Before YouTube, home videos were simply for preserving memories for a small group of people, maybe just limited to family. Now, 'home videos' are being made to make money, entertain millions and to have the satisfaction of "going viral."
Michael Buckley's job sounds like the dream; he's self-taught, self-employed, makes at least $100,000 from YouTube advertisements- hopefully more than enough to help him escape his previous credit-card debt. However, it took him a while to get there.
I had no idea that only 3 percent of of the videos are supported by advertising, as it seems like every time I try and watch something on YouTube, there's a 30-second mandatory ad, or an ad that I can skip after five seconds.
The truth is, "Everybody’s fighting to be seen online; you have to strategize and market yourself.”
And similar to first-time bloggers who have realized they can gain revenue from something they started for fun, Buckley said, "I didn’t start it to make money, but what a lovely surprise.”
Showing posts with label YouTube. Show all posts
Showing posts with label YouTube. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Review on Nathaniel Flannery's "Mexico's revolution will not be televised" (Global Post, 6/21/12)
I had never heard of this uprising, but then again, why would I have?
Nathaniel Flannery starts out this article "On a recent Sunday," leaving me only to assume that because of this lack of television coverage, it was unclear what Sunday it had occurred on! Either way.
“The people, quiet, will never be heard.” Well not after this article, and I'm sure the others that followed. It's hard to believe that a television station is so biased they wouldn't even cover presidential debates, a surefire way to boost ratings and gain an audience.
The fact that the debate was broadcasted over YouTube truly speaks to our generation and how technology has advanced our thinking.
The other thing about this article that shocked me was this quote:
And reading further, "Governor Peña Nieto was paying for favorable TV coverage," and allegedly adding up to $3 million? The corruption and injustice remains to astound me.
It was good that this story ended on a positive note, that the 132 movement actually made significant changes. Mexico should have the right to know who they're voting for.
Nathaniel Flannery starts out this article "On a recent Sunday," leaving me only to assume that because of this lack of television coverage, it was unclear what Sunday it had occurred on! Either way.
“The people, quiet, will never be heard.” Well not after this article, and I'm sure the others that followed. It's hard to believe that a television station is so biased they wouldn't even cover presidential debates, a surefire way to boost ratings and gain an audience.
The fact that the debate was broadcasted over YouTube truly speaks to our generation and how technology has advanced our thinking.
The other thing about this article that shocked me was this quote:
"Some 95 percent of homes have a television in Mexico, Latin America’s second-largest economy. While Mexicans have a host of cable channels to choose from, cable only reaches 30 percent of all households, according to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Emilio Azcarraga Jean, the billionaire owner of Televisa."Cable only reaches 30 percent of all households?!
And reading further, "Governor Peña Nieto was paying for favorable TV coverage," and allegedly adding up to $3 million? The corruption and injustice remains to astound me.
It was good that this story ended on a positive note, that the 132 movement actually made significant changes. Mexico should have the right to know who they're voting for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)