One answer to this madness is to starve the beast: never buy any music or any content from an established company. Torrent everything. It may not work at all, but at least you can tell yourself you're not helping the bastards.
replies(7):
The solution for me, in this specific case, would be for Beato to act against YouTube and take his channel elsewhere. He has enough followers to be able to start his own Peertube server, find a few sponsors and keep going forever.
Businesses/creators need continued distribution, see Nike as an example of what happens when you "take your audience elsewhere to monetize them better/more."
1. People buy the other option (in Nike's case they kept going to footlocker and buying other shoes rather than only buying Nike DTC, in Beato's case they would continue to go to YouTube to discover new guitar content)
2. The business can't get new customers because no one is on the new platform (Nike DTC/Peertube)
It's viable for a split second (covid, "stick it to Youtube cause they suck") then people just go back to living their lives.
He's in a unique market position though because he's got industry respect. Joe Bloggs in his bedroom can't compete with "guitar content" because Dave Gilmore, Pat Matheney and Glynn Johns aren't all going to sit with him for a 2 hour long interview.
People are lazy. If you add even a small complication for people to consume content, then it doesn’t matter how much respect that content creator has, people will just follow someone else instead.
Google knows this; which is why they can screw over content creators on their platform.
I nearly didn’t even open the link because I didn’t want to learn something new before I’d had my morning cup of earl grey. Chances are the average consumer wouldn’t bother — assuming they even discover about this to begin with.
That's all it would take to get a few hundred thousand people to download it, and you'd know that the those who are going through the effort are higher-value subscribers, so it would be even easier to bring better sponsors.
I really don't like arguments based on "I am lazy to do that, therefore everyone is". It's at best defeatist cowardice and at worst a malicious way to support the status quo.
Everything breaks. - Channel makes no money because sponsors don't pay (as much, it's a power law) for 200k subs (being charitable with your 5%. in reality it would be < 50k)
- Guest don't come because the channel is small and they don't get distribution for their projects
- Platform X doesn't pay out as well as YouTube, so you lose more revenue
- The channel can't function because there isn't enough revenue to run the business. Can't hire lawyers when Z Record Label sues you on Platform X.
- Other channels on larger platforms take the space that you filled. The market is not static. Slash starts his own YouTube channel, which has more credibility, and David Gilmour goes on that one instead. See the celebrity podcast/YouTube space for arguments that prominent celebrities don't become creators when the market signals there is money/opportunity available.
- When subscribers churn, there is no one new on the platform to replace them. Churn in this case means they no longer use the app I made them go to, or they no longer subscribe to or pay me. Creator payment churn is MUCH higher than any typical B2B or B2C churn.
Being a creator is like standing up a business on a set of toothpicks. Even if you are Rick Beato (which is why he is so upset)
More importantly (c) why?
Instead of building up someone else's business/platform for free (and put yourself in the same position as you already are). This is why people sell a product. Online courses, have their own app, tequila, merch, live shows, signature guitars, etc. As a creator, you don't go to another platform; you have to own something. Unless it's a purely moral argument, in which case, I can respect that, but it's not a good business decision.
You can run a Peertube instance costs for less than $100/month, distribution included. And that's if you insist on running your own.
> with what time.
People publish to multiple platforms already. Adding another one is the least of the concerns.
> Unless it's a purely moral argument, in which case, I can respect that, but it's not a good business decision.
I for one can only respect someone if their decision puts their principles before their business. That's what "Skin in the Game" is all about. Beato can make all the fuss he wants against BMG, but I have no sympathy for him if his actions only goes as far as his dependency on YouTube/Google allows him to go.
I view Beato's stance as rational: he's picking one battle over the other rather than engaging on multiple fronts at once. He's only one man. He has limited social capital, and the conversion rate favors him spending that capital in a sphere of influence that resonates with his audience, fans, and industry contacts and associations. He knows where his bread is buttered, and due to his success and notoriety he may get away with biting the hand that feeds him, but he's a caged tiger as much as he's a cage-bird.
Beato wants to effect change in a specific way. To broaden the scale and scope of his grievance, he would dilute his own impact. I trust that Beato has given these issues some thought as a working artist, as he has a vested interest in helping himself, but he can already negotiate preferred rates because of his built-in audience and pull. His desired relief would benefit all artists working in America, not just Beato himself. To be drawn into a battle on two fronts would be a tactical error. He's wise to focus on the battle he has a chance of turning the tide of. Others have already engaged on the front you advocate for, and those others are better situated to engage there.
This is Beato's fight, as he drew the battle lines. He can't be sidelined so easily by bystanders, like us in the comment section, because us folks don't have skin in the game like Beato does.