I don't think I've even tried to watch any of his, I just saw the thumbnails on YT that look like the collaboration of a child high on sugar and a tabloid paper, and moved straight on to something else.
I can't stand pewpewdie either, and he's making millions apparently.
They are the most popular. To quote Southpark, we are all grandpas. I can't stand pewpewdie either, and he's making millions apparently.
He is completely unwatchable. Could not even make it through an entire video of his.
Good on him for making dough though.
Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of that either. Although, I really don't watch any sort of Let's Play videos unless I'm interested in the game. That's unless watching Twitch counts as a Let's Play, which it sort of is... I think? I mostly watch Hearthstone on there.
I've seen some articles about how much PewDiePie makes that came out in the past week or two, and how some are up in arms over it. I don't know why anyone is surprised that people would be unhappy. We all tend to ascribe an amount of effort and value to something, and I think most people tend to be cynical about pay in the entertainment industry. When you hear that Robert Downey Jr. gets $50 million for The Avengers, you can't help but raise a brow. When you hear that a guy on YouTube that plays video games, makes funny noises, and generally acts out makes $7 million a year, you're going to raise a brow. Although, to be fair, we generally ignore any difficulties that exist for those people. For example, most people probably don't know how much time goes into editing videos. Albeit, Let's Plays are probably a bit easier than other types as they usually lack a lot of visual flair.
Yeah the only thing that kind of bugs me a bit is that he isn't producing a product to sell and he is not selling a service. He is making money off ads that he didn't create. It really is like getting paid for nothing. It doesn't cost money to watch his videos or subscribe to the channel. If Google wants to pay people for hosting ads on their page that's their business though.
Yeah the only thing that kind of bugs me a bit is that he isn't producing a product to sell and he is not selling a service. He is making money off ads that he didn't create. It really is like getting paid for nothing. It doesn't cost money to watch his videos or subscribe to the channel. If Google wants to pay people for hosting ads on their page that's their business though.
He sells Entertainment.
How is he not producing a product? He's making a series of videos. How is that any different from making a television show? The fact that his revenue comes from advertisers rather than from the audience is hardly significant. You think Matt Groenig didn't "produce a product" in making The Simpsons simply because people watched it for free and he got his money from advertisers?
Anyone with a webcam and free time can make a video. He isn't making a product or service to sell to anyone. The simpsons made money from Fox. Fox bought the episodes and signed Matt Groenig to a contract and made back the difference from their advertisers. Youtube is not the same. There's no contract, you don't have to make a sales pitch to a company to get them to buy into your idea. You basically enable monetization on the account and link an addsense account to it. Then Google does the rest and you can get a payout in a 45/55 split where Google takes 45% of all revenue. Once you accumulate $100, Google will either send a check or do a direct deposit to your bank account. The only hard part is getting noticed and getting viewers. I know people who do this but really struggle to get their name out there to grab viewers. Not for video game related topics, but things like Coin collecting. That's the hardest part of it all, getting noticed in a sea of other videos.
Let's Play works infinitely better for my purposes in smaller chunks. Most of the time I'm just looking for a video of how to get past a specific part of a game I'm working on (like Bloodborne bosses). I'd rather the videos be divided up into shorter chunks with helpful labels for me to search, than click a link for a f-ing Bloodborne marathon video and try to scan to the part I'm interested in...
Yeah, none of those "distinctions" are substantive or substantial.
PewDiePie = Groenig
Fox = Youtube
Advertisers = Advertisers
PewDiePie makes videos and gives Youtube the right to broadcast them. Advertisers pay Youtube to slap some ads on with those videos. Youtube passes on a portion of that money to PewDiePie.
Groenig makes videos and gives Fox the right to broadcast them. Advertisers pay Fox to slap some ads along with those videos. Fox passes on a portion of that money to Groenig.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is 99.999999% the same economic transaction going on. The absence of a contractual agreement to produce additional content in the future is hardly significant.
The only difference is Groenig made a masterpiece and PewDiePie makes drivel that's inexplicably popular with some demographic of the world that apparently exists but I've never interacted with. But lots of entertainment is inexplicably popular to me (Real Housewives, shows starring the Kardashians, Gilmore Girls, Tyler Perry movies, etc.)
Edit: A more apt analogy may be to reality television. Any idiot with a camcorder can make reality television. What you need to make money is a compelling cast of characters doing shit some segment of the world apparently finds entertaining, which is exactly what PewDiePie does. It's not accurate to say these people "aren't producing anything." It's more apt to say these people are producing something that is inexplicably popular to a large number of people.
Is it really up to any of you to decide what other people want to watch and what sponsors want to pay for?
He isn't selling anything. When you click the video it doesn't cost you money. You don't pay him. Google does for whatever advertising revenue they get.
To get on TV you need to pitch your show and sell it. You need to make the studio feel it's worth their time to invest in, their air time is money. It's different if you have an established name to work with. Youtube doesn't work that way. You can upload anything and monetize it. It might not make anything because nobody is viewing it, but you can put almost anything there and give it advertising. Copyrighted music cannot be monetized though.
I see what you're trying to say but it's really not quite as simple as you put it. The major difference being that Youtube doesn't take ownership rights of your content the way a television studio may depending on the contract. For example The Simpsons as you know started as a buffer between sketches on The Tracey Ulman Show. Fox liked it enough and it was popular enough to give it a full half hour of it's own. Fox now owns the rights to the Simpsons until 2082. The same doesn't hold true for YouTube content. You always retain ownership rights, but must give licensing rights to Google as part of the TOS. However you can take down any content you wish because it's yours.
This is the internet, of course it's up to us.
To get on TV you need to pitch your show and sell it. You need to make the studio feel it's worth their time to invest in, their air time is money. It's different if you have an established name to work with. Youtube doesn't work that way. You can upload anything and monetize it. It might not make anything because nobody is viewing it, but you can put almost anything there and give it advertising. Copyrighted music cannot be monetized though.
I see what you're trying to say but it's really not quite as simple as you put it. The major difference being that Youtube doesn't take ownership rights of your content the way a television studio may depending on the contract. For example The Simpsons as you know started as a buffer between sketches on The Tracey Ulman Show. Fox liked it enough and it was popular enough to give it a full half hour of it's own. Fox now owns the rights to the Simpsons until 2082. The same doesn't hold true for YouTube content. You always retain ownership rights, but must give licensing rights to Google as part of the TOS. However you can take down any content you wish because it's yours.
This is the internet, of course it's up to us.
We are straying so far off the topic at hand it's not even worth debating. I disagreed with your contention that PewDiePie isn't producing *anything* and none of your points really support your contention that PewDiePie doesn't produce something. The only thing you've demonstrated is that PewDiePie produces a medium of entertainment that is marginally different from television. He's still producing *something*.
I mean, let's be real, everybody here probably feels some degree of resentment and jealously towards a guy who made a shit-ton of money sitting around all day basically doing shit that we all do for our own enjoyment on our free time. That sums up my feelings on the matter at least.
The whole point is he is making money without selling a product or service. Everything is free for the viewer. There's no product to sell here.
The whole point is he is making money without selling a product or service. Everything is free for the viewer. There's no product to sell here.
The viewer of OTA TV and in many cases Cable also Pays nothing for the Content. He has already shown you this, I'm puzzled as to why you can't see that. If he was Producing nothing, we wouldn't even know who he was.
Again, with this crap? It's not the same thing. As I've already pointed out everything can be on youtube, there's no suit behind a desk to impress and get them to take a chance on your show. That's the part that involves selling. You just make a video and link your addsense account and done for youtube. Someone making a TV show has to do a lot more to get it on the air than just upload it.
The whole point is he is making money without selling a product or service. Everything is free for the viewer. There's no product to sell here.
I'm a little jelly. Would be awesome to make that cash playing games.