Amazon's Twitch Seeks To Revamp Creator Pay With Focus on Profit

Twitch, the Amazon-owned live-streaming website, is weighing potential changes to how it pays top talent, Bloomberg reported Wednesday, citing people familiar with the planning, an effort that would boost its profits but would also risk alienating some of its biggest stars. From a report: The updates under consideration would offer incentives for streamers to run more ads. The proposal would also reduce the proportion of subscription fees doled out to the site's biggest performers, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private. Some changes to Twitch's monetization structure could be implemented as soon as this summer, the people said. Twitch staff is considering paring back the revenue cut of channel subscriptions granted to the top echelon of streamers in its so-called partnerships program to 50%, from 70%. Another option is to create multiple tiers and set criteria for how to qualify for each one, two of the people said. In exchange, Twitch may offer to release partners from exclusivity restrictions, allowing them to stream on Google's YouTube or Facebook.

Yikes

[muh_freeze_peach]

There are some really great streamers that I like to support, if they cut revenues I will just donate to offset. But seems like a decision that will lead to some big streamers looking at alternatives ?

Re:

[muh_freeze_peach]

I view it like any other form of entertainment. They are providing entertainment for free with ads, and if the streamer creates content that I like then I certainly don't mind throwing them a fiver to avoid the commercials.

Re: Yikes

[carterhawk001]

So you never seen a movie and watch someone pretend instead of work in an office, or never gone to a sports arena and watched someone play a game instead of collect shopping carts from a parking lot, you've certainly never been to a concert where thousands are paying good money to watch someone make noise and dance about instead of a proper job like driving a truck down the highway? Tell me, what counts as "real work" to you? Clearly those who provide entertainment and cultural interest don't count, so let's hear your take on it then.

Re:

[SlashDotCanSuckMy777]

My Queen will notice me if I sub at Tier 3 for enough months! /s

YouTube

[Major_Disorder]

They did this, then half the channels I watched moved over to Twitch.
Maybe it is time for someone to start up a new streaming service.

Re:YouTube

[rudy_wayne]

Maybe it is time for someone to start up a new streaming service.

No, we need to stop allowing a handful of big companies from buying up everyone else. As soon as a small company starts looking like it might be successful, Google/Apple/Amazon/Microsoft comes in and buys them.

Re:

[muh_freeze_peach]

Maybe it is time for someone to start up a new streaming service.

MSFT tried and died with Mixer. They had to pay Shroud 25 million dollars for that dick-up. Maybe there are some passionate folks out there with the desire and know-how to come up with a competing service, if/when Amazon decides that Twitch doesn't want to pay for content anymore.

That will go over like a steel balloon

[OfMiceAndMenus]

If you start taking even more away from Twitch content creators who already struggle to make ends meet with the pittance Amazon deems they deserve they're just going to stop streaming or go somewhere else. There are constant complaints on partnered streamers channels about the number of ads, and I can't imagine anyone will stick around or forego adblockers if they add more.

Really, Amazon... 8x 1-minute ads once an hour and prerolls every time you open a stream isn't enough, you money-grubbing morons?

Ther

Re:

[Xenx]

And Twitch/Amazon seem fine with that, which makes them evil and bad at their one job.

If you boil it down to one job, it is to make money. That is their goal. Not saying anything malicious about it, I'm just stating a fact. The issue is that they have more than one job, as they need to provide a service people want to use, and are leaning too heavily towards the money making.

I'm not defending their choice in the matter, but they would be doing themselves a disservice if they didn't try to maximize their profits. However, that ultimately comes down to balancing profit to user retention.

Re:

[OfMiceAndMenus]

If you think about it objectively, there's an easy path to very high user retention. Make the service usable, attractive, and functional. Everything else comes second. Facebook gaming is pretty awful, beyond having to use Facebook to view it. YouTube livestreams are kind of an afterthought and not particularly good in the community sense of streaming. Twitch has a nearly captive audience, and it's pissing on them while fanning itself with their cash.
The company makes money hand-over-fist, always has, alwa

Re:

[Xenx]

Prioritizing profit over creator/user comfort and survivability while already making mountains of money isn't good business sense, it's pure shitty greed. It's all of Amazon and its subsidiaries' primary M.O. now.

Prioritizing creator/user comfort over profit is terrible business sense. Finding an acceptable balance is good business sense. The problem is that it's an ever changing goal. Different generations find different things acceptable. Each individual will find different things acceptable. Their goal is to find the things that bring them the most money, without pissing off the majority of their users... or while bringing in enough new users to replace them.

Re:

[OfMiceAndMenus]

It's only terrible business sense in a business-only sense when ignoring the reality that business operates in.

If you don't keep people who make your content, or view your content, you lose your platform entirely and there's no business to make sense of.

If Amazon or Twitch actually made the content that is provided on Twitch, it would be a very different story. As it stands, Twitch basically produces nothing itself except a way for creators to reach viewers.

Re:

[Xenx]

It's only terrible business sense in a business-only sense when ignoring the reality that business operates in. If you don't keep people who make your content, or view your content, you lose your platform entirely and there's no business to make sense of.

I've never said otherwise. My point is that they don't want user retention at the cost of profit. They want profit first, and user retention is a close (arguably) second. They can afford to lose some users, as long as they make up for it in profit per remaining user.

Re:

[farble1670]

ultimately comes down to balancing profit to user retention.

I'm sure they have thought more about user retention in the last second than any of us have in our lifetimes.

Where are people going to go. They essentially have a monopoly. Any streamer that jumps ship to Youtube or somewhere even less well known is going to do much worse than if they just accept this change at Twitch. If a corporation isn't throwing its market weight around it's not doing its job.

Re:

[Xenx]

Oh, I don't doubt they factored their overwhelming leading position into their decision. However, if they make it bad enough people will leave regardless. I'm sure that's why they're only talking about it right now.

Re:

[Rockoon]

Live Streaming Gaming doesnt mix with advertisers, and any shit in the game can play copyrighted music that brings you one notch closer to being a Banned Streamer.

Re:

[farble1670]

it's been solidly transitioning from a game site with gaming content streams to an advertising site with stupid chicks in bikinis

And that's a smart business move. Reference: Onlyfans.

I think big tech is getting desperate.

[Otis B. Dilroy III]

It seems that big tech, the perennial espousers of self-regulation, feel the cold hand of history moving against their stolen fortunes. And, rather than clean up their acts in the slightest, they take actions which do nothing but provide ammunition to their foes. It's almost sad, but not quite.

You're in bed with Jeff Bezos

[doubledown00]

Of fucking course they're going to look to cut back on what they pay the talent. Many came over to the platform after Youtube and others did a similar thing. Where the hell are you going to go now?

It's a tale as old as radio: Talent is expendable and replaceable. It is a cost to be managed. If someone is replaced, sure some people will complain for a little while. But we just keep right on going as if nothing happened, a la Suzanne Somers from Three's Company.

Re: You're in bed with Jeff Bezos

[RegistrationIsDumb83]

My friends who are into this have specific personalities they watch. No one cares about the platform. If those streamers tweeted a rtsp link, they'd watch directly in VLC. Content is king.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

Of fucking course they're going to look to cut back on what they pay the talent. Many came over to the platform after Youtube and others did a similar thing. Where the hell are you going to go now?

It's a tale as old as radio: Talent is expendable and replaceable. It is a cost to be managed. If someone is replaced, sure some people will complain for a little while. But we just keep right on going as if nothing happened, a la Suzanne Somers from Three's Company.

Easy, you do it yourself.

No reaosn why YouTube o

Re:

[Digital Avatar]

I don't understand how everything changed where if you want to post a video of something, we went from putting it on your website to relying on services like YouTube to do it for us.

Easy: The Internet went from being a couple hundred thousand university students to two thirds of the planet, advertising turned everyone into an attention-seeker, and now to get any kind of attention you either have to know how to build your own marketing campaign across multiple sites or you're dependent on someone else's algo

Overpriced

[farble1670]

A Twitch sub is a minimum of $4.99 per creator, and it gets you... an ad free stream (and some other garbage like special emojis, I think). $4.99 feels real overpriced to watch someone play a game (or dance around in their underwear in some cases).

Compare this to Youtube Premium, which is $14.99 for everything ad free... much more and varied content, and higher production value in general. Or a $14.99 HBO Max sub. Or a $14.99 Netflix sub. Most normal people can pick or choose from a handful of these type of

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Never heard of Twitch Turbo? I know most Twitch users haven't, but I thought Slashdot users would be on top of this.
TBH, I have no idea why people sub when Turbo exists. Use Patreon if you want to support a streamer.

Cutting pay to improve your product...

[aicrules]

So you want to "improve" your business by paying the people who are THE LIFEBLOOD of your company less? You should probably be looking elsewhere...as that's not a rock you can squeeze blood from long before it will be dry.