NASes are pricey but provide a level of robustness that a beefy external hard drive or cloud storage just don’t provide. In a NAS you can configure drives in...
This kind of drives me bonkers too – a lot of video content that would do fine in non-video form is in video. Ditto for podcasts, though there I get that there are people who want to listen to a podcast in the background while driving or something.
I think that a lot of people – no idea if this is the case here – post content to YouTube because it’s got a low barrier to monetize a channel. I think that there’s a very valid argument that there should be a written-media equivalent to YouTube. Like, there are blogging services, but AFAIK there isn’t one that does that sort of monetization.
I’m not sure why.
Maybe it’s that hosting video is bandwidth-expensive, so it’s harder for another service to just rip the content or something.
You are absolutely correct— major blog hosting, image hosting, and video hosting sites are all “free” for the content creator, but YouTube by far has the largest audience and highest monetization rates of any of them.
This is just creators buying in with their wallets; it makes sense to go where the money is, even if the format sucks for the idealized content consumer.
It sounds like this particular YouTube channel may take money to promote products – it has a bit on “contacting the creator about business opportunities”. I suppose that that would be independent of ad rates, though not of audience size.
I wouldn’t immediately jump to that conclusion. There are plenty of legitimate business opportunities that do not imply “taking money to promote products”. In-line advertising and properly disclosed free samples are standard operating procedure for the tech industry, but they are completely above board, and by themselves do not imply bias.
Nearly every content creator’s YouTube channel About page or website will have a similar line, somewhere.
Watching videos is like an order of magnitude easier than reading for large swathes of the population. Fully 18% of the US adult population is functionally illiterate – they can pass a reading test, but their reading level is so low it hardly matters. These folks can still watch YouTube/Dystopian Vine (sorry, TikTok).
Also, this much is just my own speculation, but A/V media is a lot easier to push people’s emotional buttons with because it’s much, much faster and easier to consume content via video and we’re likely hardwired to pay more attention to audio/visual stimuli than abstract imagery in our heads. A video+audio track of an explosion is always going to hit people harder than a careful description of the same explosion, and if people expect it to be easier and to provide a larger emotional impact, they’re more likely to go for the thing that makes them feel something more easily.
We are all governed by dopamine more than we like to admit.
because it’s much, much faster and easier to consume content via video
That totally depends on the content. Using your example, yes, a video of an explosion is going be much more efficient than a block of text about the same explosion. But for something like this, I find it MUCH slower to try to glean the relevant information from a video than from an article. An article can be skimmed easily so I only have to focus on the parts that I care about. Skimming a video, on the other hand, is a pain. Also, if the content is a step-by-step how-to, the video might be OK as long as I can follow along in real time. However, if I have to keep pausing and going back to rewatch a section, then an article is going to be easier to work with.
This kind of drives me bonkers too – a lot of video content that would do fine in non-video form is in video. Ditto for podcasts, though there I get that there are people who want to listen to a podcast in the background while driving or something.
I think that a lot of people – no idea if this is the case here – post content to YouTube because it’s got a low barrier to monetize a channel. I think that there’s a very valid argument that there should be a written-media equivalent to YouTube. Like, there are blogging services, but AFAIK there isn’t one that does that sort of monetization.
I’m not sure why.
Maybe it’s that hosting video is bandwidth-expensive, so it’s harder for another service to just rip the content or something.
Video ads are a lot more expensive/lucrative than still ads, I’m assuming
You are absolutely correct— major blog hosting, image hosting, and video hosting sites are all “free” for the content creator, but YouTube by far has the largest audience and highest monetization rates of any of them.
This is just creators buying in with their wallets; it makes sense to go where the money is, even if the format sucks for the idealized content consumer.
It sounds like this particular YouTube channel may take money to promote products – it has a bit on “contacting the creator about business opportunities”. I suppose that that would be independent of ad rates, though not of audience size.
I wouldn’t immediately jump to that conclusion. There are plenty of legitimate business opportunities that do not imply “taking money to promote products”. In-line advertising and properly disclosed free samples are standard operating procedure for the tech industry, but they are completely above board, and by themselves do not imply bias.
Nearly every content creator’s YouTube channel About page or website will have a similar line, somewhere.
Watching videos is like an order of magnitude easier than reading for large swathes of the population. Fully 18% of the US adult population is functionally illiterate – they can pass a reading test, but their reading level is so low it hardly matters. These folks can still watch YouTube/Dystopian Vine (sorry, TikTok).
Also, this much is just my own speculation, but A/V media is a lot easier to push people’s emotional buttons with because it’s much, much faster and easier to consume content via video and we’re likely hardwired to pay more attention to audio/visual stimuli than abstract imagery in our heads. A video+audio track of an explosion is always going to hit people harder than a careful description of the same explosion, and if people expect it to be easier and to provide a larger emotional impact, they’re more likely to go for the thing that makes them feel something more easily.
We are all governed by dopamine more than we like to admit.
That totally depends on the content. Using your example, yes, a video of an explosion is going be much more efficient than a block of text about the same explosion. But for something like this, I find it MUCH slower to try to glean the relevant information from a video than from an article. An article can be skimmed easily so I only have to focus on the parts that I care about. Skimming a video, on the other hand, is a pain. Also, if the content is a step-by-step how-to, the video might be OK as long as I can follow along in real time. However, if I have to keep pausing and going back to rewatch a section, then an article is going to be easier to work with.