141–145 of 145 posts
I'm still wondering why Youtube isn't ALL OVER this model. Given that many are getting paid for publishing videos of what they do, it would be a great feature.
A vast part of Youtube's audience are minors who don't have credit cards and couldn't pay for content. So they are shown ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A vast part of Youtube's audience are minors who don't have credit cards and couldn't pay for content. So they are shown ads.
Youtube would not replace the ad model with a patron model, they would ADD the patron model. Patreon has shown there is clear demand for that feature.
If I were a big successful Youtuber, which I'm not and will never be, I wouldn't go near a patron service provided by the same company whose practices were driving me away from them to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Youtube would not replace the ad model with a patron model, they would ADD the patron model. Patreon has shown there is clear demand for that feature.
One of the reasons Youtubers are moving to Patreon is a lack of trust in Google to provide a platform that generates a stable income, due to their demonetizing of accounts,arbitrary tweaks in the algorithm, refusal to defend Fair Use, etc. If I were a big successful Youtuber, which I'm not and will never be, I wouldn't go near a patron service provided by the same company whose practices were driving me away from the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the network effect. With Patreon you can see who your friends are supporting and use the network effect to influence or signal to your friends who you're supporting, kind of like Kickstarter. Conversion rates are higher too because chances are your would be supporters already have an account on Patreon. It's like anyone could write a Facebook clone, the hard part is cloning the community.
Network effect is overrated. I don't look at any of my friends on Patreon. I don't even think I have any Patreon friends. Its just a more simple way for me to Paypal people I want to support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's perfectly possible to run the channel. You're just not going to make any money from it. Can't really blame advertisers for not wanting to associate their brands with political content, especially if it's as toxic as a Jordan Peterson rant on gender, and can question the motives of anyone whose decision on whether to critique capitalism or not is based on whether they can get enough juicy ad dollars for doing so.
I thought Peterson was a psych professor who has interesting perspectives on the bible. What are his toxic views on gender? Genuinely curious.
Lest one think that this might be an unfortunate bit of hyperbole taken out of context in what must be an unusual situation for an outspoken middle-aged religious intellectual to face, he's doubled down on it with an angry lecture series on the subject and other crackpot theories like "the idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling" and actually it's all a myth caused by the birth control pill making modern women hostile towards masculine men. I wish I was parodying that argument; I'm merely summarising it.
I doubt advertisers were upset by his studies on the Bible