• stickmanmeyhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    9 months ago

    No platform pays nearly as well as YouTube does on average. If they upload to other platforms, and you watch the content on those other platforms, they’re going to make significantly less money than if you watch on YouTube. Even if there’s increased reach from uploading to multiple platforms, the creator will almost certainly make less—so there’s less than no incentive for them to upload elsewhere.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I believe Nebula pays fantastically well, at least according to Sam from Wendover Productions. This is attributed to the fact that Nebula charges a subscription and half the subscription fees are divvied up to the channels according to watch time.

      However, he owns a significant portion of Nebula so he’s not a disinterested information source.

      • SoylentBlake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s creator owned. If they’re on nebula, they have a stake in it, writ large

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        9 months ago

        Nebula was also made by content creators in response to how bad YouTube is for them.

      • SquiffSquiff@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        My annual subscription to Nebula expired last month. I didn’t renew. They seemed to have a mix of exactly what you get on YouTube and some peculiar TV documentaries that weren’t quite good enough to make brand name TV channels

        • NateNate60@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I don’t think that from a purely “rational consumer” perspective Nebula is worth the $30 per year demanded. But to me, it’s like a Patreon subscription. I can support my favourite creators and I get some nice perks in return, like offline video downloads and advertising and sponsor-free programming. These perks are not worth $30 a year to me. But I will continue to support them anyway.

      • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m broke, so if they exclusively upload to nebula, they aren’t getting anything from my view because it doesn’t happen.

        Uploading to both though seems like a good idea

        • NateNate60@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          There are original series on Nebula that cost a lot to make so I understand that they need to recoup the investment on those.

          But most videos are released on both platforms. The Nebula versions usually have extended cuts and are free of adverts and sponsors, but the programming is otherwise the same.

      • lud
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, Vimeo completely pivoted to basically being a white label video platform for business websites.

    • FriendBesto@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Also, YouTube is a removed to run, hardware wise, they must have farms upon farms of servers everywhere, on top of CND infrastructure. Do not envy their bandwidth bill. Few out there can or could compete, even if they wanted to.