9 Comments

Summary:

Recent coverage of popular and successful YouTube creators making a profit off their content has lead to a backlash regarding the quality of what’s being created. But dismissing YouTubers means dismissing their genius at audience engagement, doing all of web video a disservice.

YouTube - realannoyingorange_s Channel

Two weeks ago, Business Insider posted a list of 10 YouTubers it estimated were making more than $100,000 a year, based on TubeMogul data. The piece attracted some attention, including (most notably) a scathing piece by Helen A.S. Popkin for MSNBC’s Technology, which reviewed the 10 on the list and found them lacking, and, in turn, got fierce reactions from known YouTubers like the Fine Brothers.

(That’s right; this post is a response to the Fine Brothers’ response to MSNBC’s response to Business Insider. It’s like Inception, except with less Ellen Page.)

Taking this one step at a time: that Business Insider article, written by William Wei? Don’t put too much stock in it. When the article first came out, none of those included on the list were willing to speak on the record as to whether or not Wei and TubeMogul’s assumptions regarding YouTube CPMs were accurate, since it violates the YouTube partner agreement to publicly give specifics on their income.

However, last week, Greg Benson of Mediocre Films (ranked as number seven on the Business Insider list, and estimated to be making $116,000 a year) said that Wei was incorrect about him receiving 159 million views over the last 12 months.

“My official total video views since I joined YouTube in 2006 is 113 million — spread over FOUR YEARS,” Benson writes, adding that “their CPM estimates are actually totally wrong. Although it’s kind of fun to be on a list I don’t belong on, it’s more important to me that people get their facts straight before spewing garbage to the public.”

TubeMogul CEO Brett Wilson, with whom I spoke via phone, confirmed that the error regarding Benson’s views is real, an outright mistake made on their end while transferring data from TubeMogul to Business Insider. To compensate for this error, TubeMogul is prepared to offer Benson space on their ad network to “help make up the difference.”

After double-checking the data, Wilson added that TubeMogul stood by the rest of their results. Business Insider has been informed of the error; if it decides to update the article, then the next-highest-ranked YouTuber following current number 10 Community Channel would be Russian philologist Hot for Words, just beating out vlogger iJustine.

In reaction to all this, you have Helen A.S. Popkin’s response to the list on MSNBC.com, which comes off as deliberately antagonistic and glib. I say this as someone who agrees with Popkin that Annoying Orange isn’t great content, but still has a lot of respect for the way that show and the other YouTubers featured have built up an audience.

Because that’s the thing: To dismiss something because it’s popular, in the sprawling digital marketplace, is to be willfully ignorant of an emerging skill set within the new media world: the ability to get seen. It’s a complicated formula that involves the constant creation of new content, regular communication with one’s audience, endless networking and collaboration with other creators and lightning-fast response to popular topics. It’s all about connection.

That skill set is so fundamental to shaping what gets attention and what doesn’t that, yes, it can mean the quality of what’s being spread becomes almost irrelevant, leading to bad videos and, ultimately, articles like Popkin’s.

The Fine Brothers characterize Popkin’s reaction as “petty jealousy when it comes to the digital studios and ‘professional web series’ community.” This isn’t the most constructive attitude, but they go on to make the reasonable point that the creators being panned are working hard to create a viable market for web video: one that will benefit all web content down the line.

Within that marketplace, the content itself is improving. Take as a recent example Tony E. Valenzuela’s solid Black Box TV, which combines known YouTube talent with strong production values and social media savvy, resulting in nearly 600,000 views so far for the first two episodes combined.

It’s unlikely that Black Box TV would have achieved that level of views without its YouTube-famous cast, but if it featured professional actors instead (which, some have argued, would be an improvement), the show would still have a strong social media campaign of rich behind-the-scenes content, an iPhone app, and an active blog, all contributing to direct engagement with its audience.

The not-good stuff needs to get better. The good stuff needs to get seen. None of this happens in a vacuum; it happens in a collaborative and engaging environment. While ignoring the success of YouTubers is unproductive, mocking it is even worse.

Related GigaOm Pro Content (subscription required): Why Viacom’s Fight With YouTube Threatens Web Innovation (subscription required)

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. WTF? A mistake while the data was transferred from them to the Business Insider? What kind of an analytics company is that?!? lol sounds like an excuse to cover up a rushed press piece. Come on!

    Unfortunately, brands and advertisers share Helen’s view when it comes to buying media on youtube – they’re ignoring the success of these popular stars when they should be paying attention to the loyalty of the audience.

  2. I’m not going to give these guys credit for finding an audience when most of them did it by either fluke, heavy and continuous promotion by YouTube, or outright gaming/cheating the system.

    Yes they’re all great marketers, they’ve figured out a system to get the views and engage the audience and la-di-da good for them. But as a commenter mentioned on the Fine Brothers blog, all these YouTube Partners are striving to be Michael Bay. They’re not striving to make great content, they’re focused on working the same system over and over and while that’s great for getting views and getting corporations to throws bags of money their way, it’s not going to get them taken seriously outside of that paradigm.

    To be taken seriously as a medium, there needs to be more people like Felicia Day who can successfully get views and make money AND ALSO produce creative, engaging material.

    However that takes a little more work than talking in a stupid voice and playing with fake poop so I won’t be holding my breath.

    1. Tony E. Valenzuela Tim Sunday, September 12, 2010

      Tim,

      Take a closer look at YouTube and you will find a growing group of creators who are striving to create engaging, well-made content for their audience. The YT promotion machine does not function as it did a couple of years ago and much has changed with the portal and how it operates. Finally, not everyone on YT (including myself) wants to be “the next Michael Bay.” But I think you know that.

  3. The bottom line is that the Youtubers are kings of the mountain right now and no amount of bitching from the LA bubble is going to change that. If we want to surpass them we need do what the entertainment business has had to do in every generation since Shakesphere:

    Adapt or die.

    It is as simple as that.

  4. Anyone that puts down what YouTube Partners do is simply ignorant. Ignorant of the entertainment industry and its history. Online video is in its infancy. Go back and look at the crap that was put on film during film’s infancy … or radio’s infancy … or TV’s infancy. Hell, go to the broadcast networks today and watch Leno, Letterman, and Kimmel. Their audiences are warmed up by comics and they’re all fans of the show (not an audience of hard-nose critics) so how hard was it to get their laughter? Oh, and such shows commmonly employ professional laughers who sit in key spots in the audience, have infectious laughs, and will loudly laughs at all jokes. Without such an audience, the VAST majority of their jokes bomb even worse than they already do. In fact, remove the canned laughs from almost any sitcom and they all fall flat.

    So in case any YouTube Partner or online video producer is reading this, learn from the establishment. Add canned laughter to your programs. I’m serious. Do it. Make no apology for doing so. For you see, that’s what you’re doing wrong. Or rather what you’re not doing. The Helen Popkins of the world are frighten and confused by you since you’re not telling her when to laugh so she can. Be kind to the lemmings and add canned laughter.

  5. Jonathan Paula Tuesday, August 31, 2010

    When I first saw that article, it was simply laughable at how grossly inaccurate it is. The 10 YouTubers making over $100,000 a year?

    When really, it’s more like 100+ YouTuber’s are making those figures. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

  6. Solar Heater or Solar Furnace for home heating | Air Carolina Upstate Thursday, September 2, 2010

    [...] The Lessons YouTubers Teach Us [...]

  7. YouTube’s Richest Stars (Follow-up) Monday, September 6, 2010

    [...] wrote an article explaining that I would have been on the list if the error had not occurred.  Here is the article.  Thanks GIGAOM!  Now, where did I put those millions? TAGS: [...]

  8. Tony E. Valenzuela Sunday, September 12, 2010

    Great article Liz. Your comments about the MSNBC article are right on and more importantly it’s good to see that cooler heads (like yourself) are beginning to prevail. Let the conversation continue…

Comments have been disabled for this post