They should have closed this comments section after this comment because you nailed it
Etc.
8 Likes
but these are pretty tight productions with a heavy amount of subscribers who are a loyal fanbase who probably proselytize across the internet organically…I guess I don’t understand why they would live or die by floating to the top of a relevancy algorithms.
I felt like the article focused on people who are basically social media “personalities” and would think that for every personality that strikes gold in the algorithm, 10 are left behind that could’ve been just as succesful, but for some tweak.
It also seems strange that the only vehicle for online media is an ad based one. With mature productions like these, it seems like they could jump to a platform where they invest in distribution…
Even the biggish channels are having problems, and platform shifting would almost certainly decimate their viewership.
7 Likes
So I haven’t watched these yet, but it all raises the question for me: Was it every a sustainable model in the first place? Is youtube’s crime pulling the rug out now, or was it teasing them with success in the first place.
They’re not terribly exciting unless you’re interested in the minutia.
Youtube is doing just fine, AFAIAA. It’s the creators who are getting screwed, the company is fine. The problem isn’t financial so much as “sociopathic management”.
5 Likes
But the agreement was never a management role. Yes, Youtube is exploiting amd making a lot of money off these folks, but they were never promised promotion, the way even predatory music producer promises a young pop star promotion. If the algorithm helped pump these channels to the top, what guarantee is there that it would continue to do so forever? Isn’t there actually something almost democratozong about big channels being left off of recommendation lists, and letting new blood filter through. especially if with a good batch of subscribers, they have the strength to stand on their own? The algorithm is a social network. If you get famous on twitter, you have to parlay that into something, Twitter itself won’t pay you a salary… it doesn’t make youtube fair or transparent, that sucks, but if they asked for no investment, commitment or exclusovity from creators at the outset, can the fickleness come as a surprise?
2 Likes
a cold and heartless corporation that’s always looking for ways to pay you less
That is also Uber and any other company in the “gig economy.” Other corporations are cold and heartless too, but at least you get a salary.
2 Likes
An element in this, not to be forgotten. Is that at least a good amount of those included in this industry is not able to support themselves any other way. Pulling maggots from potatoes, isn’t a living in the Phillipenes. Well it’s practically slavery conditions for that.
We have to remember that at least some of the people this affects have no way to keep housed/fed except for this, barring prostitution or worse.
1 Like
I didn’t even watch the video. But the concept of someone being burned out at 19 because they are trying to keep a captive audience on a social media platform has nothing to do with their mental or emotional issues. This is something they started and are doing to themselves, personal issues aside. They can stop at any time and at 19 begin again. Perhaps You tube caused the problems. In that case even a better reason to let it go. Are you going to disregard the guy who has performed assembly line work for 50 years who is also suffering burnout but can’t start over and can’t walk away? As for your comment regarding politics, GTFOuta here.
1 Like
It seems that everybody forgot the “with millions of followers” in the title. To get so many followers, one needs an unhealthy level of commitment to one’s channel. That rarely correlates with mental stability. Sorry.
Mmmm - I wouldn’t put everyone in the same box. Aside from informational channels, there are many talented people like animators telling stories or comedic anecdotes. I mean for ever Paul Logan (thats the name, right?) there are dozens of “normal” people.
3 Likes
But they are not all dropping out.
So it looks like Youtube is ready to spawn the equivalent of United Artists
4 Likes
And the Rat rights activists have arrived…
3 Likes
Deterrence is far superior pest control strategy.
“The Great War” team is doing exactly the right thing: shifting and diversifying their revenue sources without shifting platforms.
They aren’t depending on YouTube ad revenue, just using it as a video distribution platform. Instead they’re running a Patreon for their followers, they’re selling merch, and they’re arranging direct sponsorships. This allows them to continue producing quality content that probably bubbles to the top of the history-related channels without a lot of clickbait and a minimum of SEO (because, as the fellow says, YouTube likes their educational but not superficially happy-family-friendly-light content).
The other video addresses those who completely depend on YouTube for their revenue by proposing a creators’ guild that can act in solidarity whenever YouTube pulls the rug out. But as I said earlier, YouTube is a powerful, capricious and unreliable source of revenue even before you get to the inherent precarity of the Internet ad-based funding model and the eternal difficulty in basing one’s income on one’s popularity. So while the guild is a worthwhile effort it will take the YouTube “star” who depends entirely on the platform only so far.
2 Likes
No, but many are effected negatively.
Again, the issue they have is partly where “It worked this way, now it works another way. No one really told us how it worked in the first place, and now the change has us baffled. We are doing the same thing with much more inconsistent results. Arbitrary flagging is also killing our revenue.”
Many of the creators who I have seen complain about this recognize the need to appease advertisers, but the algorithm or possibly people flagging can be pretty flawed, as things get demonized with out any real reason. The video wanderlust linked to goes into some detail about his as well as a separate, more sinister issue.
There has to be a balance. There would be a trifle of good content for youtube to sell ads for if there were no content creators. I listen a mix of youtubers - most of them information based, but some more for entertainment, like odds1out or Redletter Media. These and others are doing some really good content and if they are bringing eyeballs to youtube, they should be compensated.
2 Likes
It is quite simple really. If you want google to pay you, you need to bring them people who will buy things and these things need to be more expensive to get google richer. In a nutshell, that is the essence of the contract. You’ll excuse me to lack sympathy for that.
Besides, I hate videos and, if I must watch them as there is no other way to get the info I need, I usually speed them up.
Content financed by advertisement is made to please the buyers of advertisement, not me, not the content producers. And with big data and google knowing the effect of content on sales with frightening accuracy, that effect is magnified. That is the contract youtube “content producers” chose. That is a choice I despise. As far as I care youtube could just disappear overnight and the Internet would probably be a better place.
Part of me likes your “Kill 'em all and let God sort them out.” stance. I bet it would work will with large cities, or even whole countries! Mwhahahaahaa!
