YouTube's secret weapon to win the TV streaming wars: Its top creators | Hacker News Reader

YouTube's secret weapon to win the TV streaming wars: Its top creators

hollywoodreporter.com

24 pointsadrian_mrd45 comments

This is such a Hollywood take. YouTube’s “bottom creators” are its real advantage, the long tail of videos about air fryer repairs and make up tutorials.

Any studio can go out and buy content from big creators, but only YouTube has the ability to aggregate millions of independent content creators.

I think there's a bit of both...

At some point YouTube transcends what it was originally - the internet in video from - and becomes something more. It then exists in the space of "TV" or general distraction. It becomes a household name and at the point it needs to keep things ticking over by investing in things like Brand and Mindshare.

And then just like how Coca Cola and McDonald's only care about sponsoring the Olympics, YouTube also needs to find ways to chase after that above the fold streamers who they can positively associate with like Mr Beast.

But what am I even talking about... this is the platform that gave us Jake Paul.

I have such a love/hate relationship with YouTube. Only on YouTube are all of MITs lecture courses. if. you. can. only. fight. past. the. endless. Shorts...

/sigh

> It becomes a household name and at the point it needs to keep things ticking over by investing in things like Brand and Mindshare.

Why? It has quite a virtuous circle of paying creators fairly well and so they're incentivised to keep creating, which will keep people coming. Why assume it needs to change doing what got it where it is?

I think the worst thing it can do is try to start competing with regular TV. It might want to do something like move into publishing independent film behind a low-friction paywall, to fund film creators better, and maybe sponsoring Cannes[0]. But don't just try and become Hollywood. That wouldn't be a good outcome.

[0] I just noticed that TikTok sponsors Cannes! https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/the-festival/they-support...

Despite the great number of views that the enormously long tail of YouTube can garner, the general public still gravitates towards more general content.

THR is reporting on the general phenomena most of the general public will see. While also catering to their target demographic: the movers and shakers of the celebrity industry in Hollywood. It is a trade publication afterall, technically speaking.

None of the big creators on YouTube are themselves bigger than a small niche. For example, ASMR videos cumulatively rival Mr Beast. There’s an infinity of such categories.

> the general public still gravitates towards more general content

I'm not sure that's true. The vast majority of the stuff I watch on YouTube is way too niche to be on television.

Same, but even though I will never watch him, you can't really argue with Mr Beast's view count.

I think the point is that for every Mr Beast view there are many more views of content by smaller creators, and whilst Amazon or a major network could definitely buy exclusive agreements with Mr Beast et al (and many leading stars already save a portion of their content for Patreon subscribers), they can't do that with the long tail. Plus if Mr Beast did end up exclusively on a network, YouTube's recommendation algorithms would surface other creators instead.

That's even more true in much smaller niches. Amazon and the BBC actually did pick up a couple of the top narrowboat YouTube channels (and offered them more money and viewers than YouTube ever did) but if you want to search for videos on a particular boating location or how to fix a particular issue or just to have enough content to binge watch to live the lifestyle vicariously without the expense and complications of owning a boat, only YouTube will satisfy you.

You're on HN, you're not the general public.

It’s actually both. The selling point of YouTube is that you find both big and small. It’s a one-stop shop.

Indeed.

I often look at all the internet monopolies and I feel YouTube is quite a hard one to crack.

A competitor could buy some top channels, and then what?

YouTube is on virtually all decides out there, even bundled with smart tvs. So much to invest for a very low chance of return.

Why would top creators even agree unless you throw stupid money at them (they already are making crazy tens of thousands if not more for every video, good luck luring them).

And that's not even counting that Google has insane amounts of data for ads, yet another advantage.

I just don't see anybody being able to really fight YouTube unless Google itself keeps making it worse.

Agreed but TikTok kinda shows it’s possible, no?

To an extent yes, but apparently YouTube shorts are bigger than TikTok now.

And I would argue that TikTok targeted short videos, which aren't really YouTubes main thing.

I think they only compete in the space of short videos and mobile devices.

When it comes to longer formats and non-mobile devices YouTube is just the de facto content provider of user-created content.

Like, I lay on my couch and watch YouTube for hours. Car reviews, NBA highlights, documentaries, cooking recipes, travel tips, etc...Not a space/device TikTok can enter easily.

If I were thinking about trying this, I wouldn't bother trying to appeal to top creators, especially not at first. No matter how much VC you throw at the problem, you'll burn through all of it before you even begin to make a dent. It's also been tried before and failed.

It's been discussed elsewhere in this thread that a lot of the appeal of YouTube is the small-to-mid-size creators. You may not even need to pay more than YouTube is paying in the general case to make it interesting - just offer better terms. Like a guaranteed rate per view and/or per view minute, along with a promise that all of your subscribers will actually be notified when you post new videos. You wouldn't require creators to stop cross-posting to YouTube as well, but you could pay a modest bonus for each platform-exclusive they post, or pay for timed exclusives with a call-out to your platform in the YouTube version.

You would still need to pour billions into it to get anywhere though, and even then, it's not even clear if YouTube is actually profitable as an independent business currently.

Only thing I use youtube for is tech repair videos and listening to music.

I think most likely the people who go to look for 'top creators' are teenage girls looking for a popular 'celeb'.

It probably depends on how top we mean here. I’m basically the opposite of a teenage girl, but I regularly watch a few 1-10M subs creators. It comes in waves, few years one subset, few years another.

That said, I moderated my subs and feed for years. A newcomer with no youtube harnessing experience has no chance to avoid the default chamber.

As soon as channel hits 1M it immediately gets less interesting, that is inevitable. No-hello videos where the author feels shy to ask for money always turn to videos with intro, transitions and outtro.

And there is no way to moderate feed except of not watching bad videos. For example I was baited once at some lo-fi music jam video from small channel (I always appreciate <3k channels) and now I have ton of that music but with decreasing of my favorite science topic. I never listen music on Youtube because the choice is both poor and random and I hope my feed stops being spammed with jam topics after few weeks.

there is no way to moderate feed except of not watching bad videos

You can unwatch a video by x-ing it in history. Together with dislike and “not interested” this works very well for me. “Don’t recommend channel” does work too.

You are probably stuck in the “Web 2.0” era, when “YouTube” was “just a video hosting” for “my blog” or “our fan site”. It stopped being that long ago, when “my dog is barking so silly” videos on the front page were replaced with “internet celebrities”. It is clear that enormous amount of money was invested in becoming a TV(+radio) in everyone's pocket. Turn it on, drink the sweet stream of entertainment. Industry understands well that they are competing with YouTube — and also social services which promise the same “push the button and munch” fix. The production process has converged, and principles of working with audience became the same. Each eyeball with legs has x minutes of attention each day, if you manage to grab some of those, you win.

It is also disgraceful to say that something is “on YouTube”, “on Facebook”, etc. Specific people did that, “YouTube” or “Facebook” themselves did not give birth to “content”. That's exactly how public is manipulated to adore the TV boxes, channel logos, and brands, while “creators” become interchangeable nameless… “creators”.

This seems like an ad without any deeper insights.

It's weird that they don't mention MrBeast, who has been consistently dominating the YouTube meta for the last few years. He's on his way towards becoming the most subscribed to creator on the platform and each of his videos consistently gets more views than the Superbowl.

I think the thing that sets YouTube apart from other platforms is that creators can start monetizing content early on and continue growing the channel and audience. No other platform has come even close to matching the monetization potential on YouTube.

MrBeast is a fascinating case because he has almost become too big. There is a podcast of him where he says a lot of brand deals do not come close to his minimum requirements now, even AAA blue-chip deals.

YouTube could maybe be losing money on him? I don’t follow the stats too closely to make a more informed conjecture though. My realm of YouTube is far more niche.

Don't think so. Youtube make money on adds. And Premium. For premium only changes who the money get distributed. On adds MrBeast is likely advertiser friendly enough content. So they in general are happy to run adds on that content. And these deals are by Youtube not MrBeast. Youtube does not make money from whatever deals creators have.

The too-bigness is not an issue for YouTube, since YouTube sells ad slots for each view separately.

It's an issue only for the creator, since when they put a sponsor in a video, it's always the same for all the viewers.

When MrBeast has trouble finding a suitable sponsor deal, they probably fill the sponsor slots with their own brand (Feastables).

It's not really an issue for him either. He's making truckloads of money. If he can do that without polluting his videos with sponsor segments then that's just better isn't it?

Personally I don't really mind them, they get automatically skipped by sponsorblock. But I'd that was no longer an option I'd prefer creators who weren't trying to sell me stuff in every video.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

> has become bigger than Netflix on TV sets

It wasn't before!? I understand they're just talking about TV sets in one country, but I'd still expect a free platform to beat a paid one.

I suspect there's a correlation between having the money and desire to own a TV and having the money and desire to pay for content, as opposed to consuming content on devices like phones which are more likely to be owned even by people who don't care about media viewing experience enough to pay for it.

Not to say there won't be plenty of people watching free content on TVs and premium content on phones and computers, just different ratios.

Do people not get TVs by default anymore?

Even treating it as an extra expense, a 40" TV is $3 per month when you average it over 4-5 years. It's so much cheaper than any paid content you might consider.

I don't have one. First because it is an eyesore. Second because most of the content I watch live is not in the living room but somewhere else. That somewhere else being any room in the house and I would definitely not want a 40" eyesore on every single room. Most of the time if I am watching something live I am doing something else at the same time, like cooking, building or repairing stuff so it is just more convenient to use a laptop for this.

For movies I have a beamer in the living room, the only wall without furnitures, flowers or frames being the screen.

Having said that, I don't know why we oppose "physical TVs" with youtube here. All TVs nowadays have youtube apps or can be plugged a device with the app on it, and every single TV channel on planet earth nowadays as a way to access it from a web browser.

I thought about ditching my TV with my next move, but I've actually started switching all my video content consumption back to the living room (via an Apple TV).

I watch no traditional television, but I feel like after years of sitting at my desk to watch "content", I forgot how comfortable a good couch and a glass is, and the Apple TV apps are gradually getting better. Some are even good.

(Although I was recently exposed to a proper "Smart TV" for the first time whose software was beyond awful, so I can understand people thinking TVs are no longer worth it.)

>I suspect there's a correlation between having the money and desire to own a TV

TVs are pretty darn cheap.

Certainly cheaper than smart phones.

If the history of content platforms on the internet has taught me anything, people saying a platform has won is a sure sign it will become largely irrelevant to the next generation of users.

Youtube can F off with their you must need X thousand subscribers and Y views to get money. F them, you make a video, you upload and after that very moment the monetization should be ongoing. No limits and the like. You can decide whether to get the earned revenue from them or don't care at all.

The threshold is quite low, we talking about few dozen dollars at best.

There should be zero thresholds. Do not prey on small creators.

I think you're being overly biased and ideological. Most platforms don't give you a single cent even if you have millions of followers. Monetization is something you need to sort out on your own.

Expecting to have few thousand views, which equate to few $, and have Youtube cover the expenses of reviewing your channel/content and paying the transaction fees on such small amounts is a bit silly. How is Youtube preying on content creators there, by denying them a McDonald's menu before paying them out?

The threshold is extremely low and I don't think you're giving Youtube the due credit of providing you a platform with many tools and a gargantuan audience potential.

well, they should. It would show a perfect precedent and they could actually take on YT.

how on earth are you supposed to sort it out on your own? you have zero freedom of movement on the platform.

My brother is 18 and I distinctly remember when he stopped watching all cable television and switched to YouTube alone and has never stopped since. It was roughly 7 years ago. It is the same for all the kids he knows. The younger generations and time are on YT’s side

imho, YouTube's hidden gold are all those small time niche creators, the enthusiasm and the dedication makes their videos a joy to watch.

The anecdotal feedback from many creators seems to be that YouTube squeezes their income to the point of them considering giving up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com