5 ms·

I think many content creators have recognized that it's important to expand their brand outside of youtube so they're not so beholden to youtube. I wonder if t

I think many content creators have recognized that it's important to expand their brand outside of youtube so they're not so beholden to youtube. I wonder if this is opening cracks for competitors.

jjallen 3y ago
I know of one person doing their own thing except for Patreon. Are there many more?
- nfriedly 3y ago
  Nebula and Floatplane both come to mind. Lots of creators on those two services. This Week In Tech hosts their own content, in addition to youtube uploads and other services.
hombre_fatal 3y ago
I don't see how this comment tracks with the events. Content creators on Youtube are paid from ads and subscriptions. If they want to give their content away for free, they can turn off Youtube ads since they are the ones turning them on in the first place.
- katbyte 3y ago
  Also sponsor spots that cut out YouTube entirely
- stetrain 3y ago
  As an individual creator you can make that decision, but if YouTube as a whole annoys your viewer base to the point that they use YouTube less then you have a problem.
  - zeroCalories 3y ago
    That's a stretch. Even if Google, an entirely metrics driven company, decided to destroy their metrics, there isn't any good alternatives to Youtube. At best you'll be going to TikTok, but most YouTube channels can't be sustained on TikTok's revenue model.
    - stetrain 3y ago
      They don't have to destroy their own metrics as a whole to drive away your niche audience as an individual creator. I can certainly imagine scenarios that would increase Google's metrics, user base, and ad revenue while causing problems for some existing creators. The push towards non-youtube channels like Nebula and Patreon signals that some creators are at least worried about their entire audience being delivered via Youtube's whim.
      - zeroCalories 3y ago
        This is massive cope. These are second or third order effects that will likely impact a very small segment of the population, if they will impact any at all. This is not like when Youtube killed short form content a decade ago. Show me a Youtuber that has been affected by this. Ping me in a year too. And no, going to these other sites is not a signal. Creators use these sites as additional revenue sources by posting early and exclusive content. They funnel their audience to them through other sites. No one discovers new content on these sites.
        stetrain 3y ago
        A cope for what? I was just responding to the idea that "I think many content creators have recognized that it's important to expand their brand outside of youtube so they're not so beholden to YouTube." Do you disagree with that statement?
        zeroCalories 3y ago
        Maybe I misinterpreted. There is a lot of cope from freeloaders trying to justify their freeloading as good for everyone in this thread. :) As for your question, I disagree. The examples you mentioned are not alternatives, they are small additions. The only exceptions I've seen are podcasts, but they've never been tied to YouTube.
- Longlius 3y ago
  Youtube runs ads on content that isn't monetized, the creator just doesn't see any of that money.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    The creator absolutley sees that money. It comes in the form of free hosting, bandwidth, and analytics platform.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  Which is why many content creators expand outside of youtube, so their source of incoming isn't solely from youtube. That's was my point, actually.
solardev 3y ago
There's Nebula. https://nebula.tv/ https://nebula.tv/ Many of my favorite channels (mostly civil engineering, science, history) are there, and release there first before YouTube. Sadly the UI is not as good, and there are no automatic captions like YouTube. But it's cheap and it works... And of course there's Patreon.
- datpiff 3y ago
  Patreon doesn't seem to do video very well (or at all anymore?) Most Patreon accounts I've seen just link to unlisted Youtube videos.
  - arnvidr 3y ago
    The account I support that regularly posts videos uses Patreon's own video service still. It seems to work pretty good?
    - datpiff 3y ago
      Maybe it's based on what the subscribers prefer? It also seems like they don't allow all types of accounts to use it: https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/6598555214477-Patreon-Video-Early-Access https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/6598555214477-... There are a few other usage restrictions that make it worse than just hosting on Youtube.
- jahav 3y ago
  Rather surprising that they don't offer sign up with Facebook/Google. I know, i know, but that's pretty big speed bump in the onboarding process.
Workaccount2 3y ago
No one wants to be a competitor. People are so deluded on this topic that they cannot even think straight. No one wants to watch ads. No one wants to pay a subscription. Those two things are factually true, and why youtube sucks, why it has no competitors, and why the future looks bad for it. Vid.me ran an experiment a few years ago and made a serious push to upend youtube. They had great success and it really took off. But eventually they went bankrupt and closed shop. Why? No one wants to watch ads. No one wants to pay a subscription. Get this through your skull everyone.
- rchaud 3y ago
  I agree it's a dead end if you're not Youtube-scale, but people do pay for subscriptions. Spotify and Netflix come to mind, but yes, they are both approaching the price point at which it no longer feels worthwhile to keep.
- meiraleal 3y ago
  And guess what? No one needs Youtube. Content delivery will continue to exist if youtube stops existing.
- malka 3y ago
  then make it a public service, payed by the UN and its constituent states.
rchaud 3y ago
The biggest video site in the world, with the 3rd biggest cloud is admitting they can't make money with adblocking on. Most of the world is not even using adblockers, as they're on mobile apps where it's harder. Why would anyone want to enter this market?
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  I think a more reasonable conclusion is that they can no longer continue growing their revenue with ad-block enabled, not that they aren't profitable. Remember, companies are about maximizing profit, not merely making a reasonable profit.
  - rchaud 3y ago
    If they want to maximize profit, they should be playing hardball on their Google Cloud contracts instead of shoving more ads into every video. They're obviously GCP's biggest user, and that would give them enormous leverage to cut a better deal.
- sigmar 3y ago
  >The biggest video site in the world, with the 3rd biggest cloud is admitting they can't make money with adblocking on. When did they admit this? They've definitely been very profitable. https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-alphabet-earnings-revenue-first-time-reveal-q4-2019 https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-al...
  - rchaud 3y ago
    That article only mentions Youtube's revenue, it doesn't say that it was profitable.

I think many content creators have recognized that it's important to expand their brand outside of youtube so they're not so beholden to youtube. I wonder if this is opening cracks for competitors.

jjallen 3y ago

I know of one person doing their own thing except for Patreon. Are there many more?

nfriedly 3y ago
Nebula and Floatplane both come to mind. Lots of creators on those two services. This Week In Tech hosts their own content, in addition to youtube uploads and other services.

hombre_fatal 3y ago

I don't see how this comment tracks with the events. Content creators on Youtube are paid from ads and subscriptions. If they want to give their content away for free, they can turn off Youtube ads since they are the ones turning them on in the first place.

katbyte 3y ago
Also sponsor spots that cut out YouTube entirely
stetrain 3y ago
As an individual creator you can make that decision, but if YouTube as a whole annoys your viewer base to the point that they use YouTube less then you have a problem.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  That's a stretch. Even if Google, an entirely metrics driven company, decided to destroy their metrics, there isn't any good alternatives to Youtube. At best you'll be going to TikTok, but most YouTube channels can't be sustained on TikTok's revenue model.
  - stetrain 3y ago
    They don't have to destroy their own metrics as a whole to drive away your niche audience as an individual creator. I can certainly imagine scenarios that would increase Google's metrics, user base, and ad revenue while causing problems for some existing creators. The push towards non-youtube channels like Nebula and Patreon signals that some creators are at least worried about their entire audience being delivered via Youtube's whim.
    - zeroCalories 3y ago
      This is massive cope. These are second or third order effects that will likely impact a very small segment of the population, if they will impact any at all. This is not like when Youtube killed short form content a decade ago. Show me a Youtuber that has been affected by this. Ping me in a year too. And no, going to these other sites is not a signal. Creators use these sites as additional revenue sources by posting early and exclusive content. They funnel their audience to them through other sites. No one discovers new content on these sites.
      - stetrain 3y ago
        A cope for what? I was just responding to the idea that "I think many content creators have recognized that it's important to expand their brand outside of youtube so they're not so beholden to YouTube." Do you disagree with that statement?
        zeroCalories 3y ago
        Maybe I misinterpreted. There is a lot of cope from freeloaders trying to justify their freeloading as good for everyone in this thread. :) As for your question, I disagree. The examples you mentioned are not alternatives, they are small additions. The only exceptions I've seen are podcasts, but they've never been tied to YouTube.
Longlius 3y ago
Youtube runs ads on content that isn't monetized, the creator just doesn't see any of that money.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  The creator absolutley sees that money. It comes in the form of free hosting, bandwidth, and analytics platform.
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
Which is why many content creators expand outside of youtube, so their source of incoming isn't solely from youtube. That's was my point, actually.

solardev 3y ago

There's Nebula. https://nebula.tv/ https://nebula.tv/ Many of my favorite channels (mostly civil engineering, science, history) are there, and release there first before YouTube. Sadly the UI is not as good, and there are no automatic captions like YouTube. But it's cheap and it works... And of course there's Patreon.

datpiff 3y ago
Patreon doesn't seem to do video very well (or at all anymore?) Most Patreon accounts I've seen just link to unlisted Youtube videos.
- arnvidr 3y ago
  The account I support that regularly posts videos uses Patreon's own video service still. It seems to work pretty good?
  - datpiff 3y ago
    Maybe it's based on what the subscribers prefer? It also seems like they don't allow all types of accounts to use it: https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/6598555214477-Patreon-Video-Early-Access https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/6598555214477-... There are a few other usage restrictions that make it worse than just hosting on Youtube.
jahav 3y ago
Rather surprising that they don't offer sign up with Facebook/Google. I know, i know, but that's pretty big speed bump in the onboarding process.

Workaccount2 3y ago

No one wants to be a competitor. People are so deluded on this topic that they cannot even think straight. No one wants to watch ads. No one wants to pay a subscription. Those two things are factually true, and why youtube sucks, why it has no competitors, and why the future looks bad for it. Vid.me ran an experiment a few years ago and made a serious push to upend youtube. They had great success and it really took off. But eventually they went bankrupt and closed shop. Why? No one wants to watch ads. No one wants to pay a subscription. Get this through your skull everyone.

rchaud 3y ago
I agree it's a dead end if you're not Youtube-scale, but people do pay for subscriptions. Spotify and Netflix come to mind, but yes, they are both approaching the price point at which it no longer feels worthwhile to keep.
meiraleal 3y ago
And guess what? No one needs Youtube. Content delivery will continue to exist if youtube stops existing.
malka 3y ago
then make it a public service, payed by the UN and its constituent states.

rchaud 3y ago

The biggest video site in the world, with the 3rd biggest cloud is admitting they can't make money with adblocking on. Most of the world is not even using adblockers, as they're on mobile apps where it's harder. Why would anyone want to enter this market?

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
I think a more reasonable conclusion is that they can no longer continue growing their revenue with ad-block enabled, not that they aren't profitable. Remember, companies are about maximizing profit, not merely making a reasonable profit.
- rchaud 3y ago
  If they want to maximize profit, they should be playing hardball on their Google Cloud contracts instead of shoving more ads into every video. They're obviously GCP's biggest user, and that would give them enormous leverage to cut a better deal.
sigmar 3y ago
>The biggest video site in the world, with the 3rd biggest cloud is admitting they can't make money with adblocking on. When did they admit this? They've definitely been very profitable. https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-alphabet-earnings-revenue-first-time-reveal-q4-2019 https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-al...
- rchaud 3y ago
  That article only mentions Youtube's revenue, it doesn't say that it was profitable.