Revver until now has cornered the market on pay-for-content. Two firms have offered similar models, though. And a new entrant has arrived.
3) Now Blip.tv is getting into the revenue-sharing space according to this article from CNet. Here's what CNet says, and if you register you can read more about Blip's advertising policy.
"Blip.tv does not brand the videos with its logo, so users can take full advantage of the service without confusing their viewers about whose site they are watching. What's in it for Blip.tv, then? It's not fully rolled out yet, but the service will be advertising-supported. If users will accept ads on their videos, Blip.tv will share the revenues from the ads 50/50. Blip, for its part, will run the ad network and host the videos, and give users a lot of control over the ads they'll take."
What does this mean to content creators? More options, and difficult decisions. Currently, it's a free market- post where you like. Eventually, however, it's possible that the highest financial opportunity will be available to those willing to sign exclusive deals.
Here's the thing I can't explain. With the exception of Revver and Jeukersz (both who currently have very low traffic), online video sites are being hush-hush about the details of revenue sharing. It perplexes me.