YouTube Offers Creators Millions of Dollars to Stay Off Netflix (qz.com)
- Reference: 0185070508
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/08/20/1715225/youtube-offers-creators-millions-of-dollars-to-stay-off-netflix
- Source link: https://qz.com/youtube-creators-millions-netflix-exclusivity-082026
> Bloomberg described two categories of payment: funding directed at specific programs, and a portion of the revenue YouTube brings in through large advertiser partnerships. No agreements have been finalized, but YouTube is close to deals with several partners, citing people familiar with the negotiations who declined to be identified. Creators who sign with Netflix face consequences. YouTube has warned creators that those who simultaneously publish videos on Netflix risk being sidelined from the platform's marketing campaigns and events, and would lose access to a share of proceeds from certain major brand deals.
>
> Netflix has been signing YouTube creators to non-exclusive deals that allow them to post the same content on both platforms simultaneously. Creators including Alan Chikin Chow and Nick DiGiovanni have already signed such agreements, and Netflix remains in active conversations with dozens of other channels and programs, including the celebrity talk show Hot Ones. Netflix's pitch is straightforward: creators receive a substantial additional payday for content they have already produced, and their work reaches an audience that numbers more than 325 million subscribers.
>
> YouTube Chief Executive Officer Neal Mohan had previously held that creators who work with competitors tend to drive viewers back to YouTube. But Bloomberg reported that Mohan and his team decided in recent weeks that the growing number of creators posting simultaneously on both platforms had become a problem that needed to be addressed. The concern is that when a video runs on both platforms simultaneously, YouTube's ability to convince advertisers of that video's exclusive value is undermined.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-19/youtube-offers-creators-millions-to-not-work-with-netflix-mt0lbfaj
[2] https://qz.com/youtube-creators-millions-netflix-exclusivity-082026
Monopolistic power. (Score:2)
So basically monopoly behavior towards potential competitors? Should be interesting to see after the Netflix deals have expired.
Re: (Score:2)
Exclusive contracts in media have been SOP since forever. If some YouTube sellout signs a specific exclusivity contract with YouTube, then they, you and Netflix have nothing to say about it. It's possible some of this could be found anti-competitive, when no specific contract is in play, but that's a road to a protracted legal battle taking years: feel free to hold your breath waiting for whatever utopian outcome you think you're owed on that one. What I find interesting is YouTube management clearly bei
Re: (Score:2)
> Exclusive contracts in media have been SOP since forever. If some YouTube sellout signs a specific exclusivity contract with YouTube, then they, you and Netflix have nothing to say about it. It's possible some of this could be found anti-competitive, when no specific contract is in play, but that's a road to a protracted legal battle taking years: feel free to hold your breath waiting for whatever utopian outcome you think you're owed on that one. What I find interesting is YouTube management clearly being un-self-aware and unconcerned, despite being a subsidiary of a company that has just been convicted as a monopolist. I can only take that to mean that they're confident that they've purchased sufficient political influence.
By the way this story is written, it's not creators with an exclusive contract that are being handed buckets of cash to stay on Youtube. Or they'd already be locked in, and Youtube is not in the habit of giving people money just because. This is more about making sure a competitor doesn't sweep up big creators that are still playing on Youtube's platform but haven't signed an exclusivity agreement. Honestly, I don't see anything terribly nefarious here. Creatives are going to get more money, and it could be
Re: Monopolistic power. (Score:2)
They're already competitors and Netflix has more streaming time than YouTube.
Could be a good thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
If this means that the Netflix versions aren't censored to the point of absurdity, then I'm all for it. Heaven forbid in something like a podcast about the Duke Lacrosse case someone mention the words "sexual assault," or "rape." Or in a story about a celebrity suicide someone say "suicide" instead of "unalive." Or the word "fuck" come out without an asterisk in the middle of it for no identifiable reason.
This explains the mail I just received... (Score:1)
As a Youtube Premium subscriber, this explains why I just received an email telling me my subscription will go from €13.95 to €15.95.
Still worth it.
Re:This explains the mail I just received... (Score:5, Insightful)
€15.95 a month? Why not just install a good, free ad-blocker into your browser?
I haven't seen an advert on YouTube for years...
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube Music, for me at least, would be the reason. Spotify is fine, and I paid them for their family plan for years, but YtP is only a couple bucks more and you get ad-free videos on devices that can't (easily) use an ad-blocker: e.g. the android youtube app, roku, etc, and I don't mind paying for content when it's convenient and affordable. Interestingly, I also pay for netflix, though literally none of the youtube content I watch is from "influencers" or big youtube stars, and I'm allergic to in-video
When you don't want to compete (Score:2)
Cheat.
Creators including... (Score:2)
Oh my, I am so glad to be out of the loop, so to speak. yes, I looked that first one up.
F.U. Pay me... (Score:2)
If YouTube wants an exclusive deal with certain creators they can pay for it. Make them a contract offer.
The existing YouTube TOS is a non-exclusive agreement. Netflix is offering a non-exclusive licensing agreement. The two are fully compatible.
Threatening vague consequences for creators who choose to follow the terms of their existing agreements is... problematic.
Time for another anti-trust investigation Google. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do no evil. We all know why you removed it. Couldn't be more obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Let them fight.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
People need to stop bringing this up. Google, like every other publicly-traded corporation, almost certainly has to do evil, as evil is almost always necessary when the stated goal of your business is to maximize shareholder value at all costs. It was cute that they thought they could be above "doing bad things" in the early days, but once they had their IPO, any semblance of "ethics" was tossed right out. For large public corporations there is no "good and evil", there is only "punishable and evade-able".
Re:Time for another anti-trust investigation Googl (Score:5, Informative)
> as evil is almost always necessary when the stated goal of your business is to maximize shareholder value at all costs
Don't interpret this as me having an opinion on this specific article (I don't), but that's a gross misrepresentation of what the law requires. As someone running a business, you *do* have a fiduciary duty to the stockholders, but that's not the same thing as requiring you to maximize shareholder value at all costs. Doing what is best for the company and the shareholders does not strictly mean more dollars.
For example, if a company had a choice whether to make a drone that would make a lot of money by selling to militaries, but would be used to annihilate the shareholders, no rational person would claim that the fiduciary duty requires them to build the drone.
More broadly, companies have a responsibility to behave ethically, for two reasons:
Perceptions of unethical behavior can impact a company's long-term profitability by discouraging customers/users.
Unethical behavior is often illegal, and when it isn't illegal, it often becomes illegal as soon as a company demonstrates that it is possible.
In other words, behaving unethically is how companies find themselves massively regulated in ways that negatively impact long-term profits. Every antitrust suit is an example of this, as the only reason those laws exist is because some company previously behaved unethically.
Re: (Score:2)
> For large public corporations there is no "good and evil", there is only "punishable and evade-able".
And corporations have the attention span of three-year-olds. Remember when Trump 45 pulled the rug out from under federal law enforcement? And then it was game on? And then there was Biden 46. Who put it all back. Or would have had he not been coasting to a later in life stop. And then Trump 47 undid Biden's handiwork. So now would be the time to go wide open throttle and grab what you can.
Just in time for AOC 48.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of what you think of AOC, there will not be an AOC 48. Just like there would never be a Hillary 45. The US will be the last democratic country to elect a woman to the highest office. Canada, Italy and a couple others havent, either, but if Japan can elect a woman as Prime Minister, then the others surely will, at some point.
Re: (Score:2)
> Regardless of what you think of AOC, there will not be an AOC 48.
I still enjoy the Photoshops.
Re: (Score:2)
> when the stated goal of your business is to maximize shareholder value at all costs.
If this is the stated goal of your business, your business is not long for this world.
If your stated goal is to run a profitable, sustainable business, the shareholder value comes as a result, not a target.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent and FP branch insightful mixed with funny.
I would offer a solution approach, but that would be insane in this context. There is no way to un-evil YouTube without cutting into the profits, even if there are no profits and the entire YouTube thing is really a loss leader if you could only see the full books.
Root of the problem? Perhaps that normal people just want enough to live comfortably but the changes are decided by insanely greedy people who EVER have enough. Especially not enough money, whic
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Because the last Google anti-trust conviction was such a huge success and made everything so much better.
Re: Time for another anti-trust investigation Goog (Score:2)
Netflix has a larger share of online streaming hours than YouTube.
Neither is a monopoly in the streaming and I don't think this would count as google leveraging search (where they definitely are a monopoly).