DISQUS

Mark Evans · 3 years ago

scott,
you've touched upon an issue that will be increasingly relevant in the future as content creaters looking for "compensation" beyond attention. i wrote a post today about lulu.tv and its new program in which video makers pay a monthly fee that goes into a pool with the most money going to people who create the most popular videos. not sure it will work but it puts the spotlight on the compensation issue.

Ted · 3 years ago

I like the idea of tying compensation for content creators to usage. For example, CNN could pay standard video fees every time someone's content gets on the air, or is featured on CNN's main news pages. This incentivizes creators as well as having a "goal" to reach for.

John Koetsier · 3 years ago

Interesting ... I wonder about YouTube changing its terms of use - I'm certainly less likely to use it for my webcasts if they can just take the content and use it however they want.

BTW, I've been following your blog for some time in Bloglines, and you may not have noticed but you are one of the inaugaural members of the SLOB awards:
http://www.sparkplug9.com/bizhack/index.php/slo...

If you wish, you can display the SLOB logo on your site or in a post.

:-)

Brian Clark · 3 years ago

You Tube's license to use your content terminates as soon as you withdraw the content from the site, which virtually eliminates You Tube's ability to use the content in any other medium. I bet they will be cutting online syndication deals though.

Scott, don't you think You Tube has little choice other than to adopt Revver's model? How else can you monetize that content and crowd without alienating the content producers?

Also, thanks for the link to Red Swoosh... hadn't seen that. Given the fact that Revver provides free hosting AND 50% of ad revenue, plus the fact that Red Swoosh requires an install by the viewer, the concept seems dead in the water to me at this point. Maybe I'm missing something.

Scott Karp · 3 years ago

Mark, I too am skeptical of Lulu.tv's model -- there's a Ponzie scheme aspect too it, and there are too many other options with no cost of entry.

John -- many thanks, I'm honored -- you're not the first to think I'm a slob.

Brian, I don't know if YouTube will adopt the exact same model as Revver, but I do think that they need to create a revenue sharing platform if they want to keep the content that actually has the potential to generate revenue. I agree that Red Swoosh's that the viewer install software is a tough proposition -- it all depends on how much the viewer WANTS to view the content.

Jeremy Hogan · 3 years ago

To be clear, in Ponzi schemes you *only* get paid when you induct new members. In this case, you get paid on every click (i.e. it's merit based), and you can affect the outcome (i.e. change your odds), so it's not gambling either. It's more like a co-op.

And "other options with no cost of entry do not pay creators", and they end up with a mess of shoddy videos, porn ads, and copyright abuse.

If they do pay creators, they do so with ads. Ads create site clutter, bother users, and bring one more voice into the editorial flavor of a site. (e.g. an advertiser likes to decide what video their ads play with/near or not).

That said, we do have a free membership. Free users can upload and share all they want, they just can't get paid.

Maybe we'll figure out a way to get money in the co-op that's not from creators. Say from user donations, or monthly site patrons/sponsors.

Thanks for blogging about us!
--jeremy

nalts · 3 years ago

Excellent piece. I've made decent money on Revver ($2000) and Metacafe ($2200). And I've started to experiment with Eefoof. But Lulu.TV was new to me.

Dan... · 3 years ago

Great post!

I've been thinking a ton about what business model will unlock consumer generated media long-term (not, the flavor of the week). Looking at the past's biggest winners online I see names like Google, Overture/Yahoo, and eBay -- all businesses that monetize content in a marketplace fashion. Although they are toying with a variety of hosted-content plays, their core revenue/profits flow from taking a cut of marketplace transactions for advertising or goods/services.

Therefore, I've been searching for THE marketplace for consumer generated media. It isn't hosting-centric players like YouTube, MySpace, Revver, Flickr, Blogger, TypePad, WordPress or FaceBook; but it should unlock value for users of all of those. The closest platform I've found is PayPerPost -- if you can get past the knee-jerk reaction that people are driven to post for money, not self-expression. I believe self-expression is the key to consumer generated advertising and allowing people to monetize what they already do. Interestingly, monetization may help increase the quality and quantity of self-expression, but the driver of CGM will always be sharing your opinions/experiences/talents.

Whether you agree or disagree, click my sig-digg and I'd love to hear whether the future of CGM includes organic and sponsored content; and whether the best positioned business model is NOT hosting-based, but instead leverages a marketplace for buyers and sellers of CGM to transact with each other.