This week’s TIME cover story, which is illustrated by the artist-activist Ai Weiwei, examines China’s place in the world.
Read a preview of the story here.
(Art by Ai Weiwei for TIME, Typography by Post Typography)
5 things newmanbrian likes Explore more popular stuff on Tumblr →
-
Lessons Learned from YouTube's $300M Hole
THiS WALL OF TEXT IS ABOUT BUSINESS AND ONLINE VIDEO IF YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT THAT STUFF KEEP SCROLLING I WILL POST MORE CAT GIFS SOON
For those of you who don’t know, John and I were recipients of part of YouTube’s “Original Channel” funding initiative. We used that money to start Crash Course and SciShow. We were extremely excited to get the chance to have some real capital to spend on content, and the result has been great…we are extremely grateful to be a part of this program.
It was a great thing for us…but it might have been a bit of a dopey idea.
There were a lot of recipients of this money, and many of them were major media companies trying their hand at online video that received some fat checks, up to $5M a piece, to launch TV-like channels. What we all found out is that, no matter how hard you push them and how much money you spend on them, YouTube doesn’t work like TV…and funding it that way is daft.
Of the 114 channels that YouTube funded as part of this initiative, my educated guess is that exactly one earned back its advance…SourceFed, the four-times-daily news show from Phil DeFranco’s studio. Hardly traditional media…SourceFed is gritty, low-budget, written by its hosts, and edited by a tiny team.
Most of the channels that did well had comparatively small budgets and were run by people who had made online video before. Some great content got made, some of my favorite channels wouldn’t exist without the initiative. SciShow and CrashCourse are not doing terribly, at this rate, we’ll earn out our advance in about three years.
To be clear though, the vast majority of these channels will never earn out their advances.
But some lessons were learned (or are being learned) by this initiative, and they are valuable. I don’t know if they’re worth $300M, but as a recipient of a small fraction of that, I really have no place to complain.
Here are some of those lessons:
- Spending more money to produce the same number of minutes of content does not increase viewership. Online video isn’t about how good it looks, it’s about how good it is.
- People who make online video are much better at making online video than people who make TV shows. This probably seems obvious to you (it certainly is to me) but it apparently was not obvious to the people originally distributing this money.
- When advertising agencies tell you they want something (higher quality content, long-form content, specific demographics, lean-back content, stuff that looks like tv) it’s not our job to attempt to deliver those things. In a world where the user really does get to choose, the content created to satisfy the needs and wants of viewers (not advertisers) will always reign supreme (thankfully.)
YouTube is now experimenting with much smaller grants (a tenth to a fifth of the size of the original grants) awarded largely to people who have experience making online video (the new MentalFloss channel is funded by one of these grants.) This indicates that they’ve learned the first two lessons.
With regards to the last lesson, allow me to submit to any YouTube employees out there that the ad agency doesn’t have the power in this equation. YouTube is a young company, it does not need to convert 100% of its value to dollars. Please, let the advertisers figure out for themselves how to tackle this very new medium instead of trying to shape the medium to meet their needs.
Seems to me, that’s the strategy that got Google where it is today.
-
Prosecutor as bully

(Some will say this is not the time. I disagree. This is the time when every mixed emotion needs to find voice.)
Since his arrest in January, 2011, I have known more about the events that began this spiral than I have wanted to know. Aaron consulted me as a friend and lawyer. He shared with me what went down and why, and I worked with him to get help. When my obligations to Harvard created a conflict that made it impossible for me to continue as a lawyer, I continued as a friend. Not a good enough friend, no doubt, but nothing was going to draw that friendship into doubt.
The billions of snippets of sadness and bewilderment spinning across the Net confirm who this amazing boy was to all of us. But as I’ve read these aches, there’s one strain I wish we could resist:
Please don’t pathologize this story.
No doubt it is a certain crazy that brings a person as loved as Aaron was loved (and he was surrounded in NY by people who loved him) to do what Aaron did. It angers me that he did what he did. But if we’re going to learn from this, we can’t let slide what brought him here.
First, of course, Aaron brought Aaron here. As I said when I wrote about the case (when obligations required I say something publicly), if what the government alleged was true — and I say “if” because I am not revealing what Aaron said to me then — then what he did was wrong. And if not legally wrong, then at least morally wrong. The causes that Aaron fought for are my causes too. But as much as I respect those who disagree with me about this, these means are not mine.
But all this shows is that if the government proved its case, some punishment was appropriate. So what was that appropriate punishment? Was Aaron a terrorist? Or a cracker trying to profit from stolen goods? Or was this something completely different?
Early on, and to its great credit, JSTOR figured “appropriate” out: They declined to pursue their own action against Aaron, and they asked the government to drop its. MIT, to its great shame, was not as clear, and so the prosecutor had the excuse he needed to continue his war against the “criminal” who we who loved him knew as Aaron.
Here is where we need a better sense of justice, and shame. For the outrageousness in this story is not just Aaron. It is also the absurdity of the prosecutor’s behavior. From the beginning, the government worked as hard as it could to characterize what Aaron did in the most extreme and absurd way. The “property” Aaron had “stolen,” we were told, was worth “millions of dollars” — with the hint, and then the suggestion, that his aim must have been to profit from his crime. But anyone who says that there is money to be made in a stash of ACADEMIC ARTICLES is either an idiot or a liar. It was clear what this was not, yet our government continued to push as if it had caught the 9/11 terrorists red-handed.
Aaron had literally done nothing in his life “to make money.” He was fortunate Reddit turned out as it did, but from his work building the RSS standard, to his work architecting Creative Commons, to his work liberating public records, to his work building a free public library, to his work supporting Change Congress/FixCongressFirst/Rootstrikers, and then Demand Progress, Aaron was always and only working for (at least his conception of) the public good. He was brilliant, and funny. A kid genius. A soul, a conscience, the source of a question I have asked myself a million times: What would Aaron think? That person is gone today, driven to the edge by what a decent society would only call bullying. I get wrong. But I also get proportionality. And if you don’t get both, you don’t deserve to have the power of the United States government behind you.
For remember, we live in a world where the architects of the financial crisis regularly dine at the White House — and where even those brought to “justice” never even have to admit any wrongdoing, let alone be labeled “felons.”
In that world, the question this government needs to answer is why it was so necessary that Aaron Swartz be labeled a “felon.” For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar trial in April — his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge. And so as wrong and misguided and fucking sad as this is, I get how the prospect of this fight, defenseless, made it make sense to this brilliant but troubled boy to end it.
Fifty years in jail, charges our government. Somehow, we need to get beyond the “I’m right so I’m right to nuke you” ethics that dominates our time. That begins with one word: Shame.
One word, and endless tears.
-
Kickstarter and the NEA
In an interview last week with the website Talking Points Memo, I mentioned to reporter Carl Franzen that it was probable that more money would be pledged on Kickstarter in the coming year than would be distributed by the NEA. My reasoning was:
- The NEA’s 2012 budget is $146 million
- More than $150 million has been pledged lifetime on Kickstarter
- In 2011, $99,344,382 was pledged to projects on Kickstarter
- The last three months have been the biggest in Kickstarter’s young history
As the Talking Points Memo reporter noted on Twitter today, in our original conversation I was adamant that while we are proud of this growth, the fact that Kickstarter may soon be bigger than the NEA is something we have mixed feelings about.
Kickstarter does not see itself as or want to be a replacement for the NEA or any other grant-making organization. The lack of support for creative projects led us to start Kickstarter in the first place, and we’re committed to helping to grow the pie of available funding in whatever way that we can. We would happily be a distant second, third, fourth, or fiftieth in arts funding if it meant more of it was available.
I mention these things because today the writer Clay Johnson, author of The Information Diet (a book I look forward to reading), took strong exception to this comparison in a blog post. However in his argument, much of it a spirited defense of the NEA that I fully endorse, he shared a number of inaccurate statistics and conclusions. I’d like to go through and correct these point-by-point. Let’s jump right into the meat of his argument.
Quoting the post:
“I took the top ten funded projects of each category on Kickstarter page, and added them up. Here’s a breakdown of the project sums in each category:

The Design category represents the largest portion of highly-funded projects on Kickstarter.com. To give you a sense of what this category is: 6 out of the top ten projects are marketed as accessories for the iPhone or other apple related projects… The second largest category is technology at 17.3. While this category is less apple-centric (there is only one iPhone accessory item in this category), we’re still not close to finding anything close to the kind of “art” that the National Endowment for the Arts actually funds.”
None of these percentages are accurate. Looking at the top ten most-funded to determine overall funding is certainly a methodology but it is a distorted one. Clay writes that design and technology make up 50% of funds on Kickstarter. Let’s look at the percentages based on the actual numbers:
Film — 33%
Music — 21%
Design — 11%
Art — 6%
Publishing — 5%
Games — 5%
Technology — 5%
Theater — 4%
Food — 3%
Comics — 3%
Photography — 2%
Fashion — 1%
Dance — 1%Combined, Design and Technology make up 16% of dollars pledged on Kickstarter. A far cry from 50%. And note that the Design category is much more than Apple accessories. It’s also print design, graphic design, open-source fonts, and many more design-related projects.
Here’s Clay again:
“Let’s be generous and say that 7 of Kickstarter’s categories actually overlap in some way with the NEA’s general mission: Art, Dance, Film Music, Photography, Publishing, and Theater. That total comes up to about 28% of the top funded projects on Kickstarter. Presuming that distributions are equal amongst all the categories (which they are likely not, but again, it’s already an unfair comparison), and you take Strickler’s 150 Million dollar projection for 2012, then you get ~$42 Million.”
Again, these numbers are very wrong. Here are the lifetime dollar amounts pledged by category:
Film — $50.8m
Music — $32.5m
Design — $17.5m
Art — $8.8m
Publishing — $8.2m
Games — $8m
Technology — $7.9m
Theater — $6.5m
Food — $5m
Comics — $4m
Photography — $3.4m
Fashion — $2m
Dance — $1.6mAnd here are dollars collected by category (meaning funds disbursed to project creators, a more accurate comparison for the NEA):
Film — $41.3m
Music — $28.3m
Design — $15m
Art — $7.5m
Technology — $6.5m
Publishing — $6.3m
Theater — $5.7m
Games — $4.6m
Food — $3.8m
Comics — $3.5m
Photography — $2.8m
Fashion — $1.5m
Dance — $1.4mThose seven categories that Clay mentioned have seen a combined $93.3 million in successful pledges and account for more than 69% of all dollars pledged. Both of these totals are more than double what he states.
“This comparison is unfortunate because Kickstarter and the NEA are two very different things, and have two very different missions. Comparing what Kickstarter to the NEA is like saying Facebook has organized more working-class americans than the AFL-CIO: it only makes sense if you’re completely ignorant of the function of either.”
Completely agreed that the NEA and Kickstarter are two very different things. By design Kickstarter is very different from traditional funding channels like grants and investment. Our mission is simply to enable creativity to find funding and support, which I don’t believe is far from the NEA’s goals.
“[T]he NEA is not only worried about the production of art, but also about ensuring access to it both geographically and educationally.”
Clay highlights the ways in which the NEA provides access to arts funding and education, and I completely agree that these are valuable contributions to our society. I would assert that access is one of the key things that Kickstarter provides as well. Not everyone has the time or means to fill out a grant application or has an idea that will appeal to a record label or film studio. Kickstarter provides access for anyone in the United States to find funding for their creative project.
While different in approach than the NEA and others, Kickstarter shares the same goals of supporting the creation of art. It’s a mission we’re proud of and hope to continue in the future.
-
Yesterday we did a historic thing. We generated 87,834 phone calls to U.S. Representatives in a concerted effort to protect the Internet. Extraordinary. There’s no doubt that we’ve been heard.
So just to keep you updated: The well-intentioned, but immensely flawed “Stop Online Piracy Act” is still in the House Judiciary Committee. The hearing was yesterday and now members will debate and bring amendments to the bill. The Committee will reconvene in a few weeks — the date has yet to be scheduled. Nothing has been brought to a final vote. Everything is still very much in play. We’ll keep you posted on what’s going on and what you can do to help. But for now, we want to thank you.
One encouraging thing we heard yesterday:
I don’t believe this bill has any chance on the House floor. I think it’s way too extreme, it infringes on too many areas that our leadership will know is simply too dangerous to do in its current form.
— Representative Darrell Issa
We also want to express our tremendous gratitude to our friends at Mobile Commons who, on 30 minutes notice, hooked us up with their amazing platform (and provided their expertise) to automatically connect callers with their Representatives.


