7 ms·

The success many youtube creators have on Patreon demonstrates that many people would gladly pay for their content. Whether they'd pay google for the content

The success many youtube creators have on Patreon demonstrates that many people would gladly pay for their content. Whether they'd pay google for the content instead of the creator themselves is another matter entirely... People like the content creators a lot more than they like google/youtube itself.

StevePerkins 8y ago
I believe your second sentence negates the first. But even if it didn't, Patreon is a glorified busker's tip jar. There are only a small number of individuals on earth who can make a full-time living from it. There's no sign that this model could work at scale for a large corporation. Even if it theoretically could, in practice your second sentence would again come into play.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  >There's no sign that this model could work at scale for a large corporation. Why should it? Most of the content people are now enjoying day to day isn't coming from large corporations. What we're witnessing now is the infancy of a shift away from the centralization of entertainment started by the industrial revolution (with access to printing presses, radio broadcasting, etc being relatively limited by economies of scale or similar reasons) back to a more community focused model that provides greater diversity in content. Most are welcoming this change as it brings them access to media of the sort they've never before had access to, as well as closer two-way relationships with the producers of that content. This isn't limited to youtube/video content either by the way, it's happening in music and other forms of art/entertainment as well. The platforms used to provide the distribution of content and used to collect payment will prove to be interchangeable; they aren't the part of the picture that matters. What matters is the relationships creators and their patrons can now cultivate. Now that people know this model is possible, the cat's not going back into the bag. Even if youtube or patreon were to close up shop, the demand would still be there and new platforms would be adopted or created if necessary because now people have seen a glimpse of what's possible and don't want to go back.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    Well, we are discussing if Google and Facebook's digital ad revenues will be able to continue to rise. If Google is going to show ads on a content creator's channel because they map to the demographic I want to advertise to, what is stopping me from just cutting out Google and paying the content creator directly? That way I can exercise more fine-grained control over what my ads don't show up next to, the content creator gets more money, and everybody is happy except Google. But what is Youtube's value add other than as a commoditized video-hosting platform?
    - rock_hard 8y ago
      Because that doesn’t scale, that’s why
      - ss2003 8y ago
        Then AI it to scale.
      - bobthepanda 8y ago
        Do you need it to scale? People don't place ads on every website or every possible search query, why would you want an ad sprayed far and wide when most of your audience can be reached by targeting a few big creators?
        rock_hard 8y ago
        Because scaling your ads is the a great way to sell more products! So every advertiser is incentivized to scale their ad campaigns as much as possible. And having to find creators yourself and negotiate deals one by one is inefficient in a world where Google and Facebook have build automated products to do so!
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      >what is stopping me from just cutting out Google and paying the content creator directly? Nothing per-se, but if you talk to content creators they'll tell you that they prefer Patreon or youtube monetization or similar systems for at least one simple reason: their per-month income is more predictable, which provides them with a sense of financial stability. For many creators this isn't a full-time job, but rather a time intensive hobby that brings in enough money to pay for itself with maybe a little extra. But feeling confident that their expenses will be covered next month provides them with a necessary sense of security to keep doing what they do. If they were to rely on people mailing them cheques every month, many people would simply forget and creators could never be confident of approximately how much money they'll have next month. Patreon and youtube monetization don't provide any guarantees about future income, but in practice creators find that it typically doesn't change that much month from month. This doesn't mean that youtube monetization or patreon have a permanent monopoly on the payment system for independent creators. Far from it actually, the fact that Patreon broke into the scene previously dominated by youtube monetization demonstrates that if your system provides relative stability to creators, they will be willing to adopt it. We are still in the infancy of this social transformation, but already we see a clear picture starting to emerge of what creators and their viewers require to make it work.

StevePerkins 8y ago

I believe your second sentence negates the first. But even if it didn't, Patreon is a glorified busker's tip jar. There are only a small number of individuals on earth who can make a full-time living from it. There's no sign that this model could work at scale for a large corporation. Even if it theoretically could, in practice your second sentence would again come into play.

darkpuma 8y ago
>There's no sign that this model could work at scale for a large corporation. Why should it? Most of the content people are now enjoying day to day isn't coming from large corporations. What we're witnessing now is the infancy of a shift away from the centralization of entertainment started by the industrial revolution (with access to printing presses, radio broadcasting, etc being relatively limited by economies of scale or similar reasons) back to a more community focused model that provides greater diversity in content. Most are welcoming this change as it brings them access to media of the sort they've never before had access to, as well as closer two-way relationships with the producers of that content. This isn't limited to youtube/video content either by the way, it's happening in music and other forms of art/entertainment as well. The platforms used to provide the distribution of content and used to collect payment will prove to be interchangeable; they aren't the part of the picture that matters. What matters is the relationships creators and their patrons can now cultivate. Now that people know this model is possible, the cat's not going back into the bag. Even if youtube or patreon were to close up shop, the demand would still be there and new platforms would be adopted or created if necessary because now people have seen a glimpse of what's possible and don't want to go back.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Well, we are discussing if Google and Facebook's digital ad revenues will be able to continue to rise. If Google is going to show ads on a content creator's channel because they map to the demographic I want to advertise to, what is stopping me from just cutting out Google and paying the content creator directly? That way I can exercise more fine-grained control over what my ads don't show up next to, the content creator gets more money, and everybody is happy except Google. But what is Youtube's value add other than as a commoditized video-hosting platform?
  - rock_hard 8y ago
    Because that doesn’t scale, that’s why
    - ss2003 8y ago
      Then AI it to scale.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      Do you need it to scale? People don't place ads on every website or every possible search query, why would you want an ad sprayed far and wide when most of your audience can be reached by targeting a few big creators?
      - rock_hard 8y ago
        Because scaling your ads is the a great way to sell more products! So every advertiser is incentivized to scale their ad campaigns as much as possible. And having to find creators yourself and negotiate deals one by one is inefficient in a world where Google and Facebook have build automated products to do so!
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    >what is stopping me from just cutting out Google and paying the content creator directly? Nothing per-se, but if you talk to content creators they'll tell you that they prefer Patreon or youtube monetization or similar systems for at least one simple reason: their per-month income is more predictable, which provides them with a sense of financial stability. For many creators this isn't a full-time job, but rather a time intensive hobby that brings in enough money to pay for itself with maybe a little extra. But feeling confident that their expenses will be covered next month provides them with a necessary sense of security to keep doing what they do. If they were to rely on people mailing them cheques every month, many people would simply forget and creators could never be confident of approximately how much money they'll have next month. Patreon and youtube monetization don't provide any guarantees about future income, but in practice creators find that it typically doesn't change that much month from month. This doesn't mean that youtube monetization or patreon have a permanent monopoly on the payment system for independent creators. Far from it actually, the fact that Patreon broke into the scene previously dominated by youtube monetization demonstrates that if your system provides relative stability to creators, they will be willing to adopt it. We are still in the infancy of this social transformation, but already we see a clear picture starting to emerge of what creators and their viewers require to make it work.