2 ms·

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 ve

by 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.

by drbig 2y ago

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.