Off topic: I am genuinely curious, why doesn´t Pornhub create a Youtube competitor? it is probably the best positioned company on earth to do so. Any info as to why they haven´t done it or why it would be bad idea for them to do so?
Someone brought up the same question on /r/showerthoughts on reddit, and one of the Pornhub employees said that there had been internal talks about it, especially after Youtube started demonetizing tons of channels, but they weren't actively developing anything. The main issue I can see would be advertisers not wanting to be associated with the brand, even tangentially. YouPorn had sponsored an esports team that ran into issues being allowed to tournaments because the tournament sponsors didn't want their brand name to be presented alongside a porn site.
I mean, the biggest issue is saying the team is affiliated with a porn site. But if "MindGeek" sponsored an eSports team, my guess is most people would be fine with it, in part because they didn't know that it was a company that owns porn sites.
While obviously they'd restore adult content to Tumblr, my guess is they'd keep Tumblr as a somewhat mainstream brand, and not let it be too directly associated with their existing properties to maintain mainstream appeal. A YouTube competitor would fall along the same lines.
It would get out though. There'd be a lot of hoops that PornHub would have to go through to make a wholly owned subsidiary they could use to spin-up a YouTube/Vimeo like platform on and it not come back to pornhub in the PR/advert sense.
Although we all know a few people here and there who don't know YouTube is owned by Google, the majority of people do understand the YouTube + Google/Alphabet relationship.
> the majority of people do understand the YouTube + Google/Alphabet relationship
I think this is very tech centric view. I asked my wife (tech savy enough but doesn't work in the industry) and she didn't have any idea who owned Youtube, and had never heard of Alphabet.
I know it's only one data point, but I think it's easy to be blinkered when actually the truth is probably that most people outside of tech have no idea about tech company relationships.
Assuming you are wondering why they don't create a non-porn video site, the reason is that these sites live off ad revenue, and mainstream advertisers don't want their brand associated with porn.
If that's so ironclad, then how do porn video sites stay in business?
Advertising is not the only way to generate revenue, and even if they want to go the advertising route, there are non-mainstream advertisers that may be interested.
A lot of these site (like RedTube and such) originally just posted videos and straight up violated copyright claims until they got DMCA takedowns. Eventually they started workout out deals with the studio for low-quality version and clips, sharing revenue for people who clicked through to buy full or HD versions.
Then eventually the big studios just started buying the toob sites and cut out the middle. Most of them serve a subset of studio content or clips. Tumblr's limited video size/length really helped contribute to this model. Most people watch the clips, but the people who buy can get sucked into a lot of hidden subscriptions they forget to uncheck, or even direct up-selling they'll intentionally select.
Porn video sites stay in business by not competing with YouTube, accommodating content and advertisers that YouTube doesn't want. What kind of content are you or the grandparent commenter looking for this theoretical new site to host?
> What kind of content are you or the grandparent commenter looking for this theoretical new site to host?
I mentioned it in a different comment: I miss the content that YouTube used to have before they started punishing the stuff that advertisers objected to (through demonetization and refusal to recommend them).
Far too many YouTube channels now are clearly walking on eggshells and being very careful about what they say and do. It makes the videos less interesting and informative and more like traditional broadcast TV.
There are still channels that don't sweat demonetization at all, and those tend to be the only ones I watch anymore, but they're getting few and far between.
Is it worth it to compete with YouTube though? We've heard about how YouTube didn't make Google money in the past. Now we even had news about how the way they handled YouTube caused the evaluation of the company to drop by $70 billion. So the question is whether it would be worth it to even try.
The issue with YouTube in recent years, is that it's been treating its content creators and viewers as "product" and the advertisers as the users. YouTube has been pandering to executives in media and their particular thought bubbles while throwing users and content creators under the bus. (Or doing things specifically to increase centralized control for the sake of pandering to advertisers, to the detriment of users and content creators.)
Pornhub could well do better. (Or they could repeat the same mistakes.)
YouTube is still very permissive about what content can be uploaded. What type of content can be monetized has changed.
Advertisers don't want their brand associated with content they find questionable. They pulled their advertising or at least threatened to. This lead to the "Adpocalypse".
A lot of creators argue that content is unfairly or incorrectly demonetized. That's an area where a competitor could improve. The competitor would still have to deal with the fact that advertisers are sitting on the money and want a say in how their ads are showing up.
Ads are, I would assume, a minority of PornHub's income. There's also a premium feature (like YouTube Red), uploaders can set a price tag to view a specific video, receive tips, and link to external payment services in their bio.
The problem is that there are activists who campaign to get advertisers to leave platforms that host certain types of content. Eg sleeping giants. This means that YouTube has to either start removing content those activists don't like or they have to start courting those advertisers themselves.
General purpose video hosting is very different from porn video hosting. Pornhub uses a ton of dark patterns and outrageous advertising that's accepted for porn but would not fly outside of that.
It could maybe expand into other "not safe for work" media like explicit music, gun videos, and stuff that generally isn't allowed on Youtube?
PH already has paying premium users, so maybe would be just something to keep them on PH-related websites through the end of their refractory period, hopefully directing them back to PH when they start getting horny again
Obviously they have video hosting infrastructure expertise but product-wise there’s not great overlap with YouTube from either the user or advertiser perspective imo. Facebook is probably the best positioned company to create a YouTube competitor if they wanted to.
Does YouTube need to be profitable? Alphabet is big enough that they could afford to operate a few services at a loss.
It's certainly something to keep in mind during the market research phase, but I don't think this means that all the possible competitors are destined to lose money if they make an attempt at competing.
1. YouTube is being an * with content creators (See MonkeyJones ban and other creator permantly removed)
2. YouTube rewind was a mess
3. Competitors are better for consumers (and many competitors aren't in position to defeat YouTube)
Cloning YouTube is foolish. The future is decentralization. Another example of this is how Gab tried to just be twitter for conservatives without actually doing anything new, whereas the fediverse takes the power away from one company/server and makes it easy to host your own instance with rules of your choosing. On the video side we've got PeerTube and a few others. I'm hesitant to list a bunch without recalling their exact feature set, but there's also DTube and BitChute.
