That's a little different really seeing as they are trying to break twitch's monopoly on streaming, think they've paid a couple of streamers to hop platforms.30 million for ludwig
QTCinderella seemingly reveals value of Ludwig’s streaming contract with YouTube Gaming
Blaire "QTCinderella," Ludwig Ahgren's girlfriend and one of his many roommates, has slyly revealed the value of the content creator's new contract with YouTube Gaming.www.sportskeeda.com
The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
The point is creators are charged to use the network. It's not free. Obvs it's not the exact same model. Youtube creators get paid by sharing the ad revenue. Twitter creators get paid via direct exposure to whatever they are selling. Only if you are being obtuse can people not see that ultimately the platform takes a cut in some form.
Musk has talked about trying to create a business model where creators get a share of ads as well, which would be very cool.
Youtube isn't free. That's the point. That was your original point, that Twitter should be free.
Last edited:
Soldato
Different to what? I'm not saying you're wrong, perhaps I've caught the end of the conversation and while working go it wrong, but wasn't the point that youtube don't pay creators directly to create on youtube?
Also, welcome back. Hope you had a good time away
Soldato
To who?
Last edited:
Soldato
You're being deliberately obtuse aren't you. Youtube creators pay. Twitter creators pay
Last edited:
Soldato
I'm honestly open to the idea that creators pay, but I don't see it. I've never seen it. In what round about way do you think a creator on youtube pays to create on youtube?
Soldato
They don't keep 100% of the ad revenue. It doesn't matter how you dress it up, the creator, if his business is on Youtube is giving up a share of the revenue. Youtube take a cut. The original example that started this convo was Stephen King. If Stephen King was getting half a million views on Youtube, he doesn't keep 100% ad revenue. He pays, Youtube take a slice. We weren't talking about the random person who as 500 followers on Twitter or the Youtube person who has 5k views on a vid.
Soldato
Twitter creators don't get any at the moment. But the way they get paid is different anyway.
Youtube creators get paid from people watching adverts. Twitters creators get paid via marketing and direct selling on their own website.
The difference is YouTube creators get paid the ad revenue and can also do direct promotions in the video and keep all of that. Twitter creators have to survive on direct promotions
Soldato
Honestly that is the biggest spin I've seen in this thread for a long time.
So before twitter charged creators with this stupid twitter clue, twitter charged creators by not giving them any of the advertising revenue?
However you want to spin this, youtube creators don't pay to create. They never have and never will.
Advertisers or premium account holders, pay youtube. Youtube then pay their server fees, Admin fees, office fees etc, and then keep a chunk for profit, and they also pay the content creator for creating that content.
To say that the content creator is paying youtube, because the creator doesn't get to keep 100 ad revenue that youtube has managed to get, is just daft, and in no way comparable to what twitter now does.
Soldato
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19682137/911853890.jpg.jpg)
Creators finally know how much money YouTube makes, and they want more of it
YouTube made $15 billion in ad revenue in 2019, and creators want to see more of it
www.theverge.com
It's not hard to get your head around.
Last edited:
2 different elements aren't they, you've got the YouTube streaming and YouTube where you upload videos. The streamer with the nice big fat contract to exclusively stream via YouTube will still have any videos he uploads be subject to youtubes cut of ad revenue.
Never been away
Soldato
No it's not, so why you're trying to spin this I don't know.Creators finally know how much money YouTube makes, and they want more of it
YouTube made $15 billion in ad revenue in 2019, and creators want to see more of it
It's not hard to get your head around.
How much did you pay your employer to go to work today? Given they don't give you all the money for the work you do, they have costs, profit to make etc.
What is the amount you paid to your employer for you to work?
Soldato
The cheek to suggest i'm putting spin on it is quite comical. It's pretty simple, the Youtube platform gets paid via it's creators. The Twitter platform gets paid via it's creators. The make up and functions of how that happens are different. The result is the same.
Soldato
How much did you pay your employer to go to work today?
Unrelated, but this video came up on my feed. Elon definitely matches every car sales man I've ever seen.
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.
youtube.com
Soldato
I'm sure I saw a video not that long ago by Linus in which he laid out the % of how his company makes money and a not insignificant % was directly from Youtube but more from Floatplane which I think he pretty much owns.
Soldato
I've got Youtube premium and the benefit is zero ads, which when it comes to video is everything and why its worth it. You don't even get zero ads with paid Twitter, you just get less. For the likes of Stephen King I can't see any reason he would ever pay for Twitter, he gets nothing from it, Twitter gets him and the views he brings, why the hell should he pay to bring views to the platform. If you are trying to sell your product then I can see why you might want to pay but other than that I can't see any benefit. In fact with just any old tom Dick or Harry being able to get a tick now its pretty worthless.
Lets not forget why Twitter started verification. That has just been thrown out of the window. How long before Elon ends up in court?
Commissario
No you are putting a spin on it.
The creators aren't paying simply to have their stuff listed, and as the publishing industry puts it "the money runs towards author", which is what both Twitch and Youtube do, they don't charge you to use their platforms but do offer to share advertising money with you when you hit a certain point, with them keeping some to cover their costs.
Twitter used to do that as well, at least in terms of not charging you to do use it, now Twitter wants to actively charge you for something that you're providing content for and with no money flowing back to you as the content creator and for something that is orders of magnitude cheaper to provide.
In the world of publishing what Twitter is doing would be raising all the red flags for experienced authors, as the money is very definitely not moving towards the people that are creating the product.
Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it
- Status