> What makes YouTube different from TV or radio or newspapers?
This is a good question. TV, radio, and newspapers all need to cater to the lowest common denominator(LCD) in order to obtain the greatest amount of viewership as possible, because distribution is expensive. A focus on the LCD combined with data analytics is why channels like The Learning Channel(TLC) and History Channel only show reality TV nowadays: They don't want to offend, they just want to maximize revenue on their single channel.
YouTube uses a different model. Every individual can subscribe to specific media niches that wouldn't otherwise be able to survive on TV, because the cost of distribution is brought to zero. The only costs that need to be considered are the costs of media development.
In real life, most people use vulgar language. Most people don't care about diversity or gender stereotypes. They don't care about the focus on the LCD. All they want is media that they can relate to and enjoy, and almost everyone enjoys stuff a bit different from the LCD. The fact that advertisers are trying to shift focus from individualized content to LCD content just so they can control the platform leaves many people bitter, and removes the competitive edge that YouTube has over typical media.
> How is paying money to support something not an endorsement?
Companies nowadays are trying to make it an endorsement, but it doesn't have to be. All YouTube needs to do is to make it widely known that while companies can push for certain demographics, they have no control over the advertising. Companies want more control over the platform than they really need.
That explains why channels like Ben Heck and Techmoan and GameSack have enough of a market to make a lot of content. The long tail works much better than mass media, which is one of the reasons so many of us love YT.
I don’t see why that means advertisers aren’t, in some way, endorsing the content. If anything the fact there are so many channels and the content is more specific seems like a stronger endorsement than mass media.
This is a good question. TV, radio, and newspapers all need to cater to the lowest common denominator(LCD) in order to obtain the greatest amount of viewership as possible, because distribution is expensive. A focus on the LCD combined with data analytics is why channels like The Learning Channel(TLC) and History Channel only show reality TV nowadays: They don't want to offend, they just want to maximize revenue on their single channel.
YouTube uses a different model. Every individual can subscribe to specific media niches that wouldn't otherwise be able to survive on TV, because the cost of distribution is brought to zero. The only costs that need to be considered are the costs of media development.
In real life, most people use vulgar language. Most people don't care about diversity or gender stereotypes. They don't care about the focus on the LCD. All they want is media that they can relate to and enjoy, and almost everyone enjoys stuff a bit different from the LCD. The fact that advertisers are trying to shift focus from individualized content to LCD content just so they can control the platform leaves many people bitter, and removes the competitive edge that YouTube has over typical media.
> How is paying money to support something not an endorsement?
Companies nowadays are trying to make it an endorsement, but it doesn't have to be. All YouTube needs to do is to make it widely known that while companies can push for certain demographics, they have no control over the advertising. Companies want more control over the platform than they really need.