Why does Kirsner think that amateur producers of video on You Tube will give way to the professional big media players?

There are a number of reasons used by Kirsner to support his views that connoisseurish producers testament given way to passe-partout big media players. Firstly, it is due to their lack in value-added content.Undoubtedly, viewers were curious and attracted to the humorous video clips initially entirely such a market has become in like manner saturated and boring as more and more amateur producers try to follow suit.As such, viewers would switch back to familiar professional productions which are not a waste of time in keep abreasting. He felt that people nowadays are more selective as they have more choices and would call for to choose the better ones.This is especially so when these big media players are entering the internet market to bring up the production quality to re-attract the viewers. Kirsner further cited examples where numerous of the previously popular amateur producers were still ranked high on the web completely because they had merged forces with the profess ional big media players.Another reason is that Kirsner believe that amateur producers do not have the large revenue to spend on marketing, unlike the big media players. They could only rely on word of mouth or simply hope that their movie clip was discovered by viewers. Thus, it would only be a matter of time before they become forgotten.Finally, Kirsner mentioned that even if the amateur producers were able to attract a large group of viewers, most of them were usually unable to come up with interesting content to sustain the viewers interest.Therefore, Kirsner believed that it would only be a matter of time before such amateur producers of video on You Tube give way to the professional big media players.2. Do you think most informed Americans would find Kirsners predictions about the big media corporations dominating 80% of viewers compared to 20% for amateur videos is accurate?In my opinion, I do not think that most Americans would find Kirsners predictions about the big media co rporations dominating 80% of viewers compared to 20% for amateur videos is accurate.No doubt, at that place will be a shift in the viewers taste but the shift will not be so great as there would still be unforeseen circumstances when the professional producers were not at hand to film the interesting content such as an earthquake, a tsunami or a hurricane.Many of such video clips were taken by amateur producers and posted on the internet for viewers as they happened to be at the scene and were arm with a video camera.3. his prediction of 60/40?I believe that his 60/40 prediction is likely to be more accurate. As mentioned in his article, the latest professionally produced had nearly attracted 900, 000 viewers daily but that definitely would not account for the majority of the population.It is likely that the big media players had re-attracted the older viewers but not the younger generations. This is especially so when young people usually do not have the patience to watch long ser ial. They would rather watch the short humorous video clips by amateur producers. In fact, many of my peers today still discuss and share the amateur productions that they have watched.There are also many comments and discussions still posted on the internet about the video clips. It could be a sort of peer pressure for them to continue watching as they might feel out of place if they had not watched such clips.Kirsner had also mentioned in his article that there had already been evidence of amateur producers developing go on series (Kirsner Scott, 2006), thus the number of viewers is unlikely to drop too low.BibliographyKirsner, Scott. 2006. As online viewing booms, the amateurs give way to big media. http//mecury news.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/16154786.htm