YouTube offers creators millions to not work with Netflix
YouTube is offering millions of dollars to popular channels if they upload their videos to the site exclusively for a certain period of time, in an effort to halt Netflix Inc.’s pursuit of its biggest stars, according to people familiar with the conversations.
The payment would come in a couple of different forms.
YouTube has discussed directly financing some programs, and it has also offered to allot a portion of major brand deals to creators.
Though YouTube hasn’t finalized deals with any creators, it is close an agreement with several partners, said the people, who declined to be identified because the negotiations are sensitive and ongoing.
Creators who do sign deals with Netflix face consequences, YouTube has said, according to the people.
YouTube will be less likely to feature them in marketing campaigns or at events if they release videos on Netflix at the same time.
YouTube would also exclude those creators from collecting a share of proceeds from some major brand campaigns.
Netflix has been pursuing agreements with dozens of prominent YouTubers , paying creators such as Alan Chikin Chow and Nick DiGiovanni to post their videos on YouTube and Netflix concurrently.
The company remains in active conversations with dozens of other creators, channels and programs, such as , a celebrity talk show.
The Netflix deals appeal to creators because they are a way to get paid millions of additional dollars for videos they are already making and expose their programming to new viewers.
Netflix has more than 325 million subscribers.
Yet YouTube has told creators cross-posting on its platform and Netflix hurts viewership on YouTube and conveys the idea that channels are deprioritizing the streaming platform as their primary distribution outlet.
Some creators have already decided not to work with Netflix.
The service requires them to deliver videos days in advance, which is not how many creators operate.
5News aggregated this summary from the outlet’s public feed. The full article, with all the context, is on fortune.com — the content belongs to Fortune.