I wonder if this is opening cracks for competitors.
I wonder if this is opening cracks for competitors.
No one wants to watch ads.
No one wants to pay a subscription.
Those two things are factually true, and why youtube sucks, why it has no competitors, and why the future looks bad for it.
Vid.me ran an experiment a few years ago and made a serious push to upend youtube. They had great success and it really took off. But eventually they went bankrupt and closed shop. Why?
No one wants to watch ads.
No one wants to pay a subscription.
Get this through your skull everyone.
Many of my favorite channels (mostly civil engineering, science, history) are there, and release there first before YouTube. Sadly the UI is not as good, and there are no automatic captions like YouTube. But it's cheap and it works...
And of course there's Patreon.
Most Patreon accounts I've seen just link to unlisted Youtube videos.
It also seems like they don't allow all types of accounts to use it: https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/6598555214477-...
There are a few other usage restrictions that make it worse than just hosting on Youtube.
I know, i know, but that's pretty big speed bump in the onboarding process.
Why would anyone want to enter this market?
Remember, companies are about maximizing profit, not merely making a reasonable profit.
When did they admit this? They've definitely been very profitable. https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-al...
Content creators on Youtube are paid from ads and subscriptions. If they want to give their content away for free, they can turn off Youtube ads since they are the ones turning them on in the first place.
The push towards non-youtube channels like Nebula and Patreon signals that some creators are at least worried about their entire audience being delivered via Youtube's whim.
And no, going to these other sites is not a signal. Creators use these sites as additional revenue sources by posting early and exclusive content. They funnel their audience to them through other sites. No one discovers new content on these sites.
I was just responding to the idea that
"I think many content creators have recognized that it's important to expand their brand outside of youtube so they're not so beholden to YouTube."
Do you disagree with that statement?
As for your question, I disagree. The examples you mentioned are not alternatives, they are small additions. The only exceptions I've seen are podcasts, but they've never been tied to YouTube.
My point was only that if you have a core audience of subscribers, who provide value via direct subscription or as audience for your sponsorships, you might be worried about Youtube making changes to their system that annoy those users or makes it harder for them to watch your content.
And Youtube could make changes that help Youtube's numbers (ie more ad impressions, more views overall, pushing short form video over long form) that can hurt an individual channel by driving away their niche audience or surfacing their videos to subscribers less often (Youtube already loves to do this one).
Extending outside of Youtube to let this core audience give you money and directly watch your videos (ie Nebula, Patreon, Discord communities) is a hedge against this. Being less beholden to Youtube for your weekly viewership and the relationship with your audience doesn't mean completely replacing Youtube with an alternative.
Niche channels suffering contains so many conditionals that it needs to be demonstrated before being considered a serious issue.
Most channels would die if they lost YouTube, so it's not a hedge.
From an individual standpoint, you want to try to preserve your ability to access your audience and make money from them. Whether or not other channels live or die or flourish under future Youtube algorithm and monetization changes doesn't matter to you nearly as much.
That's was my point, actually.
This Week In Tech hosts their own content, in addition to youtube uploads and other services.