• AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Eh, I’m not sure it’s much improved. In the ad model, the content creator owned the site and got money from selling ads. The more traffic they got, the more they could charge. In the new model, a corporation owns the site and takes a cut of whatever the creator generates.

    • witty_username@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Not necessarily. For instance, YouTube uses the old ad model and is of course not creator owned.
      Additionally, you can use patreon while also using (and capitalising on) your own content distribution systems.
      This is all to say, I do think the ad model may stay somewhat relevant, however, I also think that other income avenues are helpful and enable content creators more flexibility in terms of the manner in which they think they can best reach their audiences while generating income

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Worth pointing out that ad blockers don’t work for ads that are inserted into a video stream, so there was no need to change that model there. Also, YouTube is an example of a site that’s not owned by the content creator. YouTube makes the money from the ads, then gives the significant creators a cut.

        • Jayjader@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          I wonder how stable the situation for in-stream ads really is. Paid sponsorships are nothing new, yet with browser extensions like sponsorblock becoming more and more popular I doubt the arms race will stop any time soon.