YouTube “stars” complain about revenue

Gaby Dunn's YouTube Channel

Gaby Dunn’s YouTube Channel

A Fusion piece this week by YouTuber Gaby DunnToo Liked To Fail, Get rich or die vlogging: The sad economics of internet fame” tells the weepy story of how popular YouTube “stars” are suffering financially. Since this theme seems to be popular based, in part, on the comments, it requires a response.

Dear Gaby,

You and Allison are members of what J.D. Lasica termed in 2005 “the personal media revolution,” wherein everyday folks could and would function as media companies in the creation of content for distribution via the Web. This is something new in the world, and you are pioneers in what is an experiment in disrupting the hierarchies of the news, information, and entertainment industries. Absent the need for expensive technology, anybody can be just about anything in the communications field today.

This has forced downward pressure on revenues for all of the old players, and that impacts you, too. This chaos will ultimately level out, and I suspect micropayments of some sort will be the end game for people like you. Those subscribers of yours have value, and I encourage you to stay the course.

But let’s all do so with the whole thing in perspective.

For one, in the free economy, customers set the values, and that’s at the core of the confusing lack of business equilibrium present in the marketplace today. Consider Google. Its core product is search, yet, it’s free to users, so Google makes its money a hundred different ways based on all that free use. You/we need to consider a similar approach. In the music industry, for example, the value of live performances, merchandise, private interaction, and other concepts is what makes the real money today, whereas it was the music itself for a long season under the modernist, hierarchical ways of doing business. Don’t underestimate your ability to create revenue streams outside your core products. Search out things like speaking engagements as a revenue generator. Study the thoughts of “1,000 true fans” and let your mind wander. It won’t be easy, but you can do it.

But let’s take it further. There are many different types of currency in the world today, including celebrity, ego, and the ability to touch what Richard Adams calls “the unbroken web” (that sacred source of creative expression) during the creative process. At core, we create for ourselves, and when that is corrupted by the need to create for others, something important is lost in our souls. As C.S. Lewis wrote in The Great Divorce, “Every poet and musician and artist, but for grace, is drawn away from the love of the thing he tells, to the love of the telling till, down in deep hell, they cannot be interested in God at all but only in what they say about Him.” This is an important lesson for all of us to never give up on what we find when we touch the unbroken web.

Finally, in the film “The Agony and the Ecstasy,” there is a scene in the catacombs of Rome where Michelangelo is angry over the emperor denying him the ability to finish the ceiling of The Sistine Chapel. The gathering includes many others in the arts, and one says in a voice of frustration, “But we’re artists; we’ll always be slave to another man’s nickel.”

This is an historical reference to the value of the arts in the community, and it has not changed, nor is it likely to ever change. The reward to the artist is in the art, not a comfortable place in the community.

So instead of complaining, adjust your expectations and get busy creating different ways to put food on your table. You should not be embarrassed or ashamed of doing anything necessary to advance your craft. Let only your conscience – certainly not public perception – be your guide.

All the best,

Terry

Why YouTube Red is the future

YouTubeRedsmI’ve been a subscriber of YouTube Red for the last month, and I’m completely sold on its model and its virtues, so much so that I think this is the one everybody in the content distribution world should be copying. Not only does it provide me with the greatest consumer experience possible, but it actually encourages me to spend even more time with YouTube.

No advertisements. Zero. Zip. Nada. That’s the draw, and it’s one in which everybody wins. The only way in for those wishing to do commerce is to participate as content providers. It is the essential distribution point for content marketing, and some of the best content on YouTube is advertiser content such as movie trailers, celebrity interviews, and much, much more.

And I’m personally thrilled that Google is the one to present this, for these guys figured out a long time ago that a clean and simple product such as free search could open vast doors of wealth in ancillary products and services. Good for them.

YouTube Red overcomes the taxonomy challenge of any publisher who wants people to find their content, whether published today or many yesterdays ago. As David Weinberger has taught us, there is no organizational system that humankind can create that will ever surpass the efficiency of search. YouTube is the second largest search engine in the world, second only to Google itself.

It also provides the front end for a micropayment service for artists of every stripe, and this thrills me for the future of the arts. The whole thing is what many of us envisioned long ago when we first attempted to understand the magnificence of the network and connectivity. This will continue to evolve, and Google continues to prove that what used to be impossible is actually very doable today. It is a breathtaking time to be alive.

The model of YouTube Red works in ways that I don’t even know yet, and it stands as one of the most important applications for study since the advent of the Web itself. My ability to create an endless stream of music videos that play in the background while I’m doing my work beats any mp3 system anywhere, because the cost to me is just $10 a month. Hell, my time alone is worth vastly more than $10 a month. TV viewing comes without interruptions, assuming the programs I enjoy are available on YouTube, and you’d be surprised at the volume of entertaining videos that exist in its library. In my view, this is where the future of video distribution will take place.

Facebook wants to take some of this away from Google, of course, but Facebook’s big weakness is that so far the ease of distribution of its videos beyond the walled garden of Facebook isn’t nearly what YouTube offers. This will eventually work against Mr. Zuckerberg and his wishes to take over the world. Don’t get me wrong; I love Facebook, but I also love the open Web and the idea that I can provide “my” videos anywhere I wish to make them available, including (at least for now) Facebook.

I’ve written previously that YouTube has reinvented advertising for videos via the Web with its 4-second pre-rolls, but once you experience the same videos without even those, there’s just no going back.

Color me happy and amazed.

The media disruption that matters

Please indulge me a wee gloat. I’ve been telling you for years that the real people to watch in the disruption of media are the advertisers, or as Jay Rosen would put it, “The people formerly known as the advertisers.” The business of media, after all, isn’t content; it’s advertising, and this is what will eventually destroy media companies insisting that mass marketing has a viable future.

AdAge published an article featuring a speech yesterday by Pepsico’s President of global beverage group Brad Jakeman to the Association of National Advertising’s annual “Masters of Marketing” conference in Orlando, Fla. I wish I could’ve been present, for AdAge described the presentation as “fiery” and “truth telling.” Here’s a pissed-off guy who spends a fortune to sell his products, and we need to pay attention. Here are a view excerpts from the article:

Ad agency models are breaking. Pre-roll ads are useless. Measurement models are outdated. The ad industry lacks diversity. And the phrase digital marketing should be dumped…

“Can we stop using the term advertising, which is based on this model of polluting [content],” he said.

“My particular peeve is pre-roll. I hate it,” he added. “What is even worse is that I know the people who are making it know that I’m going to hate it. Why do I know that? Because they tell me how long I am going to have to endure it — 30 seconds, 20 seconds, 15 seconds. You only have to watch this crap for another 10 seconds and then you are going to get to the content that you really wanted to see. That is a model of polluting content that is not sustainable…”

“The agency model that I grew up with largely has not changed today,” he said, noting that he has been in the ad industry for 25 years. “Yet agency CEOs are sitting there watching retainers disappear … they are looking at clients being way more promiscuous with their agencies than they ever have…”

He said he has been to many marketing conferences and has seen some really creative things, which he said was “awesome.” But he “hasn’t seen our industry really push for incredibly disruptive things,” he added. “We are still talking about the 30-second TV spot. Seriously?”

If you’re truly interested in this stuff (or if your future depends on it), I strongly recommend studying every word he says, for the utter collapse of Madison Avenue is at hand. Companies like Pepsico are now media companies, thanks to technology, and their money is increasingly being spent in house, as Borrell has been tracking for years.

As the old country song says, “You never heard my words before, but can you hear me now?”

Censoring the personal media revolution

Screen Shot 2015-04-18 at 8.24.35 AMThe great hope afforded Western civilization with the advent of the network is the ability of those being ruled to share among each other outside the filters of command and control, whether economic or the bayonet. This is no small thing, for institutional authority, in part, is founded on the perpetuation of the institution, and this is a self-serving exercise resulting in little regard for those being served. Part of the institution’s job, therefore, is the maintenance of the problem for which it is the solution, and this is done by controlling the narrative associated with the institution’s role in culture.

This forms the fabric of conflict today, because network connectivity is allowing the lower class to challenge historical references in attempts to improve its place in the world. The postmodernist refers to this as “deconstruction,” and so the ruling class must work that much harder to control the narrative that authorizes its rule. This is being played out before us in many ways today, but it takes certain eyes to see it, for otherwise, it simply appears as it’s always appeared – the complex wheels of life in action.

Nowhere is this conflict more obvious today than in the Middle East, and yet, Western journalists seem incapable of calling a spade a spade.

As demonstrated here for years, YouTube is the principal stadium where the personal media revolution is played out. Anyone with a camera is given media company status in a place where people are free to discover whatever they wish. It’s where the bottom of the information pyramid talks to itself and shares its own views of life and interest. Moreover, the structure of the site has always afforded easy unbundled distribution via other sites in the network, including those that we (foolishly) call “social” in order to differentiate them from “real” information sites, whatever that means.

Israel, a state requiring narrative control in order to maintain its justification in the world wants Google, the owner of YouTube, to censor videos that it deems “inflammatory” in which Palestinians reveal a different narrative of events between themselves and the Israelis. Of course it does. This isn’t rocket science; it’s propaganda 101.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry has created a new 10-person bureau responsible for finding videos it deems inflammatory and issuing some form of take-down notice to Google. This new bureau was described in an article in Arutz Sheva last week:

The bureau will concentrate on three main issues: The first is finding videos containing inflammatory content and subsequently filing an official request to have the social media sites take down these clips.

The second measure will be the development of an application which will identify keywords such as “knife” and “Jews” in Arabic or other languages, enabling the ministry to track the creators and poster of inciting content.

The third, and perhaps most important, is the actual intervention of staffers in discussions on social networks, where they will be tasked with distributing hasbara materials from the Foreign Ministry.

“Hasbara” is the Israeli term for propaganda.

If Google takes down even one video as the result of this bureau’s efforts, it’ll spawn the development of similar “bureaus” in both the public and private sectors, because much is a stake culturally. At least some of this will occur in the name of “fact-checking,” and that might not all be a bad thing. Unless, however, we’re not seeing it for what it actually is, in which case the work of all who’ve enabled the Great Horizontal will have been in vain.

Don’t say you weren’t warned.

It’s time for the press to grow a spine

bigjsmallIt’s amazing to me that for all of the studied, intelligent, imaginative, and articulate journalism observers we have among us today that none of them – not one – will touch the living, breathing J-Lab that is the Middle East. Here we have a daily demonstration of all that’s wrong with humanity along with a press that embraces narrative rather than facts. What do we do with it? Absolutely nothing.

That it is too complex and multi-dimensional to study is a convenient but unforgivable excuse. It’s all there; everything, but what it needs is some really courageous aggregating, filtering, and analyzing. In other words, serious reporting, the kind of which is completely lacking on the matter today, and that includes the New York Times, which embraces only one of the narratives. Instead, most journalists act only on fear: of being wrong, of being on the wrong “side,” of alienating important others, of showing bias, of the appearance of impropriety, of being called “anti-semitic,” of being called out by peers, and of many other things, both religious and secular.

For all the talk we talk about journalists being truth seekers, the reality is we’re afraid of what we might find here, and so we simply ignore the situation entirely. All this accomplishes is to advance the status quo, which is violent and ugly and has been so for decades. One-state solution? Two-state solution? Solution to “what” is the question. What’s the problem that needs solving? Is this really something that journalists of today can ignore forever?

And it’s damned important for us to study and report about it, for to do nothing is to look the other way as false history is being written about both sides. We’re talking about the cradle of Western Civilization, folks, and what could be more important than that? Moreover, the situation is a perfect laboratory for studying everything related to the core concepts of professional journalism.

Here are 10 examples:

  • It’s way more than a simple “he said/she said.”
  • Actual human beings are being sacrificed and killed.
  • It’s a war of narratives about history.
  • It’s filled with social media participation.
  • It’s a U.S. story, because the we’re involved up to our necks.
  • It’s a checkerboard of international politics.
  • It’s overflowing with emotion and drama.
  • It’s a study in human nature at work.
  • It cries out for a kind of deconstruction that only an involved press can provide.
  • It demands at least the spirit of objectivity.

We may occasionally get into reporting about one or more of the above, but nobody is looking at how all of this is intertwined in the story of human conflict and resolution. Is that too big a story? I don’t think so. In fact, I think the human race is not only ready for it but is begging for the opportunity to participate somehow in undoing the manipulation that makes us all feel so powerless. Journalism should be our servant in this noble task, but its self-absorption prevents it from reporting on the very people they work so hard to rub elbows with. Journalism is the one institution of all that cannot and must not allow assumptions to substitute for truth.

This is life! Why are we so consumed by surface stuff when technology has given us the ability to see with our own eyes, connect with all sides in an open conflict, and make sense where we never could before?

It’s a matter of shame for an institution that used to be important and necessary.

CBS disses affiliates with Star Trek announcement

CBS announced today that it is creating a new version of Star Trek for distribution in 2017. It’s not a shock, because the show’s 50th anniversary is coming up next year, and Star Trek is one of the all-time greatest franchises, regardless of the iteration.

What is going to shock the universe in the days ahead is the announcement that the program is only going to be available “exclusively” via the CBS All Access streaming service, according to the CBS press release:

The premiere episode and all subsequent first-run episodes will then be available exclusively in the United States on CBS All Access, the Network’s digital subscription video on demand and live streaming service.

The new program will be the first original series developed specifically for U.S. audiences for CBS All Access, a cross-platform streaming service that brings viewers thousands of episodes from CBS’s current and past seasons on demand, plus the ability to stream their local CBS Television station live for $5.99 per month. CBS All Access already offers every episode of all previous “Star Trek” television series.

No reader here will be surprised by this, because it’s been inevitable since the dawn of the Web. Let’s face it: direct to consumers is the most efficient way to distribute programs, and this announcement will be just the beginning. Watch for major conflicts over this and what will ultimately become the preferred method by which the legacy networks speak to their viewers.

The broadcasting industry, however, is not going to be happy, and I expect its objections to be loud and often.