They expect students of a certain caliber. If the applicant exceeds their expectations, the university assumes the student is using this application as a “safety school.”
My kid, got waitlisted at UM, while a classmate with similar but slightly lower GPA and extra-currs got in. Maybe his essay wasn't as convincing or maybe they thought he'd snub them for his first choice. He didn't get into the dream school either but ended up in a great place at a school that likely fits him better anyway (and is cheaper since UM's OOS tuition is insane).
It's still frustrating as both his parents are alumni. Thanks to Covid and test waivers, 2021 seemed like a rougher year than normal to be applying to the higher end of schools.
I think the authors are overlooking that a Disney movie is 1.5 hrs long and has the opportunity to cater to multiple audiences (eg, insert a joke that parents get but flies over the kids’ head), whereas an ad is viewed for a split second. Also, there is certainly specialization in content (BET vs MTV vs Disney Channel etc). The key to advertising is in going broad with the audiences to reach, but specific in the message for each segment.
(I’ve worked for one of the top TV and cinema content companies in the world, and currently working for one of the top DSPs (advertising)).
If you’re including Marvel in the scope of Disney movies, you might need to bump that runtime up to 120 minutes minimum, and all the way up to 150 minutes in many cases.
There was a post a little while back arguing that Avengers isn’t even a kids franchise anyway, so your observation still stands.
More pollen may translate to more fruits/seeds, which may translate to more saplings.
The first step would require a corresponding increase in pollinators, but pollinators (mostly insects) have reportedly been declining for decades.
I’m curious about the “amb a 1 allergen” which has been increasing according to a link in the article. Do we know what role it plays for the ragweed in reproduction, if any? What’s the advantage here?
Correlation is not causation. More co2 and favorable conditions lead to more vegetation. Large ecologies may have dynamic mechanisms that tend toward homeostasis, but the systems are chaotic and fundamentally unpredictable. That climate change produces one result or another is a secondary consequence of complex systems interacting. There is no earth thing "fighting" climate change.
Cohorts cannot be too small (or they are not published), nor too big (or they are not particularly useful for capturing a particular set of behaviors/interests). The algorithm will balance these two constraints which will lead to any individuals coming in and out of particular cohorts. The semantic meaning of a cohort will likely change over time as well. For that, FLoC is proposing adding version IDs
“Why would the cohort membership change frequently? Isn't it based on your browsing habits?” -> cohorts need to be rebalanced over time, so your cohort membership could change.
Also: there's the Manhattan people typically think of, and then the reality that it's a large island with a wide variety of housing. Most folks who aren't from NYC think don't realise that world continues past 110th st (or, let's be honest, past 86th).
Sure, but you’re trading accessibility/entertainment/<something else people value and typically accept as a given for living in Manhattan>. At a certain point, it makes more sense to leave Manhattan to one of the other boroughs, go across the river to New Jersey, or move further up to Westchester/ Long Island. Your money goes further there (housing, groceries).
I previously worked as Product lead for a homegrown CMS for one of the large media companies. We built a solution to address a myriad of content types (images, videos, voice, news articles, games, etc), For content in all major languages. I like this, and happy to chat if you want to get a perspective.
You need to think about it more holistically - not just YouTube, but Google as a whole (think about all the various Google enterprise products, cloud, etc).
YouTube is not the content producer, rather strikes deals with content producers. The reality is there is consolidation in the media world, with a few mega corporations managing most channels. They typically bundle a few channels together for vMVPDs/MVPDs, for leverage - “you want channel X, you must also get channel Y.”
Source: I head a Product organization at a mega media org.
Honest question: why do big organizations do this?
I mean, I get it: you're making people pay for stuff they don't need. You can charge a higher price despite users not actually watching everything they buy. Clearly, this tactic must work at some level, or else they wouldn't do it.
On the other hand, there are users like me who take one look at that and say, "ew", and walk away from TV completely. And it's not like I'm unwilling to pay for content, I just want to get what I want when I want it and not pay for the privilege of wandering through this ridiculous maze of content that no one cares about.
Maybe I'm being naive, but it just seems to me like this is a strategy that's going to kill the cash cow on the long run. Am I wrong?
Subsidizing new content and making it easily discoverable are the primary reasons for bundling. When new content comes to you for free with your existing purchase, the only thing stopping you from trying it out and potentially getting hooked is your willingness to commit time to it. If every piece of content had a price associate with it, people would be much less willing to try new things. This same principle applies at both the individual show level and at the channel level. The people selling you this content want you to consume as much as possible so you don't associate your purchase with a single show and end up canceling HBO once Game of Thrones ends.
You can see how this lack of bundling might impact content by looking at movies which are traditionally more a la carte. Movies are produced under the assumption that they all need to be financially self sufficient. The end result is that most content produced is either blockbusters based off big budget IP (which tries to address discoverability) or low cost and easy to produce content that can potentially be hugely profitable if it hits. The mid-budget TV (traditional TV mainstays like sitcoms would generally fall into this bucket) would likely disappear if everything was purchased a la carte.
It is also worth considering that most of the streaming content providers all do the same bundling as the traditional powers like Viacom. The difference is that the Netflixes of the world don't organize their content into channels. However there are definitely different verticals within these companies. Netflix has one for comedy[1] that is the equivalent of Viacom's Comedy Central, they just don't actively separate this content from the rest of their catalog.
That’s exactly right. I can’t talk numbers, but a consumer is more likely to stick with a channel/app by X% (where X is a significant number) if s/he watches Y shows. Y increases as X increases.
Bundling needs to die. Let the channels sink or swim like every other consumer product. This "logic" is just industry PR that's been accepted and normalized.
I'd imagine they've done the studies and found that they'd lose more money overall. The gain in new customers who only want a specific channel must not outweigh the revenue they'd lose by customers downgrading to less channels.
It's also possible that it would produce the secondary effect of killing channels that are more niche and not quite as profitable (maybe not profitable at all). Maybe there are channels that people would never pay for individually if given the choice, but would watch if given them as part of a package, and the aggregate value of which provides enough additional benefit to justify paying for the package as whole.
This is the business model that sunk the cable TV and opened the market to netflix, hulu etc. The fact that a Silicon Valley company made a fancier app with smarter DVR capabilities will not save this doomed business model.
yeah but in this case they brought on these extra channels and are spinning it as "continuing to innovate". they didn't need to bring these additional channels on. without these channels like for the past year or so, wouldn't the price have remained the same?
Or are you saying that these channel additions were part of an agreement or condition that to continue to offer some of the existing channels they needed to take the additional channels and charge more?
- First aid for infants course: self explanatory.
- "Baby Bargains" book: does a fairly good job at creating a list of important data points to consider when purchasing a class of of baby products (strollers, car seats, etc.). You can then use it to optimize your purchase to your needs (price point and features).
- Babycenter website had a nice weekly email you could sign up for that describes the various milestones you could expect for your child.
