Hacker News Reader

Comment by spacebanana7 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

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...

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”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com