New Youtube Channel Art 2013.
New Youtube Channel Art 2013
2120x1192
thenextweb.com
100% of people who come to YouTube come to the platform to watch and share our beloved cat videos; 0% expect to pay for content. It’s really that simple. I think there was a big billion dollar company called Facebook that tried out the commerce model. Remember Facebook credits? Whatever happened to that?These services have libraries of long-form content that people actually consume already. People were actually paying for convenience under the current subscription models – and for a lot of people, it was a very attractive value proposition – not the content itself. Most of the content on Hulu and Netflix and Pandora and Spotify isn’t exclusive to the platform.This goes back into a well-accepted theory of media: media hardly replaces media – only the medium of consumption changes. Conversely on YouTube, the content library is … well … just not premium enough. Even Netflix barely came out with three originals, only one of which is an arguable critical success.For video and media alike, the value comes from several factors like how you feel after you watch one episode, what others talk about (the hype), etc. And unlike my Farmville app, you really don’t achieve anything after you’ve consumed it (I at least get coins and utterly useless valuable satisfaction with my Farmville app). For YouTube subscriptions, it’s more of … I’ve watched this, now onto the next episode.You could argue that Hulu, Netflix, Pandora and Spotify face these consumption challenges, but in actuality they don’t. It’s because the value of the content on there has already been vetted. If 50 Cent or any other artist wanted to put their next hit “Bitches and Hoes Be Up in Dis Club” onto Spotify, you can bet the marketing for that song would already have been done – whether it’d be through record labels, TV networks and shows, etc. Think about the stuff you listen to, or the stuff you watch on these platforms – they’re all content that are in pre-existing channels. It’s content that’s pre-qualified for value.iTunes and the App store command a 30% share, which in my opinion is a bargain. Why? Because it has one thing that YouTube doesn’t have – an obscene amount of traffic of people expecting to buy. People come on YouTube to watch “Gangnam Style” and cat videos – not buy mediocre clips of extra and supremely recycled library of content labeled “premium.”The only reason why YouTube can command such a premium revenue share is because of something I’d like to call the “Doggy Dog Syndrome.” Just like a male dog that gets curious when bitches are around, Hollywood content owners only know how to do one thing – own content and then stick it in any place that will accept. Revenue share? No problem. It doesn’t cost me anything to stick it in those places. In fact, I get extreme pleasure because you’re helping me make money.What does this kind of extreme commoditization of content do for the individual creators? Well, it fucks them over. Remember the last time when YouTube started handing out some serious stacks to start “premium channels”? Except they gave it to everyone except YouTubers? Yeah … kinda like that. $10,000 would’ve gone a long way for one YouTube creator. But $5mm went toward funding some mediocre ass channels.My point is that YouTube is having the royal fuckup of their lives – a great idea turned upside down by outside interests, crappy market research, and a shallow understanding of the new digital media landscape. Yes, the folks and the executives at YouTube have revenue pressure under investors and things. And the recent talk about the small margins of ad revenues isn’t helping much. But at the end of the day, the secret for YouTube lies in its creator ecosystem – not these “big content” plays.