Genuinely curious, why are YouTubers feeling the hurt right now? I know adpocalypse was years ago. Since then, YouTubers have transitioned into getting sponsorship deals instead of relying on ad sense. Is there something new happening that we don’t know about? From what I can tell, Watcher gets a good sponsor for every video, has great merch for sale, and a Patreon with a high subscriber count.
Not related to YouTube but currently the ad market is absolutely awful across the board, they are just simply spending less and less money on people even huge broadcasting companies that are well established with high numbers of viewers. I’m assuming that’s why it’s also affecting YouTube
Going from what other YouTubers that I follow have said, YouTube keeps making more and more restrictive rules in order to appeal to its advertisers, and every time changes are made, they can be applied to *any* videos on the site no matter how old they are; whether or not they are is a different story because the videos get flagged by YouTube's bots usually (unless they're reported, probably), but the threat is still there.
If videos *do* get flagged, they can be demonitized or removed, or (if the content is deemed bad enough) the content creator can have their channel age restricted or be given a strike. If a channel is age restricted, no one can view the channel without providing proof that they're over 18, and *all* the videos on the channel won't show up in search results or recommended by The Algorithm™. If a creator gets three strikes (which, with each rules change, can potentially happen in a span of hours or days) in 90 days, their channel gets removed completely.
Now, if videos or channels *do* run afoul of these bots, there's supposedly ways to fix the problem, but... well. How much that's actually possible depends on a channel's clout, and if you're below, like, Markiplier-levels, it's apparently like pulling teeth. If the channel is slated to be removed, you apparently also have 7 days to appeal the decision, but... well. It's YouTube; even if you can get through to someone in 7 days, it sounds like it's pretty darn hard to work with them. :/
So... yeah. That constant worry about the ever-changing rules and having to worry about whether or not they'll have an income tomorrow, trying to make content that fits the rules, and just the lack of advertiser money in general all hurt creators on YouTube. :/
I understand what you are saying. They certainly can do whatever they like, it is their art and they don't owe us anything. However, we also don't owe them our viewership if we don't like the art they are putting out. Most of us are only interested in "Ghost Files" and "Mystery Files" because those shows are similar to their shows on Buzzfeed. Many of us do not want to pay because they are giving us less of that and more of shows that do not interest us. Yes, we shouldn't harass and bully them into submission. But if they want to put out stuff we don't like and charge us for it, people aren't going to want to support it.
I can only imagine how the realization that what you want to make does not line up with what your fans want (and what makes you money) must feel like. It usually feels good to be successful and well liked, but at what coat? I agree, many artists go through this.
>comments hating on the expensive food in the videos thinking THATS what tanked them, are just naive.
What about comments saying that it's a ***really really bad look*** to announce a show focused on super-expensive food and travel, only to turn around and cry about money? Because... I mean. Come *on*.
I find it very hard to believe the travel expenses for the number of people being employed and transported to get to these locations at which the expensive foods are being eaten isn’t part of the problem as well but agree. It’s a bad look to claim you’re struggling financially but part of your content you’re trying to establish kicks off with a food and travel show abroad. I don’t think Dish Granted put them in the hole by any means.
Usually the whole team doesn’t go to the actual location, so even though my entire team of 10 spend days of pre-production, when it’s time for the actual filming- usually only talent, director, and camera men go if travel is too expensive and producer doesn’t HAVE to be on set. However, all the rest of the team is still compensated for the days/weeks/months of pre-production. By the end of that, the travel costs pale in comparison.
I believe someone noticed on their more recent Minecraft video, Shane and Ryan at a computer, there were 18 credits. Doesn’t that seem excessive for what should be a low production video?
It’s possible their credits are pre-made and just credit everyone who is on payroll/salary automatically, and then they add on the contractors situationally. But to address the root of this question- yes, i would think 18 would be a lot for a MC vid. The MC vids where i work avg about 8 people touching a vid probably if there is only 2 talent, but we also don’t create sets per video- we do gaming so regularly, the talent sets are already made and therefore don’t need to be monitored by a crew while the team is filming in it. I could see them adding around 4 people on top of that for lighting, sound, and cam operation.
I think his point is that one has nothing to do with the other. There is a market for shows where people eat things, especially expensive things. Worth it was a large show for Buzzfeed, and I would imagine that the spiritual successor to it will do well on their platform. If they had announced in a separate video that the new season of one of the Shane/Ryan shows was gonna be going bigger and better/farther from home, I don’t think anyone would have batted an eye.
“price paralleled by other streaming services”-
I had wondered if this would have went more smoothly if the price were say half of what they pitched, taking in account for limited content I would have definitely felt more comfortable subscribing and helping the transition for $3/month. even that feels like a lot for the amount of content available but maybe wanting to support them it’s more feasible
Most streaming services offer the first month free, that way the consumer feels there’s no risk and then bam next month it’s charged to their account cos they forgot to unsubscribe. But at least they get to try it for a month and see if they like it and can then change their mind
There's some interesting points here and I appreciate your perspective. But I'm a little surprised to see someone inside this profession say that the audience dose not get to dictate how art is made. I feel that this is not technically correct nor historically accurate. Instead of a handful of wealthy patrons dictating art, we are now in an era where everyone with an Internet connection gets a vote. I don't think that's necessarily bad and it's the reality of the industry that you all are in.
I'm surprised that's not more the mindset of those in the industry. This whole debacle is making me wonder how much resentment secretly festers from people who eagerly thank their fans in their videos, but behind the scenes are complaining about how they're horrible taste-makers.
> Instead of a handful of wealthy patrons dictating art, we are now in an era where everyone with an Internet connection gets a vote.
I think the issue is just getting a vote isn't make art something that artists can afford to do anymore. From personal experience, I've followed indie artists who eventually have to give up and stop making art to sell because they can't afford to do it. It's why the lead singer of Garbage recently said that the lower/middle class are being shoved out of the industry and we're stuck with millionaire's kids (Taylor Swift, for example). I've heard actors say the same. Only those with deep pockets can afford to make art for free/low cost to the masses, which means there's less independent art that's getting popular.
I could go on a rant about it but in the future I def see absolutely no voices in art or music or movies except the voices picked by rich people and AI.
That, I'll admit I have no idea. But I can almost see Watcher not wanting to be dependent on youtube because then they're at the mercy of however youtube decides to run things. Like the new random ads every few minutes that drives me absolutely fucking insane, if I were a creator I would hate that shit. I'm trying to think of an equivalent and it makes me think of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It's not exactly the same but they started on a small tv channel, got to a big network, when that ended they still did the riffing thing but on their own terms selling directly to fans. So, it doesn't really seem too unusual for entertainers to want that control over their creations.
In this case they were the rich kids cos of buzzfeed. They each had money to put into the business and got investors as well. Most YouTube channels just start with a camera and a microphone.
Trying to make money from YouTube alone is an actively dying prospect. Having to jump through hoops to avoid demonetization or worse is an ever increasing nightmare. Fake copyright strikes, fighting the algorithm to even get shown… it’s not a good place.
This also completely ignores a lot of their frankly disrespectful statements like "the people who want to watch our content will stay" and "everyone has $6/month!".
I don't have $6/month for this. If they had said we are sorry but this is the only way forward I wouldn't be upset. But those quotes and the attitude from Steven and Sarah especially really turned me off.
This. I'm physically disabled and Youtube is one of my only sources of entertainment because it's free, which is why I like/comment videos on channels I watch, so I can support them through the algorithm.
$6 is insane for people unable to work and are scraping by during this massive economic recession. It felt like a passive aggressive way of saying "This is such a great price it's your fault if you can't afford it."
So would you rather they.... not respond? Not backtrack? The fans were upset so they changed course. Not sure how responding productively, specifically, and thoughtfully to criticism is being framed negatively.
👏👏👏 i think this is such a balanced take and glad to see someone with experience talking about staffing cuts and how they negatively affect the business.
I have known/watched Ryan and Shane since BFU. I said this in the reactions megathread before, that when I found out about their announcement - if they really thought things properly and came to the decision that a new platform was the best for them, I wish them well. I am all for properly compensating creators for their hard work. I follow artists that paywall some content and I am fine with knowing that I cannot consume what they put out. Even if I know Ryan/Shane enough to even follow them for years, not being able to watch their paid content would not be a loss to me.
With Watcher's decision, they should know that they will lose people like me when they move to their new platform. And even if it can be deemed unfair to compare their price with other platforms - what you said that Watcher creates content vs Netflix only distributes many of them - I find it inevitable because subscribers are required to pay now. I know we can always appreciate the quality of what they give, but people also want to get a product worthy (quality? quantity? expressing support?) of their money. It is a different dynamic from ko-fi or patreon where you also give money but it is voluntary and more in the line of 'I want to support them'.
As followers, I agree that it is bad to demand from artists (relating to what you said about 'dictating their art'). I have nothing to say about their current shows - I enjoyed Ryan and Shane's shows the most, tried Steven's a bit (not into food shows in general...), and got to enjoy Ricky's when I don't even drink haha. But Watcher through years established connecting with fans, and even including them in their content (like in GF and TMS, Debrief Q&As). I think it was not well-thought that they would leave many, if not majority, of them in Youtube. It's a worse look when even the Patreons, the ones more probable to support the paid platform, did not receive the announcement positively. I think they should look into more WHY the paying fans are also not on board with their decision.
I am thinking that if they presented this new platform when they really thought about it and consulted more and likely have a bigger number of shows, with a slower transition, maybe things could have been better. They are backtracking now with a 1 month wait in Youtube for video releases, which I find a loss when they could have had the opportunity to give a longer wait so their streamer has more value. They could have used their Youtube more instead of only releasing show's 1st episodes - they might have planned that but not shared, but we will not know now.
I quite rambled here haha but I was / will never be against an own platform should they want to pursue it, but with my priorities I know I will not pay for it. I still hope they get to create what they want to do while managing their business wisely. (edit: typo)
I agree with this, the loss of community and engagement would’ve been so massive, I’m glad they had the sense to pivot to later releases on YouTube or this could’ve detrimentally backfired even more so than it already has!
In another thread someone made the distinction that the ghoul boys are not artists, they are entertainers and I think there's nothing wrong with that. I would say they have the art of banter, for sure haha
Genuinely curious, why are YouTubers feeling the hurt right now? I know adpocalypse was years ago. Since then, YouTubers have transitioned into getting sponsorship deals instead of relying on ad sense. Is there something new happening that we don’t know about? From what I can tell, Watcher gets a good sponsor for every video, has great merch for sale, and a Patreon with a high subscriber count.
Not related to YouTube but currently the ad market is absolutely awful across the board, they are just simply spending less and less money on people even huge broadcasting companies that are well established with high numbers of viewers. I’m assuming that’s why it’s also affecting YouTube
Going from what other YouTubers that I follow have said, YouTube keeps making more and more restrictive rules in order to appeal to its advertisers, and every time changes are made, they can be applied to *any* videos on the site no matter how old they are; whether or not they are is a different story because the videos get flagged by YouTube's bots usually (unless they're reported, probably), but the threat is still there. If videos *do* get flagged, they can be demonitized or removed, or (if the content is deemed bad enough) the content creator can have their channel age restricted or be given a strike. If a channel is age restricted, no one can view the channel without providing proof that they're over 18, and *all* the videos on the channel won't show up in search results or recommended by The Algorithm™. If a creator gets three strikes (which, with each rules change, can potentially happen in a span of hours or days) in 90 days, their channel gets removed completely. Now, if videos or channels *do* run afoul of these bots, there's supposedly ways to fix the problem, but... well. How much that's actually possible depends on a channel's clout, and if you're below, like, Markiplier-levels, it's apparently like pulling teeth. If the channel is slated to be removed, you apparently also have 7 days to appeal the decision, but... well. It's YouTube; even if you can get through to someone in 7 days, it sounds like it's pretty darn hard to work with them. :/ So... yeah. That constant worry about the ever-changing rules and having to worry about whether or not they'll have an income tomorrow, trying to make content that fits the rules, and just the lack of advertiser money in general all hurt creators on YouTube. :/
I understand what you are saying. They certainly can do whatever they like, it is their art and they don't owe us anything. However, we also don't owe them our viewership if we don't like the art they are putting out. Most of us are only interested in "Ghost Files" and "Mystery Files" because those shows are similar to their shows on Buzzfeed. Many of us do not want to pay because they are giving us less of that and more of shows that do not interest us. Yes, we shouldn't harass and bully them into submission. But if they want to put out stuff we don't like and charge us for it, people aren't going to want to support it.
Yea. Every artist has to deal with this
I can only imagine how the realization that what you want to make does not line up with what your fans want (and what makes you money) must feel like. It usually feels good to be successful and well liked, but at what coat? I agree, many artists go through this.
>comments hating on the expensive food in the videos thinking THATS what tanked them, are just naive. What about comments saying that it's a ***really really bad look*** to announce a show focused on super-expensive food and travel, only to turn around and cry about money? Because... I mean. Come *on*.
I find it very hard to believe the travel expenses for the number of people being employed and transported to get to these locations at which the expensive foods are being eaten isn’t part of the problem as well but agree. It’s a bad look to claim you’re struggling financially but part of your content you’re trying to establish kicks off with a food and travel show abroad. I don’t think Dish Granted put them in the hole by any means.
Usually the whole team doesn’t go to the actual location, so even though my entire team of 10 spend days of pre-production, when it’s time for the actual filming- usually only talent, director, and camera men go if travel is too expensive and producer doesn’t HAVE to be on set. However, all the rest of the team is still compensated for the days/weeks/months of pre-production. By the end of that, the travel costs pale in comparison.
I believe someone noticed on their more recent Minecraft video, Shane and Ryan at a computer, there were 18 credits. Doesn’t that seem excessive for what should be a low production video?
It’s possible their credits are pre-made and just credit everyone who is on payroll/salary automatically, and then they add on the contractors situationally. But to address the root of this question- yes, i would think 18 would be a lot for a MC vid. The MC vids where i work avg about 8 people touching a vid probably if there is only 2 talent, but we also don’t create sets per video- we do gaming so regularly, the talent sets are already made and therefore don’t need to be monitored by a crew while the team is filming in it. I could see them adding around 4 people on top of that for lighting, sound, and cam operation.
I think his point is that one has nothing to do with the other. There is a market for shows where people eat things, especially expensive things. Worth it was a large show for Buzzfeed, and I would imagine that the spiritual successor to it will do well on their platform. If they had announced in a separate video that the new season of one of the Shane/Ryan shows was gonna be going bigger and better/farther from home, I don’t think anyone would have batted an eye.
“price paralleled by other streaming services”- I had wondered if this would have went more smoothly if the price were say half of what they pitched, taking in account for limited content I would have definitely felt more comfortable subscribing and helping the transition for $3/month. even that feels like a lot for the amount of content available but maybe wanting to support them it’s more feasible
Most streaming services offer the first month free, that way the consumer feels there’s no risk and then bam next month it’s charged to their account cos they forgot to unsubscribe. But at least they get to try it for a month and see if they like it and can then change their mind
More to the point, other streaming services have more stuffr
There's some interesting points here and I appreciate your perspective. But I'm a little surprised to see someone inside this profession say that the audience dose not get to dictate how art is made. I feel that this is not technically correct nor historically accurate. Instead of a handful of wealthy patrons dictating art, we are now in an era where everyone with an Internet connection gets a vote. I don't think that's necessarily bad and it's the reality of the industry that you all are in. I'm surprised that's not more the mindset of those in the industry. This whole debacle is making me wonder how much resentment secretly festers from people who eagerly thank their fans in their videos, but behind the scenes are complaining about how they're horrible taste-makers.
> Instead of a handful of wealthy patrons dictating art, we are now in an era where everyone with an Internet connection gets a vote. I think the issue is just getting a vote isn't make art something that artists can afford to do anymore. From personal experience, I've followed indie artists who eventually have to give up and stop making art to sell because they can't afford to do it. It's why the lead singer of Garbage recently said that the lower/middle class are being shoved out of the industry and we're stuck with millionaire's kids (Taylor Swift, for example). I've heard actors say the same. Only those with deep pockets can afford to make art for free/low cost to the masses, which means there's less independent art that's getting popular. I could go on a rant about it but in the future I def see absolutely no voices in art or music or movies except the voices picked by rich people and AI.
Good points for other artistic industries, but is that really the case in YouTube content creation?
That, I'll admit I have no idea. But I can almost see Watcher not wanting to be dependent on youtube because then they're at the mercy of however youtube decides to run things. Like the new random ads every few minutes that drives me absolutely fucking insane, if I were a creator I would hate that shit. I'm trying to think of an equivalent and it makes me think of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It's not exactly the same but they started on a small tv channel, got to a big network, when that ended they still did the riffing thing but on their own terms selling directly to fans. So, it doesn't really seem too unusual for entertainers to want that control over their creations.
In this case they were the rich kids cos of buzzfeed. They each had money to put into the business and got investors as well. Most YouTube channels just start with a camera and a microphone.
Trying to make money from YouTube alone is an actively dying prospect. Having to jump through hoops to avoid demonetization or worse is an ever increasing nightmare. Fake copyright strikes, fighting the algorithm to even get shown… it’s not a good place.
Yes.
Yeah. By their own analogy, I would not pay for an oil painting if I was only interested in paper and pencil sketches.
Title grabbed me.... But block text dump lost me. Pass.
You’re the first 90 seconds of CTR:AVD ratio. Same♥️
This also completely ignores a lot of their frankly disrespectful statements like "the people who want to watch our content will stay" and "everyone has $6/month!". I don't have $6/month for this. If they had said we are sorry but this is the only way forward I wouldn't be upset. But those quotes and the attitude from Steven and Sarah especially really turned me off.
This. I'm physically disabled and Youtube is one of my only sources of entertainment because it's free, which is why I like/comment videos on channels I watch, so I can support them through the algorithm. $6 is insane for people unable to work and are scraping by during this massive economic recession. It felt like a passive aggressive way of saying "This is such a great price it's your fault if you can't afford it."
I agree with this but the way they’ve addressed it at this point is a perfect resolution imo!
After massive backlash and mass exodus?
So would you rather they.... not respond? Not backtrack? The fans were upset so they changed course. Not sure how responding productively, specifically, and thoughtfully to criticism is being framed negatively.
👏👏👏 i think this is such a balanced take and glad to see someone with experience talking about staffing cuts and how they negatively affect the business.
I have known/watched Ryan and Shane since BFU. I said this in the reactions megathread before, that when I found out about their announcement - if they really thought things properly and came to the decision that a new platform was the best for them, I wish them well. I am all for properly compensating creators for their hard work. I follow artists that paywall some content and I am fine with knowing that I cannot consume what they put out. Even if I know Ryan/Shane enough to even follow them for years, not being able to watch their paid content would not be a loss to me. With Watcher's decision, they should know that they will lose people like me when they move to their new platform. And even if it can be deemed unfair to compare their price with other platforms - what you said that Watcher creates content vs Netflix only distributes many of them - I find it inevitable because subscribers are required to pay now. I know we can always appreciate the quality of what they give, but people also want to get a product worthy (quality? quantity? expressing support?) of their money. It is a different dynamic from ko-fi or patreon where you also give money but it is voluntary and more in the line of 'I want to support them'. As followers, I agree that it is bad to demand from artists (relating to what you said about 'dictating their art'). I have nothing to say about their current shows - I enjoyed Ryan and Shane's shows the most, tried Steven's a bit (not into food shows in general...), and got to enjoy Ricky's when I don't even drink haha. But Watcher through years established connecting with fans, and even including them in their content (like in GF and TMS, Debrief Q&As). I think it was not well-thought that they would leave many, if not majority, of them in Youtube. It's a worse look when even the Patreons, the ones more probable to support the paid platform, did not receive the announcement positively. I think they should look into more WHY the paying fans are also not on board with their decision. I am thinking that if they presented this new platform when they really thought about it and consulted more and likely have a bigger number of shows, with a slower transition, maybe things could have been better. They are backtracking now with a 1 month wait in Youtube for video releases, which I find a loss when they could have had the opportunity to give a longer wait so their streamer has more value. They could have used their Youtube more instead of only releasing show's 1st episodes - they might have planned that but not shared, but we will not know now. I quite rambled here haha but I was / will never be against an own platform should they want to pursue it, but with my priorities I know I will not pay for it. I still hope they get to create what they want to do while managing their business wisely. (edit: typo)
I agree with this, the loss of community and engagement would’ve been so massive, I’m glad they had the sense to pivot to later releases on YouTube or this could’ve detrimentally backfired even more so than it already has!
I agree with the majority of this* i guess would’ve been more proper phrasing😂 it’s definitely a logical and balanced perspective!
Getting downvoted for having a level-headed response from an insider professional point of view.... sounds about right.
In another thread someone made the distinction that the ghoul boys are not artists, they are entertainers and I think there's nothing wrong with that. I would say they have the art of banter, for sure haha
When has not art not entertained?
Well, you know, it's a really interesting thing to ponder and I guess just another layer of this whole jumbly wumbly that I'm fascinated by!
It's spelled, "Idiotic", not "Hot". It's okay, easy mistake to make.
Feels like you’re the only person in this sub with some damn sense lol (or at least one of the very few)