3 ms·

Easy to say you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket, and who would disagree with you? But I think it is not saying very much. E.g. someone loses their job

Easy to say you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket, and who would disagree with you? But I think it is not saying very much. E.g. someone loses their job: "see, I told you it would have been better to work 2-3 jobs. You relied too much on your only job." At some point you spread yourself too thin and it's better to concentrate on an ecosystem with a critical mass that actually cares about your content. Do I feel bad about someone who built up a ghost hunting video empire on YouTube see their castle crumble as advertisering industry pivots on standards? Abstractly, no. But just compare the trending content on YouTube to Vimeo and try to imagine the likelyhood of the majority of your users inconveniencing themselves by introducing a rift in their YouTube subscription consumption flow. It's a stretch.

ehnto 9y ago
There are certainly other baskets, but none have been as nice and profitable, with as large a user base, as YouTube. So to say they should be using other platforms is great in theory, in reality they would just lose their followers. There are other platforms just as technically competent as YouTube. But I don't believe there is a replacement for the community and the brand YouTube has just yet. It also stands to reason that if there were competition, and say half the users used one platform and half the other, that you would get half the viewers on each, the possibility for massive growth on either is smaller as more channels compete over fewer users. Even if you were on both, it would be harder. This is one of those situations where as a creator and a user, it would be nice if one monolithic platform just worked out well for everyone.
- thr0waway1239 9y ago
  Remember when the major studios pulled out of their Netflix streaming contracts at the first possible opportunity? After all, they could have just stayed on Netflix, and it might have been this nice monolithic platform which could have worked well for everyone. At that time, their decision seemed not just stupid, but Netflix certainly tried to milk it by portraying the studios as being very evil. A few years down the line, you now have more choice, Netflix has improved without raising prices, and in general online video streaming has become a significant threat to another entrenched beast - cable TV. People may not diversify their streams of income for a lot of reasons, but if you are a YouTube star, you already have some advantages which are extremely valuable: 1. You have already shown that you can wait for the months/years it takes to get to the point of becoming a star. That is time you could have instead invested (at least a portion of) in other platforms. 2. You are obviously tech savvy - or atleast savvy enough to get someone who is tech savvy to do the work for you 3. You are already in possession of a very valuable commodity - the attention of people who actually like you. Why don't you get people into your email list from your channel? Why don't you give them special incentives to take them out of YouTube (over which you have no control) into your website (where you have so much more control)? >> Even if you were on both, it would be harder. Derisking any business is hard. If anything, YouTube stars, who usually do not have additional constraints such as employee payroll, unsold inventory, a board to answer to, stock prices to take care of etc. should be able to add this derisking if they actually want a business. Otherwise it is just a hobby. Then why complain?
  - sangnoir 9y ago
    > A few years down the line, you now have more choice, Netflix has improved without raising prices, Netflix has raised prices[1]. They raised it from $8.99 to $9.99 (+11%) - they even scrapped the previously grandfathered $7.99 subscription from early adopters. 1. http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/19/technology/netflix-prices/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/19/technology/netflix-prices/
Kluny 9y ago
> E.g. someone loses their job: "see, I told you it would have been better to work 2-3 jobs. You relied too much on your only job." It is a bad idea to rely too much on your job. You should have investments and multiple streams of income as soon as possible if you want anything resembling security.

ehnto 9y ago

There are certainly other baskets, but none have been as nice and profitable, with as large a user base, as YouTube. So to say they should be using other platforms is great in theory, in reality they would just lose their followers. There are other platforms just as technically competent as YouTube. But I don't believe there is a replacement for the community and the brand YouTube has just yet. It also stands to reason that if there were competition, and say half the users used one platform and half the other, that you would get half the viewers on each, the possibility for massive growth on either is smaller as more channels compete over fewer users. Even if you were on both, it would be harder. This is one of those situations where as a creator and a user, it would be nice if one monolithic platform just worked out well for everyone.

thr0waway1239 9y ago
Remember when the major studios pulled out of their Netflix streaming contracts at the first possible opportunity? After all, they could have just stayed on Netflix, and it might have been this nice monolithic platform which could have worked well for everyone. At that time, their decision seemed not just stupid, but Netflix certainly tried to milk it by portraying the studios as being very evil. A few years down the line, you now have more choice, Netflix has improved without raising prices, and in general online video streaming has become a significant threat to another entrenched beast - cable TV. People may not diversify their streams of income for a lot of reasons, but if you are a YouTube star, you already have some advantages which are extremely valuable: 1. You have already shown that you can wait for the months/years it takes to get to the point of becoming a star. That is time you could have instead invested (at least a portion of) in other platforms. 2. You are obviously tech savvy - or atleast savvy enough to get someone who is tech savvy to do the work for you 3. You are already in possession of a very valuable commodity - the attention of people who actually like you. Why don't you get people into your email list from your channel? Why don't you give them special incentives to take them out of YouTube (over which you have no control) into your website (where you have so much more control)? >> Even if you were on both, it would be harder. Derisking any business is hard. If anything, YouTube stars, who usually do not have additional constraints such as employee payroll, unsold inventory, a board to answer to, stock prices to take care of etc. should be able to add this derisking if they actually want a business. Otherwise it is just a hobby. Then why complain?
- sangnoir 9y ago
  > A few years down the line, you now have more choice, Netflix has improved without raising prices, Netflix has raised prices[1]. They raised it from $8.99 to $9.99 (+11%) - they even scrapped the previously grandfathered $7.99 subscription from early adopters. 1. http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/19/technology/netflix-prices/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/19/technology/netflix-prices/

Kluny 9y ago

> E.g. someone loses their job: "see, I told you it would have been better to work 2-3 jobs. You relied too much on your only job." It is a bad idea to rely too much on your job. You should have investments and multiple streams of income as soon as possible if you want anything resembling security.