Youtube Hates Creators thread
- Thread starter Aldarion
- Start date
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Youtube has been trying to move towards become a more standard streaming platform like Netflix for years; with thing like Youtube Red/Premium, and giving preferential treatment to mainstream media corporations. From interviews with Youtube management, it's been rather obvious that they see independent creators as an obstacle to that goal, rather than the core appeal of their platform.
Argent
Well-known member
A lot of it comes from the money. It takes a huge amount of veiws for ads to bring in any amount of money. Which means that YouTube favors larger companies or even smaller studios made up of individual content creators.
Especially snice the wild west days of internet targeted ads is gone. A lot of companies have shifted focus so there is still money to be made it is a lot less then before. Instead the way to make money is sponsorships, being a brand ambassdor, or getting subscribers to directly donate.
So YouTube has adjusted from 2010 when they had larger payouts for ads. They require more subscriber to even start getting money.
Not to mention that the algorithm makes things difficult. It primarily targets videos of certain length. It also requires a lot of new content and a gap can tank your ratings.
You have also seen a raise in cooyright complaints as large companies move to protect their IP. The amount of vidoes and cost of humans means it is done by computers and generally favors the larger companies like Disney becasue they have the lawyers. You also have see a YouTube trying to prune more poltical outspoken channels to keep larger companies to keep buying ads.
All this has made it harder to be a YouTube content creator.
Especially snice the wild west days of internet targeted ads is gone. A lot of companies have shifted focus so there is still money to be made it is a lot less then before. Instead the way to make money is sponsorships, being a brand ambassdor, or getting subscribers to directly donate.
So YouTube has adjusted from 2010 when they had larger payouts for ads. They require more subscriber to even start getting money.
Not to mention that the algorithm makes things difficult. It primarily targets videos of certain length. It also requires a lot of new content and a gap can tank your ratings.
You have also seen a raise in cooyright complaints as large companies move to protect their IP. The amount of vidoes and cost of humans means it is done by computers and generally favors the larger companies like Disney becasue they have the lawyers. You also have see a YouTube trying to prune more poltical outspoken channels to keep larger companies to keep buying ads.
All this has made it harder to be a YouTube content creator.
Argent
Well-known member
The argument that small creators are YouTube money makers has always felt weak to me.
If you look at the numbers it is things like music videos that are one of the biggest draws. A new Katy Perry video will bring in more veiws and money then most creator's enitre library.
While a critical mass of small creators could draw in large crowds it is always speculation on if they are able draw in massive amounts of money.
The most successful ones I have seen are ones that form small studios and get corporate sponsors by direct ads or product placement. Even then they are mostly replaceable.
The small time content creator is just like small time actors. They are a dime a dozen. You just have to make sure they get paid enough to do a couple of years worth of work and just pick a new to hawk what ever becasue influencer are that easy to replace.
So while I think that small content creators help fill out of the playlists like Amazon Prime's mass buys of bad independent flims it is the Katy Perry and stuff like the Boys that brings in the clicks and money.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
It's a matter of prestige; the people in charge don't like the idea that the proles are given a voice on their platform. They feel that associating with them drags down their reputation as members of the elite class.
Quantity is a quality all on it's own; and you can't run a streaming platform with just Katy Perry music videos and clips from The Boys on it. Moreover, the small time creators are what differentiates Youtube from its competitors; without them, they have nothing to offer that people can't get somewhere else.
Argent
Well-known member
Small time creators have flooded everything online with new ones showing up everyday. They do not make YouTube different from any other site like Tick Tok. That is one of the reasons that YouTube can do what they do. They pay just enough to hook people for a while. Then pay the fewer big names enough to keep going.
As for quantity having a quality of its own that is true to a certain point. Yes, they need some smaller creators but most of the people thay fall prey to YouTube polices can be written off. They can generally get by with the larger names and company provided content.
The big thing is having to much content can be just as bad as not having enough. The average costumer get annoyed very quickly and does not care for looking though a massive library. They instead want to just find a show they have heard or seen ads for.
That is the reason Prime and other services have muiliple ways to narrow your search for content. It is why word of mouth can be so important for Youtube or Tick Tok creators. They need to spread word to get people searching for their content because most people won't ever find it in the thousands of vidoes put daily.
So YouTube favors the Big Hollywood names, Large Companies, smaller studios, big YouTube names, then everyone else. If samller YouTube content was the life blood like you see branded about then they would change their policies.
I have seen simlar vidoes going on a decade now about how YouTube doesn't treat their small creators well and it wi kill the site. But the truth seems to be that YouTube can focus on the big names and companies while being generally hands off with middle sized names and not caring about small time names.
Sergeant Foley
Well-known member
My cousin @49ersfootball got ticked off when YouTube got rid of the video creators section including picture montages in creating videos.
He had to create videos on Canva.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
A view is a view on Youtube; whether the person posting the video is an individual or a corporation, both have the same ads running on them. As long a people watch something, Youtube makes money; and people don't go to Youtube to watch shows (unless they're pirated; which is its own can of worms). They go to Youtube to watch stuff like this:
You'll note that both of those videos has over one million views. Is that as much as what one of Katie Perry's music videos get? No; but people still watched them, and that's the only thing that matters. Except it apparently doesn't matter to Youtube, seeing as they're screwing both creators over; almost as if profit isn't the deciding factor for them.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Without heavy government control and constant intervention, any capitalist system quickly slides towards oligopoly, cartels, and then outright monopoly. What we're seeing is that exact process in action. Almost certainly it's the usual collusion and cartel behavior, the example Katy Perry videos are getting pushed ahead of Lindybeige because the 500M views those vids get give the big studio a lot of clout to throw around and demand that the platform make concessions to their very important videos over those insignificant little guys. This in turn creates a feedback loop towards collusion and oligopoly because now the very important videos are getting an even larger share of the views and thus has more clout to demand more concessions to become even more very important. This process writ large across all types of business is why free markets always promptly turn into monopolies, and can't be kept free unless the government is keeping a tight muzzle on things to prevent barriers to entry and monopolistic practices.
The internet has shown itself particularly vulnerable to forming monopolies in comparison to brick and mortar structures. Firstly because there's the network effect, anything Net 2.0 grows exponentially more useful as more people join since most content is now created by users. F'rex a big forum grabs more new users because it has more posts on more subjects to draw attention while small forums struggle and run out of people, which leads to few posts, which leads to nobody joining, which leads to dying off and leaving only the big forums.
Secondarily because it's a relatively new market and there isn't a solid body of regulation and government controls to prevent the inevitable slide into monopoly unregulated free markets are prone to compared with brick and mortar, and what controls we are getting are prone to massive regulatory capture by the big names already.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
SO they are trying to ditch a opular model that is somewhat profitable so as to emulate unprofitable shit like Netflix.
You got it.