4 ms·

Search engine that gives creators a 90% revenue share

11 points by khet 4y ago

smoldesu 4y ago
I don't see anything about how this payout occurs. Do you proactively reach out to creators, or is this the same as Brave's revenue "sharing", where you have to cash-out in crypto?
edude03 4y ago
> Take YouTube for example. How much of their current content do you think would exist if they didn't share ad revenue with creators? > perhaps 80% of the highest quality content isn't getting created right now. I might just be cynical and jaded at this point, but I disagree with the premise that content creators should create content for money. I don't mean it in a "information wants to be free" way, but take tiktok for example - the vast majority of content (or at least, the content I see) is created for free just because the creator wanted to make something and share it. Some of the worst content I've seen on the internet on the other hand (ads, ads thinly disguised as reviews, or people doing stupid things for the views) have been done of course, only to make money off getting paid for the views. I'm not saying I have a solution for this, but I do think the model of creating content explicitly for driving views to make money is not the right approach.
- mtmail 4y ago
  > ads thinly disguised as reviews It fits that the company running the search engine is known for their SEO tools. Their customers are already marketing professionals (their wording) who spend time and money to get their content indexed and ranked higher on search engines. I don't like it's about the average internet user getting revenue, it's large marketing companies.
- krapp 4y ago
  On the other hand, the best content I've seen on Youtube clearly takes time and a budget that likely wouldn't be available if the content creators weren't able to monetize their work. They're also passionate about what they create, they just wouldn't be able to do it if they also had to hold down a full time job on the side. You seem to be making the mistake a lot of people do, when they insist artists don't deserve to be paid, or should be willing to forego any compensation for the sake of the integrity of their craft, of assuming any monetized content exists exclusively for the sake of monetization. A lot of it does, but we live in a capitalist world in which passion alone isn't always sufficient to pay the bills. And on a platform like Youtube, success often depends on doing whatever the algorithm wants, whether you like it or not. The solution is to accept that quality is worth paying for, and being willing to support content creators you enjoy watching or listening to. It's also probably for Youtube to ease up on its algorithmic controls and allow a broader range of content to be monetizable, and possibly make it easier for content creators to seek out advertisers and vice versa for niche content, and having a robust, tiered rating system, and actually have a sane process for fair use and copyright, but also definitely the first thing.
  - edude03 4y ago
    > You seem to be making the mistake a lot of people do, when they insist artists don't deserve to be paid, or should be willing to forego any compensation for the sake of the integrity of their craft To be clear I definitely do not believe that. Artist should be paid, as their work as value, and they are an important part of our society. I do think content created for the sake of making money in our ad driven society however is worse than both content created organically and content created… optimistically? For lack of a better word. Compare a newspaper to buzzfeed for example. The former is paid for but isn’t (wasn’t?) optimized for ad revenue so content was often less sensational and more substantive.
dang 4y ago
Yep: Google alternative that shares revenue with creators – by Ahrefs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31614518 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31614518 - June 2022 (217 comments)

11 points by khet 4y ago

I don't see anything about how this payout occurs. Do you proactively reach out to creators, or is this the same as Brave's revenue "sharing", where you have to cash-out in crypto?

edude03 4y ago

> Take YouTube for example. How much of their current content do you think would exist if they didn't share ad revenue with creators? > perhaps 80% of the highest quality content isn't getting created right now. I might just be cynical and jaded at this point, but I disagree with the premise that content creators should create content for money. I don't mean it in a "information wants to be free" way, but take tiktok for example - the vast majority of content (or at least, the content I see) is created for free just because the creator wanted to make something and share it. Some of the worst content I've seen on the internet on the other hand (ads, ads thinly disguised as reviews, or people doing stupid things for the views) have been done of course, only to make money off getting paid for the views. I'm not saying I have a solution for this, but I do think the model of creating content explicitly for driving views to make money is not the right approach.

mtmail 4y ago
> ads thinly disguised as reviews It fits that the company running the search engine is known for their SEO tools. Their customers are already marketing professionals (their wording) who spend time and money to get their content indexed and ranked higher on search engines. I don't like it's about the average internet user getting revenue, it's large marketing companies.
krapp 4y ago
On the other hand, the best content I've seen on Youtube clearly takes time and a budget that likely wouldn't be available if the content creators weren't able to monetize their work. They're also passionate about what they create, they just wouldn't be able to do it if they also had to hold down a full time job on the side. You seem to be making the mistake a lot of people do, when they insist artists don't deserve to be paid, or should be willing to forego any compensation for the sake of the integrity of their craft, of assuming any monetized content exists exclusively for the sake of monetization. A lot of it does, but we live in a capitalist world in which passion alone isn't always sufficient to pay the bills. And on a platform like Youtube, success often depends on doing whatever the algorithm wants, whether you like it or not. The solution is to accept that quality is worth paying for, and being willing to support content creators you enjoy watching or listening to. It's also probably for Youtube to ease up on its algorithmic controls and allow a broader range of content to be monetizable, and possibly make it easier for content creators to seek out advertisers and vice versa for niche content, and having a robust, tiered rating system, and actually have a sane process for fair use and copyright, but also definitely the first thing.
- edude03 4y ago
  > You seem to be making the mistake a lot of people do, when they insist artists don't deserve to be paid, or should be willing to forego any compensation for the sake of the integrity of their craft To be clear I definitely do not believe that. Artist should be paid, as their work as value, and they are an important part of our society. I do think content created for the sake of making money in our ad driven society however is worse than both content created organically and content created… optimistically? For lack of a better word. Compare a newspaper to buzzfeed for example. The former is paid for but isn’t (wasn’t?) optimized for ad revenue so content was often less sensational and more substantive.

dang 4y ago

Yep: Google alternative that shares revenue with creators – by Ahrefs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31614518 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31614518 - June 2022 (217 comments)