Evolution of Strategy and Commercial Relationships for Social Media Platforms: The Case of YouTube

  • Sonya Yan Song
  • Steven S. Wildman
Part of the Media Business and Innovation book series (MEDIA)


We describe and analyze YouTube as a multisided platform with participants that include users, advertisers and content contributors, many of whom play dual and highly varied roles. YouTube’s role in structuring and managing relationships among platform participants with an eye to its own profitability is examined along with a sequence of elaborations on its business model that changed YouTube from a relatively simple service that sold advertisers access to web audiences generated by amateur videos uploaded by other internet users to a service that increasingly features commercial content from a diverse set of sources. This progressive layering of features that themselves are not inherently social on top of a social media foundation is similar to patterns of service elaboration exhibited by other social media services as they matured.


Content Supplier Market Maker Music Video High Quality Video Popular Content 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Angus, E., & Thelwall, M. (2010). Motivations for image publishing and tagging on Flickr. Paper presented at the 14th international conference on electronic publishing, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, M. (2006). Competition in two-sided markets. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 668–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cha, M., Kwak, H., Rodriguez, P., Ahn, Y.-Y., & Moon, S. (2009). Analyzing the video popularity characteristics of large-scale user generated content systems. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 17(5), 1357–1370. doi: 10.1109/tnet.2008.2011358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng, X., Dale, C., & Liu, J. (2008). Statistics and social network of YouTube videos. Paper presented at the 16th international workshop on quality of service.Google Scholar
  5. Courtois, C., Mechant, P., & Marez, L. D. (2012). Communicating creativity on YouTube: What and for whom? Cyberpsychology Behavior And Social Networking, 15(3), 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Efrati, E. (2012, July 30). YouTube to double down on its ‘channel’ experiment. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 16, 2012, from
  7. Evans, D. S. (2003). Some empirical aspects of multi-sided platform industries. Review of Network Economics, 2(3). p. 191.Google Scholar
  8. Flosi, S. (2012). Press release: comScore releases May 2012 U.S. Online Video Rankings.Google Scholar
  9. Fu, W. W., & Sim, C. C. (2011). Aggregate bandwagon effect on online videos’ viewership: Value uncertainty, popularity cues, and heuristic. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(12), 2382–2395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gill, P., Arlitt, M., Li, Z., & Mahanti, A. (2007). Youtube traffic characterization: A view from the edge. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  11. Halvey, M. J., & Keane, M. T. (2007). Exploring social dynamics in online media sharing. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, Banff, AB.Google Scholar
  12. Hanson, G., & Haridakis, P. (2008). YouTube users watching and sharing the news: A uses and gratifications approach. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(3).Google Scholar
  13. Holahan, C. (2007, November 20). Web video: Move over, amateurs. Business Week. Retrieved August 20, 2012, from
  14. Honda. (2012). Official 2012 Honda CR-V Game Day Commercial – “Matthew’s Day Off Extended Version”. Retrieved August 10, 2012 from
  15. Kotler, P. (1986). The prosumer movement: A new challenge for marketers. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 510–513.Google Scholar
  16. Lanius, C. (2011). Working paper on YouTube commentary: Social interaction in online publics. Department of Anthropology, Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, The George Washington University.Google Scholar
  17. Lyall, S. (2012, February 9). 417.6 Million bites later. The New York Times. Retrieved August 19, 2012, from
  18. Parker, G. G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2005). Two-sided network effects: A theory of information product design. Management Science, 51(10), 1494–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Perpetua, M. (2011). YouTube signs major music licensing deal. Retrieved December 14, 2011, from
  20. Sandoval, G. (2008). Universal Music seeing ‘tens of millions’ from YouTube. Retrieved December 16, 2011, from
  21. Shankman, A. (2010). Why social media is the new source of Hollywood talent. Mashable Social Media. Retrieved August 20, 2012, from
  22. Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved June 24, 2012, from
  23. Stelter, B. (2009, December 8). Music industry companies opening video site. The New York Times, p. B2.Google Scholar
  24. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
  25. What is the Individual Video Program, and how does it relate to the YouTube Partner Program? (2011). Retrieved December 14, 2011, from
  26. What’s the difference between advertising with YouTube directly or using YouTube Promoted Videos? (2010). Retrieved December 14, 2011, from
  27. Wildman, S. S., Lee, S. Y., & Song, S. Y. (2012, May). How to make money by giving away content you get for free. Paper presented at the 10th world media economics and management conference, Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sonya Yan Song
    • 1
  • Steven S. Wildman
    • 1
  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations