4 ms·

Worded slightly differently, Funny or Die is incapable of monetizing that product in the current environment, but Facebook is capable of monetizing it. For tha

Worded slightly differently, Funny or Die is incapable of monetizing that product in the current environment, but Facebook is capable of monetizing it. For that specific part of the issue, tough cookies Mr. Funny Man. Somebody got your product for peanuts and is doing way better with it. Now, the other part of the issue would be if something like copyright infringement is happening around how it's being monetized. If so, then it's a real issue. If not, well, we're probably back to tough cookies. They don't own the distribution model, they agreed to it, they have no say otherwise besides to pull their content off and monetize it themselves; or skip the TOS and negotiate a different & specific contract with Facebook directly about how their content is handled (fat chance).

Joeboy 9y ago
> Funny or Die is incapable of monetizing that product in the current environment, but Facebook is capable of monetizing it. For that specific part of the issue, tough cookies Mr. Funny Man. Somebody got your product for peanuts and is doing way better with it. Is it not, in some sense, bad that Facebook is capable of monetizing the product and the people who made it aren't? It seems like you're just arguing that might is right.
- white-flame 9y ago
  Facebook is certainly overpowered and evil with large negative fallout from their behavior. But "They have more resources and cheap licensing of our content, therefore can sell better than us!" isn't an actionable stance of any worth to combat a particular instance. Tons of productive people can't sell well, and are outpaced by inferior products sold by more effective salespeople/marketers/publishers/etc. People are leaving YouTube because it's harder to make money now than it used to be. People will be leaving Facebook as well, the next thing will come along, and the cycle repeats.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  It's bad from FB's side (this is debatable), but that doesn't mean Funny or Die has a viable product. FB makes money off of tons and tons of otherwise non-viable products that are willing to pay FB in the hope that they are viable. If it was viable, it wouldn't need FB. Before the internet, how would they have made money with Funny or Die? They wouldn't. If they would have, they could easily pursue avenues outside of FB, because they still have the internet, and they can still approach publishers and producers - just like before the internet.
  - zaphar 9y ago
    There part you are glossing over is that before FB it was viable. After FB it was no longer viable. Before the internet they would have made money at Mad magazine or similar publications. This isn't an argument about economics though. This is an argument about the kind of society we want to build and live in. The author doesn't want to build a society where Facebook determines what is a viable business model or not. And for the most part Facebook is in fact who determines what is a viable business model. You might want to live in that world but don't mis-characterize the author's position as something it isn't.
    - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
      >There part you are glossing over is that before FB it was viable. After FB it was no longer viable. It was founded in 2007, so I don't know what you're talking about. >Before the internet they would have made money at Mad magazine or similar publications. This is just speculation. >This isn't an argument about economics though. Really? >This is an argument about the kind of society we want to build and live in.The author doesn't want to build a society where Facebook determines what is a viable business model or not. And for the most part Facebook is in fact who determines what is a viable business model. So, it is an argument about economics. But, I was addressing a specific poster, who said: >Is it not, in some sense, bad that Facebook is capable of monetizing the product and the people who made it aren't? It seems like you're just arguing that might is right. So, show me where I mischaracterized the author's position. I don't like FB, and it's sad to me that so many artists sold their agency for eyeballs, but let's not pretend that there aren't other avenues or that the problem is with FB itself. It's a societal problem. Most people are stupid, lazy, and ignorant. Funny or Die is more of a symptom of this than an anecdote.
      - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
        *Obviously, I meant antidote, not anecdote
- lmm 9y ago
  > Is it not, in some sense, bad that Facebook is capable of monetizing the product and the people who made it aren't? The market is not perfect, but usually it does a pretty good job of reflecting where the supply and demand is. The part that Funny or Die do is fun and doesn't require specialised talent. The part that Facebook do requires more skill and is, on the whole, less interesting work. Users vote with their feet for Facebook over the disorganised web because Facebook provides a much better user experience. On the whole, Facebook makes a bigger and harder contribution to the end user's experience than Funny or Die.
  - Fricken 9y ago
    Facebook doesn't make any contribution to the end user experience, it's a middle man. A rent seeker. A gatekeeper. It is one hundred percent dependent on content produced by other people, and that content is distributed by the telecoms. Facebook's entire business model is contingent on it's ability to get between those two things and charge a toll.
    - lmm 9y ago
      As an end user, I disagree. A consistent, clean UI was a big selling point for Facebook right from the start (even back when it was competing with LiveJournal); it's much lower-friction to watch FunnyOrDie-like videos on Facebook than on their website when every website has its own UI and most of them are worse than Facebook's. And a unified recommendation system across all kinds of content is absolutely huge; following a single source like FunnyOrDie and manually guessing which stuff you'll like or won't is much less effective than getting automatic recommendations from thousands of content creators in one place. Facebook adds a lot of value, that's why people use it.
      - Fricken 9y ago
        Maybe you aren't familiar with Hacker News, or Reddit, who both aggregate content and have implemented a recommendation system without putting the content providers out of business.
Gogogogirl 9y ago
Nothing new there, journalists thought for a century people paid for their content, but then they realized people just want to be entertained by whatever means, and the money they paid was for distribution (as the internet made distribution inexpensive, people no longer paid) [1] Creating is easy, selling is hard. Facebook does the selling, FoD does the creating. There are many basic insights people don't get and then get mad. [1] Obvious exceptions good original content like Economist

Joeboy 9y ago

> Funny or Die is incapable of monetizing that product in the current environment, but Facebook is capable of monetizing it. For that specific part of the issue, tough cookies Mr. Funny Man. Somebody got your product for peanuts and is doing way better with it. Is it not, in some sense, bad that Facebook is capable of monetizing the product and the people who made it aren't? It seems like you're just arguing that might is right.

white-flame 9y ago
Facebook is certainly overpowered and evil with large negative fallout from their behavior. But "They have more resources and cheap licensing of our content, therefore can sell better than us!" isn't an actionable stance of any worth to combat a particular instance. Tons of productive people can't sell well, and are outpaced by inferior products sold by more effective salespeople/marketers/publishers/etc. People are leaving YouTube because it's harder to make money now than it used to be. People will be leaving Facebook as well, the next thing will come along, and the cycle repeats.
grasshopperpurp 9y ago
It's bad from FB's side (this is debatable), but that doesn't mean Funny or Die has a viable product. FB makes money off of tons and tons of otherwise non-viable products that are willing to pay FB in the hope that they are viable. If it was viable, it wouldn't need FB. Before the internet, how would they have made money with Funny or Die? They wouldn't. If they would have, they could easily pursue avenues outside of FB, because they still have the internet, and they can still approach publishers and producers - just like before the internet.
- zaphar 9y ago
  There part you are glossing over is that before FB it was viable. After FB it was no longer viable. Before the internet they would have made money at Mad magazine or similar publications. This isn't an argument about economics though. This is an argument about the kind of society we want to build and live in. The author doesn't want to build a society where Facebook determines what is a viable business model or not. And for the most part Facebook is in fact who determines what is a viable business model. You might want to live in that world but don't mis-characterize the author's position as something it isn't.
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    >There part you are glossing over is that before FB it was viable. After FB it was no longer viable. It was founded in 2007, so I don't know what you're talking about. >Before the internet they would have made money at Mad magazine or similar publications. This is just speculation. >This isn't an argument about economics though. Really? >This is an argument about the kind of society we want to build and live in.The author doesn't want to build a society where Facebook determines what is a viable business model or not. And for the most part Facebook is in fact who determines what is a viable business model. So, it is an argument about economics. But, I was addressing a specific poster, who said: >Is it not, in some sense, bad that Facebook is capable of monetizing the product and the people who made it aren't? It seems like you're just arguing that might is right. So, show me where I mischaracterized the author's position. I don't like FB, and it's sad to me that so many artists sold their agency for eyeballs, but let's not pretend that there aren't other avenues or that the problem is with FB itself. It's a societal problem. Most people are stupid, lazy, and ignorant. Funny or Die is more of a symptom of this than an anecdote.
    - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
      *Obviously, I meant antidote, not anecdote
lmm 9y ago
> Is it not, in some sense, bad that Facebook is capable of monetizing the product and the people who made it aren't? The market is not perfect, but usually it does a pretty good job of reflecting where the supply and demand is. The part that Funny or Die do is fun and doesn't require specialised talent. The part that Facebook do requires more skill and is, on the whole, less interesting work. Users vote with their feet for Facebook over the disorganised web because Facebook provides a much better user experience. On the whole, Facebook makes a bigger and harder contribution to the end user's experience than Funny or Die.
- Fricken 9y ago
  Facebook doesn't make any contribution to the end user experience, it's a middle man. A rent seeker. A gatekeeper. It is one hundred percent dependent on content produced by other people, and that content is distributed by the telecoms. Facebook's entire business model is contingent on it's ability to get between those two things and charge a toll.
  - lmm 9y ago
    As an end user, I disagree. A consistent, clean UI was a big selling point for Facebook right from the start (even back when it was competing with LiveJournal); it's much lower-friction to watch FunnyOrDie-like videos on Facebook than on their website when every website has its own UI and most of them are worse than Facebook's. And a unified recommendation system across all kinds of content is absolutely huge; following a single source like FunnyOrDie and manually guessing which stuff you'll like or won't is much less effective than getting automatic recommendations from thousands of content creators in one place. Facebook adds a lot of value, that's why people use it.
    - Fricken 9y ago
      Maybe you aren't familiar with Hacker News, or Reddit, who both aggregate content and have implemented a recommendation system without putting the content providers out of business.

Gogogogirl 9y ago

Nothing new there, journalists thought for a century people paid for their content, but then they realized people just want to be entertained by whatever means, and the money they paid was for distribution (as the internet made distribution inexpensive, people no longer paid) [1] Creating is easy, selling is hard. Facebook does the selling, FoD does the creating. There are many basic insights people don't get and then get mad. [1] Obvious exceptions good original content like Economist