I gotta respect you finally putting your money where your mouth is on this topic! If you want the reaction meta to change for the better because others don't do it right - Take the first step forward yourself and set the trend.
EDIT: leaving the original comment, but I was wrong about this he does say direct compensation at the end of the video. That’s just the thing though, at least in this video he never directly mentioned he would be paying the people he is reacting to, just bringing them on stream to react with him- which to me is just exposure with more steps. I’m really confused how that jives in his mind
UA-cam needs to add a “share profits” button (that is visible to the viewers if used). That way, a percentage of the views/profits of the video the big streamer is reacting to is shared.
Josh's idea here is perhaps the most important thing I've seen come from a lot of the talk around react videos. It's one of the most fair and mutually beneficial ways a creator can do it. Ultimately it is 100% up to the platforms to find a way to solve the problem but what Josh is talking about here is a great creator led measure. It creates something new while reacting to something old and is perhaps the best way to help the creators being reacted to as well.
Hey Josh, I Love the idea of directors cuts, I’m super the idea opening a channel of communication with said content creators. Hopefully this gets people thinking rather than just say “who the fuck cares” and sweeping it under the rug or viewing it as an non negative. As always great work keep your chin up and game on.
My answer is why doesn't the reactor, like say Asmongold, pay a portion of that video's revenue to the creator? Even use the Super Thanks to give a sort of tip to the person whose reaction would not exist if it wasn't for that video?
To me, one of the main problem lies within reuploading the live stream reaction onto UA-cam (with little to no change), where the reactors usually reap all of the views and revenue, while the original creators gains nothing whatsoever. Perhaps editing the react video before uploading it could help eliviate this issue, but as it stands, I don't think giving the creator a small sum of revenue is enough.
its either out of laziness,greed,or both ,daily dose of internet already does what you said,so "react" content creator doesnt have a legit excuses really
Because I don't believe that will truly represent a percentage of effort vs react. If I put 6 months into a 30 min video, someone reacts to it with 9k viewers and throws me 500 quid, that's not a fair trade. I have effectively lost out on 4.5k watch hours in ad revenue, and the massive voost with which that would push my video on YT, ccv and data to further promote my work to sponsors/companies all for 500 quid. It doesnt add up. Josh's idea here is properly transformative as a collaboration rather than a one sided content critique(if you could even call react content that in the first place.) Sorry if I come across as aggressive in this. I'm not the best writer.
Money isn't even the only factor, driving traffic to your channel through quality content probably garners way more growth than having your video reacted to. Which leads to more people knowing of your stuff and sharing it etc... It hinders both monetary gain AND channel growth for the creator
Me neither, on the contrary, I think if this meta needs to die for Josh's idea to sprout then I'm all for it. I really believe it would elevate the quality of those reacts so much more if the original creater could chime in and explain themselves further in certain situations or add a nice funny behind the scenes tidbit.
I can't enjoy Asmon's anymore. He used to be a good reactor, at least mildly informed, focused on stuff that he was somewhat knowledgeable about, and focused on the content he was reacting about more than farming clicks by following a meta. Then during the JD trial we saw small glimpses of what he was doing with his content, and then nowadays he's just an uninformed grumpy guy who doesn't really add much to the conversation, speaks with negativity right off the bat about everything he reacts because it farms clicks, and has turned more and more hypocritical every day supporting stuff that he said he was completely opposed to (like his Diablo Immortal spending spree, or encouraging his community to buy store mounts in WoW).
@@jorgeporras9262 A recent vid of his made me laugh, the vid of him explaining why he bought BG3 but isn't going to play it. Now, I have no problem at all with him explaining why he wanted to support the devs. The thing that made me laugh was the amount of people in the comments saying how he's such a good boy for doing so, you know a millionaire spending $60 getting praise. The other slightly minor point is that he is part of the gaming community that is always complaining about new games (that they suck etc), yet here is an RPG that has been touted as possibly the best or atleast one of the best ever made.. yet he isn't going to play it. I really think it's a metaphor (maybe wrong terminology there) for how these gamers think today. They constantly complain and feel entitled to a video game that is literally perfect - yet when an incredibly good game is made they don't even play it.
@@sameerdodger There's a dissonance to be had between wanting to support a developer who is promoting a better tomorrow for the space of gaming and game development as a whole, and having to play through the entire experience as well simply because. Shareholders look at game sales first and foremost as a metric - especially so considering that there is no extra monetization of BG3 beyond buying the game itself. In this way, Larian can better hold their own when it comes to negotiating further games. It can still be the perfect CRPG, or the new gold standard of it, dragging other genres kicking and screaming along with it, and as long as that can be respected, why stress so much over the guy's personal game tastes?
@@sameerdodgerComplaining about "entitled gamers" is so pathetic. They're right, as customers they ARE entitled to a game that actually works and is fun in exchange for their money.
Oh my gosh I’m so excited to see how this project pans out, this is exactly the formula I’ve been wishing someone would try for a while now! I’ll be eagerly awaiting the first results, and I really hope this can maybe help shift the reaction meta to be less problematic.
UA-cam needs to add a “share profits” button (that is visible to the viewers if used). That way, a percentage of the views/profits of the video the big streamer is reacting to is shared. This should be optional. If used, all viewers would see that the profits are shared or not. Good and fair streamers would use it. Those who don't would get tons negative comments (and if not, their audience really doesn't care).
UA-cam needs to add a way for small creators to combat non consensual use of their videos without having to file an actual lawsuit. What Asmon and other reactors do is actually illegal, so I don't want any solutions that would cater to their greed and laziness. Especially not the "I may or may not share the profits from broadcasting the content you made" button.
@trainee5471 at least as far as asmon goes it's actually not illegal, or at least couldn't be prosecuted successfully. Commentary is a genuine application of fair use. It's morally ambiguous, but legally they wouldn't be able to do anything. It's been tried before.
@@trainee5471 that is inaccurate, first and foremost. "fair use" by law has to be tried for each INDIVIDUAL case. while it is fair to say it WOULD be illegal, were they tried in court over it, that is your own opinion and may or may not be true. however, it is not fair to put out a blanket statement saying that it IS ILLEGAL, as that is simply not the case. if it were the case then H3 would not have had to spend so much money time and effort in court defending (and ultimately WINNING) his fair use argument over his react video. the fine bros would not have been able to go to court over react content (because you cant go to court and try to copyright something that is wholly illegal). please stop actively assuming you know the law and spreading misinformation about it that you are literally making up to prove your point correct. regardless of what is morally right or not you are just as bad if you start making things up and deceiving people into believing your way is right. nothing about the legal precedent adds merit to what you've said. you live in a delusional world where reality does not affect your beliefs and opinions, but rather one where your opinions and beliefs shape your reality. educate yourself.
@@TheShizzlemop If I see a person jaywalking, I know they are commiting an offence, even if they wouldn't necessarily be dragged to the court and tried over it. My "blanket statement" specifies what kind of react content I consider illegal, and, suffice to say, it is not the kind of content either H3 or the fine bros do/did. H3's court case was successful because his reaction was deemed transformative enough to the point of recontextualizing the original video, his reaction was deemed to be different enough from the original video that it couldn't be considered a substitute. And a lot less "money time and effort" would've had to be spend if a mere act of "reacting" was enough to qualify for fair use. The Fine Bros' concept of react content, the concept they were trying to copyright, was wholly different from the kind of react content that Asmon and others do. But hey, look at the blank statements, mr. "all react content is equally legal"!
I agree 1000% Josh! This is a good take! Just ask any DJ if they can survive off exposure and how many times they have been offered exposure as payment lol
It's a fascinating idea and something definitely worth exploring. Very much looking forward to seeing how this pans out. Thanks for all the effort and passion you put into your craft, Josh.
I completely agree, this is an awesome idea, when I started making content on my other channel, I made the firm choice to try and make my own content. I didn't even want to use music, art or very little that already existed. Slowly as I started to narrate chapters I slowly taught myself to make music and art on each chapter. It's been fun and I've learned a lot.
Fantastically articulated. I was on the “well you’re getting exposure you would have never gotten” camp, but the points you made here really made me see it all in a different light. Thank you, I get it now
Partially I am still in that camp, like I have subscribed to several channels because I found them out through reactions, but I have to admit that the reaction meta has gone out of control. I have seen countless channels on my recommended who only do reaction content, like even the channel names are just so and so reacts.
Just want to say Josh I love how you tackle problems within the industry. You are innovative and smart. And I think we can all learn a little something from how you handle things. I can’t always tune into your streams but I love watching you on UA-cam, will keep an eye out for when this starts rolling out. Keep up the good work.
Novel, fair and valuable idea! This is why I watch your content: critical thinking. Helps that you’re articulate and amicable! I sincerely hope this format works for you and effects the broader trend of regurgitated reaction videos. Also didn’t find you through Asmon 😂 watched a random video, kept coming back for more!
I have to say you’re going into the right direction. I cannot wait for you to start collaborating with other creators to shed some light on how they feel talking about their video and passion. I think that some musicians react channels are doing it right. They are already doing what you propose to do. Niknokturnal is trying to get the people on that he reacts to on his twitch channel to really get an interview and an in depth conversation about what the creative process looks like. And also KardavoxAcademy is doing the thing you’re talking about. Sitting down with the creator of the music and talk about the piece. That is what we need. MORE INSIGHT! I hope you’ll blow up with this concept and become the biggest gaming react collaborator there is!
It should be the same as how music does it. The original creator should be paid for the parts where their videos are played when there's 0 commentary. If they pause and talk about it, that's fair play, but of its 3 minutes of uninterrupted video, that should count as being the property of the original creator. (Nodding along and making faces are not enough of an addition to the content. That's the equivalent of having subway surfers in the corner of the video so the viewers have more than one thing to look at)
The platforms really need to figure this out. However, God, damn man, brilliant. And this is probably why I’m going to watch a lot more of your videos.
I watch reactions because I want the reactors opinion. It's especially great for people reacting to movies and TV shows because it feeds that innate need to show someone your favorite show and the elation when they actually pay attention to it and talk about it. Imagine the time you told your best friend they needed to watch your favorite show. And then they weren't interested and sat on their phone or something. It feels like a slap in the face. Why? I don't know. It just does. Now when someone actually pays attention and REACTS, ESPECIALLY if they react the same way you did it's so validating. I think reaction videos make some of us feel way less alone. Like just because someone is enjoying the same thing we are and we can see it it makes our own existence more real and more valid. If we could move beyond monetization. Where people do this stuff for the love of it and not the cash. There wouldn't be an issue with it.
Because that is effort. You still have to engage with someone. How is this compatible with the "sitting down, watch video" formula? How are you going to have 30 creators on for interviews to fill your schedule and keep the 7 second attention going?
@@chrisakaschulbus4903 not just effort. You need to schedule it. Instead of taking saturday off to do 4 reaction videos, you need to contact 4 people and figure out when in the next 60 days both of you have matching time off so that you can record the video. Alternatively you need to find someone who is fine with doing a collab where they record their own parts individually and you record your parts and stitch it together.
That's a very interesting and fun approach to this type of thing. Making original content is extremely involved. I know for myself it takes a month or so for me to release what I define as a unique approach to guides for ESO, and would feel a bit discouraged if someone else just took it and did that. Would love to see you get into those types of videos where you have the creator with you, every video has a story! 🍻
Legend! I really want to consider something like this now, instead of complain all the time. Thank you Josh for moving me to apply reasoning to this react content epidemic, and good luck trying to find something that works for you.
Now that concept is something I could watch the shit out of. It would also be even better for smaller channels expanding because it gives an insight to the audience on how that creator operates and thinks.
I feel like your review videos are essentially "react" videos to the longer time investment that is the game youre reviewing - ie taking something that took hundreds or thousands of hours and turning it into higher quantity work with a lower creative investment. For someone to then react to your review does the same thing again. And that original game was probably build in response to, or on the backs of, a number of games and other cultural artifacts which themselves constitute even more time investment. I actually think this is a really cool facet of human creation. We distill and remix EVERYTHING, and it's fantastic.
Thank you Josh for putting out your thoughts on this topic. I've heavily criticized you on the recent reaction video you put out, especially because i feared exactly the points you made yourself, but if you truly think there is a way to make reactionary type content emphasizing quality, actively contributing to the original creator and benefiting them with more than "exposure" - while at the same time expanding upon their content without invalidating the original work they have put in - then maybe, just maybe, the entire "reaction" content sphere on youtube will become more than quick profit on another person's hard work. Your idea for this sounds great and i sincerely hope you can make this a reality, hopefully with as much quality as your original works. Godspeed.
A lot of people talk about a mechanism to share revenue being built into youtube but I don't think even that's enough. Modern day media consumption is all about the almighty algorithm, and that's what benefits the reactors even more than the raw number of views. Because of the upload frequency and longer watch time the react content more often than not gets promoted before (instead of) the original content, so the original creator loses not only the views/revenue, but also their channel's place in the algorithm which can be difficult to put a number on. Thank you Josh for not stopping at talking about the problem. You actually sought out potential solutions then put it into action, our world needs a lot more of this!
comment edit: I really like Josh's idea. Just because you could gain from something it doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to say no. Just because you don't like something it doesn't mean you will always have the right to say no. I hate when someone thinks a react video providing exposure means they are allowed to do it (You can't punch someone, hand them a 20$ and say "you can't be mad, you gained from it!!!!"), but I also hate someone thinking they can bar their content from actual review and criticism. All that matters is that is fair use.
Amusingly your "Worst MMO?" series could be considered react videos, profiting from games. Well they are actually introduction/analysis/critiques/reviews, "react" pretty much means cheap production. Worth noting that any gameplay footage is profiting from game content. It can cause legal issues, and has.
I think it's complex for feature to implement rather than please ads inverstor that get money instantly. It add value to youtube not yearly profit to stake holder. Sad
Then the react meta will stop. And because UA-cam LOVE the react meta(keep views flowing and advertisers happy), they will never make a system that doesn't benefit the react channels. Creativity is dead.
@@nomyai8079 UA-cam already allows this for multi-channel networks and businesses. It's just not available for whatever reason for individual creators.
There's a tool for this but unfortunately it's not available to most creators, just corporations. There's a reason for that of course, to prevent abuse of the system but hopefully YT can eventually come up with an innovative solution.
That’s just the Copyright claim system if it wasn’t as bad for the person getting claimed . The other side is that if the reaction is transformative do you still allow the original creator to claim revenue on it ? You always have to remember that as original as a person can make their content nothing stops them from abusing a system like that for all the wrong reasons. We’ve seen this with creators using copyright claims to silence criticism .
Went from mild interest and amusement that Josh was going to do some reaction style content to genuine excitement for said reaction content. Well done.
I can agree I think creators should ask when they are reacting to an existing work, even more so for documentary style content. I also do think there should be an accepted timeframe before a video should be reacted to, this is one that some reaction creators are better at then others already. I do have issue with the concept of payment requires loss on one side, this goes to an age old mentality of not wanting others to have what you have without having them sacrifice like you did. I think this entire mindset is flawed as there is no need for it as long as the original creator is not losing out when their content is reacted to. Granted this is a very fine line and something tricky to actually even measure without using metrics to make an edjucated guess, but digital scarcity is not really a thing and attempting to define a fair reaction content exchange behind such an idea is a dangerous one. All that said I love the idea of reactions along side the original creator and it may be the best solution Ive heard yet... Only thing better would be UA-cam actually making the changes to their creator tools to allow creators to claim (not strike) reactions to their content and allow them to split revenue on a video, with options for claiming only a portion of the video so for example a reaction to 20 videos all uploaded in one bulk vod by a reaction channel could have up to those 20 original creators claim only their video being reacted to. If this was done right it would create tangible benifit to the creator in addition to any 'exposure' they may or may not be actually benefiting from. This of course would be allot of work and come with new problems we discover along the way, and would also require false claims to actually be dealt with by YT, but evolving the platform and supporting all creators and content styles is something I feel should be strongly supported.
UA-cam could DEFINITELY implement a system to remedy this, and it would make people consider UA-cam much better as a streaming platform than twitch, at least for this type of content. Since UA-cam already has the video on the system, they could implement a system where you could, as you are streaming a "reaction", click on a button to signal to UA-cam that you are "reacting" to said video, and somehow push the video up on the algorithm, so that it gets more relevant. They could also implement another system so that from any superchats that you receive from said reaction, a cut is delivered to the account of the original creator. They could also implement a system so that you could tag a video as a reaction to another video from another content creator, and a cut of the revenue from your reaction gets sent to the OC as well. UA-cam is the perfect environment for this, and it would create a really interesting environment, where creators would be more willing to interact with one another, and actually build a 'community', something that UA-cam used to have when it just started.
I love this idea. It is how it should be done. Only issue I have is the creators I would recommend release 2 - 8 hour videos and its hard to do a reaction to such long form content in the manner you are talking about (also no is doing a react to those videos because they are so long). I look forward to seeing this happen
"A lot of these problems can be solved with a conversation." I find this is true in a lot of walks of life with a lot of problems that come up yet a lot of people just don't think to do it.
Directors cut idea sounds great! I think that people simply asking for permission to react to videos would be a great step in the right direction. Have a small creator approves a larger creator to react to their video for the exposure then that's wonderful.
Please Josh, you are our saviour. Make it happen. You are the chosen man for this job. This is exactly what we need. Otherwise the future will be very braindead in these type of platforms.
fr tho, Josh going through his older MMO or Was it Good videos, and giving input on how those thoughts have changed, or just talking about the general writing process for that video seems like it would be interesting
Wow, Josh. You are a freaking genius! You approach sounds like far better content than the average react channel, who just watches the video and is disrespectfull to the original creator. I think, you are on to somerthing and I hope you can change the YouTune landscape. I'm very excited. :D
Ironically, how I was first introduced to your main channel was by way of an Asmongold Reacts a few years ago. I think it was the video on how a game should be good right away not 100 hours in. Been subbed to the main channel ever since.
So a few things, firstly I agree with Josh on this pretty much entirely and I think his idea is fantastic. I also have another idea but one that could be a lot harder to implement. Licensing your videos to specific creators for specific prices based on their reach, if they can profit off of your video, you should be fairly compensated in a tangible way. This can also extend to creators creating videos with a 'free' license, certain videos on their channel which anyone can react to but should at least be under the creative commons license that requires the user to credit the owner. Another extension of this could be to license these videos to a channel that specifically shows other content to hopefully boost their audience, this then means that streamers can tune into that channel like tv and depending on the license, if there's profit sharing or something then the creator can get something out of the reupload.
A good way for platforms to solve it would be if ALL the benefits are shared with the OP, with majority of the shared benefits going to them. Like, their subscribe button comes first, the reactors is in a dropdown, likes count algorytmically for both creators, ad rev is mostly given to the OP, maybe even add a little 1 minute bit of video from the OP, that is automatically added to the reaction at the start or end or a space that HAS to be set and agreed to by both (either gives multiple ranked options, the other has to choose which fits best) that can contain a patreon ad, an ad read or whatever else non-inflammatory. A harsher variant could add a "React VS exist" clause, that triggers when there are SIGNIFICANT chunks of the altered content (pixels indicating a webcam overlay, extra audio, pauses) are just not different enough, to catch and destroy "reactions" that just have the reactor sitting there in silence, until the "that vid was crazy, like and subscribe, see you next time, buy this specific razor with my code" message.
I actually heard of Asmongold through you oddly enough. I found you through your "was it any good" series. Specifically, your video on Rayman. Presently you're actively leading me to go back and replay games I haven't touched in years.
Damn, I would love to get involved with this idea of reacting to the content with the content creator. As a mid-to-small sized content creator, where do I sign up? It's such a brilliant idea and a great way to evolve the react meta
"If I can't compete with the react meta, I can't keep up". What's going to happen is that original content creators will start doing more reacts and soon UA-cam will just be reactors reacting to reacts.
I found your channel while looking up... well I have no fucking idea what I was looking up I think it was Henry Cavil but here I am. Respect your views and what you believe in.
I agree with you about reaction stuff. Your reaction ideas sound pretty interesting and would be miles ahead of what others typically do. I don't watch react stuff and it makes me sad that so many people watch low effort videos that brain dead idiots crank out from watching other people's stuff and adding almost nothing of their own. "React" people contribute nothing and are literally leeching off of other people who work hard to make their own stuff. The people who watch it and argue about exposure are so ignorant and stupid. It's popular because most people are really really stupid and do not care about any of what they watch beyond "hur hur hur it make me laugh!!"
I may be a nobody but I think I have an idea of how an actual system can be implemented by the platform. TLDR: a pre-public automatic and/or manual 'flagging system' for marking videos as a reacts, and whereby original creator's post consent may be required, and 'profits' (views and likes, etc.) are shared in some way. Better clarified bellow. If we wish for the platform to handle this instead of personal, conversational agreement between uploaders, then it will probably need to be rigorous. Else, UA-camrs will just need to find a way. I definitely think Josh's idea is great and that it is in certain aspects an improvement, and am glad he is actually taking the time to handle the issue and change the way we deal with it. The problem I have is that if you think about it, it either still diminishes/takes away from the traffic benefit the original creator would've gotten without the react existing, or leaves people with a reason to not watch the react in the first place...which is counterintuitive. If it's too long, I'll be less likely to watch. If I do watch, I certainly won't be watching the original. If I've already watched the original, then maybe the react will still get my view from just a quick look, but if I can tell by the title and thumbnail that is a react, then I probably won't watch it. The tug of war between reactor and creator still lives on in some sense, even if to a much less impactful degree. This method, however, does absolutely guarantee proper recognition and outreach of creator, and I feel like if streamers and reactors just made any attempt to ensure that their viewers gave the video a view, a like, and a potential comment and/or subscribe, this would be a hell lot better. It might even be enough to solve the problem completely. But these things rely on the goodness of the streamer's/reactor's heart, and nothing guarantees anyone's cooperation. God only knows just how much react content poorly affects original creators - if we ignore them and it gets out of hand, they may leave. So, we may need a system. Just like how we flag videos for copyright, could UA-cam make a system that flags videos as "react content" of other UA-cam videos by looking for large extents of audiovisual footage of another video with little to no pauses? Yes, it may be janky. Yes, it may be intrusive and also slow and technologically difficult to implement, but what else do we have as a systematic option? In addition, there could become available an option for the uploader to pre-mark the video as a react if the system does not find it so. They will be able to choose which video it is. Obviously, this relies on the good spirit of the uploader. Maybe there can even be penalties for trying to get around it, albeit that is extreme. If the system finds that a video is most likely react content, it will prompt the uploader with what this means for the video, and will ask them whether they want to continue with 'pre-posting' the video or not. There, tediously, would also have to be an option to appeal the detection system's findings if they're incorrect - this, here, is the part where it could be a massive problem for a lot of UA-camrs if the system is janky, but it has to be there if it is going to be implemented. Again, this is only an idea. I'm thinking there could also be the option for the uploader to confirm what video theirs is being likened to, and, again, they can appeal on a basis of an incorrect finding. This, however, could be abused. So, thusly, there'd be both an automatic method and a manual method, perhaps. What a video being flagged could mean is that if the uploader chooses to continue, the video will be marked as a reaction, and a notice will be sent out to the original creator to permit or deny the upload going public. There could even be a chat, or personal options on their end to allow automatic admissions of reacts of their videos. This whole feature feels like a big maybe, but what else would be used to admit the video? It is definitely reaching - it would probably require that the original creator be able to view the video before they themselves decide if it can go public or not, and this may cause problems. If it is allowed, then the uploader will need to be told this. If it is allowed to go public, it means that it will be visibly noted as a react video, the page will feature channel and subscribe buttons for both the reactor and the creator, a single view will go to both the react and the original (it will be like as if you've watched both) and an option to check the original will also be available. Something like that. Finances will also have to be calculatively portioned off, some method for it will have to be found. This is all just speculative - this is idea is probably horrible in many ways or even overall, or at least very intrusive for what may be a lot more of a minor problem than we think it is. There's also no say as to how it conflicts with fair use policy or the such, and again if it is janky it would be better to just not exist. But, if we want something that can save UA-camr's hassle of having to ask or nag, and also ensures the more nefarious of us aren't getting away with unfair use, then we need some kind of automation or incentive to mark react videos. Because, in the end, my gut feeling is it's not really fair that hard working creators don't get the earned value for their work. React videos would be nothing without the originals, commentary or not.
It's a good approach. I respect that you put your mind to it and try to make this better. I stopped watching Asmon's reacts because it feels like he basically only does these and nothing else. Yeah, it might be good business, but it is not fair. If he would put more work into it and creates some sort of structure, that would be different. But I definitely prefer to ask first and do it with the creator, as you planned.
The Mighty Jingles puts out 6 quality videos a week. Usually three of them are commentary on game replays, i suppose those could be considered similar to commentary but he does spend time sorting through replay files to find entertaining examples and scripts commentary etc. Two days will be episodes of dune have he is playing and the last day will be an editorial on whatever he wants to rant about.
Here's an argument I haven't heard yet in favor of low effort reaction content. For some of the personalities I follow on the internet there ends up being a parasocial aspect. Streamers that I have watched 10-20 hours a week for YEARS. This is not a discussion about whether or not that's healthy but I like many others who follow streamers have whole ass lives and friend groups and plans outside of doing things on the internet, but I cannot deny that the parasocial aspect is part of the deal. I don't watch XQC, but lets say that I did, that I tuned into all his streams *regardless* of what he's doing because I find him entertaining and I like his personality. Am I tuning into the react content for the content he's watching? Or am I tuning in because HE'S the person watching it? This ties into the next part of the argument, there's no guarantee that me viewing a video of someone else's work through the form of react content would also mean that I would view that content separate from the streamer. We cannot ignore it, we know its there and that its widespread. Why are people actually engaging in react content? In my humble opinion, parasocial activity is most likely the answer.
Oh God, with this kind of reaction Josh is envisioning, I can't even imagine him bringing on Max0r, or some other chaotic guy, who edits like 2/second. How would that talk go? Not saying I wouldn't absolutely _LOVE_ to see it though :P
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
Well said. Looking forward to how this plays out in the future Josh.
It won't.
You see this removes a lot of comfort from the react channel, maybe it will start with many of these, but it will fizzle out.
love you protoxx ❤️❤️
I gotta respect you finally putting your money where your mouth is on this topic! If you want the reaction meta to change for the better because others don't do it right - Take the first step forward yourself and set the trend.
EDIT: leaving the original comment, but I was wrong about this he does say direct compensation at the end of the video.
That’s just the thing though, at least in this video he never directly mentioned he would be paying the people he is reacting to, just bringing them on stream to react with him- which to me is just exposure with more steps. I’m really confused how that jives in his mind
UA-cam needs to add a “share profits” button (that is visible to the viewers if used). That way, a percentage of the views/profits of the video the big streamer is reacting to is shared.
@@FritzSchober it should also make that reaction video ineligible for algorithmic promotion
He mentioned it at the end of the video 11:02 @@moxieman2452
@@moxieman2452 im assuming the revenue from the reaction video can easily be split 50/50 or whatever ratio they decide
Josh's idea here is perhaps the most important thing I've seen come from a lot of the talk around react videos. It's one of the most fair and mutually beneficial ways a creator can do it. Ultimately it is 100% up to the platforms to find a way to solve the problem but what Josh is talking about here is a great creator led measure. It creates something new while reacting to something old and is perhaps the best way to help the creators being reacted to as well.
Now we just have to wait for the reactions to this video.
Hey Josh,
I Love the idea of directors cuts, I’m super the idea opening a channel of communication with said content creators. Hopefully this gets people thinking rather than just say “who the fuck cares” and sweeping it under the rug or viewing it as an non negative. As always great work keep your chin up and game on.
This is excellent! I typically HATE typical reaction content, and I immediately liked your first self-react video.
My answer is why doesn't the reactor, like say Asmongold, pay a portion of that video's revenue to the creator? Even use the Super Thanks to give a sort of tip to the person whose reaction would not exist if it wasn't for that video?
To me, one of the main problem lies within reuploading the live stream reaction onto UA-cam (with little to no change), where the reactors usually reap all of the views and revenue, while the original creators gains nothing whatsoever. Perhaps editing the react video before uploading it could help eliviate this issue, but as it stands, I don't think giving the creator a small sum of revenue is enough.
Exactly a reactor should atleast give 80 percent of the revenue to the original creator
its either out of laziness,greed,or both
,daily dose of internet already does what you said,so "react" content creator doesnt have a legit excuses really
Because I don't believe that will truly represent a percentage of effort vs react.
If I put 6 months into a 30 min video, someone reacts to it with 9k viewers and throws me 500 quid, that's not a fair trade.
I have effectively lost out on 4.5k watch hours in ad revenue, and the massive voost with which that would push my video on YT, ccv and data to further promote my work to sponsors/companies all for 500 quid.
It doesnt add up.
Josh's idea here is properly transformative as a collaboration rather than a one sided content critique(if you could even call react content that in the first place.)
Sorry if I come across as aggressive in this. I'm not the best writer.
Money isn't even the only factor, driving traffic to your channel through quality content probably garners way more growth than having your video reacted to. Which leads to more people knowing of your stuff and sharing it etc... It hinders both monetary gain AND channel growth for the creator
I like the idea of the podcast reaction. Looking forward to a few examples
HUGE applause to Josh! I wholeheartly support this!
That's a great idea! I'll look forward to seeing how this develops.
I respect Josh so much for this. I do enjoy many of Asmon's reacts but I still wouldn't be sad to see that meta die.
Me neither, on the contrary, I think if this meta needs to die for Josh's idea to sprout then I'm all for it. I really believe it would elevate the quality of those reacts so much more if the original creater could chime in and explain themselves further in certain situations or add a nice funny behind the scenes tidbit.
I can't enjoy Asmon's anymore.
He used to be a good reactor, at least mildly informed, focused on stuff that he was somewhat knowledgeable about, and focused on the content he was reacting about more than farming clicks by following a meta.
Then during the JD trial we saw small glimpses of what he was doing with his content, and then nowadays he's just an uninformed grumpy guy who doesn't really add much to the conversation, speaks with negativity right off the bat about everything he reacts because it farms clicks, and has turned more and more hypocritical every day supporting stuff that he said he was completely opposed to (like his Diablo Immortal spending spree, or encouraging his community to buy store mounts in WoW).
@@jorgeporras9262 A recent vid of his made me laugh, the vid of him explaining why he bought BG3 but isn't going to play it. Now, I have no problem at all with him explaining why he wanted to support the devs. The thing that made me laugh was the amount of people in the comments saying how he's such a good boy for doing so, you know a millionaire spending $60 getting praise. The other slightly minor point is that he is part of the gaming community that is always complaining about new games (that they suck etc), yet here is an RPG that has been touted as possibly the best or atleast one of the best ever made.. yet he isn't going to play it. I really think it's a metaphor (maybe wrong terminology there) for how these gamers think today. They constantly complain and feel entitled to a video game that is literally perfect - yet when an incredibly good game is made they don't even play it.
@@sameerdodger There's a dissonance to be had between wanting to support a developer who is promoting a better tomorrow for the space of gaming and game development as a whole, and having to play through the entire experience as well simply because.
Shareholders look at game sales first and foremost as a metric - especially so considering that there is no extra monetization of BG3 beyond buying the game itself. In this way, Larian can better hold their own when it comes to negotiating further games.
It can still be the perfect CRPG, or the new gold standard of it, dragging other genres kicking and screaming along with it, and as long as that can be respected, why stress so much over the guy's personal game tastes?
@@sameerdodgerComplaining about "entitled gamers" is so pathetic. They're right, as customers they ARE entitled to a game that actually works and is fun in exchange for their money.
Oh my gosh I’m so excited to see how this project pans out, this is exactly the formula I’ve been wishing someone would try for a while now! I’ll be eagerly awaiting the first results, and I really hope this can maybe help shift the reaction meta to be less problematic.
UA-cam needs to add a “share profits” button (that is visible to the viewers if used). That way, a percentage of the views/profits of the video the big streamer is reacting to is shared.
This should be optional. If used, all viewers would see that the profits are shared or not. Good and fair streamers would use it. Those who don't would get tons negative comments (and if not, their audience really doesn't care).
UA-cam needs to add a way for small creators to combat non consensual use of their videos without having to file an actual lawsuit. What Asmon and other reactors do is actually illegal, so I don't want any solutions that would cater to their greed and laziness. Especially not the "I may or may not share the profits from broadcasting the content you made" button.
@trainee5471 at least as far as asmon goes it's actually not illegal, or at least couldn't be prosecuted successfully.
Commentary is a genuine application of fair use. It's morally ambiguous, but legally they wouldn't be able to do anything. It's been tried before.
@@trainee5471 that is inaccurate, first and foremost. "fair use" by law has to be tried for each INDIVIDUAL case. while it is fair to say it WOULD be illegal, were they tried in court over it, that is your own opinion and may or may not be true. however, it is not fair to put out a blanket statement saying that it IS ILLEGAL, as that is simply not the case. if it were the case then H3 would not have had to spend so much money time and effort in court defending (and ultimately WINNING) his fair use argument over his react video. the fine bros would not have been able to go to court over react content (because you cant go to court and try to copyright something that is wholly illegal).
please stop actively assuming you know the law and spreading misinformation about it that you are literally making up to prove your point correct. regardless of what is morally right or not you are just as bad if you start making things up and deceiving people into believing your way is right.
nothing about the legal precedent adds merit to what you've said. you live in a delusional world where reality does not affect your beliefs and opinions, but rather one where your opinions and beliefs shape your reality. educate yourself.
That'd be ideal, but I can't imagine that to easily be implemented, assuming Youtubr or Twitch would even think of it in the first place.
@@TheShizzlemop If I see a person jaywalking, I know they are commiting an offence, even if they wouldn't necessarily be dragged to the court and tried over it. My "blanket statement" specifies what kind of react content I consider illegal, and, suffice to say, it is not the kind of content either H3 or the fine bros do/did.
H3's court case was successful because his reaction was deemed transformative enough to the point of recontextualizing the original video, his reaction was deemed to be different enough from the original video that it couldn't be considered a substitute. And a lot less "money time and effort" would've had to be spend if a mere act of "reacting" was enough to qualify for fair use.
The Fine Bros' concept of react content, the concept they were trying to copyright, was wholly different from the kind of react content that Asmon and others do. But hey, look at the blank statements, mr. "all react content is equally legal"!
I agree 1000% Josh! This is a good take! Just ask any DJ if they can survive off exposure and how many times they have been offered exposure as payment lol
It's a fascinating idea and something definitely worth exploring. Very much looking forward to seeing how this pans out. Thanks for all the effort and passion you put into your craft, Josh.
I completely agree, this is an awesome idea, when I started making content on my other channel, I made the firm choice to try and make my own content. I didn't even want to use music, art or very little that already existed. Slowly as I started to narrate chapters I slowly taught myself to make music and art on each chapter. It's been fun and I've learned a lot.
Fantastically articulated. I was on the “well you’re getting exposure you would have never gotten” camp, but the points you made here really made me see it all in a different light. Thank you, I get it now
Partially I am still in that camp, like I have subscribed to several channels because I found them out through reactions, but I have to admit that the reaction meta has gone out of control. I have seen countless channels on my recommended who only do reaction content, like even the channel names are just so and so reacts.
Oh my gosh I’m so excited to see how this project pans out, this is exactly the formula I’ve been wishing someone would try for a while now!
Just want to say Josh I love how you tackle problems within the industry. You are innovative and smart. And I think we can all learn a little something from how you handle things. I can’t always tune into your streams but I love watching you on UA-cam, will keep an eye out for when this starts rolling out. Keep up the good work.
Novel, fair and valuable idea!
This is why I watch your content: critical thinking.
Helps that you’re articulate and amicable!
I sincerely hope this format works for you and effects the broader trend of regurgitated reaction videos.
Also didn’t find you through Asmon 😂 watched a random video, kept coming back for more!
I have to say you’re going into the right direction. I cannot wait for you to start collaborating with other creators to shed some light on how they feel talking about their video and passion.
I think that some musicians react channels are doing it right. They are already doing what you propose to do. Niknokturnal is trying to get the people on that he reacts to on his twitch channel to really get an interview and an in depth conversation about what the creative process looks like. And also KardavoxAcademy is doing the thing you’re talking about. Sitting down with the creator of the music and talk about the piece. That is what we need.
MORE INSIGHT! I hope you’ll blow up with this concept and become the biggest gaming react collaborator there is!
It should be the same as how music does it. The original creator should be paid for the parts where their videos are played when there's 0 commentary. If they pause and talk about it, that's fair play, but of its 3 minutes of uninterrupted video, that should count as being the property of the original creator. (Nodding along and making faces are not enough of an addition to the content. That's the equivalent of having subway surfers in the corner of the video so the viewers have more than one thing to look at)
The platforms really need to figure this out. However, God, damn man, brilliant. And this is probably why I’m going to watch a lot more of your videos.
I LOVE the idea of having the creator on and react to the video with them! Some solid ideas here!
Great ideas Josh. I completely agree with what you said about react content "creators". Please be the change that meta needs.
Josh, you are a gem, this is an absolutely fantastic idea
This is a really interesting perspective on things - I'm excited to see how this new venture goes.
I watch reactions because I want the reactors opinion. It's especially great for people reacting to movies and TV shows because it feeds that innate need to show someone your favorite show and the elation when they actually pay attention to it and talk about it. Imagine the time you told your best friend they needed to watch your favorite show. And then they weren't interested and sat on their phone or something. It feels like a slap in the face.
Why? I don't know. It just does.
Now when someone actually pays attention and REACTS, ESPECIALLY if they react the same way you did it's so validating. I think reaction videos make some of us feel way less alone. Like just because someone is enjoying the same thing we are and we can see it it makes our own existence more real and more valid.
If we could move beyond monetization. Where people do this stuff for the love of it and not the cash. There wouldn't be an issue with it.
Turning a reaction into a maker's commentary sounds like an excellent idea and I don't know why more people haven't thought of that before.
Because that is effort. You still have to engage with someone. How is this compatible with the "sitting down, watch video" formula?
How are you going to have 30 creators on for interviews to fill your schedule and keep the 7 second attention going?
@@chrisakaschulbus4903 not just effort. You need to schedule it.
Instead of taking saturday off to do 4 reaction videos, you need to contact 4 people and figure out when in the next 60 days both of you have matching time off so that you can record the video.
Alternatively you need to find someone who is fine with doing a collab where they record their own parts individually and you record your parts and stitch it together.
I'm happy to see someone that does something and not just says something.
That's a very interesting and fun approach to this type of thing. Making original content is extremely involved. I know for myself it takes a month or so for me to release what I define as a unique approach to guides for ESO, and would feel a bit discouraged if someone else just took it and did that.
Would love to see you get into those types of videos where you have the creator with you, every video has a story! 🍻
Legend! I really want to consider something like this now, instead of complain all the time. Thank you Josh for moving me to apply reasoning to this react content epidemic, and good luck trying to find something that works for you.
Fantastic idea and a huge respect to someone who tries to improve the platform.
Now that concept is something I could watch the shit out of.
It would also be even better for smaller channels expanding because it gives an insight to the audience on how that creator operates and thinks.
LOVE this idea, will be watching for this
I think your idea is the most fair reaction videos. Can't wait how this turns out
This is a great idea. I need this in my life. Josh, you're on the way to first monitor content xD
I feel like your review videos are essentially "react" videos to the longer time investment that is the game youre reviewing - ie taking something that took hundreds or thousands of hours and turning it into higher quantity work with a lower creative investment. For someone to then react to your review does the same thing again. And that original game was probably build in response to, or on the backs of, a number of games and other cultural artifacts which themselves constitute even more time investment. I actually think this is a really cool facet of human creation. We distill and remix EVERYTHING, and it's fantastic.
Incredible idea. I would 100% watch these.
This might be the biggest brian idea i've ever seen on my second monitor. I very well may have to move you onto the main screen
Yea let's go! Sounds like a good concept, given the topic matter of original video is interesting enough to spark discussion.
This all sounds great. The retrospecetive reacting was really cool.
I also love podcasts and collabs, this is a content dream.
Actually really good idea, Wendigoon did a bit of this with the creator of the backrooms. Was a really good vid
This is super cool idea. Mad respect.
Thank you Josh for putting out your thoughts on this topic. I've heavily criticized you on the recent reaction video you put out, especially because i feared exactly the points you made yourself, but if you truly think there is a way to make reactionary type content emphasizing quality, actively contributing to the original creator and benefiting them with more than "exposure" - while at the same time expanding upon their content without invalidating the original work they have put in - then maybe, just maybe, the entire "reaction" content sphere on youtube will become more than quick profit on another person's hard work.
Your idea for this sounds great and i sincerely hope you can make this a reality, hopefully with as much quality as your original works. Godspeed.
A lot of people talk about a mechanism to share revenue being built into youtube but I don't think even that's enough. Modern day media consumption is all about the almighty algorithm, and that's what benefits the reactors even more than the raw number of views. Because of the upload frequency and longer watch time the react content more often than not gets promoted before (instead of) the original content, so the original creator loses not only the views/revenue, but also their channel's place in the algorithm which can be difficult to put a number on. Thank you Josh for not stopping at talking about the problem. You actually sought out potential solutions then put it into action, our world needs a lot more of this!
comment edit: I really like Josh's idea.
Just because you could gain from something it doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to say no.
Just because you don't like something it doesn't mean you will always have the right to say no.
I hate when someone thinks a react video providing exposure means they are allowed to do it (You can't punch someone, hand them a 20$ and say "you can't be mad, you gained from it!!!!"), but I also hate someone thinking they can bar their content from actual review and criticism. All that matters is that is fair use.
Thsi man's mind is truly ahead of his time. God damn, you love to hear him
Good idea. It's like the youtube version of a directors commentary.
And in just 2 decades weve come full circle to dvd with overlayed commentary from the actors and directors.
Amusingly your "Worst MMO?" series could be considered react videos, profiting from games.
Well they are actually introduction/analysis/critiques/reviews, "react" pretty much means cheap production.
Worth noting that any gameplay footage is profiting from game content. It can cause legal issues, and has.
i don't understand why youtube doesn't just let the creator of the original video from a react vid claim like 70-80% of the revenue
I think it's complex for feature to implement rather than please ads inverstor that get money instantly. It add value to youtube not yearly profit to stake holder. Sad
Then the react meta will stop. And because UA-cam LOVE the react meta(keep views flowing and advertisers happy), they will never make a system that doesn't benefit the react channels.
Creativity is dead.
@@nomyai8079 UA-cam already allows this for multi-channel networks and businesses. It's just not available for whatever reason for individual creators.
There's a tool for this but unfortunately it's not available to most creators, just corporations. There's a reason for that of course, to prevent abuse of the system but hopefully YT can eventually come up with an innovative solution.
That’s just the Copyright claim system if it wasn’t as bad for the person getting claimed . The other side is that if the reaction is transformative do you still allow the original creator to claim revenue on it ? You always have to remember that as original as a person can make their content nothing stops them from abusing a system like that for all the wrong reasons. We’ve seen this with creators using copyright claims to silence criticism .
This is a great idea, I cant wait to see these.
Went from mild interest and amusement that Josh was going to do some reaction style content to genuine excitement for said reaction content. Well done.
I can agree I think creators should ask when they are reacting to an existing work, even more so for documentary style content. I also do think there should be an accepted timeframe before a video should be reacted to, this is one that some reaction creators are better at then others already. I do have issue with the concept of payment requires loss on one side, this goes to an age old mentality of not wanting others to have what you have without having them sacrifice like you did. I think this entire mindset is flawed as there is no need for it as long as the original creator is not losing out when their content is reacted to. Granted this is a very fine line and something tricky to actually even measure without using metrics to make an edjucated guess, but digital scarcity is not really a thing and attempting to define a fair reaction content exchange behind such an idea is a dangerous one. All that said I love the idea of reactions along side the original creator and it may be the best solution Ive heard yet... Only thing better would be UA-cam actually making the changes to their creator tools to allow creators to claim (not strike) reactions to their content and allow them to split revenue on a video, with options for claiming only a portion of the video so for example a reaction to 20 videos all uploaded in one bulk vod by a reaction channel could have up to those 20 original creators claim only their video being reacted to. If this was done right it would create tangible benifit to the creator in addition to any 'exposure' they may or may not be actually benefiting from. This of course would be allot of work and come with new problems we discover along the way, and would also require false claims to actually be dealt with by YT, but evolving the platform and supporting all creators and content styles is something I feel should be strongly supported.
UA-cam could DEFINITELY implement a system to remedy this, and it would make people consider UA-cam much better as a streaming platform than twitch, at least for this type of content.
Since UA-cam already has the video on the system, they could implement a system where you could, as you are streaming a "reaction", click on a button to signal to UA-cam that you are "reacting" to said video, and somehow push the video up on the algorithm, so that it gets more relevant.
They could also implement another system so that from any superchats that you receive from said reaction, a cut is delivered to the account of the original creator.
They could also implement a system so that you could tag a video as a reaction to another video from another content creator, and a cut of the revenue from your reaction gets sent to the OC as well.
UA-cam is the perfect environment for this, and it would create a really interesting environment, where creators would be more willing to interact with one another, and actually build a 'community', something that UA-cam used to have when it just started.
I love this idea. It is how it should be done. Only issue I have is the creators I would recommend release 2 - 8 hour videos and its hard to do a reaction to such long form content in the manner you are talking about (also no is doing a react to those videos because they are so long). I look forward to seeing this happen
I'm new to this MMO UA-cam game. It's good to see at least one person addressing the reaction meta in a constructive matter.
"A lot of these problems can be solved with a conversation."
I find this is true in a lot of walks of life with a lot of problems that come up yet a lot of people just don't think to do it.
Directors cut idea sounds great! I think that people simply asking for permission to react to videos would be a great step in the right direction. Have a small creator approves a larger creator to react to their video for the exposure then that's wonderful.
I very much like your project. I will gladly watch people reacting to it ;)
This is honestly a fantastic idea
I absolutely love this idea!
Please Josh, you are our saviour. Make it happen. You are the chosen man for this job. This is exactly what we need. Otherwise the future will be very braindead in these type of platforms.
fr tho, Josh going through his older MMO or Was it Good videos, and giving input on how those thoughts have changed, or just talking about the general writing process for that video seems like it would be interesting
I love this idea! I would watch the hell out of this
This is honestly a really cool idea
Wow, Josh. You are a freaking genius! You approach sounds like far better content than the average react channel, who just watches the video and is disrespectfull to the original creator. I think, you are on to somerthing and I hope you can change the YouTune landscape. I'm very excited. :D
Director's commentary is a great idea!
Ironically, how I was first introduced to your main channel was by way of an Asmongold Reacts a few years ago. I think it was the video on how a game should be good right away not 100 hours in. Been subbed to the main channel ever since.
So a few things, firstly I agree with Josh on this pretty much entirely and I think his idea is fantastic. I also have another idea but one that could be a lot harder to implement. Licensing your videos to specific creators for specific prices based on their reach, if they can profit off of your video, you should be fairly compensated in a tangible way. This can also extend to creators creating videos with a 'free' license, certain videos on their channel which anyone can react to but should at least be under the creative commons license that requires the user to credit the owner. Another extension of this could be to license these videos to a channel that specifically shows other content to hopefully boost their audience, this then means that streamers can tune into that channel like tv and depending on the license, if there's profit sharing or something then the creator can get something out of the reupload.
That's actually a super sick idea.
Feels similar to a format of what Mighty Teapot did when he had you on. I love it.
A good way for platforms to solve it would be if ALL the benefits are shared with the OP, with majority of the shared benefits going to them.
Like, their subscribe button comes first, the reactors is in a dropdown, likes count algorytmically for both creators, ad rev is mostly given to the OP, maybe even add a little 1 minute bit of video from the OP, that is automatically added to the reaction at the start or end or a space that HAS to be set and agreed to by both (either gives multiple ranked options, the other has to choose which fits best) that can contain a patreon ad, an ad read or whatever else non-inflammatory.
A harsher variant could add a "React VS exist" clause, that triggers when there are SIGNIFICANT chunks of the altered content (pixels indicating a webcam overlay, extra audio, pauses) are just not different enough, to catch and destroy "reactions" that just have the reactor sitting there in silence, until the "that vid was crazy, like and subscribe, see you next time, buy this specific razor with my code" message.
9:02 Once you explained the idea, I'm all for it. I think this is a much better way of "reacting" to a video than the "current meta".
I actually heard of Asmongold through you oddly enough. I found you through your "was it any good" series. Specifically, your video on Rayman. Presently you're actively leading me to go back and replay games I haven't touched in years.
Perfect! I'm really anticipating such a video. Can't call it reaction, more like a 'discussion' then =)
But, damn, great idea!
A nuanced, thoughtful take on this topic? SHOCKED.
Damn, I would love to get involved with this idea of reacting to the content with the content creator. As a mid-to-small sized content creator, where do I sign up?
It's such a brilliant idea and a great way to evolve the react meta
"If I can't compete with the react meta, I can't keep up". What's going to happen is that original content creators will start doing more reacts and soon UA-cam will just be reactors reacting to reacts.
The solution to that is for the sheep to stop watching the content of such creators.
I found your channel while looking up... well I have no fucking idea what I was looking up I think it was Henry Cavil but here I am. Respect your views and what you believe in.
The man with Schrödinger's vest
Josh is a modern pioneer ;)
I agree with you about reaction stuff. Your reaction ideas sound pretty interesting and would be miles ahead of what others typically do.
I don't watch react stuff and it makes me sad that so many people watch low effort videos that brain dead idiots crank out from watching other people's stuff and adding almost nothing of their own. "React" people contribute nothing and are literally leeching off of other people who work hard to make their own stuff. The people who watch it and argue about exposure are so ignorant and stupid. It's popular because most people are really really stupid and do not care about any of what they watch beyond "hur hur hur it make me laugh!!"
It's funny how communication generally solves a lot of problems. Who've thunk?
You teased DarkViper, I'm now expecting DarkViper XD
I may be a nobody but I think I have an idea of how an actual system can be implemented by the platform. TLDR: a pre-public automatic and/or manual 'flagging system' for marking videos as a reacts, and whereby original creator's post consent may be required, and 'profits' (views and likes, etc.) are shared in some way. Better clarified bellow.
If we wish for the platform to handle this instead of personal, conversational agreement between uploaders, then it will probably need to be rigorous. Else, UA-camrs will just need to find a way.
I definitely think Josh's idea is great and that it is in certain aspects an improvement, and am glad he is actually taking the time to handle the issue and change the way we deal with it.
The problem I have is that if you think about it, it either still diminishes/takes away from the traffic benefit the original creator would've gotten without the react existing, or leaves people with a reason to not watch the react in the first place...which is counterintuitive.
If it's too long, I'll be less likely to watch. If I do watch, I certainly won't be watching the original. If I've already watched the original, then maybe the react will still get my view from just a quick look, but if I can tell by the title and thumbnail that is a react, then I probably won't watch it. The tug of war between reactor and creator still lives on in some sense, even if to a much less impactful degree.
This method, however, does absolutely guarantee proper recognition and outreach of creator, and I feel like if streamers and reactors just made any attempt to ensure that their viewers gave the video a view, a like, and a potential comment and/or subscribe, this would be a hell lot better. It might even be enough to solve the problem completely.
But these things rely on the goodness of the streamer's/reactor's heart, and nothing guarantees anyone's cooperation. God only knows just how much react content poorly affects original creators - if we ignore them and it gets out of hand, they may leave.
So, we may need a system.
Just like how we flag videos for copyright, could UA-cam make a system that flags videos as "react content" of other UA-cam videos by looking for large extents of audiovisual footage of another video with little to no pauses?
Yes, it may be janky. Yes, it may be intrusive and also slow and technologically difficult to implement, but what else do we have as a systematic option?
In addition, there could become available an option for the uploader to pre-mark the video as a react if the system does not find it so. They will be able to choose which video it is. Obviously, this relies on the good spirit of the uploader. Maybe there can even be penalties for trying to get around it, albeit that is extreme.
If the system finds that a video is most likely react content, it will prompt the uploader with what this means for the video, and will ask them whether they want to continue with 'pre-posting' the video or not. There, tediously, would also have to be an option to appeal the detection system's findings if they're incorrect - this, here, is the part where it could be a massive problem for a lot of UA-camrs if the system is janky, but it has to be there if it is going to be implemented. Again, this is only an idea.
I'm thinking there could also be the option for the uploader to confirm what video theirs is being likened to, and, again, they can appeal on a basis of an incorrect finding. This, however, could be abused.
So, thusly, there'd be both an automatic method and a manual method, perhaps.
What a video being flagged could mean is that if the uploader chooses to continue, the video will be marked as a reaction, and a notice will be sent out to the original creator to permit or deny the upload going public. There could even be a chat, or personal options on their end to allow automatic admissions of reacts of their videos. This whole feature feels like a big maybe, but what else would be used to admit the video?
It is definitely reaching - it would probably require that the original creator be able to view the video before they themselves decide if it can go public or not, and this may cause problems. If it is allowed, then the uploader will need to be told this.
If it is allowed to go public, it means that it will be visibly noted as a react video, the page will feature channel and subscribe buttons for both the reactor and the creator, a single view will go to both the react and the original (it will be like as if you've watched both) and an option to check the original will also be available. Something like that. Finances will also have to be calculatively portioned off, some method for it will have to be found.
This is all just speculative - this is idea is probably horrible in many ways or even overall, or at least very intrusive for what may be a lot more of a minor problem than we think it is. There's also no say as to how it conflicts with fair use policy or the such, and again if it is janky it would be better to just not exist. But, if we want something that can save UA-camr's hassle of having to ask or nag, and also ensures the more nefarious of us aren't getting away with unfair use, then we need some kind of automation or incentive to mark react videos.
Because, in the end, my gut feeling is it's not really fair that hard working creators don't get the earned value for their work.
React videos would be nothing without the originals, commentary or not.
Josh creating future yt meta. I hope at least.
It's a good approach. I respect that you put your mind to it and try to make this better. I stopped watching Asmon's reacts because it feels like he basically only does these and nothing else. Yeah, it might be good business, but it is not fair. If he would put more work into it and creates some sort of structure, that would be different. But I definitely prefer to ask first and do it with the creator, as you planned.
The Mighty Jingles puts out 6 quality videos a week. Usually three of them are commentary on game replays, i suppose those could be considered similar to commentary but he does spend time sorting through replay files to find entertaining examples and scripts commentary etc.
Two days will be episodes of dune have he is playing and the last day will be an editorial on whatever he wants to rant about.
God I'd love a Matto and Josh collab, not gonna lie
Here's an argument I haven't heard yet in favor of low effort reaction content. For some of the personalities I follow on the internet there ends up being a parasocial aspect. Streamers that I have watched 10-20 hours a week for YEARS. This is not a discussion about whether or not that's healthy but I like many others who follow streamers have whole ass lives and friend groups and plans outside of doing things on the internet, but I cannot deny that the parasocial aspect is part of the deal. I don't watch XQC, but lets say that I did, that I tuned into all his streams *regardless* of what he's doing because I find him entertaining and I like his personality. Am I tuning into the react content for the content he's watching? Or am I tuning in because HE'S the person watching it? This ties into the next part of the argument, there's no guarantee that me viewing a video of someone else's work through the form of react content would also mean that I would view that content separate from the streamer. We cannot ignore it, we know its there and that its widespread. Why are people actually engaging in react content? In my humble opinion, parasocial activity is most likely the answer.
"until we can affect systemic change, we will affect personal change"
one of the better quotes
Damn, Josh is really making some big brain plays here.
Oh God, with this kind of reaction Josh is envisioning, I can't even imagine him bringing on Max0r, or some other chaotic guy, who edits like 2/second. How would that talk go? Not saying I wouldn't absolutely _LOVE_ to see it though :P
Josh with the Epic takes!
I like the idea, keep up the good work.👍
I quite like the directors commentary idea
I can't wait for current Josh sitting down with 2017 Josh talking about one of the old videos. Dont know where you would buy a time machine tho.
I like it, great idea, and lastly - Bring It!