The YouTube Theorem

Having directly witnessed the effect the Internet has had on television journalism in the last decade, I would have half an idea about the impact of the digital revolution on traditional media. We are talking about a radical transformation that in just a few years has revolutionized modes of production and labor, content, consumption and in general the economic model for audio-visual content, which TV had monopolized for half a century. The brave new world of the Internet is still being defined, but is nonetheless where we find ourselves living and whose symbol and putative model, as everyone knows, would be YouTube. Like the Web in general, the video-sharing service is undergoing a transition from a democratically open source to a commercial model, triggered in part by its acquisition by Google in 2006 for $1.6 billion. Since then, in order to perpetuate its image as a free and horizontal “social forum,” the Mountain View giant is working toward transforming what was a “planetary” container of unfiltered amateur videos into a more polished and above all commercially viable network.

In this light, YouTube has undertaken a program of incentivizing original productions, web series and channels to preferably entrust to industry professionals or “YouTubers” on whom the company has also lavished co-production funds. For some time now, there are also some production centers operating — in Tokyo, Los Angeles and London — which make available studies, production means and continuing education courses for video authors in an effort to “professionalize” the amateur network. Not incidentally, Susan Woj­cicki, the newly installed director of the network, was at the head of Google’s advertising division.

At the same time, the “monetization” of the videos loaded on the network was simplified and opened to all. In theory, all it takes is clicking on the option and video authors can partake in Google’s advertising proceeds. In this way, over the last few years thousands of people have tried to turn YouTube into an occupation, transforming their channels into editorial commercial micro-initiatives. But what to many seemed an opportunity to become self-producers with total editorial freedom and independence has often revealed itself to be an illusion.

In reality, advertising fees on the Internet are still so low that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of viewings are necessary before being able to realize the first small earnings — also because YouTube keeps 45 percent of the proceeds for itself (seeing profits of $5.6 billion last year). As the New York Times wrote in that beautiful article, YouTube’s own directors advise against relying on the channel as a reliable source of income, suggesting using it mainly as a promotional tool, with “diversification” in mind. Basically, “make yourselves known, become famous and wait to be discovered and signed by a traditional channel like on TV. Or sell T-shirts and souvenirs.” This in the face of a huge amount of work and professionalism in effect equal to or in excess of a “traditional” profession.

This is the same old model of “we cannot pay you, but you will see how much exposure you get” that any creative person well knows ad nauseam by now, omitting that many creative types are on YouTube because they have lost all prospects in traditional sectors that are in catastrophic crisis. In reality, the “democratic” dismantling of the editorial monopolies of the old media happened at the cost of a wild liberation — a race toward the bottom where, against the unmeasured growth of the labor force, profits concentrate themselves in a minute elite. The commercialization of free content — like that of personal data — by the Silicon giants reflects to the extreme the (non-)work model subordinate to the globalist era.

Ultimately, YouTube is part of the post-work theorem in a digital-liberator market which favors richer and more elitist oligarchies than those of post-WWII industrial capital — an inequality engine destined to exacerbate the exploitation of labor.