You Tube entires should not be allowed to masquerade as TV series

  • 6
  • Idea
  • Updated 6 months ago
It seems as if there are too many television IMdb credits given to people who appear in "You Tube" videos.  These are You Tube videos not television.  As such there should be a separate designation for "Web series" so as not to confuse them with legitimate television credits.
Photo of Actor07

Actor07

  • 10 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes

Posted 1 year ago

  • 6
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 2339 Posts
  • 2913 Reply Likes
Hello, Actor07

I understand your concerns and separating web and TV would have probably been a good idea... ten or five years ago. Nowadays content on YouTube and numerous other platforms is not only rivaling traditional television, it sometimes gets a bigger audience and gives content as much prominence. Some platforms are so borderline that if IMDb will implement "web series" there will be endless disputes and arguments about TV vs. Web as a status of certain project (that basically is the situation with Netflix, Hulu, Amazon and some of the Adult Swim productions).

I am personally adding a lot of YouTube content on IMDb however I have personal standards on that matter, trying to add productions with either some production values or cultural significance/appeal. The latter might seem speculative and subjective, but really, some YouTube videos or rather short films or episodes began worldwide-known franchises and subgenres while some TV shows got closed on their first season failing to amass half-an-audience of what a talented YouTuber can do with a single video.   
Photo of Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi

  • 6 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
But there is a distinction with a difference. Youtube can deliver a bigger overall audience, but over a span of time. Television has worked off of the premise that if a show did not deliver a certain amount of Instant audience, the show would literally not go on. There should be a Youtube wing separate from Television because Television required instant viewership on a scheduled basis or the show would be terminated.
Photo of Vincent Fournols

Vincent Fournols

  • 2901 Posts
  • 4846 Reply Likes
Alessandro,

My 2 cents: I think the state you are discribing is fading out: TV channels are relying more and more on catch-up viewing, sometimes over several weeks (sorry, I don't know the figures, but I know it for true at least in France).
On the other hand, YouTube programs may be available for a longer/infinite (?) period of time, but the volume of posted production and the quickness of novelty/renewal render the posted programs almost meaningless.
Photo of igor

igor

  • 49 Posts
  • 42 Reply Likes
Malaria also has a bigger audience, eradication is the only answer.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6743 Posts
  • 8391 Reply Likes
(It's actually better that malaria not be eradicated, under the present circumstances.)
Photo of Actor07

Actor07

  • 10 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Thanks for your input and congrats on your projects.  I'm looking forward to seeing some of your YouTube content.
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 2335 Posts
  • 2907 Reply Likes
Thanks! I am very humble on YouTube so far with some web-series and shorts hitting thousands of views, but that's mostly because I concentrate on a feature film which I'm filming since 2007. Most of the money, inspiration, tech and everything else goes towards it and will hopefully make it watchable and interesting.  
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6743 Posts
  • 8391 Reply Likes
It is not proper to single out YouTube, but the gist of your concerns is that published folk art or published home movies should have a more limited presence on IMDb, right? The counterpoint is that are actually a number of YouTube channels, albeit not nearly the majority, that have content worthy of airing on television or even being released as feature movies in common cinemas. The amounts of the budgets and costs vary. The amounts of the participants involved vary. So, the main criterion that IMDb goes by is publication. Awkwardly, the widespread use of the Internet, along with permanence of content (by virtue of publishers who stand the test of time), has vastly augmented the scope of the "publication" horizon.
Photo of Actor07

Actor07

  • 10 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Well said. I agree 100% Alessandro.
Photo of Vincent Fournols

Vincent Fournols

  • 2901 Posts
  • 4846 Reply Likes
I do not quite agree with you: for the final viewer, what matters is the program, regardless of its source: standard TV channel, catch-up TV, YouTube and other on line streaming, DVD, home streaming, etc. And the screen matters less and less. (Standard TV, computer or phone screen, video projection, etc.) The whole architecture is blending.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6743 Posts
  • 8391 Reply Likes
Indeed the blending is significant, enough so to raise a lot of questions.
Photo of Vincent Fournols

Vincent Fournols

  • 2901 Posts
  • 4846 Reply Likes
Just a personal example, which happens to me now and then when going to the country: accessing a pay on-demand programm, or one on my home NAS, from my telephone, and casting it on a wide screen TV...
Photo of Luka1184

Luka1184

  • 6 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I agree with Jeorj Euler, and not with Alessandro. Instead I want to suggest a sub-category. Like, if you have "Television series" there could be a sub-category called "Video" or "Online video".