4 ms·

It makes sense that YouTube would do this. I've been expecting YouTube to go after channels that are primarily supported by Patreon donations with full teeth a

It makes sense that YouTube would do this. I've been expecting YouTube to go after channels that are primarily supported by Patreon donations with full teeth and claws for awhile now, and still expect it is coming. Channels not running ads reduced YouTube to a free video hosting service and cuts them out of the revenue loop completely. Their main goal, as I see it, is to transition into a centralized and much more controlled content platform run much more like a traditional TV network used to be. This will enable them to achieve Eric Schmidt's stated goal of taking the reins of human culture to protect the poor from themselves (which he states, though not in those words, in his book 'The New Digital Age'). They also think it makes them more attractive to advertisers (although there is abundant proof now that no 'adpocalypse' ever occurred and YouTube has only grown as an advertising platform... they see this as 'in spite of' niche content being present, not 'because of'). So if there are large channels that have milquetoast content that is non-controversial (for now, it won't take long before all educational content beyond elementary school level is de facto controversial) but aren't monetized, that really leaves YouTube out in the cold. Paying the hosting costs AND they don't have any increased leverage to regulate those channels contents? Worst case scenario as far as they're concerned... but they also don't want that content hopping to a different platform. Google didn't run YouTube at a staggering loss for a decade for nothing, they did it to suppress competition in the video space and guarantee no one could afford to compete with them unless they also had a search engine advertising business that could prop up the titanic losses.

sly010 8y ago
> I've been expecting YouTube to go after channels that are primarily supported by Patreon donations with full teeth and claws for awhile now... An alternative solution would be for youtube to compete with patreon, allow sponsorship directly and take a cut. They have in fact been testing this on select channels. On some big channels you see a "sponsor" button next to the "subscribe" button.
- da_chicken 8y ago
  Yeah, but much like with live streaming, that ship has already left port. Twitch.tv (aka, Amazon) has like 80% of the market. YouTube's streaming has only recently been good enough to use. Patreon's also got inertia for crowd funding and donations. Twitch has had paid subscriptions for a fairly long time and you still see Twitch streamers talking about their Patreon. Twitch only recently added multi tier support, but their bits for donations has essentially killed PayPal (largely since PayPal's service isn't very good). There are people throwing cash at the screen, and YouTube is taking the slow road and they're going to end up as far behind as IBM was in the 90s.
stcredzero 8y ago
> It makes sense that YouTube would do this. I've been expecting YouTube to go after channels that are primarily supported by Patreon donations with full teeth and claws for awhile now, and still expect it is coming. Channels not running ads reduced YouTube to a free video hosting service and cuts them out of the revenue loop completely. No. This doesn't make sense. The channels that are primarily supported by Patreon donations could still be monetized by YouTube, even with ads. The real motivational structure is contaminated by politics and a desire by actors within YouTube to engage in the exercise censorious power using the YouTube platform. Otherwise, YouTube would be running it's own version of Patreon and letting non-mainstream advertisers buy ads on channels not suitable for mainstream advertisers. Beware of authoritarian mindsets taking over your corporate culture. This can result in a corporate culture incapable of "hands off" policies which can be necessary to foster an ecosystem, and let the company organically adapt to the true direction of the market.

sly010 8y ago

> I've been expecting YouTube to go after channels that are primarily supported by Patreon donations with full teeth and claws for awhile now... An alternative solution would be for youtube to compete with patreon, allow sponsorship directly and take a cut. They have in fact been testing this on select channels. On some big channels you see a "sponsor" button next to the "subscribe" button.

da_chicken 8y ago
Yeah, but much like with live streaming, that ship has already left port. Twitch.tv (aka, Amazon) has like 80% of the market. YouTube's streaming has only recently been good enough to use. Patreon's also got inertia for crowd funding and donations. Twitch has had paid subscriptions for a fairly long time and you still see Twitch streamers talking about their Patreon. Twitch only recently added multi tier support, but their bits for donations has essentially killed PayPal (largely since PayPal's service isn't very good). There are people throwing cash at the screen, and YouTube is taking the slow road and they're going to end up as far behind as IBM was in the 90s.

stcredzero 8y ago

> It makes sense that YouTube would do this. I've been expecting YouTube to go after channels that are primarily supported by Patreon donations with full teeth and claws for awhile now, and still expect it is coming. Channels not running ads reduced YouTube to a free video hosting service and cuts them out of the revenue loop completely. No. This doesn't make sense. The channels that are primarily supported by Patreon donations could still be monetized by YouTube, even with ads. The real motivational structure is contaminated by politics and a desire by actors within YouTube to engage in the exercise censorious power using the YouTube platform. Otherwise, YouTube would be running it's own version of Patreon and letting non-mainstream advertisers buy ads on channels not suitable for mainstream advertisers. Beware of authoritarian mindsets taking over your corporate culture. This can result in a corporate culture incapable of "hands off" policies which can be necessary to foster an ecosystem, and let the company organically adapt to the true direction of the market.