Just what some of the popular personalities on YouTube needed. The NYTimes is calling them “hot properties,” and providing examples of some YouTube “weblebrities” getting courted by other sites. Indeed there’s been at least one example of this with Smosh, a creator who was paid to move from YouTube (where he still posts) to LiveVideo. LonelyGirl15 went “bi-situal” last year and began posting on both Revver (a site that shares 50% of ad revenue) and YouTube, which is planning to share advertising revenue with creators. This article has YouTube’s “Renetto” claiming the share would be 20 percent — a small fraction of what’s becoming the norm.
No related posts.
Wow, I didn’t know smosh was payed to move to LiveVideo. I still wonder how the whole ad revenue will be like on youtube if it is initiated, would people leave, would people come back, would people post more, very interesting.
Revver shares 40% ad revenue… I’m sure. I hope they pay us on youtube. But more than 20% that’s ridiculous.
In the online world, it’s not unusual for revenue to be split between the producer and the advertising engine at 40%+. Creating a web site, or video content, that offers the ability to draw potential customers in a very targetted niche is a VERY valuable commodity. Google from the beginning has planned to share ad revenue in order to increase their reach beyond the Google search engine. That’s why the Adsense program is such a financial success (for Google anyway). Sharing ad revenues with the video creators, especially if they can develop a consistent following with identifiable demographic characteristics, is a no-brainer.
What I can’t figure out is how these ‘weblebrities’ can become commodities if they’re not signing exclusivity agreement?? Fred had a post on this and opened up a good discussion at A VC.
http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2007/02/i_dont_get_this.html
[...] “Web sites trying to lure away the most talented YouTubers” and my RSS feeds (thanks Nalts) pulled up the New York Times report New Hot Properties: YouTube [...]
#5. What the heck kind of name is that?
If that 20% of the revenue is based on hits, not having to click on ads, that’s not too terrible. But I was watching Blunty and he made a few good points on sharing revenue and cheating. So I’m not certain youtube could get away with that method without people having to click on ads and if people have to click on ads 20% is not enough. But the laws of economics are supply and demand and we all know the content creator often gets the fuzzy end of the lolly.
I think youtube will end up with an ad revenue tier system based on hits and popularity. You’ll have to work for that extra cash by getting your viewers to generate comments and responses.
Outspoken Lovers as well as Haters could become real commodity.
20% is not enough