4 ms·
It looks like the creators weren’t interested: > We didn’t care about cheap or fast, we cared about it being good. [...] > If we sold the channel to another c
by scribu 9y ago
It looks like the creators weren’t interested:
> We didn’t care about cheap or fast, we cared about it being good. [...]
> If we sold the channel to another company, or partnered with some network, then we would no longer control the triangle. And guess which of these three things would get sacrificed first?
Edit: added exact quote from article
- avar 9y agoThey have over a million subscribers on YouTube. They could just post a video saying "listen, YouTube sucks, sign up for us on Patreon, if we get more than $X at minimum $Y per-person we'll make the next video and send you all a hosted download link". There's podcasts with less reach than this channel that easily make $100K per upload in revenue.
- scribu 9y agoWhy do you assume that monetisation was the main problem? This wasn't a startup that needed to return 10 times the initial investment in 5 years. The impression I got from the postmortem was that they just got tired of the format and wanted to do something else.
- avar 9y agoI have not assumed that, we're commenting on a specific sub-problem they mentioned in their post in this thread, yes they made it abundantly clear that it wasn't the only reason. Between copyright issues on YouTube, getting around that by working with a big partner that would sell their content, and getting donations on Patreon, they never seemed to have considered selling access to high-quality content for a fee without partnering with someone. I listen to several Podcasts that have something like this as a monetization model, i.e. some sort of paid-for premium content or content exclusively for subscribers.