Any Theories on Why More Online-Video Sites Aren’t Sharing Revenue With Content Owners?

I’m really perplexed about why more online video sites aren’t sharing revenue with creators. Revver has been around for 6 months or more, even if it hasn’t officially launched yet. If you had asked me in February, I would have told you there would be several imitations and at least one popular site (YouTube, Yahoo, Google) would start paying original content owners.confuseda.jpg

There has not been one person — not even one — that I’ve told about getting paid for my videos that already knew it. And yet almost everyone I know has heard of online videos and YouTube specifically. I did, however, get a funny voicemail from a friend of mine from a big-5 consulting firm a couple weeks ago that said “have you heard of YouTube- you should check it out.”

To ease my puzzled mind, I’m going to draw some theories. I haven’t thought of them yet, but this post will force the issue.

  • Theory 1: These sites are planning it, but it takes a while to implement.
  • Theory 2: People are uploading stuff for the joy of free video sharing. Why start paying them when the market hasn’t demanded it yet?
  • Theory 3: Networks with quality material should be paid, but not amateurs.
  • Theory 4: The income is too marginal yet to attract anyone that’s not an early adopter.
  • Theory 5: Video creators do it for fun not income. They either have day jobs or they make money shooting weddings and corporate videos, and do the rest to entertain themselves and friends.

monkeythrowfeces.jpgI’d ask you to propose additional theories, but I’ve found my loyal fan base is like zoo vititors. You don’t feed the animals. I just flung my feces at those of you reading without commenting.