YouTube... Is YouTube still relevant?

[matrix07012]

14 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

But the principle of the matter, that news reporting tragic events is the same as generally agreed to be objectionable content doesn't make sense to me as to why advertising should be pulled.

 

All in all though, the biggest reason I don't think is so much if YouTube is relevant, but that it has no real competitor in the US.

I agree, but I think that the reason is that the MSM is scared of sites like YT, so it attempts to demonize them whenever it can.

[oldSock]

It can be said that mainstream media and algorithms can be to blame for much of what we see. That said the content that the algorithm deems relevant isn't relevant to me.

 

Yes in my case I am selective and the content I watch must have value because I am paying for it as stated before I do pay per 1mb of data. Hence I personally want informative and valuable content that is relevant to my interest. I do go and search for new YouTube channels and have found a few with only a few hundred subscribers. Some are even new.

 

But the above is just one side of the coin. To be clear I respect content creators and the fact that they want to make a living from their content. But when a content creator pushes out little or no content I start to question things. Especially when said content creator has financial support from subscribers, merchandise and sponsors.

 

As many of you said we as content consumers appreciate quality and relevance over quantity and click-bait. But again when I look at what is trending... Then I personally would say it isn't worth my time.

 

To be honest if a content creator just makes a little video stating "i am on vacation" or at least give a reason why they are not putting out content that would be great. But simply not giving a crap about content consumers and just disappear for weeks and months for no reason other then they don't care. Then why should content consumers care? 

 

  Like i said I can be totally wrong about all of this and probably is totally wrong about it. That said right now I am thinking 'drop YouTube go back to just buying DVDs or take a second look at what is happening on TV.'

[Tsuki]

the amount of content produced has gone down for a very specific, and very good reason.

people decided they want to make higher quality videos instead of just a bunch of shitty ones.good videos take longer to make. they have much more editing time required. in the case of stuff like Tech Quickie, there is more research time required to make sure the content is actually factual.

 

there are plenty of channels that pump out daily videos, and most of them suck.  the ones that dont suck usually have a small team behind them and the videos are made a week in advance and come out on a schedule to keep the content daily.

[Mail me to the Moon]

The problem with youtube, and google is that there are no viable alternatives right now. It sucks, and the quality will continue to degrade despite what users need/want. Long gone are the days of simply throwing an error code into google.

[oldSock]

First and foremost thank you for contributing. I have a deeper understanding of what is happening. I did learn a lot.

 

Yes good quality content can take months to make if not longer. I recall viewing fan film 'movie' and they also showed the viewer what goes into making a very short fan film 'movie' It was very well done 'in my opinion' and considering what they worked with it was awesome.

 

It took them a while to make and if i had to guess i would say it cost a considerable amount. I will never know if the investment was worth it or not but it was a cool Fan Film. I really liked it.

 

I will link to it below:

Watch Dogs - Fan Film

Watch Dogs Fan Film - Behind the Scenes

 

 

Enjoy

 

 

[-TesseracT-]

6 hours ago, Mail me to the Moon said:

The problem with youtube, and google is that there are no viable alternatives right now. It sucks, and the quality will continue to degrade despite what users need/want. Long gone are the days of simply throwing an error code into google.

That's good, because having all your favorite creators on one platform is awesome.

[Mail me to the Moon]

1 minute ago, -TesseracT- said:

That's good, because having all your favorite creators on one platform is awesome.

But also makes the discovery of new creators harder to find.

[Mihle]

I don't really care how often the YouTuber's I watch put out videos as long as I like the videos

[oldSock]

I have to admit I like consistency. That is a big thing for me. I look forward to the next video. It can be once a week once a month and if the creator can handle it, once a day. But above all I appreciate communication. If the creator tells me what is happening and why it is happening than i know.

 

But simply disappearing for no reason? I get it life happens. But when there is no more uploads for months and months and all social media is dormant i guess they made their million and moved on. Hence why I unsubscribed from so many channels.

 

Maybe YouTube needs to reconsider what subscriptions represent and make it meaningful in some way or form. I ordered some DVDs today and started cancelling online subscriptions and will be moving away from paywalls in general. Yes content on demand is awesome but when I personally added all the cost involved. I had to ask myself a very serious question. 

 

That question is: Can i go back to how things was before internet and YouTube?

 

I don't know. Maybe? 

 

Will I still view Linus Tech Tips? YES. I really like what they do most of the time.

 

Will I support their content behind a paywall?

 

To be clear I want to support them. BUT they need to understand that I am limited. I can pay for subscriptions via Google Play or iStore for example. It is true that where I live we are very restricted. Thus they need to consider that they have a global audience with different laws, restrictions and the like.    

 

So lets see. But I am no longer going to be bothered if content creators put out content or not. I am done with that game.    

[Mihle]

One thing I really dislike is that YouTube almost never recommends good videos from good YouTuber's because they don't make that many videos.

[oldSock]

31 minutes ago, Mihle said:

One thing I really dislike is that YouTube almost never recommends good videos from good YouTuber's because they don't make that many videos.

You Are spot on... 100% agree with you.

[MikeSK]

Today I ended up at the setup for my YouTube preferences while browsing YouTube.  Linus Tech Tips was the only YouTube recommendation I accepted.   The recommendations I rejected were politically correct reactionary enforcer propaganda.       

[RuffRuffmcgruff]

"You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain"

[TacoSenpai]

The problem is Youtube is becoming more like Cable TV (another dying medium) out of the necessity to upkeep it.  It simply costs way too much to run and is a massive loss monetarily for Alphabet or for anyone who decides to run it.  Sure you could bring Ads to pay for it or at the very least reduce the cost by having users watch them on videos but now you have multiple adpocalypses so advertisers leave in droves.  So how does Youtube respond swing far to being ultra politically correct resulting in stringent rules that it oh by the way arbitrarily enforces based on Google's agenda.  

 

So what does this result in?  Youtube being like every other main stream media outlet and probably succumbing to the same fate.  See the thing that made Youtube grow in the first place back in the mid 2000s up to about the time Google acquired it was that you could upload silly stupid videos for fun.  Yes it was a hobby content creators had other occupations and uploaded Internet videos for fun you didn't need to worry about copyright claims for using a 10 second anime clip or video game clip because there was no money involved.  Of course when it was smaller you had less cost associated with storing and expanding storage for content.  Which also seems to indicate to me that Youtube probably wasn't created with much of a business model in mind (I would have to research more though).  I mean how could you as a user upload to some else's server space for free and then watch other videos for free indefinitely?  It doesn't make any business sense.  Problem is the user base is so accustomed to it the moment you introduce a mandated pay wall to youtube for each subscription or even just to use the service (which I doubt is that far off) you will limit how many users use the service which also means less viewership on what limited advertisers are willing to still advertise on the platform.

 

If you need convincing first you had Youtube Red for "premium content by content creators".  Then not long after you have Youtube TV literally streaming live cable TV through your internet line no different than cable just the means you get it had changed.  Youtube is/was great because it wasn't like cable TV you had independent content whether that was in the form of stupid cat videos, Angry Video Game reviews for satire, and even tutorials.  Now its become a more and more arbitrarily censored platform to get what scraps of advertisers it can and becoming more similar to cable TV.

 

I'm not even going to hint that I have a solution to video streaming on the internet as it is VERY expensive business you have to make money somehow from it while also differentiating from main stream media.  The moment you introduce advertisers it muddies the waters you have to do the things cable TV does to keep them and strictly regulate it but then it destroys your platform and its content creators.  However, users want the service for free monetarily so what do you do?  Its a catch 22.  You could do paid service introducing tipping on videos, restrict uploads all things <removed by staff> tried and failed.   

 

[oldSock]

2 hours ago, LordTaco42 said:

Youtube Red for "premium content by content creators".  Then not long after you have Youtube TV literally streaming live cable TV through your internet line no different than cable just the means you get it had changed.  Youtube is/was great because it wasn't like cable TV you had independent content whether that was in the form of stupid cat videos, Angry Video Game reviews for satire, and even tutorials.  Now its become a more and more arbitrarily censored platform to get what scraps of advertisers it can and becoming more similar to cable TV.

I think when large advertisers pulled out it was a bit unfair considering the content that is on TV. There are a lot of very violent shows that I don't watch and yet advertisers are more then happy to buy the advertisement slot. 

[TacoSenpai]

8 minutes ago, oldSock said:

I think when large advertisers pulled out it was a bit unfair considering the content that is on TV. There are a lot of very violent shows that I don't watch and yet advertisers are more then happy to buy the advertisement slot. 

Which then begs the question more so.  Why is it ok to put ads on say CNN or Fox News'  youtube channel covering child murders in the middle east yet an independent content creator can't?  What is really going on here?

[MegaTechPC]

I've always watched a good bit of Youtube but have found that recently I am watching far more Youtube than I ever have before and I'm not really sure why that is.  I've just lately found a LOT of content creators that I love and find myself watching more YT than anything else.  Its funny because my X1 cable box has its own YT app so now when I'm on the couch watching TV its almost ALL Youtube anymore! 

 

Here's some of my favorite creators that I've spoilered so you don't have to be subjected to my list: 

Spoiler

Several ASOIAF channels (History of Westeros, Preston Jacobs, Alt Shift X, etc), for tech I watch LMG channels of course, but also everything from LGR, Techmoan, 8-Bit Guy, EverythingApplePro, Technology Connections, Austin, Jay, OC3D, Singularity, Phonedog, CNET, etc.  I also recently got into some musician's channels like Steve Terreberry, Jared Dines, 66Samus, Alex Bent, etc.  And there's great car/bike content like saabkyle04, Redline Reviews, The Fast Lane Car/Truck, 650ib, RidingWithTom, and Motonosity.  For entertainment channels I'm subbed to Emergency Awesome, Screen Junkies, Cinema Sins, ERB, and Extra Credits.  I even have a couple of gaming channels I watch like MajorSlackAttack who incidentally made the best Crysis walkthrough series I ever seen!

Suffice it to say that there is so much content on Youtube that I can't imagine ever getting tired of watching it.  If one of your subs doesn't upload content fast enough there are always about a million other channels you can watch in the mean time.  That's my two cents anyway.

[oldSock]

16 hours ago, LordTaco42 said:

Which then begs the question more so.  Why is it ok to put ads on say CNN or Fox News'  youtube channel covering child murders in the middle east yet an independent content creator can't?  What is really going on here?

Conspiracy anyone? 

 

A remote possibility exist that some companies co-own TV shows and the like. So for said 'possible' sponsor it doesn't make sense to sponsor private content creators because they are seen as competition. This is but one conspiracy theory that may or may not exist.   

 

Maybe have a look at the sponsors that pulled out and look at their investments and IF there are investments in MSM. Maybe there is something.... maybe not... who knows...

[TacoSenpai]

On 2/24/2018 at 7:07 AM, oldSock said:

Conspiracy anyone? 

 

A remote possibility exist that some companies co-own TV shows and the like. So for said 'possible' sponsor it doesn't make sense to sponsor private content creators because they are seen as competition. This is but one conspiracy theory that may or may not exist.   

 

Maybe have a look at the sponsors that pulled out and look at their investments and IF there are investments in MSM. Maybe there is something.... maybe not... who knows...

Aside from that its just inconsistent enforcing of Youtube's terms at best and at worst blatant shilling for the MSM.

[AshleyAshes]

2 hours ago, LordTaco42 said:

Aside from that its just inconsistent enforcing of Youtube's terms at best and at worst blatant shilling for the MSM.

I get that crying about 'Mainstream Media' is super trendy these days but your statement doesn't even make sense.  YouTube clearly shills for the advertisers, the people who pay them money, not the media, who pays them nothing.

[oldSock]

17 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

I get that crying about 'Mainstream Media' is super trendy these days but your statement doesn't even make sense.  YouTube clearly shills for the advertisers, the people who pay them money, not the media, who pays them nothing.

Not ruse if this is true or not. Consider YouTube TV that cost $35 US a month. Who is on it? ABC CBS FOX NBC AMC BBC America BBC World News Bravo Big Ten Network Cartoon Network CNBC NBC Sports CBS Sports Network CNN Comet The CW Disney Channel Disney Disney Junior SEC ESPN Network E Network ESPN ESPN 2 ESPNU ESPN News Fox Business FOX News Fox Sports FreeForm FS1 FS2 FX FXM FXX Golf Channel HLN IFC MSNBC National Geographic Nat Geo Wild NBC Sports Network Newsy Olympic Channel POP Smithsonian Channel Sundance TV SYFY TBS Telemundo Tennis Channel TNT Turner Classic Movies Tru TV Universal Kids NBC Universo USA WE TV YES Network

 

Now one needs to ask the question... Do YouTube get anything from these networks? What arrangements was made? 

 

I am not saying you are wrong. I am just saying MSM is making its way to YouTube... Yes again it does cost the viewer but again... i don't know... You tell me.  

 

[AshleyAshes]

6 minutes ago, oldSock said:

Not ruse if this is true or not. Consider YouTube TV that cost $35 US a month. Who is on it? ABC CBS FOX NBC AMC BBC America BBC World News Bravo Big Ten Network Cartoon Network CNBC NBC Sports CBS Sports Network CNN Comet The CW Disney Channel Disney Disney Junior SEC ESPN Network E Network ESPN ESPN 2 ESPNU ESPN News Fox Business FOX News Fox Sports FreeForm FS1 FS2 FX FXM FXX Golf Channel HLN IFC MSNBC National Geographic Nat Geo Wild NBC Sports Network Newsy Olympic Channel POP Smithsonian Channel Sundance TV SYFY TBS Telemundo Tennis Channel TNT Turner Classic Movies Tru TV Universal Kids NBC Universo USA WE TV YES Network

 

Now one needs to ask the question... Do YouTube get anything from these networks? What arrangements was made? 

 

I am not saying you are wrong. I am just saying MSM is making its way to YouTube... Yes again it does cost the viewer but again... i don't know... You tell me.  

You realize that when you obviously copy and paste a huge list of networks that use YouTube for some broadcasting, instead of just filtering out for news media outlets, which are defined by the term 'mainstream media', you kinda step yourself up for a trap right?  Cause guess what?  Those companies?  They are also 'shills' to their advertisers and subscribers, the people who pay them money.

[oldSock]

9 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

You realize that when you obviously copy and paste a huge list of networks that use YouTube for some broadcasting, instead of just filtering out for news media outlets, which are defined by the term 'mainstream media', you kinda step yourself up for a trap right?  Cause guess what?  Those companies?  They are also 'shills' to their advertisers and subscribers, the people who pay them money.

Yea it was late i was lazy... Not much of a excuse but there it is. But other then that I thought it would be fun to mention them all because the list is growing. But consider for a moment that someone as big as Disney  is spending a TON of money to buy-out other entities. The question needs to be ask. How long till they own enough entities that they will draw in more advertisers then other platforms? That could happen regardless of subscriptions and the like. I know our local satellite TV provider have a TON of advertisements during shows AND still ask a heavy subscription fee regardless. It just makes one think.  

 

But thanks for posting really like your take on this  

[MegaTechPC]

What company is not in the business of making money?  That's kinda the point of being in business; profitability and growth.  You think Linus isn't hoping that FP will be profitable?

[oldSock]

10 hours ago, MegaTechPC said:

What company is not in the business of making money?  That's kinda the point of being in business; profitability and growth.  You think Linus isn't hoping that FP will be profitable?

Awesome!!!

 

Was hoping someone is going to bring this up. YES everyone wants to make money but that said everyone wants exposure and more to the point they want the spotlight on their product and or service. 

 

Now the reality is TV shows gets away with a lot of negative content. I personally can no longer watch violent acts fount in many TV shows. I am at the point where i literally do not want to watch TV shows with bad stuff anymore. So i select what i want to see and will pay a premium for it in the form of DVDs or iStore downloads and the like.

 

Why is this relevant to your remark? Companies make money differently. It can be the selling goods, services, sports equipment, alcohol and or soft drinks. That is how they generate income. But each of them spend thousand upon thousands upon millions to get exposure. Sometimes exposure comes in the form of sponsoring a individual other times it is just about getting the word out like most advertisements we know. 

 

What is the difference? 

 

This is where the trick comes in. IF a large company owns most of the media that people view then that company can be very attractive to sponsors. 

 

Now to bring in your question.

 

Linus is banking on creating a subscriber base that would pay for content. Now the subscriber base is a good way to go. BUT Linus need to consider that he now has a global audience in many countries. Now why is this a problem? 

 

Simple many countries has restrictions regarding moving funds to other countries. Thus people like Linus that works on a subscription base for FP need to find ways to accommodate. Same is true for many other subscriptions. 

 

Now many companies became very creative in that they would use third parties like PlayStation Store or Google play store and so on to collect subscription fees. But is it worth it ?

 

Sharing is almost never worth it BUT that said a lot of big names are doing this right now. Why? As you said what company doesn't want to make money.  

 

So there is a balance between sharing and collecting funds directly. But lets see...