A top-notch post from Tech Crunch argues that sites like YouTube and Digg are getting mature enough that their top contributors are – or should be – getting paid. Sites based on communities of people sending in their own content need exceptionally good content to survive.
I go to YouTube because, despite the millions of videos of crap out there, there’s also brilliant stuff you can’t find anywhere else. Same with Digg. And because the site relies on the relatively few people whose work attracts viewers, they should, from an economic perspective, be paying them.
It’s an article that makes you think and then makes you think, specifically, why didn’t I think of that? As a result, it’s one of the best articles on the relationship between professional and amateur content I’ve read in a while.
In a way, it’s a return to a pretty traditional model: Lots of people do lots of things, but it’s the very best in each of those fields who can make a living in it, and it’s the very best that companies need to survive. It’s their top contributors’ talent that separates Digg and YouTube from their competitiors, since these days, anyone can launch a Web site with the same technology.
A key thing to watch though – is the whole process going to be professionalized? If people start making significant amounts of money from their work on YouTube, there’s going to be room for specialized talent agencies who can pluck top contributors for other companies. And with that, it would make sense to have Web sites designed for people to promote their talents… Conceivably, a significant segment of social media could turn into a professional, regimented system of auditions, recruitment and hiring, as we already have.
Is this, then, the beginning of a split in social media, between those who want to profit off their success, and those who don’t?