General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYouTube Will Completely Remove Videos Of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal
Told ya.Source: http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/21/an-offer-creators-cant-refuse/#.ycdx4m:qMYa
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)this is why The Late Show with Stephen Colbert stopped posting clips to their YouTube channel 5 days ago. They are probably either still thinking about it or decided not to sign.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMtFAi84ehTSYSE9XoHefig/videos
corkhead
(6,119 posts)Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)tblue37
(65,492 posts)Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)I just read their about page:
.we think traditional advertising is often invasive and lazy, and our goal is to come up with better ways of keeping on the lights."
https://vid.me/about
Orrex
(63,233 posts)If YouTube is the means by which these "content creators" earn money, why shouldn't YouTube receive a percentage of that revenue? The "content creators" are profiting in part because of YouTube's service and resources, after all.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Orrex
(63,233 posts)YouTube is providing the venue by which these "content providers" are making money from ad revenue. Was YouTube getting a piece of that revenue, or only from the ads that YouTube itself was hosting directly?
I'm the admin/owner of another discussion forum, the host of which runs a whole bunch of different ads. The agreement specifically forbids me to run ads to generate revenue for myself. Is that different from what YouTube is doing?
YouTube is the host venue. If they were running a comic book convention, a vendor couldn't simply set up shop and make money there without paying a site fee, and the fee is much smaller than it would cost the vendor to host a venue on his/her own. How does that differ from the service that YouTube provides?
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)to promote some product/brand in videos?
If so, I see what you're saying and I don't think Google/YouTube was getting a cut of that. (Partners ARE paying a "site fee" in the ad revenue.)
This is about making their premium service viable. If the top content creators aren't on YouTube Red, then users won't sign up for it.
And the end of the day, Google may have every right to demand they participate, but a lot of those content creators may just decide to go elsewhere. Same goes for users.
Orrex
(63,233 posts)I can name maybe a dozen vid hosters off the top of my head, but all of them together don't have 1/100th the power or reach of YouTube.
It seems likely that the Google/YouTube monster would simply devour any serious competitor, in the grand tradition of capitalism. I don't know how another host could even establish a net presence unless it piggybacks off of an existing giant.
As always, the big money holds the best 51 cards and lets us all play with the rest.
artislife
(9,497 posts)and then Big Money buys it up and thinks of ways to make even bigger money..
The ruin a lot, but the public has ideas and they will keep creating new things.