3 ms·
youtube funds content production they sign streamers (and probably channels) with exclusivity contracts that are worth millions. they will give ad money to an
by dmonitor 3y ago
youtube funds content production
they sign streamers (and probably channels) with exclusivity contracts that are worth millions.
they will give ad money to anyone that uploads content that meets advertiser criteria. they fund Mr. Beast's million dollar videos even if they aren't doing it from the traditional means of budgeting a project before it is released.
they tried their hand at the traditional route funding original TV shows and such, but it didn't really pan out how they liked.
all things considered, they probably spend far more on content production than any other platform.
- rospaya 3y ago> all things considered, they probably spend far more on content production than any other platform. And honestly half of it is a cesspool. I may be subjective, but then again I'm not the target audience for Mr Beast or any other similar Youtuber or streamer or whatever.
- pphysch 3y agoIs that not also true for other streaming platforms? There's a ton of low-budget junk on the biggest streaming platforms.
- rightbyte 3y agoNetflix has done some really low effort shows, like "Is it cake", or just low quality drama disguisted as home improvement, like "Hack it" or "Tiny House Nation". I dunno what they are thinking, but surely it has to devalue their brand and consumer conception of a fair price for the service?
- nightski 3y agoSure they fund "some" content production but the end of the day I'd rather just contribute to the creators I care about directly and pay a reasonable price for YouTube. In the mean time I'll stick with the free version.
- jsnell 3y ago> they probably spend far more on content production than any other platform. Back of the envelope: - YouTube ads revenue $9.2B / quarter [0] - Subsciption revenue $15B / year (this submission), let's guess 80% YT Premium -> $3B / quarter - YouTube revshare is 55% to creators =~ $6.5B / quarter or $26B/year paid to creators Netflix spends between $14B-$17B/year on content, depending on if you count it on an amortization or cash flow basis[1], and expect it to go down by 25% next year[2]. Disney spent $15B / year on non-sports content in 2023[2]. So yeah, not only is what you're saying true, but it's probably not even close. It's plausible that in 2024 YouTube's content spend will be more than Disney's and Netflix's combined. [0] https://abc.xyz/assets/95/eb/9cef90184e09bac553796896c633/2023q4-alphabet-earnings-release.pdf https://abc.xyz/assets/95/eb/9cef90184e09bac553796896c633/20... [1] https://s22.q4cdn.com/959853165/files/doc_financials/2023/q4/NEW-FINAL-Q4-23-Shareholder-Letter.pdf https://s22.q4cdn.com/959853165/files/doc_financials/2023/q4... [2] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/disney-cuts-content-spending-2024-streaming-1235641858/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/dis...
- nightski 3y agoFunding original content is not the same as revenue share.
- jsnell 3y agoSure. It's arguably even better for the creators, because not only are they getting paid more but they're keeping all the rights to the content. Most of that content would not be getting created if YouTube wasn't there to serve the videos, bring the audience, and make sure the creators are getting paid for it. (To the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year, not just small change.) Why is funding original content the critical part of the value proposition, while making sure that the people creating content are compensated for it is worthless?
- dmonitor 3y agoCan also add that Youtube is essentially paying out residuals on all their streaming content, something other platforms are absolutely terrified at the possibility of