I know, this doesn't belong on this blog. Shh, it's okay. This is an essay about YouTube that I wrote for my Media Policy class, and I find it to be a super fascinating topic so I'm publishing it here in case anyone is interested.
Exploitation
on YouTube: Mending the Rift Between Creator and Corporation
After being purchased by Google in 2006
for $1.65 billion, YouTube’s popularity as a video-sharing website has risen
exponentially (Gillespie 347). This is great news for its viewers: there are
100 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute, meaning users have a wide
range of content to enjoy (“Statistics”). However, the ramifications of
YouTube’s uphill rise far exceed audience satisfaction. The well being of
content creators, who are the very contributors to YouTube’s increased success,
is being compromised due to the company’s swelling desire to prosper
financially. The following essay will explore the ways in which content
creators are treated unfairly, and will suggest how YouTube could mend the
dwindling relationship it has with its partners.
As Tarleton Gillespie states in “Politics
of Platforms”, YouTube is constantly “facing questions about their
responsibilities to their users, to key constituencies who depend on the public
discourse they host, and to broader notions of public interest” (Gillespie
347). The reason for YouTube’s increasing need to revise their mandate is due
of the fluctuating state of Web 2.0, which refers to websites that thrive on
user-generated content, or UGC (Richardson 1). The very nature of YouTube as a
website is in a perpetual state of change (such is the reality for most
websites), and as such, it is crucial for them to amend legislation surrounding
its use on a frequent basis.
Along with YouTube’s increased popularity
came the rise of the “YouTuber”. A YouTuber is a person who contributes content
to the website on a regular basis, has amassed a decent following (normally in
terms of their subscriber count), and is officially a YouTube partner. Being a
partner simply means that YouTube acknowledges you as a content creator—there
is a form to fill out and approval is required before you can officially call
yourself a partner. A perk to becoming a partner is that you acquire the
eligibility to join a multi-channel network (MCN), which is an entity that
“affiliates with multiple YouTube channels, often to offer assistance in areas
such as product, programming, funding, cross-promotion, partner management,
digital rights management, monetization/sales, and/or audience development”
(“Multi-Channel Networks 101”). Although MCNs do not fall under the direct
jurisdiction of YouTube or Google, they are an ever-present component of the
website, considering a large portion of the website’s top content creators are
backed by various MCNs.
The trouble with MCNs is that there have
been so many instances of network abuse and unstable relationships between
networks and creators. Take, for example, the case of Grace
Helbig. Helbig recently parted ways with My Damn
Channel, the MCN that was essentially sponsoring her YouTube career. The
channel had been in existence for five or so years, and she had amassed over a
million subscribers. She had catchphrases, themed videos for every day of the
week, and even the "Graceface" - an iconic gesture of hers. She
created everything. In terminating her contract with My Damn Channel, she
forfeited her entire career as Daily Grace, including the channel, the
subscribers, even the slogans. The channel was built on her ideas entirely, and
yet, those very ideas were not owned by her. Daily Grace was not Grace Helbig
after all, but rather a corporate entity—as her brother, Tim Helbig, so aptly
tweeted (Helbig). Naturally, Grace began a new channel entitled ItsGrace, but My
Damn Channel forbade her from so much as mentioning the move on DailyGrace.
Some
say that Helbig never should have agreed to the contract to begin with, but in
signing with My Damn Channel five years ago, she could not have predicted the
success of DailyGrace. I wish to highlight, in this case, the ineffectiveness
of her contract, particularly in that it was unfair of My Damn Channel to
subject Helbig to the terms of the agreement, given the major changes YouTube
underwent during her time with My Damn Channel.
Other cases of dispute between MCNs and
content creators deal with intellectual property ownership and ad revenue. Ray William Johnson, a well-known YouTube
creator, felt like he had been exploited by Maker Studios, the multi-channel
network he was signed with, in December 2012 (Johnson). Essentially, Johnson
claimed that Maker was holding his Google AdSense account hostage until he
would fork over the rights to content he was working on, as well as give them a
larger cut from his ad revenues (Johnson). The entire ordeal resulted in a very
public Internet quarrel between Ray William Johnson and Danny Zappin, CEO of
Maker Studios. Maker Studios, with a push from YouTube, should have handled
this issue in a more diplomatic and sensitive manner, in order to maintain the
best interest of the content creator, which seems to constantly fall by the
wayside.
It seems as though content creators don’t have
the legal support necessary in order to make informed decisions regarding the
contracts they sign. Tessa Stuart, author of “Rage Against the Machinima”
likens the multi-channel network system to the exploitative entertainment
industry of the 1930s and 40s (Stuart 1). She explains, “they use the lure of
cash and fame to convince naïve talent to sign contracts that leave them at a
disadvantage” (1). She particularly notes the case of Ben Vacas, a popular
“gamer” on YouTube who, in 2007, signed a contract with Machinima (a MCN that
focuses on videogaming) that contained a perpetuity clause (Stuart 1). This
clause basically bound Vacas to Machinima for the rest of his life, “throughout
the universe, in all forms of media now known or hereafter devised” (Stuart 1).
He eventually broke his contract, made a video about it that went viral on
Reddit, and sparked a chain of other creators signed with Machinima to publicly
voice their issues with the network (Stuart). As a result, many of them left
the network and joined “Union for Gamers”, spearheaded by Donovan Duncan, who
advocated basic rights such as “same pay rate with a raise every year”,
non-binding contracts, and the right to leave (Stuart 4).
A related issue that continues to plague YouTube’s
content creators is the constant acquisitions and mergers of multi-channel
networks. For instance, The Walt Disney Co. recently acquired Maker Studios for
a sum of $500 million, with the potential of it becoming a $900 million deal (The
Associated Press). The reason why these acquisitions are so problematic is
because the content creators of the channels in question have absolutely no say
in how they are dealt with in light of these huge changes. In acquiring a
subsidiary of YouTube such as Maker Studios, Disney is “buying context data
produced by users and communities, transforming users into commodities that can
be sold on the market” (Petersen 6). In effect, huge corporations manage to
“piggyback on user-generated content” whether the creator consents or not (Petersen
6). Maker Studios represents approximately 55,000 channels and it is unlikely
that they checked with each and every one of them to have the merger approved
(The Associated Press). According to an article by Variety, Maker Studios has
“about 350 employees” but what about the 55,000 content creators they’re
partnered with (Spangler)? It seems like they should be given a voice as well. Given
these acquisitions, it is clear more than ever that “the Internet operates
within the confinements of capitalism” (Petersen 3).
The fact that YouTube and its related businesses
have found a way to maximize profitability to such a high degree seems to
degrade the role of the content creator. It reduces them down to a commodity to
be sold and traded, rather than as a person who deserves prosperity and success
in his/her own right. It exploits their ideas and their creativity for the
benefit of the multi-billion dollar stakeholders that precede them, and
belittles the hard work and artistry they put into their videos. The irony of
this entire situation is that YouTube heralds itself as democratic platform,
wherein seemingly everyone is given the equal opportunity to flourish. In fact,
this is proven given YouTube’s deliberate choice of the word “platform” to
describe itself.
The term “platform” suggests an “open, neutral,
egalitarian and progressive support for activity” (Gillespie 352). The term is
compelling because it sets YouTube aside from mass media; they don’t filter and
restrict content in the way a traditional media outlet would, but rather, they
offer their support to anyone who wants to let their opinion heard—note their
slogan “Broadcast Yourself” (Gillespie 352). As such, YouTube does not “play
the role of the gate keeper or curator, it is a mere facilitator, supporter, or
host” (Gillespie 353). By defining itself as a platform, YouTube can avoid
liability from misuse, thereby “empowering all by choosing none” (Gillespie 357).
YouTube has positioned themselves in such a way that they will never bare the
brunt of the blame for issues that occur around their platform. They have
further secured themselves by implementing their Content ID service, which is a
program that easily allows corporations to sift through content and identify
sources of copyright infringement (359). This liberates YouTube from being
bound to any copyright infraction.
The website has taken many precautions to render
itself untouchable and unaccountable for problems under the umbrella of
copyright, but where it seems to fall short is in its inability to maintain a
healthy relationship with its content creators. By focusing on their economic
prosperity, they continue to alienate the ones who contribute content to their
website. It has become increasingly clear that YouTube’s main focus is in
commercialization. In fact, this commercialization “intensifies YouTube’s
identity as an ad-friendly mediascape” (Kim 62). For YouTube, user-generated
content is not as valuable as professional media content from major companies,
because advertisers are less likely to approve having their ads on amateur
video (Kim 64). Therefore, YouTube’s main concern is in creating a “media
milieu where content and advertisement flow smoothly” (Kim 63).
Yet, YouTube executives know that UGC is popular,
so their solution is to help creators generate content with higher production
value, rendering them more appealing to advertisers. They opened a “YouTube
Space” in Los Angeles and in London where YouTubers can use better quality equipment
and pre-made sets in order to generate nicer-looking videos. These YouTube
Spaces are touted as a fantastic resource for creators, but the intention
behind them is entirely for moneymaking purposes on YouTube’s end. This is also
where MCNs come in. MCNs offer creators technical support, thereby improving
their video quality, and YouTube reaps the benefits by having a larger pool of
professional-grade content to offer to their advertisers. And we mustn’t forget
that MCNs also act as a “liability buffer, taking responsibility for potential
copyright and other legal problems so that YouTube doesn’t have to worry about
it” (Green). As Hank Green, one of YouTube’s most prolific content creators,
says, “I think YouTube loves MCNs” (Green).
YouTube may love MCNs, but what happens when
creators lose faith in the MCN they’re signed with? If YouTube does not put the
measures in place to stop creators from leaving their network and perhaps even
leaving YouTube, the website would take a major hit, so it seems to be in their
best interest to offer better incentives to their content creators. As Jason
Calacanis, former YouTube partner and entrepreneur notes, if YouTube fails to
take the proper precautions in bettering their relationship with their partners
it could lead to the website’s demise (Calacanis, “YouTube Creators’ Bill of
Rights”). In fact, if competitors take note of the ways YouTube is failing,
they could potentially create a new video-sharing website that could rival
YouTube in a big way (Calacanis, “YouTube Creators’ Bill of Rights”). As
Calacanis puts it: “One product’s weakness if frequently another startup’s
starting point” (Calacanis, “YouTube Creators’ Bill of Rights”).
All that being said, where should YouTube begin
if they wish to mend the rift between themselves and their creators? I have
created a “Bill of Rights for YouTubers” in order to best outline our
suggestions.
i)
The Right to Communicate With their Audiences
A
major issue for content creators is that YouTube’s functionality is optimized
for economic gain on the website’s part, instead of it being a creator-friendly
way for users to interact (Calacanis, “I Ain’t Gonna”). Analytics, view-counts
and statistics are helpful, but content creators cannot reach out to their
subscribers unless they have a Google+ account, which is a huge setback because
Google+ sucks so not many people use it. Creators need to have the option to
develop personal relationships with their audience. It’s this extra step that
allows YouTubers to set themselves apart from traditional media like television.
The interactive element is crucial. Many creators are strengthening their
presence on other social media like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram because
YouTube is simply insufficient when it comes to non-video based interaction
(Calacanis, “I Ain’t Gonna”).
It
also doesn’t help that YouTube changes the layout and design of its page on a
regular basis without notice. Changing the entire infrastructure of the
platform without a proper trial period creates trust issues between YouTube and
its creators, and could potentially drive YouTubers to part ways with the
website (Calacanis, “YouTube Creators’ Bill of Rights”).
ii)
The Right to Fair Advertising Split &
Controlled Ads
Although
no source can outright confirm the advertising split that YouTube offers its
partners, Calacanis suggest that 45% of revenues go to YouTube and 55% go to
the creator (Calacanis, “I Ain’t Gonna”). This is an outrageous amount and
would be a terrible business deal anywhere outside of YouTube. As such, the
advertising split is completely unfair for its partners who have the
opportunity to make livable wages on their videos, but have no chance of
breaking even due to this 45% YouTube tax (Calacanis, “I Ain’t Gonna”).
Partners are forced to take opportunities that arise outside of YouTube, like
Grace Helbig becoming the face of Lowe’s, or by selling merchandise, wherein
the creator reaps 100% of the profit (Calacanis, “I Ain’t Gonna”).
On
another note, it is also important for YouTubers to be able to know exactly
which advertisers fund them (Calacanis,
“YouTube Creators’ Bill of Rights”). Correspondingly, they should have the
right to accept or reject funding from any given advertiser for whatever
reason—be it if they disagree with the ad for personal reasons, or if they
simply do not want to be associated with a certain company. Advertisers have
the ability to choose which videos their ads get placed on, and creators should
be afforded the same privilege.
iii)
Right to Legal Consultation & Non-Binding
Contracts
Since
many content creators face legal issues, be it in terms of copyright,
intellectual property, technology law, media policy, etc., they should be afforded
legal consultation provided on YouTube’s behalf. If YouTube would like to keep
reaping the benefits of MCNs, then content creators need to know that they have
access to the necessary legal resources if they feel like they’re being
exploited. Too many cases of network abuse (such as the ones aforementioned)
have occurred.
Similarly,
contracts with MCNs should be non-binding, allowing the creator the right to
leave if they so choose to (Stuart 4). If not, contracts should not be
implemented for more than 2-3 years at a time, given the ever-changing
landscape of the Internet nowadays. The “unstable character” of Web 2.0 needs
to be accounted for and since it evolves at such a rapid pace, contracts put in
place more than 2-3 years ago could be rendered insufficient and outdated
(Petersen 2).
All things considered, it is clear more than ever that YouTube
needs to somehow resolve the hegemonic tension between individual-driven,
user-generated content, and professional-led, institution-driven content (Kim
54). It is in their best interest, as well as in the best interest of the
content creators. YouTube simply cannot continue to operate within such a
capitalistic framework if it wishes to keep its content creators satisfied. Slowly
but surely, YouTube partners are becoming unhappy with the services the website
provides. Upload times are slower than ever, and creators are starting to take
note of other performance issues, like the fact that they cannot respond to
commenters unless they’re hooked up to Google+. YouTuber Allison Andersen
tweets her annoyance: “So frustrating! I want to reply to a comment and now I
feel bad for having to ‘ignore’ it!” (Andersen).
It’s clear that YouTube’s current methods
and services require amendment in order to keep up with the times, and it seems
like the right way forward should be to support user-generated content. The
best way to proceed is to give content creators more entitlements, such as the
right to communicate with their audience, the right to fair advertising split
and controlled ads, and the right to legal consultation and non-binding
contracts. These would be great stepping-stones for YouTube to fortify their
relationship with one of their most important constituents: the content
creators. If its partners feel like nothing more than a commodity exploited for
economic purposes they will have no inclination to stick around, and YouTube
will see that as a huge problem in the years to come.
Works Cited
Andersen, Allison. “So
frustrating!” Twitter. Twitter, 17
Apr. 2014. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.
The Associated Press.
“CBCNews.ca Mobile.” CBCnews.
CBC/Radio Canada, 25 Mar.
Calacanis, Jason. "A
YouTube Creators' Bill of Rights (Or 'A Roadmap for Building a
Calacanis, Jason. "I Ain’t
Gonna Work on YouTube’s Farm No More." Blog.launch.co.
Gillespie, Tarleton. "The
Politics of 'platforms'." New Media & Society 12.3
(2010): 347-
64.
Print.
Green, Hank. “Comment on Jason
Calacanis article.” Facebook.
Facebook, 04 Jun. 2013.
Helbig, Tim. “Two Sisters.” Twitter. Twitter, 02 Jan. 2014. Web. 16
Apr. 2014.
Johnson, Ray W. "Ray
William Johnson: Why I Left Maker Studios"
Kim, Jin. "The
Institutionalization of YouTube: From User-generated Content to
Professionally
Generated Content." Media, Culture & Society 34.1
(2012): 53-67. Print.
“Multi-Channel Networks 101.” YouTube. YouTube, n.d. Web. 18 Apr.
2014.
Petersen, Søren Mørk.
"Loser Generated Content: From Participation to Exploitation."
Richardson, Will. Blogs,
Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for
Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2006. Print.
Spangler, Todd. “Disney Buys
Maker Studios in Deal Worth At Least $500 Million.”
“Statistics.” YouTube. YouTube, n.d. Web. 18 Apr.
2014.
Stuart, Tessa. "Rage
Against the Machinima." HoustonPress.com. Houston Press, 09
Jan.
