No, YouTube Isn't Exploiting Vloggers
from the get-what-you-pay-for dept
An article in BusinessWeek goes over how hard it is for people to make money using YouTube and other video-sharing sites. It's got a weird tone, as if it's some great tragedy that vloggers have a hard time earning a living from making web videos, and even carries a whiff of the implication that YouTube and its ilk are exploiting these hard-working digerati. The piece goes through some of the revenue-sharing plans from YouTube, Revver and other sites, and says that many vloggers and video producers would rather run everything through their own site so they can grab all the revenues. But this exploitation angle largely ignores the benefits that using a video-sharing site brings. It notes the aggregation aspect, as well as their ability to get large ad deals, but it ignores the most obvious benefit: they pay the bandwidth bill. By using something like YouTube, producers don't have to pay to host and serve their videos, while the various platforms also allow videos to be more easily shared and embedded in web pages, something that helps them become more popular. While the biggest video producers might be able to make more money by trying to hang on to their own traffic, directly selling their own ads and paying for their own bandwidth, it's rather unlikely that most of them will be able to thrive on their own. Furthermore, perhaps they're missing the point by focusing so much on ads, rather than by viewing their videos as promotional materials (with the ability to generate some ad revenues on the side) for other paid products or services.
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
hate to tell you.. but it appears that a good deal of the videos on youtube, aren't from people who are selling something via the videos. it appears that people are making videos, and maybe hoping to get something from ad revs around the videos.
in this case, the owner wouldn't have the ability to freely show the videos in order to promote something else!!!
so, once again.. you say give the content for free.. and i say, in exchange for what??? what's the service they're supposed to then sell!
i know... you're going to say that's not your issue, the guy with the video should just change his "business"!!
yeah.. ok!
peace
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This Issue Is Not Going Away
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boo Freakin Hoo
Its a free world, put it on your own site if you want, but the bandwidth might get you.
---
YouTube will share profits, good, it has to as other video sites do so, but nobody is exploiting anybody - its a relationship of choice, hate YouTube, keeps your clips off it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is this a surprise? YouTube can make a little off of each video (via advertising) and make quite a bit of money. The individual content owners make a little bit off of their small library of content, which brings in very little.
Its really not that hard to understand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The choice to use YouTube is voluntary.
In your "business" giving away the content = building a viewer base, which can lead to having something to offer advertisers so you can go independent. But be prepared to have to constantly increase, improve, and adapt your content to keep viewers interested or goodbye ad money.
Having a "business" or creating content does not entitle you to make a buck. If there is no market for your "business" or like most entrepreneurs you don't get to define your market and your "business" plan doesn't account for this then you get nada.
No one is saying all content should be free. However, if someone else is giving away similar content to that which you are trying to charge for and ties it in to another service which is their real money maker, then why would you think anyone is going pay you to give them less?
The ultimate point that keeps being missed about so many of the criticisms made by the Techdirt bloggers is that just because you want to make money for doing something a certain way does not mean anyone has to pay you for it. And no amount of lawsuits or copyright entitlements (aka alienation your market by abusing them) makes that any less true in a free market. There are other options for the consumer, and that is solely the problem of the business or individual whom fails to see it as such.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There are plenty of people that have hit upon a million (sometimes billion) dollar jackpot, and plenty more that haven't. That's no reason for me to get mad at youtube 'cause I haven't made my million yet. That's just stupid. Maybe one day I 'll get big enough where I can actually complain about my content being on youtube. Until then I'm happy someone else is willing to eat that bandwidth bill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Model Already in Place
CONTENT IS KING! EVEN MORE SO IN TODAYS WEB ENVIRONMENT.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bandwidth...
[ link to this | view in thread ]