• drathvedro@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unpopular opinion: They should’ve just started charging big creators, kind of like Vimeo. Mofos be having youtube ads, sponsorships, built-in ads, courses, merch stores and patreon, and then they whine when youtube wants them to comply with advertiser’s demands.

    • straypet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      How well did that work out for Vimeo?

      Charging the people to create the content you sell is downright dumb.

      • drathvedro@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Works well enough that it’s still one of the major video hosting platforms.

        The part you miss is “you sell” part. Unlike youtube, where it solves both monetization and content delivery for you, Vimeo, AFAIK, doesn’t do any monetization and focuses enterely on content delivery. You pay for the service, and how you monetize the content is entirely up to you. May be the ad deal with NORD SHADOW MANSCAPED, may be donations. Or, the video may be promoting your own business, which seems to be the most common use case - as a business you don’t want a competitor’s ad on a video which purpose is to promote your own.

    • Asifall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Idk if that would be a good business decision. They would want it to be free and easy to start a channel still, so it would mean once your channel gets to a certain popularity google makes the deal progressively worse. This would create a big incentive for competition if all your biggest content creators are suddenly paying over cost to subsidize smaller channels.

      Not that this would be a bad thing, but I don’t see why google would ever want to risk it.