Vidme To Shut Down On Dec 15th 2017

New submitter substance2003 writes: Vid.me has announced they are shutting down on December 15th 2017 citing that they could not find a path to sustainability. This news should be of concern as content creators have been getting increasingly frustrated with Youtube's algorithms that demonetize their videos and this means they have one less alternative to turn towards.

Comments

Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who?

In a bid to create a pathway to sustainability...

[Lab Rat Jason]

... an unknown video platform began publishing news of their eminent demise on random tech aggregation sites.

Use this one weird trick to launch your YouTube knockoff company!

Who?

[Frosty Piss]

Never heard of them. But a lot of people have been trying - to various levels of success to squeeze free money out of YouTube. Sorry, but YouTube owns them nothing. If you can make money on YouTube, fine, but if you don't have a business arrangement with the Googlies, don't be crying when they change up the rules...

Re:Who?

[MightyYar]

Sorry, Google can't have it both ways. When you use the site, you need to agree to terms and conditions. That's a commercial contract - that's a business relationship. People can gripe all they want as far as I'm concerned. If enough of them gripe together, they might even change their side of the deal for the better.

Re:Who?

[MBGMorden]

That doesn't sound like the case here. From what I can tell, Vid.me was essentially an alternative to Youtube - it allows people to upload their videos, control who can advertise on them, and offer subscription/tip services to their creators.

All sounds like a perfectly fine idea - kinda like Youtube but with the monetary structure of Twitch and/or Patreon built-in.

The issue, likely, is that like you, I had never heard of them until today, and I'm betting most other people hadn't either.

Also, to really compete you need ubiquitous app availability. Not just on phones but on set-top devices and game consoles. If people have to work too hard to access the content they won't bother.

Re:Who?

[tlhIngan]

What kind of content is being demonitized and why? Taking away ad income from say hate speech, trippy kid-targeted adult content, ISIS execution videos and so on is basically a form of moderation. That sort of thing is already covered by the existing TOS, so I don't have a problem with it.

It's not even a TOS thing. Advertisers are a very conservative bunch, and they have a whole list of topics to which they will and will not advertise with.

What happened was Google screwed up and a few of those ads were shown on content the advertisers said to never show their ad on, so a lot of big names pulled ads.

This especially so with people like PewDiePie who basically turned from new media hero to pariah in a single video, causing advertisers to withdraw ads in shock. A lot of YouTubers who obviously didn't know how ads work were stunned when monetization got pulled on their videos because they thought they were going after "free money" - produce whatever the hell you want, ask YouTube to stick ads on it and reap the rewards.

Well, the "adpocalypse" happened and "content creators" were no longer isolated from the fact that they only make money when there are advertisers willing to advertise on their videos. No longer did clicking "monetize" mean easy money - advertisers were very cautious about what content their ads appear with, and are really quick if they see their ad on something they disagree with. And face it - advertisers have the thinnest skins around - they're deathly afraid of offending someone, anyone. Unfortunately, a lot of YouTube "shock jocks" found that out the hard way.

DUH

[SmaryJerry]

Vid.me had more ADs than the superbowl. It's basically a big advertisement site with a few videos. Not nice ads either, often the popups that claim your computer has a virus, or despite having popups blocked, still pops up ads in the background.

Re:Who?

[morethanapapercert]

Thanks for your post. You made some good points there. As for as the surprised Youtubers, I have little sympathy. You go into business with someone, providing content which they then pay you for is just that, a business. If you don't understand how that business works and why it works that way, then you really don't have the moral high ground when that business has to change. No matter what field of human endeavour, ignorance is expensive.

As for thin-skinned advertisers, I can understand why they are that way, especially these days with the much faster process of outrage, disseminated knowledge and organized protests. One politically tone deaf ad can cost big companies huge sums of money after all. It used to be that, if an ad on TV, radio or print put the corporate foot in its mouth, the company and/or ad agency could get the spot pulled and it would fairly quickly fade from public awareness. They could also run a risky ad in a isolated market as a test. But now, an ad is instantly seen by millions of people all over the world and mistakes get quickly recorded and uploaded to numerous forums, video hosting sites and so on. The corporate gaffe may still fade from the public awareness, but only if it doesn't go viral. A negative viral ad is pretty much a marketers nightmare.

Problem is, safe tame ads might avoid that risk, but they're also less effective at getting the public attention. Take a risk and maybe lose enormous amounts of reputation (and more importantly, money) or play it safe and risk running a totally useless campaign that has no effect on sales at all. The "shock jocks" you mention had and still have a similar problem. They need to get eyeballs on their content, they need to get those likes and subscriber numbers pumped up. Shock and sleaze sells. But if they go to far, then advertisers pull out.