Slashdot Mirror
YouTube To Share Revenue With 20-year-old Filmmaker
destinyland writes "YouTube just has signed a deal to share ad revenue with 20-year-old Brandon Fletcher. YouTube had already said they'd implement revenue sharing this summer, but this indicates they're willing to put their money where their mouth was. 10 Zen Monkeys has a funny chronicle of Brandon's enviable march to YouTube money. 9 weeks ago he flew to California to demand YouTube feature his video on their front page. A security guard refused to let him off the elevator — but he made crucial contacts which helped seal the deal 9 weeks later. Taking this business to the next level makes sense in the here and now, when some 70 percent of internet users are streaming video."
No, this is just USSA users, not the whole Internet.
Common sense is not so common
They're picking and choosing who they share revenue with as though the traffic they receive from some videos is worth more than the traffic they receive from other videos.
Google should implement this in the same way they do for Blogger. Just let people use their AdSense accounts on YouTube.
Are they giving him a share of the overall revenues (unlikely), or a percentage of adclicks on his videos? (Which seems more likely, despite the oddity of wanting to be paid for someone clicking away from your content...)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
I don't recall seeing any ads on Youtube, so how can they share revenues that they seemingly don't have?
As well, I fully expect them NOT to have ads, at least not in the near future. Once Youtube actually starts making money, it will make them even more vulnerable to lawsuits from copyright holders when users upload infringing material. The fact that Youtube could generate revenue from copyright-infringing material will make the case stronger that they are encouraging users to flaunt copyright rules, and make them more vulnerable to lawsuits. I think that's the only reason why Google hasn't posted ads there, because they are trying to figure out how to protect themselves from getting their asses sued.
use a site that pays you to begin with, like revver ?
Have a look here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=101169
This is a very interesting discussion I am currently having with indie film makers, on how to use the internet and video sharing sites to produce web TV series and make money out of the whole deal.
It's great that this kid got his break, but YouTube's real value is commercially-owned content.
In a year this 'kid' might produce commercially owned content :)
In 5 years, he might have an own studio.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
who the fuck watches anything much on youtube except for short clips? tiny low res movies anyone?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
crappy high def hollywood produced movies are still crap. I'm not defending youtube content, but why attack the medium when it's content quality people keep complaining about?
A security guard refused to let him off the elevator -- but he made crucial contacts which helped seal the deal 9 weeks later
Eh? Was the Secutiry Guard promoted to Head of Revenue Sharing in the intervening 9 weeks?
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
What's with all the numerals starting sentences?
Spell out the damned things. Good grief.
Then again, this is Slashdot. I should know better than to think we have any sembalance of grammar.
Am I the only one who detects a distinct odor of hype around this story? Tries to force his way into the building ... and then they make a deal with him? Sounds like something from a (bad) movie.
At the bottom of the
And where exactly will AdSense get its context from? It's not like it can analyze video to show contextual ads. Not yet at least.
Hollywood produces movies to appeal to the population at large in an attempt to make money. Idiots on websites produce videos to satisfy their deprived ego and to substitute for the mommy and daddy they never had and take the place of friends they can't manage to make. I don't know about you, but I prefer to consume content that was at least made with the intention of entertaining or educating me (in turn for a buck) than content that was produced to coax me into posting a "OMG LUV DAT ASS MOMMA - HOOK ME UP WIT DAT!".
The best way Google could reward those who produce content for their site is by offering them free sterilization after 1,000 views.
I think we can officially say goodbye to the real internet. Some of you may not be old enough to remember this, but there was a time when people produced content and communities on the internet for no other reason than they cared and enjoyed doing it. Even before the internet, people would spend hundreds or thousands of dollars putting networks of computers together in their home, ordering a dozen or two dozen lines from the local phone company and feeding that trunk into a bank of modems so they could operate a free dial-up community.
People didn't plaster advertising on every page of everything they created. People didn't write articles in their blogs with the sole intention of drawing readers who would boost their ad revenue. People didn't produce self-involved videos in the hope of becoming the next big thing.
There was a time when people created and consumed out of simple interest and passion. Now, everyone from six years old to ninety years old wants to get rich off advertising on their blog, their website, their stupid pointless youtube videos, their comments on other people's blogs, their half-assed website ideas that they hope will get bought up for half a billion by Yahoo! or Google.
Want to see what putting ad banner revenue at the top of the list for encouraging you to find *something* to post on your blog every single day does to the net? Go look at the top ten or twenty RSS feeds. Especially the tech related ones. They are all copies of each other. On a given day, they simply commit blog-incest and rape each other's ideas and posts. By the end of the day, you'll see the same stupid story (usually about a new product, of course) twenty times on twenty of the top RSS feeds. Why? Well, you have to post SOMETHING. Anything, to draw people back to look at more ads while they're reading through your copy and pasted (and often poorly worded) material.
There are days where I wonder why any of us bother to care about "saving the internet" from being overrun by commercial entities and corporations and governments who want it to be nothing more than another commodity or another pipe through which to funnel products and purches into our homes. Why bother? The average Joe and his little sister and his dad are doing just fine turning the internet into one giant ad-plastered cess-pool of sell-outs.
Tags and descriptions, presumably the same way YouTube finds "related videos".
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
YouTube (and Digg actually) proved once and for all, that "Web 2.0" is NOT about user generated content, but commercial-grade content being selected by users. /Bookmarking sites/ output into some top-topic list, you will see that the content is dictated daily by CNN, NYT, BBC, Wired, Cnet, etc... The user generated "content" is just the middleman in 95% percent of the cases.
As a blogger, it's hard for me to say this, but honestly almost nobody reads (or shoud read) blogs but bloggers (and journalists, etc...), almost nobody watches vlogs but other vloggers, and in the end of the day, these are probably barely 5% of the Internet users. Regretfully, Google with it's idiotic blog fetish constantly sticks blog links into the result page, and I, like many others have already learned how to avoid blog-looking URLs. The ridiculous thing, is that too often the results are actually short stories that just link to the content users are looking for.
YouTube's "most watched" top 100 are a clear indication to that - the top videos are generally news, Sport clips, music videos, show episodes. Out of top 100, there might be 4-5 original user-made videos, everything else is pretty much "The best things that were on TV today". And if you aggregate total Blogosphere's/Video sharing
My Starcraft 2 Blog
70% of users streaming video? I guess that includes me if you include the annoying ads on slashdot
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
But there are tons of great short clips that are commercially owned. 99% of my YouTube visits pre-Google acquisition were for clips of old cartoons, music videos and bits from news and TV shows.
These days, on one end there is huge negative buzz among content owners against YouTube and on the other end Google is scrambling to make tools to automate content removal and make it more accurate and efficient. The founders are insisting that the attraction of YouTube has always been skateboarding dog and burping baby videos.
With most of the good stuff getting yanked YouTube is quickly becoming useless. You can't even view important historical events or pop culture items there anymore. All that will remain by next year will be a bunch of self-absorbed jerks with webcams.
You should at least give credit where credit is due. Your quotation is by Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut, not Yogi Berra.
I find it a little silly that we get news items about how YouTube will be implementing revenue sharing with contributors - like that makes them somehow amazing and benevolent. Other sites like metacafe and revver have been doing this for ages.
Case in point, my silly wii-mote fatality clip has earned me ~US$900 so far...
Why can't they make good on the revenue sharing amongst everyone else?! Me thinks they don't wants to??