I think what I love most about this model is that rather than remove their main videos from YouTube (I know there’s a bunch of bonus content and originals), they keep them on there and pay out creators the same as for any other sponsor spot. It makes the barrier to entry much lower for new creators, but it also means YouTube is basically subsidising their ad-free tier for them. I genuinely believe that decision is one of the reasons they’ve been so successful, compared to some similar video services that are fully gatekept with their content. Dropout being the notable exception.
At the end of the day, I guess it proves the point that piracy is often about reasonable and affordable access. I’m happy to pay Nebula my money because it’s actually going to the creatives involved. Or it’s getting spent on awesome originals, without having to appeal to some braindead media executive (they currently split things 50/50). I don’t have to worry about being a product either, as YouTube still gathers your watch history to sell ads on Google’s other platforms.
They also bothered right at the start to set things up so they can never become a faceless corporation exploiting creatives, because it’s a co-op between all of the creators. They did sell a minority stake at one point to CuriosityStream to raise capital for more originals and engineers for apps, but it required a vote amongst all of the creatives. They’re already profitable too
(Sorry I realise you already know most/all of this, it’s more for others reading these comments.)
Cheers for saying so, I absolutely agree! I just often get people thinking I’m arguing instead, it feels like it’s my autism making me seem a bit intense at times when I’m just info-dumping about a topic I like :)
I think what I love most about this model is that rather than remove their main videos from YouTube (I know there’s a bunch of bonus content and originals), they keep them on there and pay out creators the same as for any other sponsor spot. It makes the barrier to entry much lower for new creators, but it also means YouTube is basically subsidising their ad-free tier for them. I genuinely believe that decision is one of the reasons they’ve been so successful, compared to some similar video services that are fully gatekept with their content. Dropout being the notable exception.
At the end of the day, I guess it proves the point that piracy is often about reasonable and affordable access. I’m happy to pay Nebula my money because it’s actually going to the creatives involved. Or it’s getting spent on awesome originals, without having to appeal to some braindead media executive (they currently split things 50/50). I don’t have to worry about being a product either, as YouTube still gathers your watch history to sell ads on Google’s other platforms.
They also bothered right at the start to set things up so they can never become a faceless corporation exploiting creatives, because it’s a co-op between all of the creators. They did sell a minority stake at one point to CuriosityStream to raise capital for more originals and engineers for apps, but it required a vote amongst all of the creatives. They’re already profitable too
(Sorry I realise you already know most/all of this, it’s more for others reading these comments.)
Your bracketed comment: that is the normal way of comment boards, I like intensifier comments like this. It’s the “yes and” of the internet
Cheers for saying so, I absolutely agree! I just often get people thinking I’m arguing instead, it feels like it’s my autism making me seem a bit intense at times when I’m just info-dumping about a topic I like :)