Of course, contributors should be paid. I don't understand why it's taken this long for people to figure that out.
And it's not just about drawing advertising. Look how much money You Tube sold for. Is it right for only the carpenters to be paid when it was others who stocked the store with goods and made it worth buying?
sbspalding
· 1 year ago
I have a feeling that you are close to right. The question becomes, should -everyone- get a share of the profits or only those who make substantial contributions?
Mark Dykeman
· 1 year ago
Wow, this is a tough one. I've seen another excellent post or two that really tears in to this topic.
Thing is, sites like Huffington and others make no bones about the fact that they don't pay, so you can't blame them for enforcing their own rules. YouTube, I'd say, is being smart in trying to share the riches, but in a sense they are changing the rules mid-stream and there are consequences for doing that.
In the end, it remains to be seen whether Hufffington will suffer from not paying writers or not.
undergroundman
· 1 year ago
It's a good question. I tend to feel that the market will eventually force Youtube to pay top contributors. I suppose whether it will depends upon the ability of good producers to migrate -- and I think it's not very hard.
If the market couldn't force these contributors to be paid, then it might say more about the contributors than anything else.
Greg Brooks
· 1 year ago
A McKinsey study found that most people produce user-generated content for fame, fun and a sense of community -- in the study's findings, the potential to accrue perks at work (for intranets) or money (for intranets or external user-content-driven sites) served as a minimal motivator.
Mind you, that can shift based on market conditions -- if a critical mass of top sites start paying, then it will become mainstream. But it's not the main thing people seem to be looking for at this time.
sbspalding
· 1 year ago
I think I agree with you. While it isn't a strong motivator, I do question the "fairness" of it. Should people be generating content that drives millions of users to a site without being given anything in return?
On the flipside, could an argument be made that the attention and potential deals that they could make from the exposure make up for not being directly compensated?
Maggy Young
· 1 year ago
Is the amount of payment divided between a very large no. of contributors really so worth bothering about? Also the admin & resulting problems from huge nos. of micro payments would add significant costs. Following on from Greg, if significant payments resulted, the semi-pros would be increasingly drawn in, & thereby over time squeeze out the 'have a go' amateur ethos which is what these sites originally provided a forum for.
sbspalding
· 1 year ago
I would like to touch on a few of the comments. I tend to agree that a significant push towards monetization might turn User-Gen from a cottage industry into just another distribution channel. The problem with that is that small content producers who couldn't keep up with the semi-professionals might lose interest.
Though, this is how it already is in terms of attention. Instead of vying for money, right now content producers are vying for eyeballs. And as is the case with most things, 90% of the eyeballs ends up looking at 10% of the content.
My question then is would it really be that different? Adsense seems to work, even though it is quite obvious that most people don't make a dime off of it.
All Comments
And it's not just about drawing advertising. Look how much money You Tube sold for. Is it right for only the carpenters to be paid when it was others who stocked the store with goods and made it worth buying?
Thing is, sites like Huffington and others make no bones about the fact that they don't pay, so you can't blame them for enforcing their own rules. YouTube, I'd say, is being smart in trying to share the riches, but in a sense they are changing the rules mid-stream and there are consequences for doing that.
In the end, it remains to be seen whether Hufffington will suffer from not paying writers or not.
If the market couldn't force these contributors to be paid, then it might say more about the contributors than anything else.
Mind you, that can shift based on market conditions -- if a critical mass of top sites start paying, then it will become mainstream. But it's not the main thing people seem to be looking for at this time.
On the flipside, could an argument be made that the attention and potential deals that they could make from the exposure make up for not being directly compensated?
Following on from Greg, if significant payments resulted, the semi-pros would be increasingly drawn in, & thereby over time squeeze out the 'have a go' amateur ethos which is what these sites originally provided a forum for.
Though, this is how it already is in terms of attention. Instead of vying for money, right now content producers are vying for eyeballs. And as is the case with most things, 90% of the eyeballs ends up looking at 10% of the content.
My question then is would it really be that different? Adsense seems to work, even though it is quite obvious that most people don't make a dime off of it.