Just responding to this one for now since I saw it randomly and thought it should be addressed.
Why would you have to incentivize them?
Most people don't choose to contribute solely to support the content. Obviously you're very tuned in to the "behind the scenes" aspects of Linus Media Group that we share publicly (first blood, contrib, office builder), and we really appreciate that! Without awesome people like you we couldn't do what we do every day.
With that said, not everyone who watches our content is like you. The large, "vocal negative" portion of the audience (YouTube, Twitter, etc. commenters that may just watch a video here or there) doesn't seem to understand that Google AdSense is essentially peanuts, and nowhere near enough to pay for the quality and quantity of content we provide. Whenever we ask for contributions without a big incentive, many people comment about how we're begging for charity etc. Maybe it's a product of the environment we have created (since we're highly ad-supported), but more focused contribution campaigns like first blood and new office (that were incentivized) have been met with a lot of hate.
People could contribute a lump sum or a monthly amount as well (no forum membership required). This money would go directly to Linus Media Group — not Vessel, not YouTube, not Google.
We already have a monthly contribution option - the forum (obviously you're well aware of that). If we don't do it through the forum, where would we facilitate that transaction? No matter where we go (TipJar, Patreon, etc.) they take a cut. And, since they aren't directly incentivized by something like early access to a video, the average viewer is going to be FAR less motivated to contribute (if they even have the financial means to do so).
Many people have already stated that they have no interest in staying with the service once the trial is over.
And we have already stated that that is perfectly fine. We'll still be uploading every video to YouTube, and every viewer will have the option to choose what platform they consume our content on.
At this venture, it makes more sense as a viewer to use YouTube due to its broad platform reach.
I think judging which platform makes more sense is up to each individual viewer, but I can see why you think so.
If a person is already contributing to LMG, they are essentially going to have to wait to see the content on their platform of choice – YouTube.
That is definitely one of the massive negatives at the moment. We've talked to Vessel about adding the early access membership as a benefit of forum contribution, but you're right, even if you contribute here you would still have to wait the week to see each video on YouTube.
They do not wish to help Vessel (yet another company). The community would rather aid the success of the content creators they love directly. This would enable you guys to centralize the content to a known platform.
No matter where you want to support your favorite creators, you're going to be supporting them through one type of company or another - whether that's PayPal, Patreon, Vessel, whoever. And lower-cost options like PayPal add WAY more overhead for the creator, which means either higher overhead costs for them through paying an employee to manage it, or lower quantity/lower quality content output for the viewer if they deal with it themselves.
Centralization on a platform that is controlled by a huge corporation is, frankly, bad for creators. In our industry, more platform options will always make content creation a more stable profession and drive higher revenue shares for creators, which will lead to greater investment in the content, and higher quality content for all viewers - not just the ones who choose to contribute through any number of ways. Having a centralized platform causes the issues we experienced last month, with YouTube coming in and trying to lay claim to almost half of all ad revenue that they had no part in sourcing (yes, I know it's on their platform, but it doesn't change the fact that they're trying to claim almost half of revenue that was sourced by creators without the help of YouTube), and barring some advertising formats that creators had been using for years. With the only other options being sites like Daily Motion and Vimeo, YouTube can pretty much do whatever they please. Hopefully more competition (from any platform) can help YouTube realize that working with creators rather than against them is very beneficial.
It seems like you guys are under the impression that you need an additional service to succeed. You don't. People who truly enjoy your content use YouTube just as a means of accessing it. They care about the content; the platform is secondary. Google needs content creators more than content creators need Google.
When YouTube is the only feasible platform to maintain and grow your audience, that is CATEGORICALLY not true. The way it is now, Google controls the only platform that has mattered for a long time, they control search, and they control a LOT of online advertising. Like I said above, they can pretty much do anything they want, and creators just have to deal with the changes in whatever way they can. Most of the time, changes creators would have to make would lead to lower quality content and lower quantities of content. Only when there is competition in the industry will your closing statement be true.
We really appreciate your feedback! And the massive amount of support.
Firstly, I’m mostly posting this because @Str_Mape thought it would be “halarious” incorrect spelling and all. I’ll probably only post some of the things
First, helpful things for other users:
Th3Z0ne got a reaction from 45Drives in Insane Storage Server - Fully 10 Gigabit Network, $1,500 Switch
