In 2006, we were talking about how Youtube was going to change how the news was reported, how all the media we were exposed to would no longer trace back to the same half-dozen companies. That started to happen a little bit, but it started to make more sense for content producers to band together and form networks, partially because of cross-promotion, but also because networks can sidestep Youtube's content ID system (which actually allows IP-holders to take down videos without confirming that they contain infringing content). Networks start to turn into ventures in their own right, established media companies like Time Warner start putting money into them, and now Disney has acquired the most comprehensive and successful network. The decentralized media dream dies again!
I wonder what Maker's future as part of an established company will look like. I hope the acquisition doesn't reduce the level of creative freedom Maker's talent has had in the past, because that seems to be what got them ahead of the other networks.
First:
The December changes did make the majority of partners ("Affiliates") have no copyright protection. However there are a few huge mitigating factors: The newly established "Managed" partner status is exactly like the old partnership, full content-ID protection, and how the networks have reacted/changed.
Second:
Many networks are now offering "Managed" status to many partners, if not all. There are indeed some networks who offer managed status to all partners.
Third:
Google has yet to take (public) action against any networks for copyright violations under the new managed system. Until they do networks will continue to treat copyright as a joke and partnerships will remain a cash cow and little partners will remain unsupported.
Source: I'm a YouTube content creator (90k subs, 12m views). Feel free to drop by reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube if you have any in depth questions, or ask here.
Yeah basically. However if Google does enforce copyright violations against networks, we will actually see partnerships start to mean something again... which would be a good change. Currently the majority of networks are little more than scams: promising the world and not following though. Yes, even the big guys.
There are many problems with this business: Copyright and Content-ID, network recruiters (aka highschool kids paid for referrals), lack of visibility into advertising revenue, etc.
Sort of not really. It's just now a potential content id claim goes against the MCN if they mark that channel as protected, so most MCNs only do it for their very most important channels.
In Maker's case, for example, Totalbiscuit is still protected the same way he used to be, but the vast, vast majority of other channels under them are not.
This just makes me angry at google. I was wondering when the big boys would become interested in web video, and it looks like it finally happened. It doesn't matter that monetization is difficult, that costs are unreasonably low right now, that production values are often lacking, etc. The fact is that web video has a huge future, and the potential has barely been scratched.
Google/youtube themselves don't even realize the potential, so they've been fucking around with minor feature changes and bullshit like google-plus comment integration instead of treating youtube like a serious endeavor and making big changes (like turning content creators into customers instead of plebian users that get treated like shit at every turn).
This marks one of the first sizable exits for a company built almost wholly on top of YouTube as a platform. A lot of people said that Google content partnerships didn't leave enough air in the room to allow for this sort of value creation. I hope this emboldens other firms to support companies working in this space, a lot of wonderful things could still happen.
I wrote this [1] comment when Disney acquired LucasFilm:
This means that Disney now controls Marvel, Pixar, LucasArts, ABC, ESPN, A+E, Disney Channel plus all their own original content and of course the parks and merchandising rights for everything stated above.
In related news, Warner Bros. is putting money into Machinima. They had funded the Mortal Combat series on Machinima before, but it looks like they're buying in big now.
> We also won’t know for a while how Disney really intends to use Maker: Will they get hands on and start directly managing a company that by all accounts could use some more management help? Or keep the property at arm’s length? Somewhere in between?
The standard story I've heard about Disney is that projects will proceed, maybe even speed up and seem to be on cruise control and then one day you hear the project is done - everyone has been laid-off. A couple years later, a new exec in the same division calls you up and wants you to come in and work on the same exact project you were working on...
Maker recently acquired Blip which likely attracted Disney's attention. It seems a lot of their partners in RPM networks(owned by Maker) have high turnover; many smaller channels with new talent. Blip seems like the desired goal here. $500 million seems absurdly high, but I guess they must be worth it.
Most of their channels seem really, really, insanely low-quality. They had a few larger partners like Ray William Johnson, NicePeter, ShayCarl, etc. But what are the long-term value of partnership with these channels? I know Ray William Johnson bailed on Maker pretty publicly recently. Are these artists going to make youtube videos indefinitely? Are they under contract to churn out a specific number of videos per week?
I'm curious how it all works legally given the loose relationship most people have with youtube.
If Disney wanted Blip and that's the reason for this price then not buying it seems like an insane strategic mistake. I found this article [0] which says Maker paid less than $10M for Blip.. and that Blip had funding of at least $24M. Seems like Disney could have made that acquisition an order of magnitude cheaper than this one - and Blip's investors would probably force the higher offer.
The vast majority do rep themselves. Only the top talent are catered to by the MCNs like Maker.
Then why would a small YouTube star want to join an MCN? The studios do still tend to provide a support structure and tech stack to help you grow your channel. Generally speaking, of course -- there are a lot of MCNs out there and each one operates differently.
Yes, I worked on a reverse-engineered annotations project at some point in time, among other things. The YT space is definitely under-represented here, though I can't say I'm surprised. All the related startups are hybrid tech and media companies who tend to do (public) business more like media companies than tech companies.
I also attended Playlist Live last year (or the year before? I forget). Nice to talk to you Kevin :)
That's cool, I was peeking through your company's portfolio and saw the Fullscreen stuff. When George showed me that I was pretty impressed, couldn't figure out how it was done.
Hey, I'm a day late I know but just saying hi also as I'm also in the youtube world. I'm the creator of SocialBlade.com (youtube/etc stats site) & we have a contract with Maker... or I guess now Disney to refer people into their MCN through our site. Just catching up on HN now after being at Playlist Live this past weekend.
Here is something I hacked together with some fellow HN lurkers, in case the YT API stuff tickles your fancy: youstars.herokuapp.com/#/michellephan (using Michelle Phan's channel just as an example since it looks good).
Doesn't do anything too complex with the API, mostly just using the custom YT player. I checked out your user profile and your company. Great to see people doing stuff with YT analytics. It's something I've worked a lot with myself.
Thanks - glad you liked it. We've considered releasing it into the wild. Mostly it was just a fun hack project. Maybe we will do a blog post or something and show people in a bigger scale. The channels on the right are related to the Michelle Phan channel. One of the back end devs cooked up a channel matching feature. Actually if you click the left menu for suggestions (and you are oauthed), he wrote several selection metrics based on your account that will make other discovery suggestions. It's actually a really neat feature.
Interesting development. Blip might be part of the reason. I can't see how Disney would pay such a large amount for a company that sits on top of YouTube. Margins are small, zero control, and they provide no real value.
If I were Disney or anyone else, I'd be looking at Rumble.com or Storyful. They are managing similar volumes and content like Maker, but on their own platforms (they distribute outside of the YouTube eco-system). That's where the future is. Like Centigonal mentioned, these companies are actually changing how news is reported.
In 2006, we were talking about how Youtube was going to change how the news was reported, how all the media we were exposed to would no longer trace back to the same half-dozen companies. That started to happen a little bit, but it started to make more sense for content producers to band together and form networks, partially because of cross-promotion, but also because networks can sidestep Youtube's content ID system (which actually allows IP-holders to take down videos without confirming that they contain infringing content). Networks start to turn into ventures in their own right, established media companies like Time Warner start putting money into them, and now Disney has acquired the most comprehensive and successful network. The decentralized media dream dies again!
I wonder what Maker's future as part of an established company will look like. I hope the acquisition doesn't reduce the level of creative freedom Maker's talent has had in the past, because that seems to be what got them ahead of the other networks.