4 ms·
>But the market should have naturally handled it. But youtube is the market. YouTube is a private enterprise that's declining to continue their business relat
by notatoad 9y ago
>But the market should have naturally handled it.
But youtube is the market. YouTube is a private enterprise that's declining to continue their business relationship with him. That's market forces in action.
- jnordwick 9y agoThere are many markets. And YouTube is part of a larger market that you ate talking about. However, I think he is talking about the market that makes up the viewers of YT content which I think is a might be a better market to look at since it is closer to the infraction. However, I think YT is well within reason to axe the guy. They are similar to a channel getting rid of a talk show host in this instance.
- jsemrau 9y agoAdding to this, his show is similar to the MTV format "Jackass" modeled around shock value. So I believe the market would have actually encouraged and rewarded such behavior.
- philipov 9y agoSounds like you don't agree on who participates in a market. It's not the audience. An easy rule of thumb: the demand side of a market is the side that pays the money.
- ucaetano 9y ago> An easy rule of thumb: the demand side of a market is the side that pays the money. Not necessarily, especially when you're talking about multi-sided markets, like YT. There are 3 demand components: - Ads - Content - Cash And 4 participants: - YT - Creators - Advertisers - Audience Ads flow from Advertisers to Audience, content from Creators to Audience, Cash from Audience to Advertisers, and Cash from Advertisers to YT and Creators.
- jsemrau 9y agoCorrect. Without intention to politicize this, that is the main reason why @realDonaldTrup still exists. Eyeballs, Traffic, Usage. All lead to ad revenue for Twitter and Google/Youtube in the first example.