having a classy collection (perhaps from many creators) of video content all in one place making the Skeptic Case could be a powerful communications tool.

From here on down are some links and text about how hard (or easy) it is to create a “channel”.

How To Build A Channel

So how hard is it to actually construct a channel? It can’t be too hard if you have Some Guy making a channel of his video collection or the town hall meetings. Looking into it, there seem to be two ways. (Or two main ways I’ve found so far ;-)

The Roku Process as listed on their web site, and InstantTVchannel.com has a service. (Many of the “minor” channels put up a banner for InstantTVchannel when they first are opened).

I’m going to look at the InstantTVchannel option first.

http://www.instanttvchannel.com/

Instant TV Channel for Roku
Cloud-Based Roku Channel Production System

Create an Instant TV Channel account
You’ll need an account to begin using Instant TV Channel. Sign up for a free account now!

Three Roku channel types to choose from:

Free Channel @ $0.00/month

* 100% cloud-based, no server needed.
* Up to 10 videos per Roku channel.
* Stream from any public web server, hosting service, storage system, or content delivery network directly to Roku devices.
* Support for Brightcove, DaCast, Viddler, Vimeo, Vzaar, and other video hosting services.
* Playout “live” linear streams using scheduled VOD content.
* Track your Roku channel’s usage with Google Analytics.
* Design grid, horizontal, vertical, or combination channel layouts with unlimited nesting levels.
* Build feed-based Direct Publisher channels.

Unlimited Channel @ $4.95/month

* Includes all Free Channel features.
* Unlimited number of videos per Roku channel using your own AWS configuration storage.
* Up to 100 videos per Roku channel using included configuration storage.
* Optional RSS feeds and playlists can be used to automatically load content into your Roku channel.
* Support for Brightcove, Viddler, Vimeo, and Vzaar video playlists.
* Selected Roku channel areas can be password-protected.
* Create slideshows from image directories.
* Priority email support.

Commercial Channel @ $49.95/month

* Includes all Free Channel and Unlimited Channel features.
* Paid subscription Roku channels using In-Channel Purchasing, In-Channel Upgrades, and Registration & Linking.
* Built-in ad server for automatic preroll, midroll and postroll video advertisements.
* Support for Roku Advertising Framework (RAF), Vidillion, LiveRail, YuMe, and other VAST-compatible ad providers.
* Support for Nielsen Digital Ad Ratings (DAR).
* Fully brandable “white-label” Roku channel design.
* Priority telephone support.

So basically you can have a free channel if you have a ‘starter’ set of only 10 videos, and stream from some “public server”. For $5 / month you can have an unlimited number of videos using Amazon Web Services cloud servers (with their own charges) or 100 using their services. Private password protected channels are available, and you can do slideshows of directories.

At $50 / month you get to start charging for “subscriptions” to your channel and / or running advertising.

Clearly the intent is to let folks get started with a “the first one is always free” option, then work up to a commercial product if it takes off. Minor cost for special purpose channels with a non-commercial use, but active followers.

All very approachable.

They have an “about” page with a nice graphic of how it works at the server level:

http://www.instanttvchannel.com/roku/about

InstantTVchannel.com structure

InstantTVchannel.com structure

Direct Through Roku

Roku calls their channel creators “developers” so you get to figure that out…

https://developer.roku.com/index

Join the Roku Publishing Platform

Build channels and monetize your content to millions of customers around the world

That has three buttons for exploring. “Direct Publisher”, “Guides”, and “Documentation”. Price not so much… One, the middle one, leads to “guides”. Each of these a link in the original:

HomeDeveloper SDKGuides & Tutorials

Developer Guides and Tutorials

Learn the details for building great Roku channels
Overview

We’ve pulled together standalone guides that show the core concepts for building Roku channels. Follow any of these guides to add core features to your channels.

Roku Ad Framework – The Roku Ad Framework (RAF) integrates advanced video ad functionality directly into the Roku Channels, and enables developers and publishers to monetize their audience.

Billing – Walk-through on setting up an in-channel product and how to purchase from within a sample Roku channel. For developers new to billing, make sure to review the sections on payments and purchases.

Roku Web Services – The Roku Web Services API enables publishers to verify purchases, issue refunds, cancel subscriptions, and more. Learn the basics of interacting with our cloud backend.

Remote Control APIs – To launch content from Roku Search or build custom remote interfaces, ECP (external control protocol) enables control of Roku devices over a local area network through a collection of commands.

Screensavers – Screensavers are basic channels designed to be customizable display screens that can be played in the background of channels and from the Roku homescreen.

Deep Linking – Launching channels and media content through Display ads, Roku search results, and Roku My Feed. The following guide details how to integrate deep linking in your Roku channel.

Authentication and Linking – Understanding a standard “rendezvous” pattern for account creation, this guide walks through registering and linking a device to an existing backend API service using a registration code.

Channel Packaging – Channels consist of source code, images, and fonts that are “packaged” to protect developer’s intellectual property on Roku devices. Learn about encrypted packages and how they are securely distributed on the Roku Platform.

Debugging – Testing Roku Channels involves using a telnet console access to a variety of ports. The debug console provides a window into the runtime environment and provides features such as crash logs, stack-traces and much more.

Private channels – Private channels are useful for testing and staging your channels before submitting to begin the Roku Channel Store certification process.

Performance – To ensure that your content can reach the entire Roku audience watching on the whole range of devices we offer, you should use this guide to help provide a smooth, lag-free experience for users on even the lowest end devices.

Sample channels and Roku SDK examples – We’ve pulled together all samples for building Roku channels in one repo collection. Upload them to your Roku device and test out fully working channels for learning how to develop specific types of apps.

It may simply be that it is all advertizing driven with their direct publish option and no cost to you, but that would imply some kind of ability for them to accept or reject channels (or they would be overrun with really crap SPAM channels in no time flat). Who knows, and I’m not digging into it more just yet.

https://developer.roku.com/publish

Getting Started

Direct Publisher is the best way to publish your content in the Roku Channel Store. The tool quickly builds a branded best-in-class Roku channel that automatically integrates into Universal Search, My Feed, and future content merchandising/recommendation initiatives by Roku. All without writing any code.

Channels built using Direct Publisher are kept up-to-date by Roku, meaning there’s no additional maintenance costs for the publisher. You will benefit from Roku’s years of experience building streaming experiences that users love. The result is increased engagement and higher viewership for your content.

Direct Publisher also offers built in monetization options via the Roku Audience Network advertising platform, or you can integrate your own ads server.

Currently, Direct Publisher only supports ad monetization. SVOD and TVOD are not yet available.

Requirements

To build a channel with Direct Publisher, you’ll need to:

Create a Roku customer account: my.roku.com/signup
Enroll in the Roku Developer Program: developer.roku.com/enrollment/standard
Enroll in the Roku Partner Payouts Program (required for ad monetization): developer.roku.com/developer/billing

Required content and assets:

A content feed
Marketing assets: Channel logo, poster, splash screen
Basic channel information: Name, description, category, etc.

Key benefits

There are several benefits for using the Direct Publisher tool to build a Roku channel, including:

No coding — Direct Publisher is a feed-based channel creation tool. This means there is no coding or programming knowledge required. Anyone with an MRSS or JSON feed can quickly and easily create a channel.
Automatic best-in-class channel — Channels built using Direct Publisher all share the same code base, which is maintained and updated by Roku. New features introduced to the Roku Platform are automatically added to Direct Publisher channels, ensuring your channel stays fully optimized. Publishers can focus on building their brand and creating quality content.
Monetization — Direct Publisher channels can be monetized by serving ads to their viewers. Publishers can choose to use their own ad servers, or they can request to have Roku serve ads for them.
Free content promotion & discovery — Automatic integration into Roku Search, My Feed, and future content merchandising.
Analytics — Our custom analytics dashboard highlights several key performance metrics, such as number of channel installations, hours streamed, etc.
Customizable — You’ll be able to organize and display your content in different categories by using tags and playlists. You can also customize your channel with your brand’s logo, assets, and colors.
Free — There are no fees for using the Roku Direct Publisher.

Resources for getting started

We have several guides to help you get started with Direct Publisher!

What is video hosting? How do I create a content feed? How is this all related?

If you’re brand new to the streaming world, we recommend you read our quick overview on how Roku Channels work.

How long is it going to take me to build a Direct Publisher channel?

Our Channel Tutorial provides a step-by-step walkthrough of how to create a Direct Publisher channel. If you already have everything you need, the process takes little time to complete. Otherwise you can use the sample feed URL and brand assets we provide for the purpose of the tutorial.

How do I create a content feed?

Publishers can configure their own content feeds by following our feed specifications. For professional help creating your feed, contact one of our preferred feed creation partners.

I’m looking to customize my content feed. Where can I find more technical guides?

The Direct Publisher Feed is a JSON feed format for all types of content, including Movies, Series and TV Specials that require detailed metadata. The guide provides detailed information on all supported objects and parameters, as well as examples.
The MRSS Specification has an extensive description of our MRSS support including all properties and examples.

Is there more in-depth information for a particular section of Direct Publisher?

Content Specifications — Overview of support media types, formats, and content categorization
Branding & Design Assets — Includes dimensions for required branding assets and details on color customization
Ad Monetization — Explains the ad options and features available to publishers looking to monetize their channel
Analytics & Metrics — Provides insights to Direct Publisher’s custom analytics dashboard and third-party plugin options

There are likely others

This seems to be a third option, but I’ve not looked into it as much:

http://rokuchannelmaker.com/

It claims to have a YouTube to Roku method

Need an Affordable
Roku Channel?

We can develop and design a simple Video Roku channel according to your specifications.
And we can host it for you at a very affordable price!

Youtube to Roku

Sign me up!

Those last two are ‘radio button’ on the original. The bottom of the top page is a ribbon of giant ‘buttons’ that only quasi work on the browser I’m using to post this (FireFox ESR on a Raspberry Pi) and when I DID get one to pop, it put up a big photo with basically only slightly longer text. (I already new that “live video” would most likely let me ’embed live video on demand’ or whatever the slightly longer text was…) So folks might want to explore it with some other system / browser.

Subscribe to feed

Advertisements

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW and GIStemp Issues, Arts, Tech Bits and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to What Do Folks Think About A Skeptics Channel?

  1. gallopingcamel says:

    The TV industry is experiencing rapid change driven by two main factors:
    1. Cheap content providers (e.g. Netflix @ $9/month).
    2. Ever higher definition TV sets demanding bandwidth that few networks can meet.

    The first trend is causing cable TV companies to lose customers at an accelerating rate. They must reinvent themselves or die.

    In 1978 a single SD (Standard Definition) TV channel required 70 Mb/s to encode it in digital format. If this situation persisted today digital television would be impractical. Thanks to a committee called MPEG (Motion Pictures Experts Group) the encoding efficiency is now two orders of magnitude better. While this made digital SD TV technically simple it was not enough for HD TV which required six times more bandwidth than SD.

    Once again a committee came to the rescue. The ATSC (Advanced Television Standards Committee) made HD TV practical by broadcast and cable:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_standards

    The ATSC standard includes a modulation system known as 256QAM that provides 8 digital bits for every Hertz of bandwidth. Without 256QAM, HD TV would require more bandwidth than could be provided in 2009 when we “went digital”.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrature_amplitude_modulation

    No doubt some of you are already nodding off or asking “so what”? The point is that 4k TV requires four times more bandwidth than HD 1080i.and 16k requires 16 times more bandwidth. This time don’t expect a committee to solve the bandwidth problem. The solution is FTTH (Fiber To The Home),

    Our fearless leader is proposing creating a “Skeptics Channel” that fits well with the way the TV industry is developing. I would be happy to chip in $9.95 per month but forget about that $49.95 per month…….more than the market will bear!

    Currently my broadband service is provided by ATT with 20 Mbps down/ 1 Mbps up, for $48/month. In three months I will be moving to a sleepy village in Mexico which already has 200 Mbps down/ 200 Mbps up, for $37 per month. With my current ATT service it is a major chore to download 4k TV files. A ten fold speed increase will make a huge difference.

  2. E.M.Smith says:

    @G.C.:

    Um, the channel costs $49.95 to the creator of it. The watcher just gets commercials unless the creator has a subscription service fee, which is whatever they pick, but most seem to be in the 99¢ to $9.99 range.

    FWIW, when being upsold toward 4k at BestBuy I pointed out my lack of a suitable input source. The sales guy got a little grin and shared “I wish more of our customers knew that. We have people come back complaining…they expect the TV to look like it does here.”

  3. Rob says:

    A good idea. Although it might have to expand to cover more than just climate scepticism if you are going to create regular content. A politically correct/populist take on issues, similar to many of the themes you run on the site might be the way to go.

    I’d certainly be willing to do what I can to help. I’ve no background in production, just text blogging. But could probably contribute a regular segment to the channel.

  4. LG says:

    @E.M.Smith,
    Perhaps, considerations ought to be given to approaching Anthony Watts on the matter.
    If memory serves, he is in television and there have been some WUWT.TV videos.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=WUwT+TV

  5. llanfar says:

    I saw Announcement and immediately thought of this post…but as Stefan progressed, it became obvious what it really was…

  6. philjourdan says:

    I suppose some would watch it. But with Morano doing videos all over the place, and excellent blogs that are literally “on demand” reading, I do not personally see a need for it. My schedule is erratic to say the least, and I find it better to be able to read when I find a moment rather than have to schedule around a program, even with DVRs

    But someone may see a market for it. Even though the “skeptic” community is as different from itself as it is from the alarmist’s side.

  7. Glenn999 says:

    Been thinking on it…
    Don’t know if I would watch much. Might depend on the quality and the length of programs. Something like a few minutes with some hard hitting facts; good graphics would also help. Perhaps if you build the channel, they (content creators) will come.

  8. pouncer says:

    This is me, being old, but I personally like text salted with very rare data-graphics MUCH more than video.

    The words-per-minute of spoken communication is lower than my reading rate. Images of the messenger, for good or ill, compete with the message. (Which is why a pretty young girl can be hired to. and be effective to, sell absolute crap. C.f. Milana Vayntrub )http://www.tvpredictions.com/answer186022614.htm ) Video often depends on images (think “Cartoons by Josh” ) that don’t depend on data — which is iffy in a dispute on science. Data graphic tools like Powerpoint make the presenter stupid.
    ( https://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0002PP ) and SMART graphics using the tools even in common packages like Excel are more often abused (sometimes accidentally) than fairly and honestly displayed. ( http://peltiertech.com/does-excel-suck/ )

    Diverging wildly for a moment: compare the internal consistency of a typical US comic book superhero story with the continuity of a TV show featuring the same characters, sometimes the same story. In a book, where even a child can compare page 9 to page 3 by simply flipping back, continuity is enforced. In a TV show, storytellers can introduce a scene in the final ten minutes that utterly contradicts the premise established in the middle scenes — but be acceptable to the general audience because it’s impossible to flip back a broadcast and somewhat tedious to re-wind the video and check one’s memories and impressions. Comic books get a bad rap, and the reputation is not wholly undeserved. But TV has spent half-a-century developing a worse reputation, and the skepticism, distrust, and outright denial with which the medium’s offering is now greeted is very well deserved indeed. (On the other hand, as a homeschooling teaching tool for an introduction to close reading and critical analysis of narrative, comparison of comic books to TV adaptations has been invaluable.)

    I recognize a much younger audience is accustomed to video persuasion and there may be a place for TV-like distribution of the Lombergian, luke-warmer, and skeptic sides of the climate debate. Could be interesting. But I wouldn’t want to tie up too much hope or resources in that medium, and I wouldn’t subscribe myself.

  9. E.M.Smith says:

    @Phil:
    One of the differences with internet TV and the Roku in particulr is that it has both live or “by appointment” TV and recorded shows. Recorded shows all act like a DVR with fast forward, rewind, and pause.

    Most, by far, of the channels are recorded, while a few have a live feed (and some of them seem to really be “fresh recorded live”, so start at the beginning when you join and repeat after an hour or so, but are new that day).

    They also are not constrained by network commercial schedules, so lengths range from a few minutes to hours, as the subject warrants.

    In some ways it is more like a video blog than broadcast TV. So I would envision many short segments each explaining one thing, but the occasional overview with a longer connecting things theme. All recorded and on individual viewer schedules.

    @L.G.:

    Brought it up with Anthoney when I was up there a few days ago. His preference is YouTube since “You don’t need a device”. My opinion is that, for now, they are different audiences… (and since when is a tablet or computer not a “device”?)

    We both agreed the work required to do it right exceeded our currently available time as we are both full up on schedules… Heck, I’ve now got his computer on my lab bench to recover the OS and haven’t touched in 2 days due to other commitments. (Pulled off what is believed to be the needed data while I was there, and left that with Anthony. Now it is the lower priority of “make the old OS boot again” while he explores new HW OS and application install.) Then again, a 7 hour round trip drive and getting to bed at 4 AM puts a dent in your energy and focus…

    @Glenn999:

    That’s the general idea. Short bits with good video and graphics that illustrate a point without technical overload. Unfortunately, having near zero artistic skill, video skill, graphics skill, or “production values” (I.e. quality on screen); while being highly prone to technical overload, I’m unlikely to be the right choice to do it (but better as “the idea man” – thus this posting).

    @Serioso:
    You frequently accused me of trying to claim expertice at everything. Please note the above statement of my known limits…

    @Rob:
    Politically correct? Me? Um…

  10. pouncer says:

    I suspect Rob uses the slash between PC and populist to mean “versus” rather than ” and/or part-this and/or part-that”

  11. E.M.Smith says:

    @Pouncer:
    Oh, that parses better…

  12. Lars P. says:

    Interesting idea.
    Here my two cents: I’m with pouncer on this:
    2 April 2017 at 4:55 pm
    This is me, being old, but I personally like text salted with very rare data-graphics MUCH more than video.

    …but I guess I am not the typical audience. Could there be a text based version available too ;)? Like a blog post or something?

    I agree with Rob above that it would be good to cover more then climate skepticism. I think that there are a lot of areas where a bit of healthy skepticism would help.

    But to make the videos there is need of some not to underestimate work…

  13. Larry Ledwick says:

    I would tend to agree with above, most videos are not information dense enough to be worth the time I need to invest in watching them. Often times a video has a catchy title but really does not contain the implied info or only as an after thought. If you did that I would strongly favor videos that are only 5 -12 minutes long. (TED talks would be a good example, the longest of them run about 12 – 18 minutes)
    I generally also prefer concise text with links to charts/graphics etc. I can examine at my leisure.

    For those who are video oriented and not prone to reading articles, it would certainly find a niche
    but I suspect to do it right, you would have to recruit a team of 10-20 people to do good solid video presentations. In that sense a video portal that several other players like Anthony Watts could post presentations to might be the way to distribute the work load across enough people to keep it from becoming an all absorbing life style or so stale due to lack of updates folks quit coming back to see what is new.

    As a video aggregator portal it could serve as a consolidated video channel where folks could find features by many people, like Drudge that could drive visits to those contributors channels, and become a single entry point so folks don’t have to follow a dozen channels.

  14. Gary says:

    Developing enough content is always an issue with such things. I worry that quality would decline rapidly and the variety of things to be skeptical about besides climate will expand to undesirable things such as conspiracy theories.

  15. cdquarles says:

    I’d buy such a thing, at maybe $1.00 per month. Youtube and Netflix are so full of garbage that I leave Netflix to my sister. The handful of shows that I’d like, I bought DVDs for years ago, though lost most of that collection due to moving a couple of times and family crises. I’ve found that I can get by just fine without all of it.

    Oh, I am an old greybeard granddad. I prefer text. Text is a denser medium, too.

  16. Rob says:

    Oops, I thought politically incorrect but typed politically correct!

    I agree with most of the comments above. Text is quicker and generally more detailed than video. The only times I regularly watched lots of video was when I had a long train commute to work. When I was too tired to take in written material I could still watch Ted talks and the like.

    Larry’s suggestion of a portal, perhaps with the odd original video seems like a good way to go.

  17. omanuel says:

    We need a good science skeptic channel to convey “the music of the spheres“:

    1. “The Universe Is In Good Hands” aka “There Is A God.” https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/HIGHER-POWERY.pdf

    2. ” Is the Sun a pulsar?” Peter Toth’s 1977 report on the Sun’s 160 minute pulse http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v270/n5633/abs/270159a0.html

    3. Kotov’s 1996 confirmation: The Sun’s 160 minute pulse is its fourth, regular 40 minute pulse: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02120961

    4. This “music of our central sphere” holds every atom, life and star in the solar system in continuous, harmonic vibration. http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMJJYUL05F_index_0.html

  18. Lars P. says:

    On the other side, if one wants to reach the younger generation, I fear video’s is the only way to do it, not text…

  19. jim2 says:

    I’d be happy to contribute an hour of the “Waiting for More Data” show. It would be pretty boring.

  20. R. de Haan says:

    I am all in. A Skeptical Climate Channel can only exist with the availability of attractive high quality content. No long boring dialogues. No repeating subjects but fast dynamic programming with strong visuals and clear to the point explanations. A news desk with a great news editor to counter the daily climate propaganda and a great back office to coordinate the entire operation. This is very expensive and this means that such an initiative needs the best documentary crews money can buy, the best moderators and last but not least, a killer business plan to justify the budget and a bunch of financiers, sponsors, advertisers, paying viewers to give it the light of day and sufficient time to become a hard brand in the media mix.
    We also would need a very good lawyer specialized in copy rights, media marketing contracting etc. and a very good PR Manager to keep the Government trolls in check.

    I am sure we can all cough up the idea´s, some money and come up with a basic plan (I have some frameworks and even business plans somewhere stashed on a harddisk of commercial tv station startups from RTL that can easily be adjusted but we really need a big sponsor with an iron in the fire.

    A good brainstorm session with the regulars here at this blog would be a good next step but the best way to go is to sit down with people who have media experience like Anthony and John Coleman but also people like Joesph D’Aleo and Joe Bastardi.

    The point I want to make is that this only becomes a success if it takes off as a very professional channel, not a hobby project.

  21. R. de Haan says:

    Sentate hearings, great source of footage, like this one from Don Easterbrook tearing down the entire human induced AGW hoax from A to Z; https://youtu.be/EHFfOOF-6Fs

    This absolutely brilliant testemony was only watched by 32k viewers on youtube.

    It should be watched by the entire US (Global) population.
    Can a skeptic climate channel reach more people….
    More important, can such a channel reach more people, especially non skeptics…?

    Not much use to convince people who are already on the Skeptic side otherwise we would make a show for our own incrowd.

  22. R. de Haan says:

    Here is another one from the Don that only caught 8k views: https://youtu.be/Y20e8KNhs9Q?t=289

  23. p.g.sharrow says:

    If this rumination is on the level, I would suggest it should grow out of Watts Up with That as that is the blog with the broadest reach and interest. Anthony is already there except for the video assets. All the rest that I am familiar with are too narrow in interest and slow in turn over to generate the needed for viewership and advertising to pay the cost of production.
    In this case, Do it right or stay home. If Anthony asks, I’m sure he could draw enough donations or pledges to gauge the viability of interest for developing this thing…pg

  24. p.g.sharrow says:

    Well this peaked my interest enough to READ the post and comments again, this time paid attention.
    I stand by the point that WUWT as the model and Anthony with some kind of connection would be critical to getting this thing off the ground. The requirement of $50 a month to do this thing right is doable. Do it right or stay home! I can see a path to make this work, but a talker personality will be needed, ……………. but maybe not a face.
    While donations / pledges will be critical for the startup, some amount of advertising would be needed for long term success. Someone would have to commit to be the responsible person.
    A real structure created…pg

  25. R. de Haan says:

    A great presentation from Australia: https://youtu.be/d7cdgITRc-s?t=464

  26. p.g.sharrow says:

    I asked my grandson about this as he, as a computer geek, is much more knowledgeable then I in this field. see his comments below;

    Isaac Sharrow (04.04.2017 09:43):
    You sure that’s the right route for this kind of thing? Youtube is generally the go-to for the kind of thing you describe, if I recall there are quite a few channels there already who produce both skepticism videos and weather/science both from different perspectives and with different styles. Specifically Look up “Thunderfoot”, he does a damn good job at it

    Isaac Sharrow (04.04.2017 09:46):
    Thanks to the early Cellphone Boom and the “app fatigue” it produced its quite hard to get people to install new Apps when they like what they have, Roku’s “Channels” are quite literally thinly veiled apps, so using a commonly installed app like Youtube reaches a wider audience and has much less drop-off risk.

    The above opinion is defiantly worth considering.
    I avoid YouTube as I dislike the apparent massive confusion of the place as well as it’s drain on my resources…pg

  27. R. de Haan says:

    1973 Nobel Price Laurate for Physics, Climate Skeptic Professor Ivar Giaever: https://youtu.be/SXxHfb66ZgM

  28. R. de Haan says:

    @P.G.Sharrow,
    I agree, I also have reservations with the use of Youtube, especially since I noticed some entities that publish footage at youtube got their accounts deleted because the moderators acted on the new “Fake News” doctrine currently developing. No or limited control over advertisers and sponsors is a second argument against the use of Youtube. Most Climate Skeptical footage placed at youtube doesn’t score high numbers of viewers.
    I alsoagree with your view that Anthony and WUWT should be the first party to talk with.

  29. E.M.Smith says:

    There is a convergence of TV and computers finally happening.
    I can get some real TV channels on Youtube, and Youtube (in a clunky way) on my TV.

    Youtube is still thought of more as a personal one person computer behaviour, while TV can be that, or can be a shared thing.

    Realize that nothing prevents a ROKU channel and a Youtube channel from being the same channel. Many are.

    My first muse of the ROKU is due to the “real TV” perception of it, where youtube has the aroma of home movies and high school skits. (Both will converge on that, too).

    The thinking with Roku is you can reach people, globally, without computers. Lots of the world has TVs… and do it in a way that Dad or Mom can “put something on the TV” for all to watch (and maybe discuss).

    Basically, there is a flood of Global Warming TV running unopposed and it needs a counter. The thought being to start on a Roku, then grow into Youtube as an “already real” channel… then add folks like Amazon et. al. who for political reasons would reject you as a startup, but would find it harder as established on the competion…

    So I don’t see it as a question of YouTube OR Roku, but a question of when… The real question here being just “yes or no?” As in “would anyone really watch it?”

  30. Larry Ledwick says:

    The other thing to think about is right now youtube is trying to control content by pulling monitization. It is just a matter of time that someone finds a way to break that model, and create monitization that is outside youtubes control.

    For example is there any reason you could not work an independent contract with an advertiser indexed on the views for your video?

    In the movies they do it with product placements, so while you are doing your video sip your beverage of choice showing the label, and work an agreement that for every view your video gets the beverage vendor pays you a tenth of a cent completely off books from youtube. They would not even know the agreement existed. Do your public shots in front of a popular store and show the marquee in the background, same deal.

    No one even needs to know that Chick-fil-A is paying you to product place their store in your video.

  31. Glenn999 says:

    EM or anyone,
    What is preventing one to compete with youtube. Other people make content, you run a server farm?
    What am I missing?

  32. kiraslith says:

    Mr. Haan, you are right, but not for the reasons you think you are. Most of the following information comes from a professional YouTube Optimizer Matthew Patrick, known most for his (once intellectual) theory channel called “Game Theory”. The level of success on YouTube is a hard to breach 4-level split with huge “walls” in between accidentally created by the current algorithm. the 1-15,000 subscriber wall, the 20,000-200,000 bracket, the 275,000-500,000 wall, and the 1,000,000+ “roof” the first 3 being huge gaps where growth is purely word of mouth, the gaps in between being areas where the algorithm will advertise you higher for various reasons and the final tier netting you perpetual advertising from the algorithm.

    The current killer of skeptic channels’ progress is that 3rd bracket due to a number of factors, the largest of which are the stigmatization of conflicting information (“I heard it on the news” still carries more weight than “I heard it from someone who specializes in this topic” in conversation despite the revelation of fake news infesting big media) and the need for information to be “dumbed down” for the sheepish masses, something not easily done if you aren’t already a trusted source to them.

    There is also the need for daily or semi-daily videos to keep your interactions per day high so your channel doesn’t get “ghosted”, the lower the ratio the less often your videos reach your subscribers, the less interactions you get, the lower your ratio, creating a endless spiral that’ll make your channel disappear (this is why you don’t hear about “fred” or “the annoying orange” anymore.)

  33. Larry Ledwick says:

    I think mostly you would need a sugar daddy investor to get it started quickly with sufficient capacity. Some big investors like Rush Limbaugh or Clint Eastwood to foot the initial capital requirements to get sufficient bandwidth and storage to have good user experience would be the major hurdle, and find some network provider who would not throttle your connection out of spite.

  34. E.M.Smith says:

    @larry:

    Product Placement is a good idea…

    I do not agree on the issue of hardware / bandwidth etc. Look at the InstantTVchannel set up. It is designed so one guy in a garage can make his own channel. The remaining “issue” is the content, and that’s where I hit my personal lack of skill wall…

    So I see the minimal size of entry ( MES or Minimum Economic Scale in the Econ Speak of my my training…) to be just a few folks with talent and someone to script out decent video presentations of the skeptic technical content.

    That, in fact, is the thing that got me thinking about this. I looked at some Roku channels that clearly are “one man shops” (and I’ve kept a couple of them in my preferred channel list… one guy in particular does interesting quirky things… he’s a ‘creative’ ;-)

    It doesn’t need a sugar daddy nor massive funds, it needs some motivate folks with talent and production experience.

    @Glenn999:

    Anyone can give it a go (and I think there are some YouTube Wannabes already). The problem is getting “mind share” enough to drive traffic. To the extent that YouTube gets pissy, they provide that mind share… I suspect Peer-to-peer video will be the future for non pc providers…

    Central Authority demands control. PC demands control. LOTS of players do NOT want others to have control… and then a P2P alternative pops up.

    But, yeah, IF you can get content and mind share and some search engine hits, you can compete…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimeo

    Vimeo (/ˈvɪmioʊ/) is a video-sharing website in which users can upload, share and view videos. It was the first video sharing site to support high-definition video (started in October 2007). Vimeo was founded in November 2004 by Jake Lodwick and Zach Klein.

    @Kiraslith:

    A much more effective and detailed explanation of what I intuitively was trying to say.

    On “Roku” you are not competing with millions of videos and corporate algos. You are in the thousands range (and even less in your ‘category’) and it’s easy to let the ‘skeptic community’ know about your channel.. then have it spread to others. Basically much lower barriers to successful entry as you are dealing with a carrier who encourages more channels and success… where Google wants to kill you off.

  35. Larry Ledwick says:

    EM I think you and I are talking about different things above.
    When I was talking about funding and band width I was talking about breaking youtubes strangle hold on videos as they and vimo are the only two games in town as far as I know, for large scale video hosting. To create a new non-PC skeptic / conservative view point friendly video hosting service which allowed alternate view points to monitize their content would involve a (several) server farms and the disk capacity/data pipe to host and data stream peta bites of videos submitted by others and the ability to simultaneously feed thousands of video streams to the Internet.

    I agree a small channel that used a few contributors could easily function with a handful of talented motivated people, but they still could not leverage the commercial funding accomplished by monitization of videos with commercial sponsors and unless they did not care about the funding stream from their videos (ie pro-bono) or had an alternate method of funding it would be a struggle to do the channel and still work normal jobs for day to day expenses.

  36. E.M.Smith says:

    Oh, you are right. I was too focused on my own hot button…

    A major videocaster service would take bucks and servers and organizing. I’m talking just one video channel…

  37. E.M.Smith says:

    https://en.softonic.com/s/top-10-free-p2p-video-file-sharing-programs

    Lists 10 p2p video shareing pgms.

    Then there was the Bitchute posting I did and this link picks 7 of the bittorrent sort

    https://www.codefear.com/software/7-best-free-peer-to-peer-p2p-sharing-software/

    Google can hold on to the major commercial flow, but anything they try to quash will flow to alternatives. Tech folks first, but others follow…

    Roku and similar are going to take the very non-tech. Heck, I already watch it more than youtube even for channels on both like news broadcasters.

  38. R. de Haan says:

    Youtube made it to ZH, demonization youtube fast underway, dissidents will be silenced: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-05/demonetization-youtube-fast-underway-dissidents-will-be-silenced

    In the past it was the Government that controlled the broadcasting frequencies and quarelled with “pirates” who dumped an old ship outside the territirial waters and started broadcasting.
    This quarrel was about the alledged illifal use of frequencies.

    Today it is content.

    All the reason to be fully in control your of your channel(s) and not be dependent of Google & Co. whatsoever.

  39. R. de Haan says:

    @Kirashlith, Thanks for your response.
    I think you have hit the nail on the head.

Comments are closed.