Opinions on the Youtube case?

So… y’all must have been reading what’s been happening with Youtube and kids advertising, and I’d like to know what your thoughts are, since there are people here who DO do cartoons for Youtube. Is there anything even wrong with advertising to kids?? I’ve been watching ads on TV since I was born probably, and that was done without “analytics” or “cookies” or tracking of any sort. Cartoon Network does exactly that, and I don’t see anyone suing THEM? And if doing that IS wrong, then the big question is, of course - how do we get Paid??? (In THIS country at least, no one is going to PAY for Kids TV :frowning: ). In the UK, AFAIK, for channels like Cbeebies (Teletubbies), which are targeted at very young children, there is no advertising at all - the whole thing is probably paid for out of a “TV license fee” which the entire country pays. Is there some way to bring this model to the web? (cause, y’know, the web is gonna overtake everything else - it’s Gonna!! :slight_smile: ). Is there some other way? Is anyone going to DROP Youtube as their “outlet site” because of this, and move to these new “Blockchain plaforms” I keep hearing about?? I’d really love some info about them. In ANY case, Google might be broken up, from what I’m hearing, so this shift might be necessary ANYWAY…

Thanks for your replies :slight_smile:

From how I have understood it, the content creators will make far less money from these changes because the data helped them cater to their target audiences, so many will likely go out of business and/or downscale production despite not doing anything inappropriate or wrong. Targetted ads apparently create more money than general ads, so the children will have to suffer either way once their favourite YouTubers decide to pack their bags and leave.

I know that for TV that ads are specifically targetted for kids based on the type of channel, time slot, and other metric data that they gather. To me some data gathering makes sense, otherwise you would get situations where you advertise adult content to minors and child content to adults. Ads are a big source of income to a lot of creators and unlike TV which can have advertisement free programming as you said, there are next to no organisations or tax payers that pay for productions on YouTube to keep ads away. At least as far as I know. I could understand limiting data gathering of child viewers to an extent, but YouTube isn’t exactly known for making moderate changes.

YouTube is going to crumble eventually with these types of heavy handed policies that force their content creators off the platform.

I have read many interesting articles which discuss how the subscription model is affecting the production of television shows. If people “buy a ticket,” so to speak, they don’t have to watch any commercials and you don’t have to structure your show’s content to accommodate them. Subscriptions also turn out to produce more, and more consistent, revenue. The money is coming directly from the people who like your programming and you are beholden only to them. You have almost 20% more of that “hour-long hour” to fill with content.

I think that the phenomenal success of Game of Thrones, which is produced using very theatrical production values, was a big eye-opener for a lot of studios. Analog television is gone. Television sets use motion picture aspect ratios and can display picture quality comparable to that of [now, digital …] film. You are now producing a movie that is designed to be experienced episodically. Now, without interruptions.

Is there such a thing as broadcast TV channels for kids which transmit ON the internet?? ie. simply Cartoon Network online? It’s pretty much the same thing AS Youtube, just that you can’t watch YOUR cartoon when you want to, and you can’t watch it repeatedly (which, is changing the entire rules of the game!). Just that THIS thing will have no snooping or cookies…?
I’m also curious to know what this “data” that they gathered entailed, exactly? Kids buy… sweets and chocolates,…they buy toys,…they buy video games,… some may buy clothes I guess? Ain’t no bloody analytics required to find THAT out surely? :smile:

What the hell does THAT mean? If people don’t like your show, the streaming service won’t BUY it…?

…talking of which, do you think the time is ready for movies on their OWN website, which you pay for individually? It’s an idea I had some time back… I’d like to know whether it’d work…?

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Also, for those considering an alternative to Youtube, this looks interesting! :slight_smile: :

https://bittubers.com/

Why can’t we just cut out the middleman :roll_eyes:

Every television show that is paid-for by commercials is structured by the screenwriters into a predictable format: a “teaser” (commercials), “act one” (ends with a cliffhanger to carry you through the … commercials), and so on. Whereas movies don’t need to have that structure. (They only have to have the now-obligatory action scenes that sell the video game. :wink: )

Commercials take up nearly 20% of the air-time of a “one hour” episode. And the show is entirely dependent on the will of the advertisers, who by the way can take their sweet time paying.

If the content is sold as a contiguous unit to subscribers, and the show is written exclusively to be distributed in that format, the screenwriters and producers are now free to construct their stories in a very different way. And, they do. It is now "an episodic movie," also no longer constrained to “120 minutes” (a.k.a. “bladder time”).

Furthermore, subscription revenue is more predictable and often consists of more money. They don’t have to please a soda company – they please their fans, who are now the ones paying the bill.

I foresee the time when “broadcasting” becomes obsolete.

I’m kinda surprised that broadcast TV is still as big as it is. Though, now that I think about it, change can be pretty slow when people grew up with one way of doing things. I gave up watching television all together in 1995. I got all of my media through renting movies on VHS and DVD. If I wanted to read about daily news, I read a newspaper or, later on, online news. I’m not a sports guy so I didn’t miss any Sportsball news. When Netflix started streaming, I moved away from physical media all together.

This plus internet ad blockers has enabled me to be ad-free since the mid 90s.

At this point, I have no idea how I’d react if something I was consuming just stopped and someone tried to sell me something. It’d probably seem pretty alien to me.

1 Like

OK, I just read this (for the UK):

Yes. true.

What do you think of my idea, above?

Yeah, that’s what I thought Blockchain was supposed to do - though I don’t know crap about it. See my BitTubers link above?

Has anyone here tried DOING any of these “Blockchain platforms”? How was your experience? I’m very curious to know…
Could there come a time when there are different websites for different types of content, ie. imagine ONE Youtube for cartoons, one for music videos, one for short films, and so on…?

1 Like

I was thinking about smthng alike ‘direct connect’ or ‘torrent’ - that everyone could simply use and share with just an app or a client. There’s even no need for a browser.

What do you think about Twitch?

And how would you get Paid then??

Never used it, just heard of it. What about it do you want to point out??

Well, you have the control to disconnect, cut off unwanted IPs/addresses.
How do you otherwise get payed for providing service?!? It’s rhetorical Q, cuz there are so many ways. Suddenly I’m starting to believe you don’t have a clue what “cut out the middleman” really means. No freaking adds! Not being payed to promote shit for gold. Basically, that’s the corruption in disguise.

Observe & experience. Some users show how, some perform, play music, draw art, sculpt stuff… for cash. There’s a $ counter even. All without adds. Satisfied customers pay and return for more.
Try working in a restaurant, a bar or perform on a street for once :smirk: might be an eye opening experience.

I’m not saying that it’s not a valid way of earning a living, but working for tips isn’t suitable for everyone.

1 Like

Holding up income earned from street performance or tips as a high standard is ludicrous at best. If it was possible to have quality of life that way, we all would. People don’t have ads because they are “corrupt” and they don’t believe in earning a creative living. People have ads because they need income. I know a lot of people who work in restaurants; and none of them WANT to do it. I appreciate what you’re saying, but it’s unavoidably naive to look at income in this way.