> If a creator only pumps out high amounts of low quality content, they'll never gain a subscriber base.
How do you explain the youtuber phenomenon, then? Unfortunately there seems to be very little in terms of content rather than commentary, as the latter is so much cheaper to throw together with no money.
I have witnessed a group of people that watch youtube together, in the living room, via Chromecast. They employ auto-play (I mean the recommendation feature), lists, channels, etc.
The result is HOURS of "user attention". Which is specifically not the correct term... :) Sometimes they ignore a video and just chat.
But the point is, they use it as some people use a television. It's just "on".
Because of this, I've seen a lot of "top ten list of..." and "Did you know that...?" videos. Not to mention compilations of traffic mishaps and skateboarding fails.
Quality absolutely doesn't matter. Just ask Budweiser!
Exactly this. Quality is rarely a selling point when the product is cheap. People are happy to accept very poor stuff if the price is seeing an advert or entering an email address. Thinking you need to make a good video in order to get subscribers is very wrong; you need to make an entertaining video, and that's not the same thing at all.
People like different things. There are definitely some things on YouTube that are objectively low quality, but I think the genres/channels you're describing are just things that people other than yourself enjoy. The demographics of YouTube are no doubt different than the demographics of Hacker News.
Maybe food analogy is good? If you put on the table: potato chips and a green salad with grilled chicken which one would most people choose? Could people agree on the definition of "quality" in this case?
How do you explain the youtuber phenomenon, then? Unfortunately there seems to be very little in terms of content rather than commentary, as the latter is so much cheaper to throw together with no money.