After being on YouTube for about five years I have noticed that viewers of YouTube videos are very picky!
Let’s look at this as example, someone makes a flying UFO and takes around 20-30 hours making it, then someone comes along and rips off that video by copying and only spends around 10-60 minutes. Now the first video only gets 300 views and a lot of silly comments ripping it to pieces, where as the second video gets 20,000 views and a lot of praising comments.
Has common sense took a holiday? No, viewers are just picky! I have seen this so many times and I honestly don’t get it, why should someone get more views for crappy content? In the same breath, many people could say that even crappy content is good content.
Let’s take a trip back into the days of the Looney Tunes, even to this day I can spot mistakes in the animation; the sound was spot on and the same can be said for the overall storyline. But there are noticeable mistakes and even in today’s video land Looney Tunes is loved by millions.
So, with this said it is clear viewers are picky and most of the time prefer to watch crap content. In terms of the Looney Tunes, back then they didn’t have much to work with like fancy computer programs to edit the audio or video. In this day and age there shouldn’t be an excuse about making crap content as we have more advantages than big studios had back then, before you go shooting me down when I say crap content I mean total rip offs or someone who didn’t put any effort in what they had made.
There are so many great content creators out there and they are being shunned away from the real viewers because people just rip stuff off or just copy and make it look utter crap.
I do hope one day the viewer’s prospective changes because these good creators should be seen more!
Recently Facebook has tested a new pay for system in New Zealand that allows users to promote their posts.
According to news sources the charges will only apply to posts you want to promote and not every time you post. The charges will start from 25p going up to a maximum of £1.25 and the charges will be taken via PayPal or debit/credit card.
Facebook have said this is only a test and have not set any plans for when this beta test will end and they have not mentioned if this will come in across the website.
If this comes in place it won’t really affect users unless they want to promote posts, the only thing it will do is help businesses promote their posts to drive more traffic at low costs so there is no need to worry about Facebook charging a subscription fee.
Looking to the future of Facebook, as time goes on this new method will allow them to become more profitable and it will also keep their service free for all.
After all running a social network costs money, the servers don’t pay for themselves!
The news of Facebook issuing stock options has been widely known for sometime and their plans to raise $5B in first public offerings.
According to many news sources Facebook public offerings will start from May 17th 2012 at $35 a share (Nasdaq: FB). All dates and pricing above are all based on multiple news reports, these are subject to change.
Like any public offerings you take some sort of risk but will Facebook be a bigger risk to investors than normal? Facebook has always hit a backlash from a percentage of their users because of changes they make and a tiny percentage of users stop using their service and move to rival social networking sites.
Since Facebook launched in February 2004 they have always stated their service will be free but will this change in months ahead as the public offerings go ahead? The whole rumour of Facebook becoming a paid for has been rumoured for sometime by thousands of users but thus Facebook have yet to put anything like this in place.
If Facebook was to become a paid for service there could be a couple of issues that arise from this, one users will not pay for social networking and two will Facebook remove ads if you pay a subscription fee.
Facebook are like any company, they are trying to offer the best service possible with a minimal impact to their large user base and sometimes the options some people would like to see wont always be realistic for the company to stay profitable.
Needless to say if the offerings pay off in the long run Facebook will have a brighter future. Always remember when buying any stock options you are taking a risk, always do research before investing because you might lose money instead of gaining.
Over the years YouTube has grown very rapidly with many new features and more opportunities for content creators to bring their creations to a global audience.
YouTube has some outstanding stats, 60 hours of video are uploaded every minute, 4 billion unique hits per day, 800 million unique user accounts visit YouTube per month and 3 billion hours of video are watched every month.
This in its self is outstanding, not many networks could reach such high figures and reach such a global audience. Since Google acquired YouTube in 2006 there has been many changes that has caused controversy between users but overall google has helped millions of users to do goals that they would have not achieved on any other platform.
I want to highlight the ongoing problem of automated communications that YouTube use all the time. If you are new to this term it simply means that a server is programmed with scripts to take on jobs that a normal person would do. I believe YouTube have gone over the top with automated jobs, don’t get me wrong if you are able to use this technology to make things easier than that is fantastic but you shouldn’t use it as an alternative to communication.
Have you ever tried contacting YouTube? You will find it hard to do because they hardly make anything public. This really makes you think such a large company and when you have issues you can’t call anyone, in some ways it makes you think that YouTube is being operated by vampire ninjas that live in a twilight zone.
Automated jobs are a good solution to control job load but using it to control communication load will never pay off overall.
On the 13th April 2012 YouTube announced that they would be extending the partnership program to everyone but what did this actually mean? Loads of users presumed that they were a full partner but this isn’t true.
Here are the facts: YouTube did not make everyone a partner, all they did was allow any account to monetize their videos straightaway. Since the end of last year YouTube was introducing this slowly across existing accounts and now it is open to all without meeting any criteria.
Full YouTube partnership is still available but in a different capacity, YouTube have taken away the partnership apply form which means you don’t have to apply to become a partner but instead YouTube will invite you to become a partner.
The new partnership level is nothing new and isn’t really partnership it just means your account is monetized and your able to make money by placing ads on your videos. Also with this level you will NOT get any extra features like a channel banner or scheduled uploads, these features are only available for FULL partnership accounts.
I have personally tested this on a new account and without uploading a video I had all options to monetize and when I uploaded my first video I was able to monetize that video straightaway.
I guess YouTube got users hopes up but on the bright side, your able to make money from your videos straightaway without meeting a criteria.
As of today YouTube has announced that they are extending the partnership program to everyone who is living within the valid countries mentioned on the YouTube creators blog post. Previously the partner program was only open for selected accounts that met certain criteria, now this is open to anyone with a valid Adsense account and has at least 1 video uploaded.
In a way this has completely diminished the partner program because being a partner was something you had to earn but now it takes very little effort to do. If you have worked to become a partner do you feel this has demoted you or do you feel that it is a good thing because everyone is equal?
One thing YouTube still hasn’t addressed and that is the users who have been affected by click bombers. There are many channels on Youtube who have worked very hard to get partnership and later lost their partnership or monetization because some idiots decide to click your ads on purpose. I agree that YouTube need to protect the advertisers because they pay in money to show their ads but why should the creators lose because of idiots? All this click bombing can be addressed by implementing session controls or storing information in a database that will control when a user has clicked an ad, from a programming view this isn’t hard to bring in.
To sum up being a YouTube Partner is nothing now and until click bombing has been addressed it will be the same problems as before but on a larger scale.
Facebook has announced it has snapped up photo sharing site Instagram for $1B
Instagram launched in October 2010 and primarily it was only available for iPhone users but as of last week it became available for android users.
Mark Zuckerberg CEO of Facebook has said Instagram will stay as its own brand and it won’t tie into Facebook. The reason for not merging the two networks was simply to allow Instagram the freedom of posting to other social networks.
Has Facebook made a risky move? Let’s look at the facts! Instagram is about 18 months old with 13 employees and has a user base of around 30 million and has proven to be very popular with over 5 million pictures being posted daily. Facebook over the years has had a bad reputation by some because they make changes that the users don’t like but could this just be users fearing change? Time will tell what happens to Instagram but I hope it won’t receive the same backlash as Facebook.
For more information about Instagram just follow the link below