Up to this point, users have been able to watch all their favorite content creators on YouTube for free. Migrating users to other platforms that pay more is a great idea; however these platforms are able to pay more because users are in turn paying more for the service.
Awesome post Jodie. You nailed it right on the head — new platforms for distribution have not found a meaningful way to capture revenue from their subscribers and web traffic. Even snapchat, vine…these are distribution networks with their top most active users attracting hundreds of millions of views and not enough dollar bills. They are out-competing other platforms by remaining largely free — but I think the idea you mentioned of licensing fees and royalties from other distributors is phenomenal.
The problem is the studios are then incentivized to find their own talented youtube web-stars of which there are many including of course PewDiePie but my favorite is an animator named Zach King. I think the next few years will be a really interesting time for content makers. Jodie, great post. Interesting view on how an industry mainstay has used acquisition to respond to digital pressures and perceived opportunities.
The challenge here would be how to attribute uplift in performance back to Maker Studios. I wonder if this is something Disney is working through now, as they consider the value of Maker Studios going forward. Jodie, this was a fascinating read. As someone who is blissfully unaware of the current media landscape, I learned a ton through your post. As you mentioned, this is not for the faint of heart, and it seems consumers have not paid up for early access to media, as AG pointed out in the Verizon-Vessel example.
Hi Jodie — Thanks for sharing! Disney is clearly trying to embrace this new world — however changing an organizational culture, particularly a creative one to dive head first into an undefined future is really difficult. As you pointed out the Maker deal is turning out to be a disaster — MCNs are turning out not to be the new beacon we all thought.
That said, I applaud Disney for continuing to take big bets. Candidly, I am not sure the Vice deal will pan out either, but one thing is for sure: the only thing we know will fail is if they do nothing!
Thanks for your post Jodie, it was really interesting! While this could be a good thing from a cost perspective, as they do not have to pay for the expensive creation process of new content, it also means that they give up a certain level of control over that content. I would think that lack of control of content could be an issue for a company such as Disney, which bills itself as primarily for kids and families and as a wholesome business.
What would happen if one of the Youtube videos posted on this channel was offensive or controversial? How much blowback would there be onto Disney in the case this happens and does Disney have controls in place to try to protect against this possibility? Hi Jodie — thanks for the great post! Not even close. The rough guess is about 1 in 3 views are served an ad, and of those, if given the choice to skip, less than half watch the ad.
Also, a lot of millennials use ad blockers — about half is the industry estimate. These are the views you can charge for. Of the million views for the video, only This speaks to a larger quandary facing influencers, who are always looking to leverage their reach as they move into new spaces, create new types of content, and reach new audiences.
What Is Vlogging? Definition, History, And More. Related Posts. The following account is based on interviews with five former executives at Maker and Disney. Scale at any cost Maker was by no stretch a small operation.
The rest of the revenue was delivered by YouTube — but YouTube pre-rolls and branded content take you only so far, especially after YouTube and the creators take their share of revenue.
Bulking up by adding tens of thousands of YouTube channels might give off the appearance of scale, but Maker had very little ownership of that content, sources said. But the reason the views were growing was because the network kept growing and we were just adding more and more channels. Like other YouTube networks, Maker would sign social media stars by offering them upfront guarantees — even if these stars were on revenue-starved platforms like Vine.
Investing in original content For Maker to grow, it needed to do what other YouTube networks have also been investing in: original content, made and sold and therefore monetized and re-monetized by Maker. Fullscreen, for instance, now has a video streaming app that it makes original short- and longer-form series for. AwesomenessTV, another YouTube rival, has built a studio business that includes making shows and movies for digital platforms like Go90 and iTunes and then finding additional revenue in later windows.
0コメント