I present you with a comment, from the YouTube community, that I ran into the other day:
TL;DR -> it makes AdSense obsolete.
I tried to sell a story on Subbable earlier this week. Oh gods how I tried. ReadWrite, the Guardian’s tech section, even Variety… but I failed to generate interest, and/or communicate just how drastic of an impact Subbable can have on the YouTube space, business-wise.
To most of the press, Subbable appears as a gentle, crowd-sourced monthly pay-what-you-want subscription platform funding web shows that already exist. Doesn’s seem that disruptive, until you consider the allure of YouTube. The heart of the indie YouTube dream is being free, or at least above, corporate influences. If successful, Subbable could potentially do away with the advertising/hit-mining rat race on YouTube. Hank Green doesn’t exactly say this in the video introducing the platform, but he might as well.
In a private chat, I got Green to elaborate:
“Advertising values all kinds of content the same, but different kinds of content delivers different amounts of value to users. We want there to be a system that rewards the creation of stuff people love, not stuff that people will spend three minutes watching when they’re bored.”
Subbable — which is unaffiliated with YouTube — changes the YouTube money-making game because it emphasizes community and a supportive fan base over viral hits with fleeting popularity & large monetary payoffs. It’s a slow, steady win as opposed to that big payday. (It’ll be interesting to see how the addition of Minute Physics, Wheezy Waiter, and Andrew Huang next week on Subbable will play out. )
Green never came right out and said this during our chat but it got me thinking: if a content creator worked it out with his fans, he or she could essentially never bother monetizing their channel…EVER. There’s literally no reason now to go through Google corporate to make money. Their high ad cut and ad sales team are already alienating users and businesses, so why bother with that hot mess? You don’t.
I, for one, still believe in that YouTube dream.
This is a guide for people who are more interested in the cultural and societal implications of technology from a non-technical background. (I’d recommend attending all the “future of TV/media” talks as a beginners guide to video distribution and social media use.)
Thursday, June 27th:
The US First Robotics Challenge, from 12pm – 4pm.
“US First’s mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.”
“The debate around how we should view the concept of intellectual property and copyright in the digital age has continued since the launch of Napster in the ’90’s until today. Why is file-sharing still so limited and how has it affected the world at large?”
Friday, June 28th:
Funny or Die‘s “When Humor is Serious Business,” from 11:00am – 11:30am, featuring Funny or Die CEO Dick Glover. (I have an inkling what Glover will discuss, but being as I have never heard him speak, he might surprise me.)
“Funny or Die is now synonymous with Internet humor…What makes their business model so successful? How do they acquire high quality content with a low budget? What does the future of Funny or Die—and Internet entertainment in general—look like?”
Digital Art; From Easels to Pixels, 12:00pm – 12:30pm
“Art infilitrates everyday life, and every surface, object, or open space is fair game for medium. See how artists are incorporating technology into their work, whether as a means to an end or as the finished product itself. These people are innovating on what it means to be a traditional artist and the burgeoning interest in creating art meant to be consumed in digital form.”
The very ambitiously titled “How the Second City Can Become the First in Fashion,” 5:00pm – 6:00pm
“Take the tech from the West and the high-end fashion from the East and meet somewhere in the middle. Where do you end up? Chicago, of course. Combining the best of both coasts, a slew of Chicago startups are leading the pack in terms of the merging of high-tech and high-fashion.”
Saturday, June 29
In the wake of Hasting’s mysterious death and the conspiracy theories suggesting his car was hacked I feel compelled to attend “Driverless Cars: Speeding to the Future,” 12:30pm – 1:00pm
“While flying cars are still just a figment of our collective imagination, self-driving vehicles—such as the Google Car—are on the imminent horizon. Not only does this technology have the potential to prevent millions of injuries and save countless lives, it also has the power to disrupt the flow of trillions of dollars in industry revenue. Nearly everyone will be affected: suppliers, automakers, service-and-repair shops, insurers, energy companies, hospitals, and car rental companies, to name a few. Undoubtedly, there will be huge implications for all transportation and logistics—the backbone of every company’s supply and distribution chains.”
Entrepreneurship in Eastern Europe, 1:30pm – 2:00pm
“Eastern Europe’s tech scene is small but growing. Find out what Google is doing to facilitate the growth of the tech sector in Poland and beyond, what ideas are brewing in that corner of the world, and how they plan to impact the future.”
“Is the Internet Destroying the Middle Class?,” 2:00pm – 2:30pm
The other day I had asked folks to nominate me for a Shorty Award in blogging/journalism/YouTube whatever, and instead, two males nominated me for fashion.
Okay. Nothing in any other category.
Thanks fellas, I guess??? But then I thought about it, and realized, hey I do have a sense of style! And I do write about fashion in a weird way!
So I am rolling with it, and launching a fashion Tumblr, Fuck Yeah Thrift Fashion! today. Maybe it will be an outfit of the day too, I don’t know yet.
Because being poor doesn’t mean you have to dress like it.
Most inappropriate PR pitch ever, connecting John Lennon movie “Genius” with Sandy Hook Elementary shootingPosted: December 14, 2012
Okay, so I am just cutting and pasting this in full.
Something tells me John Lennon would not approve.
Los Angeles, CA, December 14. Those who murder all have one thing in common, says the producer of new movie on the death of the Beatles’ John Lennon.
Based on initial reports, a masked gunman murdered more than 25 people—including 18 children—at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut on Friday morning. Two guns were found near the shooter, who was discovered dead inside a classroom, according to law enforcement officials and media reports. Witnesses said the shooter was wearing a mask but his identity was still unknown. This is the second deadliest school shooting since the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre claimed the lives of 32 people.
Just two days before the Connecticut shooting, a lone gunman had entered a crowded mall in Portland, Oregon, killing two people and wounding a 15-year-old girl, before taking his own life. In what appeared to be a random rampage, police noted that the killer, Jacob Tyler Roberts, 22, had no significant criminal history. His mother said that she had “no understanding or explanation” for what he did and that it was “so out of his character.” According to a statement issued by the shooter’s high school, “The motive for such a horrific act is likely to remain a mystery to us all.”
Most experts are as baffled as those who knew Roberts. However, Ray Comfort, the producer of a new movie called “Genius,” believes he knows why people are willing to take innocent life. Comfort said, “His friends say that Roberts was a nice guy and that he lost his job and broke up with his girlfriend. No doubt the Connecticut killer suffered some sort of rejection also. But those things have happened to millions and they haven’t gone out and murdered people.” The best-selling author and TV co-host added, “‘Genius’ points to what every murderer has in common, something the ‘experts’ either don’t recognize or avoid talking about. But it’s there.” In the movie, which is about John Lennon and why he was killed, 15 youths were asked if they would murder for money, and those who said yes all had one thing in common. “Something tragic is happening in our country,” Comfort noted, “and most people don’t know what it is. Those who want to understand why these tragedies are occurring—and are likely to continue to occur—should watch the free movie.”
Nearly 170,000 people have viewed the 34-minute movie since its release on YouTube a week ago. Watch the trailer to see those who would murder for money: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW2lhWfa28g
Let’s Create a Factory Ranking System for Fashion Designers So I Can Finally Buy Pretty Clothes, PleasePosted: September 10, 2012
How do you know you have made it?
I am here to tell you that I’ve made it. My standards are pretty low though, so don’t get jealous: As a working writer, I can finally afford clothes that are not Target, outlet or thrift store prices. This has been cause for some mental celebration.
Check it, I am now one of those ladies looking to invest in her wardrobe with a few choice pieces. How bourgeoisie of me, I know, at a time of high unemployment and the Occupy movement. I already feel guilty, made worse as I survey the market of fancy designers before me and wonder where their products are made, and if this has anything to do with why the product costs so much.
I am a consumer, a despised thing in some philosophies, but at least I desire very much to be a knowledgeable consumer. (A knowledgeable consumer is better than a vapid consumer, is how I reason with my reactionary self.)
Mock me all you want (this is me still wrestling with my reactionary demons), but one of the reasons why I despise Apple products is because of how they are made. Now that I have money to invest, I want to make sure my purchase isn’t harming anyone.
Which brings me to the fantastic designer Tory Burch. No I really mean that compliment; I can see myself wearing everything on her site.
Except, the price isn’t right given the lack of information. The price more than “kind of” rubs me the wrong way.
I want to get a neutral sweater, and Burch’s clothing is beautiful so I want her to be a part of my budding personal collection.
The two sweaters in the running are both 20% angora, 70% wool and 10% nylon; the tri-mix means the color won’t fade, the wool will keep me warm during Chicago winters and the angora ensures a supersoftness my friends and boyfriend will insist on petting. A mighty fine sweater… and it will cost me either $275 or $495.
The more expensive one, with its cute and irrelevant fox emblem, is enticing me so hard while I write this. I can dress the sweater down with jeans, or up with pearls and a fitted red skirt. I can’t make the purchase though, because the sweater as a whole is not as unique as the cheaper one. I can’t even click the buy button for the $275 one, because neither product description lists where the sweater was made.
(Why is the sweater $495 when a gold-plated bracelet is $195? This high price annoys me more when I learn something made of real gold – and not just “gold plate” – is $130. But the fashion designer’s high price prerogative is something for another post, I suppose. )
I can talk myself into paying $275 for a sweater made in the United States, or if the sweater was made in an overseas factory paying families fair wages – which include overtime- in normal work conditions with more than one toilet. I can’t do it for anything less.
You know what would be really helpful?
If there was a global human rights council that went around rating the factories, and designers were required by international law to display this ranking prominently somewhere on their site and by the checkout registers in their stores.
Can you help a sister out and make this a reality pretty please? Because until then, I’ve set up these barriers to buying your product. In the event I overcome my sense of morality and ethics and buy your product without knowing where or how it was made, I really don’t want to feel guilty about it later.
Googling revealed Burch utilizes factories in China, and just this June her purses were found to have “nearly 200 times more lead than the limit permitted by the legal agreement with the Center for Environmental Health.”
I’d also like to not be poisoned, but I realize I can’t have my cake and eat it too.
The WSJ had erroneously reported Google is pledging an additional $200 million in its premium content channel’s marketing budget. This caused a “rais[ing of] eyebrows” as it made the pledged total marketing budget $400 million. That’s a shit ton of money, especially when you consider Google only gave 150 million to the content creators. A 150 million pie being split with 100 channels! “Channels,” which equate to established YouTube celebrities AND people like Felicia Day, Deepak Chopra and Kevin Smith, AND their entire film and production crews. (Tiny pie slices, ’cause we’re all on diets, right?)
Established YouTubers have complained about this injustice, this discrepancy in funding which they claim proves Google doesn’t take what they do seriously – (how can you compete with TV if you don’t invest properly in the content, Google!?) – and this additional $200 million figure (and slight) was cause for more complaint.
According to this executive, the funding his company received from Google allows it to spend about $1,000 a minute on each video production made for its channel.
“But $1,000 a finished minute is not enough,” he explained. “You need to get to around $2,100. At $1,000 a minute, you’re pulling favors every time you do a shoot. If you’re just pulling a location permit in L.A., it’s going to cost you $900.”
Long story short, Google told TNW they are not investing $400 million. The WSJ was confusing that time in May when Google pledged $200 towards marketing its premium content. Oops!!
Shortly after that WSJ article was posted, RWW founder Richard MacManus sends me a link to it on skype:
[7/31/2012 3:57:39 PM] Richard MacManus: Have you seen this Fruzsina? http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10000872396390444840104577549632241258356-lMyQjAxMTAyMDMwMDAzODA3Wj.html
[7/31/2012 3:58:14 PM] fruzsina.eordogh: no!
[7/31/2012 3:58:32 PM] fruzsina.eordogh: the wall street journal always publishes news that is years old, pretending it’s fresh
[7/31/2012 3:59:00 PM] fruzsina.eordogh: google already pledged 200 mil in advertising
[7/31/2012 4:04:03 PM] fruzsina.eordogh: I don’t find anything informative about this article…
[7/31/2012 4:04:15 PM] fruzsina.eordogh: it has a nice chart
So, you know that part in the skype chat where I said the WSJ likes to publish news that is “years old, pretending it’s fresh?” I was referring to this time in February 2012 when the Wall Street Journal ran an article about Ray William Johnson being YouTube’s first millionaire. (RWJ became YouTube’s first millionaire in April 2011.)
Please note the 49 comments on that RWJ article, many of which are from YouTubers pointing out various factual inaccuracies in the article. RWJ even ranted about how horrible the article was in an episode of his show (a very rare move)… and it looks like the WSJ NEVER BOTHERED to correct all of those factual inaccuracies, nor did they apologize.
This post has been brought to you by this tumblr post.