Youtube just halved what it pays out
mainAccording to the FT: ‘Effective payment rate from online video site halves to $0.001 per stream in 2015’.
Youtube is owned by Google.
Google steals the world.
Comments
MOST READ TODAY:
-
Orchestras
Berlin Phil oboe’s US class arouses disquiet
A social media activist has circulated a video…
-
Orchestras
NY Times chief joins the Mäkelä sceptics
Zachary Woolfe, chief music critic of the New…
-
Orchestras
Barenboim quits Berlin concerts
The Berlin State Opera communicated tonight that its…
-
Orchestras
Cleveland turns in good numbers
The Cleveland Orchestra today published its results for…
YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and other essential daily services using the taxpayer-built Internet should be regulated as utilities and the coders who created them should be rewarded exponentially less.
Spot on, except none of those is really essential. There has been a world without them not too long ago and is was fine, arguably it was much better, certainly the classical recording world.
Spot on, except none of those are really essential. There has been a world without them not too long ago and is was fine, arguably it was much better, certainly the classical recording world.
A rather deceptive headline. You’ll find that the total payout increased, but as your main story text says (quotes), the effective payment rate (per stream) dropped. That’s because, if you read the article, the total streams viewed increased but, most likely, advertising revenues didn’t increase proportionately. That would make sense – it’s like a marketplace model – there can be imbalances between streams and advertising spend – a rise in one doesn’t necessarily mean an immediate rise in the other. Youtube (probably sensibly) pays out a portion of what it generates in revenues. It’s not about views, it’s about how much money those views are generating. I assume this article was written from a general position of support for content creators vs. distributors, which is roughly my position too. However, there’s little point in moaning about it (even less point moaning about it with the wrong facts). Content creators need to find a way to sustainably generate revenues from their own content, which could mean creating their own distribution networks.
“Content creators need to find a way to sustainably generate revenues from their own content, which could mean creating their own distribution networks.”
Ha. Nice idea. But…
Why stop there. Make the argument consistent and require customers in the market to create their own banks. Citizens create their own government, if the existing one doesn’t work in their interest etc.
It’s easy to make such comments in the ivory tower, but reality out there…
Problem with your argument is: content creators are busy with content creation, because if they don’t then there is no/less content, duh…
But for every content creator who loves his work, there are ten or more highway men and parasites, who absolutely only love money. It’s a fight that’s impossible to win.
Only if the buying customers would deeply despise the parasites and with high ethics support the content creators. In other words: when hell freezes over and the parasites there are leaving to warmer places.
Now, let’s apply that thinking to other, non-artistic enterprises.