But Of Course YouTube Will Say It Wants To Share Revenue
from the but-let's-wait-for-the-details dept
Last month, there was some pointless wondering whether or not YouTube was somehow exploiting its users like sharecroppers by using their content for free, which they were then able to turn into $1.65 billion in funny money from Google. Of course, this whole "exploitation" argument didn't make much sense. After all, the reason YouTube was so successful wasn't that it was exploiting people, but that it gave video uploaders what they wanted. In other words, while they might not have received monetary compensation for their videos, they got (1) free hosting (video hosting can be expensive!) (2) a system that makes it easier for others to see their videos and (3) a big audience. It seems like a fair trade (if anything, YouTube may have ended up with the short-end of the stick on bandwidth costs). After all, if users were really feeling exploited, there were a ton of other video sharing sites out there, including Revver, who claimed it would give money to popular videos. Instead, though, Revver is apparently hovering around the deadpool while YouTube keeps growing. However, an even more important point is that, should there ever really be demand for monetary compensation, it wouldn't be that difficult for YouTube to add it. In fact, many are buzzing over comments late last week suggesting that YouTube was planning just such a system. It's not clear why this is exciting. It seems like a pretty obvious offering for YouTube to play around with (especially considering all the ridiculous "sharecropping" talk), but until the details are known, it's nothing more than idle talk from a company that's probably just helping to speed up the death of a few of its competitors.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
to be honest
instead youtube should try to keep the ad count low, as to just include their costs and a lil profit....
too many ads is going to be a disaster
if they offer premium content like "24" "lost" then they can include as many ads as the television....... but for the raw talent.... just give them fame and a place to get discovered..... these ppl are not here to make 300$ a month........ they are here to be discovered by some hot shot movie producer or get a music contract or something
+ revenue sharing would mean
LOADS of crappy video
LOADS of fake views
fake ratings
etc etc.... it will just kill the whole thing
if some famous faces ontube want to make money..... they can sell merchandised and dvds or something..... i am sure the rich ones ll buy
but thats the way it should be in my opinion......
as on 29 january 2007
P.S. i am satarting my own tube...... smell ya later suckers ;d
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone talks about how user generated content will put pressure on the networks. I believe the ability to track and provide micropayments to the micro content producers is the first step for this to become reality.
As for the "will make more ads, will have more crappy video" argument.....when was the last time you went to Youtube? They have a lot of crappy videos and tonnes of ads already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well.......... if you think it is going to be a 3 second "video" ad then my frined thnk again......
"with revenue sharing" i dont think it will be anything less than a minute of ads per 10 minute video
and thats at least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
teen girls getting rich...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course there are all kinds of legal perspectives on this, and I can only imagine the amount of storage that could take if people start uploading high-def video.
And i doubt teenage underwear dancer girls would get rich because while lots of guys like to watch it, if you are going to pay, you can do better at many xxx sites. (though police might be interested in seeing who really likes downloading lots of young scantialy clad girls dancing)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have tried to use Revver....
Youtube...since it isn't paying me anything can actually host my videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're not going to see more ads, goofballs. It's based on a view system. You don't have to put ads in your video, you don't have to say anything to promote an advertiser. The deal is if your video gets popular, you get a small cut from getting the people to the website. Simple as that. No new ads, no in-video ads, it's just a system that is going to be slipped right behind everything they have built already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Improvements to YT business model.
(1) Tin-Pot Little African Country
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
newest jordan shoes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]