Thoughts on Celebrity YouTubers & YouTube RED

[iGM]

Hello!
Another quick discussion topic that came to mind. I have my own personal opinions on this but I am interested to see what other people think of the concept.
What do people think about Celebrities that gained fame and fortune elsewhere, to then bring their following and start a YouTube channel overnight? No matter what kind of content they make, I almost see it as a money grab of sorts?
Examples could be Chandler Riggs from The Walking Dead or more recently (and currently being advertised) Jack Whitehall.
Is YouTube trying to use YouTube RED to attract famous creators?
Are they perhaps trying to now compete with Netflix and monetize their content for viewers (i.e - pay to view, like Netflix?)
Thoughts?

 

[Dewmonic Abyss]

I'm personally not a fan of already established creators bringing their followings to YouTube. Don't get me wrong, anyone and everyone should be allowed to have a YouTube channel and create whatever they want (within reason), but I don't like how YouTube tends to favor those creators over the people who actually built their platform or creators starting from nothing looking to make a name for themselves. It's just a big slap in the face. But at the same time, YouTube isn't turning a profit for Google, and they gotta figure out how to make it work. Famous people make more money.

 

[xingcat]

If you think about it, most of what hits the Trending page nowadays are established entertainers who are promoting work outside of YouTube. There are tons of creative, interesting artists working exclusively on YouTube, but the way the search and recommend algorithms seem to work tend to lean towards things people already know exist (and thus they know to search for it). I wish there were some solution towards pushing people more often towards truly original works, but that's a hard thing to do.

 

[iGM]

I'm personally not a fan of already established creators bringing their followings to YouTube. Don't get me wrong, anyone and everyone should be allowed to have a YouTube channel and create whatever they want (within reason), but I don't like how YouTube tends to favor those creators over the people who actually built their platform or creators starting from nothing looking to make a name for themselves. It's just a big slap in the face. But at the same time, YouTube isn't turning a profit for Google, and they gotta figure out how to make it work. Famous people make more money.

It is a question (and potentially and issue) that has various dimensions to it. Both the business and creative sides are things to consider as well as the reception of both the community of established creators on YouTube and the community of viewers on YouTube.
I am eager to discover what people think of this concept as it tends to divide a lot of people. Fans of a certain celebrity are obviously thrilled they get to see more of this celebrity whereas on the other hand, it could potentially hurt the prospects of similar channels on YouTube that are not hosted by famous people.

An example:

There are tons of gaming channels on YouTube, with very talented and even professional gamers. They upload quality content on a regular basis and amass a following due to this.
An example of such a channel could be a French Gaming channel (spoken in English) Houngoungagne - the name itself has become a meme on the channel.
I don't see how it can be considered acceptable for a celebrity to come along, post a few videos, amass a following and then (in this case) delete all their videos as if nothing happened (i.e creating it on a whim and potentially earning cash revenue on a quick whim). ChairHandler being an example of this (Chandler Riggs' YouTube Gaming channel that started up and was left to its own devices a few years ago, that now has no content).

To agree with your statement, I do see it as a 'slap in the face' but, then again, it makes YouTube money and as of late that seems to be the main priority over creators.

 

[TheDutchTexan]

They are in the business of marketing and selling themselves. Any venue is fair game. If you have an edge you are going to utilize said edge. Be it being a celebrity, or money, you will bring it into the fold to create success. I would do the same thing.

 

[iGM]

They are in the business of marketing and selling themselves. Any venue is fair game. If you have an edge you are going to utilize said edge. Be it being a celebrity, or money, you will bring it into the fold to create success. I would do the same thing.

You say it is all fair game but, is it really?
What about those who have worked their whole YouTube career to get to where they are only to - for the sake of argument - lose audience to a celebrity that does the same thing and sets up a channel over night?
I am not saying they don't have a right to or anything just not too sure on the fair aspect.

 

[Lightsen]

whether you have worked your butt right off and made content on the platform for well over a decade, or you just hop on as a celeb already, its up to the viewers. if someone else gets a ton more views than you, that's mainly because the viewers are interested in them and their content. we don't specifically deserve or expect individuals to watch us, it just happens or not depending on a billion and one circumstances.

youtube suggestions run almost entirely via an algorithm. it may feel unfair that the system tends to give a boost to videos that are a common search term, and that is where the "fairness" shifts, but that's certainly not the fault of the 'incoming celeb' and I don't think they should be hated for it at all.

Same reason I wouldn't call a youtuber a sellout or cash grabber for also broadcasting on twitch, or making twitter/facebook videos etc. its the smart thing to do really.

 

[genp]

YouTube is mainly a platform for subculture.

 

[markkaz]

You say it is all fair game but, is it really?
What about those who have worked their whole YouTube career to get to where they are only to - for the sake of argument - lose audience to a celebrity that does the same thing and sets up a channel over night?
I am not saying they don't have a right to or anything just not too sure on the fair aspect.

If one loses their audience, it's because they couldn't create content that kept viewers on their channel. It doesn't matter If 'Celebrity Joe' has content on YouTube, TV, cable, where ever.

 

[iGM]

If one loses their audience, it's because they couldn't create content that kept viewers on their channel. It doesn't matter If 'Celebrity Joe' has content on YouTube, TV, cable, where ever.

Yet this celebrity may have access to more resources that could permit the creation of 'better' or perhaps higher quality content than that of a smaller youtuber, causing a shift in what the viewers go to? How would that be fair?
You say it doesnt matter but, it kinda does to an extent.