IDB

alittledizzy wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:01 pm
(Which is not to say that I don't think they'd ever leave. I just think that should they leave it would be a more natural side effect of the platform itself eroding away.)

blackdenim wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:45 pm

alittledizzy wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:01 pm
(Which is not to say that I don't think they'd ever leave. I just think that should they leave it would be a more natural side effect of the platform itself eroding away.)

I agree. I think Phil, at least, will be uploading to YouTube until its demise, simply because he's been there from the beginning.

The more cynical part of me thinks what would Dan (and Phil to a lesser extent, because he has his film qualifications and a YT channel/showreel of - let's face it - more creative early work than Dan's, so perhaps he could get work in film/TV but he would have to start near-ish the bottom I suspect) do if they weren't on YouTube.

Yes, they're rich, but they're not 'retire in their 30's and never work again' rich. The BBC seems to have stopped offering them work - or at least they've not been taking it, which isn't a great way to keep relationships going in that world. Neither of them are undeniably talented actors (they're both passable I would say), and they don't have much experience writing or producing proper sketches/comedy that could be on TV (like PJ/Jack and Dean) Their book wasn't exactly a literary masterpiece either, so it's not like they could easily embark on a writing career.

Basically, a lot of the skills YouTube teaches you that you can turn into a more traditional career, Dan and Phil haven't particularly capitalised on so far. All their side projects (merch, Truthbombs, TATINOF/whatever this new thing is) are contingent on them continuing to maintain an online presence with a loyal audience, and the easiest way for them to do that is to continue uploading videos. So I definitely don't think they'll stop in the near future, particularly if they do want a dog and a forever home, something's got to be paying the bills for them.

I don't think this is a bad thing by the way, I think they're both quite loyal to YouTube as a platform and are probably grateful for what it's given them so they want to stick by it as long as possible. They might not seem to have a great passion for making videos but they both still seem to have a basic desire if that makes sense?

With regards to the calendar ending, I don't think it's a big deal - we don't actually know if it has ended yet anyway; there's a year before they really have to make a decision on that. But if they didn't enjoy the photoshoots (other than getting to hang with dogs this year) and/or they're out of fresh ideas, they might as well retire it I guess. Otherwise they would just end up putting out a sub-par product out for the sake of it and they don't seem like those type of people to me.

hello9217 wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:57 pm

blackdenim wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:45 pm
The more cynical part of me thinks what would Dan (and Phil to a lesser extent, because he has his film qualifications and a YT channel/showreel of - let's face it - more creative early work than Dan's, so perhaps he could get work in film/TV but he would have to start near-ish the bottom I suspect) do if they weren't on YouTube.

Yes, they're rich, but they're not 'retire in their 30's and never work again' rich. The BBC seems to have stopped offering them work - or at least they've not been taking it, which isn't a great way to keep relationships going in that world. Neither of them are undeniably talented actors (they're both passable I would say), and they don't have much experience writing or producing proper sketches/comedy that could be on TV (like PJ/Jack and Dean) Their book wasn't exactly a literary masterpiece either, so it's not like they could easily embark on a writing career.

Basically, a lot of the skills YouTube teaches you that you can turn into a more traditional career, Dan and Phil haven't particularly capitalised on so far. All their side projects (merch, Truthbombs, TATINOF/whatever this new thing is) are contingent on them continuing to maintain an online presence with a loyal audience, and the easiest way for them to do that is to continue uploading videos. So I definitely don't think they'll stop in the near future, particularly if they do want a dog and a forever home, something's got to be paying the bills for them.

I often think about this. Not just with Dan and Phil but with youtubers in general. I think Phil will be fine. Before Youtube took off Phil was offered some editing jobs on high production film sets. He was also offered a job to edit porn lol. But anyways I think his degrees and early film work have him set. Dan on the other hand... well you can't really get a job by being relatable. But I think if Dan wanted to he would be a good presenter. He could also take Jim Chapman's route, he writes articles for GQ. I also see him being a music reviewer. There are options for him but I know some people think Dan and Phil will become the new Ant and Dec. I honestly can't see it because I feel like after Youtube ends they, Phil especially, will kind of want to be out of the limelight and properly settle down.

mm_sunny1993 wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:27 am I mean do we really know what any youtuber will do after youtube? Youtube hasn't been around for long enough for someone to actually 'retire' from it so almost everything could happen. Some youtubers might invest money and earn enough to live from it. Others will need to find different jobs afterwards or some will try to stay relevant and make videos for many many more years. I think we can't know what will happend with youtubers and youtube in general.

malday wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:15 am Big youtubers that are still active, who started out as kids making silly videos for fun, like Smosh or Ryan Higa, evolved and established production companies to make regular content for their channels. Lilly Singh did the same.
D&P's channels are about them and their lives, i think the more personal their content is the harder it will be to keep people interested as they get older. If they're not producing skits or presenting a show, or have a theme for their channel, i think youtube "stars" have a limited time in which they are relevant.

Skylar wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:43 pm fun fact i think i actually had dan singing the llama song as my ringtone at one point. and the rave time song..as well as "can you please get murdered on a different road, i'm trying to film"..that was like..omg. in 2013 or 2014..jesus

also i think im the only one excited for pinof 9.. :c

edit: top of the page oh no

rainydays wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:07 pm If anyone's curious about the next gaming video...

EDIT: I've just checked and the expansion pack is coming out on November 10 apparently.. so I guess new sims video in the weekend?

blackdenim wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:45 pm

alittledizzy wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:01 pm
(Which is not to say that I don't think they'd ever leave. I just think that should they leave it would be a more natural side effect of the platform itself eroding away.)

I agree. I think Phil, at least, will be uploading to YouTube until its demise, simply because he's been there from the beginning.

The more cynical part of me thinks what would Dan (and Phil to a lesser extent, because he has his film qualifications and a YT channel/showreel of - let's face it - more creative early work than Dan's, so perhaps he could get work in film/TV but he would have to start near-ish the bottom I suspect) do if they weren't on YouTube.

Yes, they're rich, but they're not 'retire in their 30's and never work again' rich. The BBC seems to have stopped offering them work - or at least they've not been taking it, which isn't a great way to keep relationships going in that world. Neither of them are undeniably talented actors (they're both passable I would say), and they don't have much experience writing or producing proper sketches/comedy that could be on TV (like PJ/Jack and Dean) Their book wasn't exactly a literary masterpiece either, so it's not like they could easily embark on a writing career.

Basically, a lot of the skills YouTube teaches you that you can turn into a more traditional career, Dan and Phil haven't particularly capitalised on so far. All their side projects (merch, Truthbombs, TATINOF/whatever this new thing is) are contingent on them continuing to maintain an online presence with a loyal audience, and the easiest way for them to do that is to continue uploading videos. So I definitely don't think they'll stop in the near future, particularly if they do want a dog and a forever home, something's got to be paying the bills for them.

I don't think this is a bad thing by the way, I think they're both quite loyal to YouTube as a platform and are probably grateful for what it's given them so they want to stick by it as long as possible. They might not seem to have a great passion for making videos but they both still seem to have a basic desire if that makes sense?

With regards to the calendar ending, I don't think it's a big deal - we don't actually know if it has ended yet anyway; there's a year before they really have to make a decision on that. But if they didn't enjoy the photoshoots (other than getting to hang with dogs this year) and/or they're out of fresh ideas, they might as well retire it I guess. Otherwise they would just end up putting out a sub-par product out for the sake of it and they don't seem like those type of people to me.

rizzo wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:43 am I think what they'll do post-youtube (because one day there will be a post-youtube for them, I'm sure) will still be youtube/social media in some capacity. Even if that means becoming professionals at the behind-the-scenes stuff, like merch and overall brand building, perhaps for others.

hello9217 wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:25 am Also something to add on. Youtube has an algorithm, which is said to favor some content over others... Considering dan and phil have never had to drastically change anything in how they make videos and have never click baited, not that I can remember, and yet they still manage to keep an audience it's honestly amazing.

rizzo wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:43 am I also genuinely think (and hope) that Dan and Phil have made some good investments at this point

tacitus wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:28 am

rizzo wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:43 am I also genuinely think (and hope) that Dan and Phil have made some good investments at this point

Sorry, this reminded me of something lmao. I remember a few years back people were talking about some conspiracy where YouTubers, like, invested overseas or paid their taxes in a different country so they wouldn't have to pay as much? And there was a reasonably large discussion about whether Dan and Phil did that too? Was that a thing that actually happened or am I just imagining it? Anyone wanna enlighten me?

hello9217 wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:25 am Also something to add on. Youtube has an algorithm, which is said to favor some content over others. In 2013-2015 gamers and vloggers were really benefitting from this. That's why it was primetime and a lot of youtubers hit a million subscribers then. I think part of the reason you see people like Safiya doing really well is because Youtube favors her content right now, i.e. she usually is trending and shows up in recommended for people, that's how I found her. I like her videos so it's not like she doesn't deserve it but she makes light-hearted content and doesn't cuss so Youtube will obviously want her to be a featured creator. You can see it with other creators too like Liza Koshy and Casey Neistat. I remember Dan said in his liveshow once that he was surprised one of his videos made it to trending because he cusses and therefore doesn't get featured. So I think Dan and Phil are doing extremely well when you compare them to the likes of other creators that used to be popular in 2013-2015 and now can barely hit a million. Considering dan and phil have never had to drastically change anything in how they make videos and have never click baited, not that I can remember, and yet they still manage to keep an audience it's honestly amazing.

Kimship wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:15 pm

LtrllySusan wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:49 pm

Kimship wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:42 pm

In TomSka's latest Last Week he and his friends play Truth Bombs (@7:50). He then has a quick and interesting talk about his income and how money relates to a viewer's relationship with a youtuber.

That was really interesting! I don't watch Tom but I appreciate his honesty and transparency in the clips that I've seen here and there.

Yeah, I only watch his main videos occasionally, but I will, more often, watch his Last Week vlogs. I generally find the behind-the-scenes stuff just as, if not more, interesting than the end product, but that's true for me for books, movies and tv, too. I love the nitty-gritty process, planning, and business side of things. It's fun to see how things are put together and work.

Skylar wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:43 pm fun fact i think i actually had dan singing the llama song as my ringtone at one point. and the rave time song..as well as "can you please get murdered on a different road, i'm trying to film"..that was like..omg. in 2013 or 2014..jesus

also i think im the only one excited for pinof 9.. :c

edit: top of the page oh no

Katka wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:14 am Degrees don't really lose their worth unless your whole field of expertise dissappears so Phil's degree would absolutely still have relevance if he wanted to use it for something. He'd probably have to brush up his skills, yes, but it's not like people would be like "this degree is from ten years ago, better go back to uni, boy." Also we don't really know what he can actually do, I'm pretty sure what we've seen on Youtube is not the extent of his skills and I'm pretty sure his postgraduate programme taught him more than just editing as well. That said I'd love to know if Phil is even still interested enough in this line of work to put his degree to use should he ever leave Youtube. I mean, he also has a degree in English linguistics but I really can't see him wanting to use that unless he has a hidden passion for the English language he doesn't talk about.

alittledizzy wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:04 am

malday wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:15 am Big youtubers that are still active, who started out as kids making silly videos for fun, like Smosh or Ryan Higa, evolved and established production companies to make regular content for their channels. Lilly Singh did the same.
D&P's channels are about them and their lives, i think the more personal their content is the harder it will be to keep people interested as they get older. If they're not producing skits or presenting a show, or have a theme for their channel, i think youtube "stars" have a limited time in which they are relevant.

I agree with this, though I would point out that Lilly Singh and Smosh are both suffering worse views than Dan or Phil so they don't come off as the positive half of this comparison. Smosh has 22 million subscribers and they're doing good to break two million views on a video. Three seems to be their high end - the last video to do exceptionally well with six million was... the video where Anthony said he was leaving. Same with Lilly - 12.5 million subscribers, her videos get an average of 2-3 million with a few spiking higher but not that many and not with any regularity.

So in that regard, Dan and Phil being personality based and having a core audience that is there to watch them means that they're retaining a ratio of subs to viewers that exceeds their skit-based peers. If you switch from comparing their personal channel to the gaming channel - DAPG gets 1/3 the views they have subscribers. And because Dan and Phil's money (yes, I'm assuming this) goes into the same general pool it means they're benefiting from three very solid channels and not just one. (Setting aside that Smosh is a business - more channels, more revenue, but also way more expenses, etc etc. Or even Lilly - she's paying a team of hair and makeup and camera people and extras and buying props for her sketches that pull in 2-3 million views, Dan and Phil literally just show up and sit down and hit record and do half that easily.)

malday wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:12 pm

alittledizzy wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:04 am

malday wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:15 am Big youtubers that are still active, who started out as kids making silly videos for fun, like Smosh or Ryan Higa, evolved and established production companies to make regular content for their channels. Lilly Singh did the same.
D&P's channels are about them and their lives, i think the more personal their content is the harder it will be to keep people interested as they get older. If they're not producing skits or presenting a show, or have a theme for their channel, i think youtube "stars" have a limited time in which they are relevant.

I agree with this, though I would point out that Lilly Singh and Smosh are both suffering worse views than Dan or Phil so they don't come off as the positive half of this comparison. Smosh has 22 million subscribers and they're doing good to break two million views on a video. Three seems to be their high end - the last video to do exceptionally well with six million was... the video where Anthony said he was leaving. Same with Lilly - 12.5 million subscribers, her videos get an average of 2-3 million with a few spiking higher but not that many and not with any regularity.

So in that regard, Dan and Phil being personality based and having a core audience that is there to watch them means that they're retaining a ratio of subs to viewers that exceeds their skit-based peers. If you switch from comparing their personal channel to the gaming channel - DAPG gets 1/3 the views they have subscribers. And because Dan and Phil's money (yes, I'm assuming this) goes into the same general pool it means they're benefiting from three very solid channels and not just one. (Setting aside that Smosh is a business - more channels, more revenue, but also way more expenses, etc etc. Or even Lilly - she's paying a team of hair and makeup and camera people and extras and buying props for her sketches that pull in 2-3 million views, Dan and Phil literally just show up and sit down and hit record and do half that easily.)

I agree D&P are doing pretty well, but i don't think using the subs to video views ratio is a good way to compare youtubers. If you did that you could say PDP is doing worse than D&P, but he's not.