Quote:
Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd
Well, on the one hand, having Channels helps focus your uploads and target your marketing a bit better via the Tubes. But the 'downside' (an 'upside' from the Tubes' perspective) is surfers stay on the Tube rather than go to the paysite. In fact, with some Channels, they are made to look like mini-versions of your paysite.
So basically I would prefer not to have them BUT it's the Tubes' traffic so I work within whatever system they have setup.
And what I meant by 'Industry-friendly" is that whatever new tube that comes out should do their best to split revenue with the content provider so that content producers will willingly support the project rather than spend the time DMCA-ing everything. And I am not talking about just banners or text links. LOL
|
Interesting. I've never considered channels that way. I can see your point. I understand a content owner's views on that. On the flip side if a paysite can't compete with a channel on a tube it doesn't really deserve to be a paysite. It's a free market and you have to be able to offer a product that stands on its own and is worth paying for imo.
Interesting concept. There are a few road blocks to it.
#1 There are a few categories of content producers. Those who give everything to tubes, those that give nothing to tubes, and those in the middle. The tubes already have the first two groups' content. The problem with trying to address the group that won't give their content is there is no pleasing them. There is nothing you can reasonably do that would make them happy to get on board.
#2 If you are going to share revenue what do you share it based on? Referred sales? ad Sales? Who gets what share? Views? Percentage of video viewed? Comments? Votes? Rating? Clicks sent out? etc.