9 ms·

YouTube's secret weapon to win the TV streaming wars: Its top creators

24 points by adrian_mrd 2y ago

drbig 2y ago
As someone who does YT videos as a challenge to self: YouTube is a casino, so its "top creators" are as ephemeral as a casino's patrons. Financially it is a very solid model, and it's stable: you don't have to even try to attempt producing "content that sells", you just skim your margin off of everything. And, as per the natural order, given enough creators there will always be "top creators". There are no secrets nor weapons here. It's the moat of scale and the casino model.
- vkou 2y ago
  > There are no secrets nor weapons here. It's the moat of scale and the casino model. I mean, there are three ways to grow a skim-a-comission business model. You can engage and support the super-stars, you can engage and support the creators lower down on the totem pole, or you can do something in between. One of these three models may be more successful for the platform than the other two, and an actual unbiased analysis of why it is would be interesting.
  - drbig 2y ago
    And the fourth way is to "not stand in the way", which is the long-term best strategy. It's all fun and profit to support you top/mid/low creators until a controversy, which is inevitable long-term, and damage to reputation at the very least. Meanwhile money and energy _is being_ spent at things like "change the title and thumbnail after initial drop to give a second chance at eyeball capture" and "shorts! shorts! shorts!". Note: I am critical of YouTube, but I _do pay_ for Premium, because it's still the platform that enabled the content I do care about to even exist in the first place. Nothing ever has only a single-side to it.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      Youtube, weirdly, feels to me more like the web I remember than today's web does. Loads of content creation happening; good discoverability; interesting facets all over the place; historical text; people having fun.
spacebanana7 2y ago
This is such a Hollywood take. YouTube’s “bottom creators” are its real advantage, the long tail of videos about air fryer repairs and make up tutorials. Any studio can go out and buy content from big creators, but only YouTube has the ability to aggregate millions of independent content creators.
- djtango 2y ago
  I think there's a bit of both... At some point YouTube transcends what it was originally - the internet in video from - and becomes something more. It then exists in the space of "TV" or general distraction. It becomes a household name and at the point it needs to keep things ticking over by investing in things like Brand and Mindshare. And then just like how Coca Cola and McDonald's only care about sponsoring the Olympics, YouTube also needs to find ways to chase after that above the fold streamers who they can positively associate with like Mr Beast. But what am I even talking about... this is the platform that gave us Jake Paul. I have such a love/hate relationship with YouTube. Only on YouTube are all of MITs lecture courses. if. you. can. only. fight. past. the. endless. Shorts... /sigh
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > It becomes a household name and at the point it needs to keep things ticking over by investing in things like Brand and Mindshare. Why? It has quite a virtuous circle of paying creators fairly well and so they're incentivised to keep creating, which will keep people coming. Why assume it needs to change doing what got it where it is? I think the worst thing it can do is try to start competing with regular TV. It might want to do something like move into publishing independent film behind a low-friction paywall, to fund film creators better, and maybe sponsoring Cannes[0]. But don't just try and become Hollywood. That wouldn't be a good outcome. [0] I just noticed that TikTok sponsors Cannes! https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/the-festival/they-support-the-festival https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/the-festival/they-support...
- quartesixte 2y ago
  Despite the great number of views that the enormously long tail of YouTube can garner, the general public still gravitates towards more general content. THR is reporting on the general phenomena most of the general public will see. While also catering to their target demographic: the movers and shakers of the celebrity industry in Hollywood. It is a trade publication afterall, technically speaking.
TheAceOfHearts 2y ago
This seems like an ad without any deeper insights. It's weird that they don't mention MrBeast, who has been consistently dominating the YouTube meta for the last few years. He's on his way towards becoming the most subscribed to creator on the platform and each of his videos consistently gets more views than the Superbowl. I think the thing that sets YouTube apart from other platforms is that creators can start monetizing content early on and continue growing the channel and audience. No other platform has come even close to matching the monetization potential on YouTube.
- quartesixte 2y ago
  MrBeast is a fascinating case because he has almost become too big. There is a podcast of him where he says a lot of brand deals do not come close to his minimum requirements now, even AAA blue-chip deals. YouTube could maybe be losing money on him? I don’t follow the stats too closely to make a more informed conjecture though. My realm of YouTube is far more niche.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    Don't think so. Youtube make money on adds. And Premium. For premium only changes who the money get distributed. On adds MrBeast is likely advertiser friendly enough content. So they in general are happy to run adds on that content. And these deals are by Youtube not MrBeast. Youtube does not make money from whatever deals creators have.
  - yreg 2y ago
    The too-bigness is not an issue for YouTube, since YouTube sells ad slots for each view separately. It's an issue only for the creator, since when they put a sponsor in a video, it's always the same for all the viewers. When MrBeast has trouble finding a suitable sponsor deal, they probably fill the sponsor slots with their own brand (Feastables).
    - sfn42 2y ago
      It's not really an issue for him either. He's making truckloads of money. If he can do that without polluting his videos with sponsor segments then that's just better isn't it? Personally I don't really mind them, they get automatically skipped by sponsorblock. But I'd that was no longer an option I'd prefer creators who weren't trying to sell me stuff in every video.
onion2k 2y ago
If the history of content platforms on the internet has taught me anything, people saying a platform has won is a sure sign it will become largely irrelevant to the next generation of users.
input_sh 2y ago
> has become bigger than Netflix on TV sets It wasn't before!? I understand they're just talking about TV sets in one country, but I'd still expect a free platform to beat a paid one.
- swores 2y ago
  I suspect there's a correlation between having the money and desire to own a TV and having the money and desire to pay for content, as opposed to consuming content on devices like phones which are more likely to be owned even by people who don't care about media viewing experience enough to pay for it. Not to say there won't be plenty of people watching free content on TVs and premium content on phones and computers, just different ratios.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Do people not get TVs by default anymore? Even treating it as an extra expense, a 40" TV is $3 per month when you average it over 4-5 years. It's so much cheaper than any paid content you might consider.
    - prmoustache 2y ago
      I don't have one. First because it is an eyesore. Second because most of the content I watch live is not in the living room but somewhere else. That somewhere else being any room in the house and I would definitely not want a 40" eyesore on every single room. Most of the time if I am watching something live I am doing something else at the same time, like cooking, building or repairing stuff so it is just more convenient to use a laptop for this. For movies I have a beamer in the living room, the only wall without furnitures, flowers or frames being the screen. Having said that, I don't know why we oppose "physical TVs" with youtube here. All TVs nowadays have youtube apps or can be plugged a device with the app on it, and every single TV channel on planet earth nowadays as a way to access it from a web browser.
    - DavidPiper 2y ago
      I thought about ditching my TV with my next move, but I've actually started switching all my video content consumption back to the living room (via an Apple TV). I watch no traditional television, but I feel like after years of sitting at my desk to watch "content", I forgot how comfortable a good couch and a glass is, and the Apple TV apps are gradually getting better. Some are even good. (Although I was recently exposed to a proper "Smart TV" for the first time whose software was beyond awful, so I can understand people thinking TVs are no longer worth it.)
TheChaplain 2y ago
imho, YouTube's hidden gold are all those small time niche creators, the enthusiasm and the dedication makes their videos a joy to watch.
hwbunny 2y ago
Youtube can F off with their you must need X thousand subscribers and Y views to get money. F them, you make a video, you upload and after that very moment the monetization should be ongoing. No limits and the like. You can decide whether to get the earned revenue from them or don't care at all.
- epolanski 2y ago
  The threshold is quite low, we talking about few dozen dollars at best.
  - hwbunny 2y ago
    There should be zero thresholds. Do not prey on small creators.
    - epolanski 2y ago
      I think you're being overly biased and ideological. Most platforms don't give you a single cent even if you have millions of followers. Monetization is something you need to sort out on your own. Expecting to have few thousand views, which equate to few $, and have Youtube cover the expenses of reviewing your channel/content and paying the transaction fees on such small amounts is a bit silly. How is Youtube preying on content creators there, by denying them a McDonald's menu before paying them out? The threshold is extremely low and I don't think you're giving Youtube the due credit of providing you a platform with many tools and a gargantuan audience potential.
      - hwbunny 2y ago
        well, they should. It would show a perfect precedent and they could actually take on YT. how on earth are you supposed to sort it out on your own? you have zero freedom of movement on the platform.
andrewstuart 2y ago
The anecdotal feedback from many creators seems to be that YouTube squeezes their income to the point of them considering giving up.
baerrie 2y ago
My brother is 18 and I distinctly remember when he stopped watching all cable television and switched to YouTube alone and has never stopped since. It was roughly 7 years ago. It is the same for all the kids he knows. The younger generations and time are on YT’s side

24 points by adrian_mrd 2y ago

As someone who does YT videos as a challenge to self: YouTube is a casino, so its "top creators" are as ephemeral as a casino's patrons. Financially it is a very solid model, and it's stable: you don't have to even try to attempt producing "content that sells", you just skim your margin off of everything. And, as per the natural order, given enough creators there will always be "top creators". There are no secrets nor weapons here. It's the moat of scale and the casino model.

vkou 2y ago
> There are no secrets nor weapons here. It's the moat of scale and the casino model. I mean, there are three ways to grow a skim-a-comission business model. You can engage and support the super-stars, you can engage and support the creators lower down on the totem pole, or you can do something in between. One of these three models may be more successful for the platform than the other two, and an actual unbiased analysis of why it is would be interesting.
- drbig 2y ago
  And the fourth way is to "not stand in the way", which is the long-term best strategy. It's all fun and profit to support you top/mid/low creators until a controversy, which is inevitable long-term, and damage to reputation at the very least. Meanwhile money and energy _is being_ spent at things like "change the title and thumbnail after initial drop to give a second chance at eyeball capture" and "shorts! shorts! shorts!". Note: I am critical of YouTube, but I _do pay_ for Premium, because it's still the platform that enabled the content I do care about to even exist in the first place. Nothing ever has only a single-side to it.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    Youtube, weirdly, feels to me more like the web I remember than today's web does. Loads of content creation happening; good discoverability; interesting facets all over the place; historical text; people having fun.

spacebanana7 2y ago

This is such a Hollywood take. YouTube’s “bottom creators” are its real advantage, the long tail of videos about air fryer repairs and make up tutorials. Any studio can go out and buy content from big creators, but only YouTube has the ability to aggregate millions of independent content creators.

djtango 2y ago
I think there's a bit of both... At some point YouTube transcends what it was originally - the internet in video from - and becomes something more. It then exists in the space of "TV" or general distraction. It becomes a household name and at the point it needs to keep things ticking over by investing in things like Brand and Mindshare. And then just like how Coca Cola and McDonald's only care about sponsoring the Olympics, YouTube also needs to find ways to chase after that above the fold streamers who they can positively associate with like Mr Beast. But what am I even talking about... this is the platform that gave us Jake Paul. I have such a love/hate relationship with YouTube. Only on YouTube are all of MITs lecture courses. if. you. can. only. fight. past. the. endless. Shorts... /sigh
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > It becomes a household name and at the point it needs to keep things ticking over by investing in things like Brand and Mindshare. Why? It has quite a virtuous circle of paying creators fairly well and so they're incentivised to keep creating, which will keep people coming. Why assume it needs to change doing what got it where it is? I think the worst thing it can do is try to start competing with regular TV. It might want to do something like move into publishing independent film behind a low-friction paywall, to fund film creators better, and maybe sponsoring Cannes[0]. But don't just try and become Hollywood. That wouldn't be a good outcome. [0] I just noticed that TikTok sponsors Cannes! https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/the-festival/they-support-the-festival https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/the-festival/they-support...
quartesixte 2y ago
Despite the great number of views that the enormously long tail of YouTube can garner, the general public still gravitates towards more general content. THR is reporting on the general phenomena most of the general public will see. While also catering to their target demographic: the movers and shakers of the celebrity industry in Hollywood. It is a trade publication afterall, technically speaking.

TheAceOfHearts 2y ago

This seems like an ad without any deeper insights. It's weird that they don't mention MrBeast, who has been consistently dominating the YouTube meta for the last few years. He's on his way towards becoming the most subscribed to creator on the platform and each of his videos consistently gets more views than the Superbowl. I think the thing that sets YouTube apart from other platforms is that creators can start monetizing content early on and continue growing the channel and audience. No other platform has come even close to matching the monetization potential on YouTube.

quartesixte 2y ago
MrBeast is a fascinating case because he has almost become too big. There is a podcast of him where he says a lot of brand deals do not come close to his minimum requirements now, even AAA blue-chip deals. YouTube could maybe be losing money on him? I don’t follow the stats too closely to make a more informed conjecture though. My realm of YouTube is far more niche.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Don't think so. Youtube make money on adds. And Premium. For premium only changes who the money get distributed. On adds MrBeast is likely advertiser friendly enough content. So they in general are happy to run adds on that content. And these deals are by Youtube not MrBeast. Youtube does not make money from whatever deals creators have.
- yreg 2y ago
  The too-bigness is not an issue for YouTube, since YouTube sells ad slots for each view separately. It's an issue only for the creator, since when they put a sponsor in a video, it's always the same for all the viewers. When MrBeast has trouble finding a suitable sponsor deal, they probably fill the sponsor slots with their own brand (Feastables).
  - sfn42 2y ago
    It's not really an issue for him either. He's making truckloads of money. If he can do that without polluting his videos with sponsor segments then that's just better isn't it? Personally I don't really mind them, they get automatically skipped by sponsorblock. But I'd that was no longer an option I'd prefer creators who weren't trying to sell me stuff in every video.

onion2k 2y ago

If the history of content platforms on the internet has taught me anything, people saying a platform has won is a sure sign it will become largely irrelevant to the next generation of users.

input_sh 2y ago

> has become bigger than Netflix on TV sets It wasn't before!? I understand they're just talking about TV sets in one country, but I'd still expect a free platform to beat a paid one.

swores 2y ago
I suspect there's a correlation between having the money and desire to own a TV and having the money and desire to pay for content, as opposed to consuming content on devices like phones which are more likely to be owned even by people who don't care about media viewing experience enough to pay for it. Not to say there won't be plenty of people watching free content on TVs and premium content on phones and computers, just different ratios.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Do people not get TVs by default anymore? Even treating it as an extra expense, a 40" TV is $3 per month when you average it over 4-5 years. It's so much cheaper than any paid content you might consider.
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    I don't have one. First because it is an eyesore. Second because most of the content I watch live is not in the living room but somewhere else. That somewhere else being any room in the house and I would definitely not want a 40" eyesore on every single room. Most of the time if I am watching something live I am doing something else at the same time, like cooking, building or repairing stuff so it is just more convenient to use a laptop for this. For movies I have a beamer in the living room, the only wall without furnitures, flowers or frames being the screen. Having said that, I don't know why we oppose "physical TVs" with youtube here. All TVs nowadays have youtube apps or can be plugged a device with the app on it, and every single TV channel on planet earth nowadays as a way to access it from a web browser.
  - DavidPiper 2y ago
    I thought about ditching my TV with my next move, but I've actually started switching all my video content consumption back to the living room (via an Apple TV). I watch no traditional television, but I feel like after years of sitting at my desk to watch "content", I forgot how comfortable a good couch and a glass is, and the Apple TV apps are gradually getting better. Some are even good. (Although I was recently exposed to a proper "Smart TV" for the first time whose software was beyond awful, so I can understand people thinking TVs are no longer worth it.)

TheChaplain 2y ago

imho, YouTube's hidden gold are all those small time niche creators, the enthusiasm and the dedication makes their videos a joy to watch.

hwbunny 2y ago

Youtube can F off with their you must need X thousand subscribers and Y views to get money. F them, you make a video, you upload and after that very moment the monetization should be ongoing. No limits and the like. You can decide whether to get the earned revenue from them or don't care at all.

epolanski 2y ago
The threshold is quite low, we talking about few dozen dollars at best.
- hwbunny 2y ago
  There should be zero thresholds. Do not prey on small creators.
  - epolanski 2y ago
    I think you're being overly biased and ideological. Most platforms don't give you a single cent even if you have millions of followers. Monetization is something you need to sort out on your own. Expecting to have few thousand views, which equate to few $, and have Youtube cover the expenses of reviewing your channel/content and paying the transaction fees on such small amounts is a bit silly. How is Youtube preying on content creators there, by denying them a McDonald's menu before paying them out? The threshold is extremely low and I don't think you're giving Youtube the due credit of providing you a platform with many tools and a gargantuan audience potential.
    - hwbunny 2y ago
      well, they should. It would show a perfect precedent and they could actually take on YT. how on earth are you supposed to sort it out on your own? you have zero freedom of movement on the platform.

andrewstuart 2y ago

The anecdotal feedback from many creators seems to be that YouTube squeezes their income to the point of them considering giving up.

baerrie 2y ago

My brother is 18 and I distinctly remember when he stopped watching all cable television and switched to YouTube alone and has never stopped since. It was roughly 7 years ago. It is the same for all the kids he knows. The younger generations and time are on YT’s side