Networks Without Pity

For the last few years user-generated content has been the hot buzz in the industry. But what exactly is user-generated content, how does it differ from traditional content, and what ethics bind producer and broadcaster?

YouTube is often hailed as the benchmark for user-generated content. After Google's acquisition of YouTube for 1.65 billion in Google stock, pundits pointed to YouTube as an example of how one could successfully monetize user-generated content, this is despite the fact that YouTube gains much of its popularity by rebroadcasting clips of traditionally produced content. It's also been overlooked that Google paid for the company with shares of it's own stock not liquid funds. So as long as Google stays profitable (which is a crap shoot since only one of their products, AdSense, has proven to generate income) then the bought-out YouTubers will be able to dump their stock for actual funds, but should Google tank for any number of reasons then YouTube will have been bought for the equivalent of a couple of buttons and a pocketful of lint. And thus the only "profitable" version of user-generated content will have been busted.

What exactly though is "user-generated content"? It seems fairly logical and easy to say that any amateur produced content would fall under this heading, but when does someone move from amateur to professional? On CurrentTv users can post content that, if highly praised by their peers and the site sponsors, can earn them up to fifty-thousand dollars. Would someone who earns this amount automatically be classified as a professional or as a lucky windfall reciepient?

One of the biggest issues is obviously how this content is monetized. Is it ethical for successful networks such as VH1 to make a profit off the work of unpaid users? Currently VH1 runs AcceptableTV, a show where five staff generated shorts and one user-generated short are shown each week. Clearly involving the user-generated aspect is great synergy for VH1, it simultaneously allows them to scout for new talent, fill a programing void, reduce costs, and advertise to a viewer base that is personally attached to a show that might air their content.

Some would argue that as long as viewers are willingly submitting their content than there is no real issue if the corporation decides to pocket all net income, but to carry that argument to an extreme would be to say that an employer can decide to treat an employee in a manner they so desire and it's perfectly acceptable for the employee to be under-paid and abused as long as the employee continues to remain an employee. Of course our society has enacted employee's rights legislation to prevent this abuse. Similarly shouldn't there be a users' bill of rights? Maybe, maybe not. But clearly most users would feel that they should be compensated if a lucrative corporation was going to further profit off of their hard work.

This issue has recently come to a head in Bravo's acquisition of the website Television Without Pity. Previously TWoP's reviewers had been paid the scant wages of $100 per write-up for their reviews. This was largely because TWoP was a start-up where most employees were largely working for what is euphemistacally termed "the love of the game." Once acquired by Bravo the writers were shoced to see that Bravo intended to keep the meager payscale in tact. The writers balked at this stating "It's one thing to make very little money when you're working for a startup, but there's no reason we should be paid these rates when we're at-will employees of a big corporation." (Bravo is part of media giant NBC Universal)." Is Bravo ethically bound to provide it's new employees with a better payscale? What's the incentive for Bravo? Theoretically there are always more writers who will do the job just for the elusive chance to break into the industry. Throughout entertainment the industry largely subsides on the backs of unpaid interns and low-wage PAs.

Surely if I want to make a video and share it with friends through a website the website has a right to use my material to recoup the cost of running the site. But if my material starts to earn a profit for that website above and beyond the cost of hosting my video shouldn't I receive a portion of those earnings? Maybe, but what about the risk the site is taking by hosting hundreds of unprofitable videos.

Broadcasters can always hide behind the shield of the financial risk they endure. Basically if users want to earn better treatment and representation the only choice would be to band together in union solidarity. Thus they'd be able to demand equitable profit sharring for their labors. Of course there will always be people at the bottom willing to step in and do a job for less

USER-GENERATED CONTENT CREATORS OF THE WORLD -- UNITE!!!

or not...

Of course there will always be people at the bottom willing to step in and do a job for less (or nothing). That way Chevy and other brands can stay hip with their youth-targeted user-generated ads while also saving money by not paying unionized copywriters, directors, crew, and editors a living wage. Ultimately though there are thousands of businesses that profit from user-generated content whether it's YouTube videos, Amazon's customer reviews, and even Blogger, which is all to happy to allow users to embed AdSense in their blogs.

**Thank you to all the wonderful and uncompensated users who generated the visual products used to enhance my content found through a simple Google Image search for "Monkey Fight."


http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/04/big-media-companies-like-are.php
http://www.currenttv.com/faq#pods
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/9197.asp
http://mindblogging.typepad.com/whataconcept/user_generated_content/index.html
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=111806