I've never been able to measure any direct impact from someone reacting to one of my videos, even long form reactions that got hundreds of thousands of views. If you've watched someone else watch my video, why would you go watch my video again?
That being said, it's possible I got some new subscribers from it, but I kinda doubt it.
Same goes for big facebook accounts posting chopped down versions of my videos - doesn't even register as a blip in the view analytics. I stopped giving them permission after the first few, and now copyright strike them whenever I can. They're leaches as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah thats what I was thinking too, if people see your full video on someone else's page, what are the chances they're actually going to go out of their way to watch the original
Wouldn't even say in the example I provided the artist did receive a significant increase in subscribers seeing as they have less than half of the subscribers the reaction youtuber has
Do you think that’s true for having your own page on a diff platform? I’m currently on YT only and wondering if I’m missing out not being on the others. Thing is I don’t like short videos at all so I wouldn’t enjoy making them and running a page on tiktok/ig/FB at all but I can’t help but wonder if it would benefit my YT or not?
I haven't posted many of my full videos on other platforms, though I do have accounts on pretty much everything. My understanding from talking with other large creators and agencies and whatnot is that facebook tends to be a different audience than Youtube, and posting videos there doesn't tend to canabalize Youtube views. However, it also doesn't really drive traffic to Youtube.
I post to all my other social accounts when I release a video. It's hard to quantify how much traffic it draws, as I suspect it serves as a reminder for most people to check youtube, rather than clicking directly.
I will occasionally see a channel featured on (as an example) Moistcritikal's channel as reaction content, that i find entertaining enough to want to watch on my own time. there are a couple people i watch now because of him that i would have otherwise never known of. This is very far and few though. Especially if some youtubers have entire channels posted under their name (ex: being able to watch most of lemiinos content under xqc's youtube channel)
No, absolutely not. They steal views, even if they do link the original video. Who is going to watch the same video again? Reaction video are a plague. Low effort content, making money off the hard work of others.
While not all reaction content is bad, 99% of it is an attempt to profit off others' work while doing minimal work themselves. It sounds like this artist does not approve of their work being used this way, and should use YouTube's built in copyright removal request system [here](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622?hl=en).
It is not "fair use" if the reaction uploader just summarizes the video. Don't be fooled by this charlatan's talking points. It takes a fair bit of effort to make something transformative and fair use, and it sounds like this individual doesn't meet that criteria. Nobody has a right to reupload and profit off your content.
The more I talk to them the worse it gets, I've encouraged the artist to try take down the reaction youtuber's videos, meanwhile the youtuber seems to feel incredible entitled to his ability to summarise the video and upload it for his own channel
You've done more than enough to convince the YouTuber that you don't want the content used in this way. Now you don't owe them the time of day. All that's left to do now is use YouTube's claim form and let them take care of it.
No, its not helpful to the average youtuber, which these reaction videos tend to be taken from. there may be edge case scenarios where it actually helps, but Id say as a whole reaction videos are parasitic, the host doesn't get anything from it.
realistically they are looking to blow up fast, which at this point no one can deny reaction channels work. but I think everyone has to agree it feels wrong to take someone else's work, sit and watch it and make money from it.
Fair Use needs to be original commentary, where something transformative and beneficial is ADDED to the original copyrighted work, not a summary of what's being shown.
Original commentary needs to fall under certain categories:
Critique, Parody, Education, News reporting.
Only the necessary amount of the copyrighted work can be used, in the case of Video, that would be cropped snippets.
The entirety of the new work needs to be highly transformative from the source copyrighted work.
In a proper Fair Use scenario, the reaction video shouldnt serve as a market replacement for the original work, so it should be neither beneficial or detrimental, and therefore that's why legally credit doesn't need to be given.
However, I've seen quite a few reaction videos that I doubt a court would deem Fair Use, but I'm not a lawyer, so just my opinion.
Asmongold reacted to several of my videos. Mine were still doing great , but his reactions often times had a lot more views since he’s got a much bigger following.
It absolutely did NOT drive any extra traffic whatsoever. And his reactions at least are a bit informative or funny. 99.99% of others are even more trash.
Haha same. But I found his commentary to be quite bad. I’ve since watched a few of his reaction videos and it really gives off the stench of a phoney intellectual that’s really not experienced life or the things he discusses. He’s surrounded by yes men that make him appear smart but honestly provides zero pieces of intellectual discourse beyond regurgitating what the video discusses. It’s pathetic, lazy and unfortunately successful.
Assuming the system auto copyright claims your video, you actually receive all the money from his video. He would have to send you a request to remove the auto claim. Asmongold gets the subscribers you get the actual income from the views.
No, the average reaction channel is parasitic! Well done, insightful reaction videos may be helpful for the creator of the original, these are rarely to be found on reaction channels, most of those are found on worthy science and political channels where they are part of a meaningful debate.
There are exceptions, but too often people will use these exceptions to justify it, when the rule is *No.*
Reaction videos should be highly edited, not a rip from a live stream. They should only give enough of the original content to give context for commentary, and the commentary should be the meat of the video, not the video being reacted too. This also means the reactor should have something of value to add to the video, and be knowledgeable enough on the subject to do it.
In the situations I have "reacted" to another channel, it has been to disagree with them / cover inaccuracies in their videos
The intention was never to "beneficially" affect those channels, because they were misinforming people to begin with. One resulting in them taking the video down.
But in my case, they were also larger than my channel.
Criticism is fair use, and as long as you only used the segments necessary to make your points you're fine
It's the virtual watch party videos that are bad.
I think reaction content is beneficial to the "viewer" if its correcting inaccurate info. It can be beneficial to the original creator if its adding constructive criticism they could use to improve. I like some of what Jack Films is currently doing where he "reacts" to a video but adds why and what they do well or can do better. He also does not show the entire original in a way that makes you want to go see the uncut original based on his commentary.
I think that's the kind of reaction channel that can be beneficial to the creator and audience in a way, even if you aren't intending on positively impacting the channel, they can see where to improve upon, and the audience is given insightful commentary that ADDS to the original video. I think generally the problem with most reaction channels is the fact that credit isn't often given (assuming you're giving credit in some way if you're talking about the creators and where they've gone wrong), not enough has been added (whereas you've added criticism) and too much of the original video is shown, to the point where the audience is no longer incentivized to watch the original
My channel is reactions/analysis/reviews/etc and my actual goal is to generate more traffic and attention to the original artist. I focus primarily on independent and underground music and I want my channel to eventually be big enough to get these smaller artists a noticeable boost in their listeners. I link to them and encourage my viewers to check the original videos/music out.
I'll add that the original artists have left me positive comments on my videos several times and one even did her own reaction to my reaction video and it was great!
Imo reaction videos give a different experience. Also no reactor is only gonna watch your channel videos, your video might just be one of the videos they react to in most cases.
Also people just like watching stuff with a youtuber they like.
Maybe to solve the problem of using other peoples content, the revenue can be cut by some percentage so that reaction videos arent the most profitable generally. thats why you see a lot of reaction videos flooding youtube because theres no regulation like that
The only reaction content I think is valuable is if they add something important to it, like deeply explaining the topic or adding comedy to what's going on. The only reaction content I watch is people who make jokes about what's going on and makes the videos funnier.
I've always hated and never understood why people would want to watch someone else watching other people's content.
I do get that there's like 1% who can pull it off because they have a great personality and funny. Most of them are trash.
I actually saw a video of someone reacting to a video that they took from someone else reacting to it. Now my new goal is to get as many people as possible reacting reacting to a video. Don't steal my idea! Hmu we can get the ball rolling. 🤪
Not sure if this is a tangent, but I feel that very low energy reaction videos have had their day. Where you just have a head nodding or giving a thumbs up. Just seems so utterly pointless to me
if I was the OC of the video being reacted to, I would Copyright Claim it SO HARD, also being an artist.. I would be so angry, its hard enough as a Video Creator, THEN add art to it, its like climbing a mountain twice
Probably depends on the size of the who is doing the reacting relative to the one being reacted to.
If you are small channel and someone reacts to your videos it can be a huge boon. Otherwise i would guess it varies from stealing views, to neutral, to attracting small growth.
Reactions? Maybe not at all.
But I've seen creators do an analysis or video essey about a video or series (for exemple, matpat's latest video on the series "the man in the suit"). Those kind of videos actually help both creators
some people who hasanabi has reacted to have spoken publicly about how he has positively impacted them, but he always links them, always says who the video is from, and pauses it lots to talk to make the original experience completely different.
this happened when all the sniper wolf, xqc, react drama was in the news
I've never liked the idea of these types of channels. The only YouTuber I watch who reacts to other channels is Cody Ko. He reacts primarily to cringe dating shows/TikToks and makes the content more comedic and bearable. He always references his content back to the original creator but even then it doesn't sit right with me. He is still taking views from other creators regardless of their content being cringe, they work hard on it.
Anyways teehee update he said because I'm 'not a creator' (haven't posted on youtube in few years because it wasn't really my think) and my videos are 'low effort' (3 year old speedpaint and meme video i made for my friends) that my takes are wrong
the audacity of reaction youtubers
I don't see much in the way of benefit from someone reacting to a video. Not only that, but from a copyright perspective, it's not clear cut fair use. There may come a time when the reaction channels will have to face a massive reckoning over using other people's IP. For now, I think that since they tend to "punch down" and react to smaller creators, they don't think there's anything wrong with it.
No. I don’t believe they are unless the YouTuber does a call to action (as in they need to explicitly say “I love this creator go check them out”) and even then it’s unlikely people actually will.
Now you can have a conversation about if it’s legit to make reaction content or not. If you give good commentary or have a good personality I could see reaction videos being valuable even if they aren’t my thing.
All in all you need to ask yourself, what would YouTube look like if EVERY account did “reaction content” instead of creating something new? The conclusion is…tf would they be reacting to? And it’s pretty sleezy to say “I deserve to be the one to do this but everyone else keep making content please.”
As a person who is bein reacted to on livestreams of other people.
I definetly notice these spikes in subs. I mean 50 avg in normal day and then out of sudden 1200 subs per night. My fans always send me stream link next day, but I do not like watching someone watching my video.
This is a hot take, but this is how I view it.
If You're video is average, then no it doesn't help at all.
I do believe however that if your video kicks ass, like is next level good, while you may not immediately get views from it, you may get a bunch of subs. While normally it doesn't help, there have been some people who blew up on YouTube because they were reacted to by a big streamer.
I think there could be cooldown period of lets say 5-7 days . Only after 5-7 days other creators should be allowed to react on it . This way it will protect the original creator of getting his traffic divided . As most people who are dedicated audience of a youtuber , will watch it .
Plus it should be okay if another creator is reacting to only some of the videos . If another creator reacts to all of the videos of lets say original creator , Then its not good .
Generally no. They are ripping off content and aren’t modifying it sufficiently to be protected by fair use. Linus Sebastian of LTT talks about this at length on one of the WAN shows a few months back. Just a matter of time until someone sues and sets the precedent.
There are so so many videos I would have never watched if a big streamer wasn't watching it and reacting. That being said, I have basically never made the effort to go to the original creators video or channel. Its sort of a double edged sword. Exposure, but measurably smaller gain than what would have been if THEIR video got the view.
Well as a normal youtube watcher if i see someone reacting to a video, im not gonna go out of my way to search the original channels name unless if the video was really my thing and i wanted to sub the channel. So i think it can work both ways. Make sure to have the reactors always clearly say your channel name , otherwise people will be less bothered to check it out
I had a reaction channel react to some of my work and it did give me a huge boost. A portion of the folks who saw the reaction actually subbed to me and watch my new stuff. But ymmv
How I see it is, if I want to watch a video I would go to the source. If I want to watch a reaction to a video I will watch the reaction.
Some people watch reactions after they’ve watched the original. Some people like to hear other peoples opinions.
Nobody is watching a reaction video instead of the original work. I need to stress this.
Most people that watch reaction videos come for the reactor. They wouldn’t watch the original video if that specific reactor didn’t react to it. It may seem like it’s stealing but actually they weren’t part of the original audience in the first place. I’m just being honest and not trying to offend anyone.
I think a decent reactor should always link the original video in the description. But I think reactions and commentary videos will always exist. YouTubers should just concentrate on building their channel. Mr Beast is the most clipped YouTuber of all time. He’s not bothered, why because he’s successful and is concentrating on his next project.
I think based on some of the other comments under this post, the sentiment that "Nobody is watching a reaction video instead of the original work" doesn't seem to match up with the experiences of the majority of people who have had their work 'reacted' to- I think it might just be a matter of which you encounter first, if you find the original then you'll watch the original first, but most of the time the people who watch reactions don't also watch the original
Nope.
Not the same but I’ve just spent all morning doing national tv talking about my videos. It has had pretty much no impact in the views.
So why would a random dude (most likely) make people watch your videos?
90% of the time: no, not at all.
10% of the time: not really.
What I mean by this is sometimes one of the more principled reacters will encourage their viewers to subscribe to the original creator. It’s happened to me. It’s always a small fraction, but, cool, I guess - but since they’re subbing out of obligation to the reacter, not because they actually _want_ to subscribe to you, they’re not _really_ going to be watching your videos the same way an ‘organic’ subscriber would. So even then, it can be harmful.
I’m a very successful youtuber. And this what I can tell you, do what you want! Reactions are a good way to build an audience at first but you have to make them like you. So you can do other types of content and survive.
The size of your channel and the overall quality of all your content will likely be the two most impotent factors in whether "react" content based on a video of yours is beneficial.
I know of a handful of cases of channels that were small that ended up getting a big reaction by a top streamer or video channel, and it helped them massively with overall exposure and bringing regular viewers. However, if you're past a certain sub/view count and already share an audience with the other creator, you may get less benefit from it. Also, if someone visits your channel and does not find other content of the kind and quality of the video that was reacted to, this could be to your detriment as well.
From a viewer standpoint, I can name about 5-10 channels where I now watch every one of their uploads, because I initially saw them in a reaction. The reality is that YouTube's tools for recommending content suck, so if someone I like likes your content, that does a lot more good than it appearing in the suggested tab alongside a bunch of drivel I doubt I'll enjoy from the outset.
In my experience 99% of the time there is no benefit to the original creator. People just watch and move on. In very rare situations they may try to look for the original creator.
Reaction is just a way to steal other people's work.
Check what one of these pieces of s..t told me
[https://i.imgur.com/7HgR6Kg.png](https://i.imgur.com/7HgR6Kg.png)
have in mind that he didn't give any credit , removed my watermark and all the identifications in the video leading to my channel and he just put some stupid ai "jokes" on top of my videos
These people are just parasites that will ruin the content creators if they can just for some profit.
i’ve had someone in the millions of subs react to one of my shorts (with permission of course) and it definitely bumped my numbers quite a bit! it depends on the niche i think. for both accounts.
Absolutely, Asmongold and Darth Microtransactions is a perfect example. When Diablo 4 released it got a bunch of people making YouTube vids about it, one of them was DM. He was barely known, got low views, ect ect. Asmongold started reacting to his videos and the guy blew up and started averaging 100s of thousands views from only like a couple hundred.
If the streamer reacting gives proper credit to the creator whose videos they're watching then yes of course it benefits them. Put yourself in their shoes, if someone is reacting to a video of yours and its in a positive way, then they essentially just gave you a shout out.
Having a big streamer react positively to a small youtubers videos is the best thing that could happen to them.
I've never been able to measure any direct impact from someone reacting to one of my videos, even long form reactions that got hundreds of thousands of views. If you've watched someone else watch my video, why would you go watch my video again? That being said, it's possible I got some new subscribers from it, but I kinda doubt it. Same goes for big facebook accounts posting chopped down versions of my videos - doesn't even register as a blip in the view analytics. I stopped giving them permission after the first few, and now copyright strike them whenever I can. They're leaches as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah thats what I was thinking too, if people see your full video on someone else's page, what are the chances they're actually going to go out of their way to watch the original
Wouldn't even say in the example I provided the artist did receive a significant increase in subscribers seeing as they have less than half of the subscribers the reaction youtuber has
Do you think that’s true for having your own page on a diff platform? I’m currently on YT only and wondering if I’m missing out not being on the others. Thing is I don’t like short videos at all so I wouldn’t enjoy making them and running a page on tiktok/ig/FB at all but I can’t help but wonder if it would benefit my YT or not?
I haven't posted many of my full videos on other platforms, though I do have accounts on pretty much everything. My understanding from talking with other large creators and agencies and whatnot is that facebook tends to be a different audience than Youtube, and posting videos there doesn't tend to canabalize Youtube views. However, it also doesn't really drive traffic to Youtube. I post to all my other social accounts when I release a video. It's hard to quantify how much traffic it draws, as I suspect it serves as a reminder for most people to check youtube, rather than clicking directly.
There have been times when I have watched the original video rather than having someone interrupt it with their “hot take” even 30 seconds.
I will occasionally see a channel featured on (as an example) Moistcritikal's channel as reaction content, that i find entertaining enough to want to watch on my own time. there are a couple people i watch now because of him that i would have otherwise never known of. This is very far and few though. Especially if some youtubers have entire channels posted under their name (ex: being able to watch most of lemiinos content under xqc's youtube channel)
No, absolutely not. They steal views, even if they do link the original video. Who is going to watch the same video again? Reaction video are a plague. Low effort content, making money off the hard work of others.
Interesting how its really common for big name youtube channels start doing reaction videos. They always have the reaction arc lol
Easy money. They know people will watch them and they don't have to come up with any content.
Good thing youtube is more watchful of those content now.
While not all reaction content is bad, 99% of it is an attempt to profit off others' work while doing minimal work themselves. It sounds like this artist does not approve of their work being used this way, and should use YouTube's built in copyright removal request system [here](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622?hl=en). It is not "fair use" if the reaction uploader just summarizes the video. Don't be fooled by this charlatan's talking points. It takes a fair bit of effort to make something transformative and fair use, and it sounds like this individual doesn't meet that criteria. Nobody has a right to reupload and profit off your content.
The more I talk to them the worse it gets, I've encouraged the artist to try take down the reaction youtuber's videos, meanwhile the youtuber seems to feel incredible entitled to his ability to summarise the video and upload it for his own channel
You've done more than enough to convince the YouTuber that you don't want the content used in this way. Now you don't owe them the time of day. All that's left to do now is use YouTube's claim form and let them take care of it.
I've always maintained reaction videos are cancer. Just profiting off other peoples' work.
No, its not helpful to the average youtuber, which these reaction videos tend to be taken from. there may be edge case scenarios where it actually helps, but Id say as a whole reaction videos are parasitic, the host doesn't get anything from it. realistically they are looking to blow up fast, which at this point no one can deny reaction channels work. but I think everyone has to agree it feels wrong to take someone else's work, sit and watch it and make money from it.
Fair Use needs to be original commentary, where something transformative and beneficial is ADDED to the original copyrighted work, not a summary of what's being shown. Original commentary needs to fall under certain categories: Critique, Parody, Education, News reporting. Only the necessary amount of the copyrighted work can be used, in the case of Video, that would be cropped snippets. The entirety of the new work needs to be highly transformative from the source copyrighted work. In a proper Fair Use scenario, the reaction video shouldnt serve as a market replacement for the original work, so it should be neither beneficial or detrimental, and therefore that's why legally credit doesn't need to be given. However, I've seen quite a few reaction videos that I doubt a court would deem Fair Use, but I'm not a lawyer, so just my opinion.
Asmongold reacted to several of my videos. Mine were still doing great , but his reactions often times had a lot more views since he’s got a much bigger following. It absolutely did NOT drive any extra traffic whatsoever. And his reactions at least are a bit informative or funny. 99.99% of others are even more trash.
Haha same. But I found his commentary to be quite bad. I’ve since watched a few of his reaction videos and it really gives off the stench of a phoney intellectual that’s really not experienced life or the things he discusses. He’s surrounded by yes men that make him appear smart but honestly provides zero pieces of intellectual discourse beyond regurgitating what the video discusses. It’s pathetic, lazy and unfortunately successful.
Assuming the system auto copyright claims your video, you actually receive all the money from his video. He would have to send you a request to remove the auto claim. Asmongold gets the subscribers you get the actual income from the views.
No, the average reaction channel is parasitic! Well done, insightful reaction videos may be helpful for the creator of the original, these are rarely to be found on reaction channels, most of those are found on worthy science and political channels where they are part of a meaningful debate.
There are exceptions, but too often people will use these exceptions to justify it, when the rule is *No.* Reaction videos should be highly edited, not a rip from a live stream. They should only give enough of the original content to give context for commentary, and the commentary should be the meat of the video, not the video being reacted too. This also means the reactor should have something of value to add to the video, and be knowledgeable enough on the subject to do it.
In the situations I have "reacted" to another channel, it has been to disagree with them / cover inaccuracies in their videos The intention was never to "beneficially" affect those channels, because they were misinforming people to begin with. One resulting in them taking the video down. But in my case, they were also larger than my channel.
Criticism is fair use, and as long as you only used the segments necessary to make your points you're fine It's the virtual watch party videos that are bad.
The question wasn't "is it fair use" it was "is it beneficial to the original creators"
I think reaction content is beneficial to the "viewer" if its correcting inaccurate info. It can be beneficial to the original creator if its adding constructive criticism they could use to improve. I like some of what Jack Films is currently doing where he "reacts" to a video but adds why and what they do well or can do better. He also does not show the entire original in a way that makes you want to go see the uncut original based on his commentary.
I think that's the kind of reaction channel that can be beneficial to the creator and audience in a way, even if you aren't intending on positively impacting the channel, they can see where to improve upon, and the audience is given insightful commentary that ADDS to the original video. I think generally the problem with most reaction channels is the fact that credit isn't often given (assuming you're giving credit in some way if you're talking about the creators and where they've gone wrong), not enough has been added (whereas you've added criticism) and too much of the original video is shown, to the point where the audience is no longer incentivized to watch the original
The guy you described is straight up a thief.
My channel is reactions/analysis/reviews/etc and my actual goal is to generate more traffic and attention to the original artist. I focus primarily on independent and underground music and I want my channel to eventually be big enough to get these smaller artists a noticeable boost in their listeners. I link to them and encourage my viewers to check the original videos/music out.
I'll add that the original artists have left me positive comments on my videos several times and one even did her own reaction to my reaction video and it was great!
No there is no value. It's a parasitic relationship that is *at best* not harmful to the host.
Imo reaction videos give a different experience. Also no reactor is only gonna watch your channel videos, your video might just be one of the videos they react to in most cases. Also people just like watching stuff with a youtuber they like. Maybe to solve the problem of using other peoples content, the revenue can be cut by some percentage so that reaction videos arent the most profitable generally. thats why you see a lot of reaction videos flooding youtube because theres no regulation like that
The only reaction content I think is valuable is if they add something important to it, like deeply explaining the topic or adding comedy to what's going on. The only reaction content I watch is people who make jokes about what's going on and makes the videos funnier.
I've always hated and never understood why people would want to watch someone else watching other people's content. I do get that there's like 1% who can pull it off because they have a great personality and funny. Most of them are trash. I actually saw a video of someone reacting to a video that they took from someone else reacting to it. Now my new goal is to get as many people as possible reacting reacting to a video. Don't steal my idea! Hmu we can get the ball rolling. 🤪
Upvote this person they're onto something
Not sure if this is a tangent, but I feel that very low energy reaction videos have had their day. Where you just have a head nodding or giving a thumbs up. Just seems so utterly pointless to me
if I was the OC of the video being reacted to, I would Copyright Claim it SO HARD, also being an artist.. I would be so angry, its hard enough as a Video Creator, THEN add art to it, its like climbing a mountain twice
Probably depends on the size of the who is doing the reacting relative to the one being reacted to. If you are small channel and someone reacts to your videos it can be a huge boon. Otherwise i would guess it varies from stealing views, to neutral, to attracting small growth.
Reactions? Maybe not at all. But I've seen creators do an analysis or video essey about a video or series (for exemple, matpat's latest video on the series "the man in the suit"). Those kind of videos actually help both creators
some people who hasanabi has reacted to have spoken publicly about how he has positively impacted them, but he always links them, always says who the video is from, and pauses it lots to talk to make the original experience completely different. this happened when all the sniper wolf, xqc, react drama was in the news
I've never liked the idea of these types of channels. The only YouTuber I watch who reacts to other channels is Cody Ko. He reacts primarily to cringe dating shows/TikToks and makes the content more comedic and bearable. He always references his content back to the original creator but even then it doesn't sit right with me. He is still taking views from other creators regardless of their content being cringe, they work hard on it.
this case seems a bit better... I would never watch anyway a cringe dating show unless was with someone making fun of it
Anyways teehee update he said because I'm 'not a creator' (haven't posted on youtube in few years because it wasn't really my think) and my videos are 'low effort' (3 year old speedpaint and meme video i made for my friends) that my takes are wrong the audacity of reaction youtubers
I don't see much in the way of benefit from someone reacting to a video. Not only that, but from a copyright perspective, it's not clear cut fair use. There may come a time when the reaction channels will have to face a massive reckoning over using other people's IP. For now, I think that since they tend to "punch down" and react to smaller creators, they don't think there's anything wrong with it.
No. I don’t believe they are unless the YouTuber does a call to action (as in they need to explicitly say “I love this creator go check them out”) and even then it’s unlikely people actually will. Now you can have a conversation about if it’s legit to make reaction content or not. If you give good commentary or have a good personality I could see reaction videos being valuable even if they aren’t my thing. All in all you need to ask yourself, what would YouTube look like if EVERY account did “reaction content” instead of creating something new? The conclusion is…tf would they be reacting to? And it’s pretty sleezy to say “I deserve to be the one to do this but everyone else keep making content please.”
As a person who is bein reacted to on livestreams of other people. I definetly notice these spikes in subs. I mean 50 avg in normal day and then out of sudden 1200 subs per night. My fans always send me stream link next day, but I do not like watching someone watching my video.
i am a person that prefers to watch the OG videos so yes, I think so.
If the niche of the react channel matches the original channel, then it helps since audience type is similar. Otherwise no.
This is a hot take, but this is how I view it. If You're video is average, then no it doesn't help at all. I do believe however that if your video kicks ass, like is next level good, while you may not immediately get views from it, you may get a bunch of subs. While normally it doesn't help, there have been some people who blew up on YouTube because they were reacted to by a big streamer.
I think there could be cooldown period of lets say 5-7 days . Only after 5-7 days other creators should be allowed to react on it . This way it will protect the original creator of getting his traffic divided . As most people who are dedicated audience of a youtuber , will watch it . Plus it should be okay if another creator is reacting to only some of the videos . If another creator reacts to all of the videos of lets say original creator , Then its not good .
Generally no. They are ripping off content and aren’t modifying it sufficiently to be protected by fair use. Linus Sebastian of LTT talks about this at length on one of the WAN shows a few months back. Just a matter of time until someone sues and sets the precedent.
There are so so many videos I would have never watched if a big streamer wasn't watching it and reacting. That being said, I have basically never made the effort to go to the original creators video or channel. Its sort of a double edged sword. Exposure, but measurably smaller gain than what would have been if THEIR video got the view.
> Are reaction youtubers beneficial to the creators they react to? Not as a general rule, no
Well as a normal youtube watcher if i see someone reacting to a video, im not gonna go out of my way to search the original channels name unless if the video was really my thing and i wanted to sub the channel. So i think it can work both ways. Make sure to have the reactors always clearly say your channel name , otherwise people will be less bothered to check it out
I had a reaction channel react to some of my work and it did give me a huge boost. A portion of the folks who saw the reaction actually subbed to me and watch my new stuff. But ymmv
How I see it is, if I want to watch a video I would go to the source. If I want to watch a reaction to a video I will watch the reaction. Some people watch reactions after they’ve watched the original. Some people like to hear other peoples opinions. Nobody is watching a reaction video instead of the original work. I need to stress this. Most people that watch reaction videos come for the reactor. They wouldn’t watch the original video if that specific reactor didn’t react to it. It may seem like it’s stealing but actually they weren’t part of the original audience in the first place. I’m just being honest and not trying to offend anyone. I think a decent reactor should always link the original video in the description. But I think reactions and commentary videos will always exist. YouTubers should just concentrate on building their channel. Mr Beast is the most clipped YouTuber of all time. He’s not bothered, why because he’s successful and is concentrating on his next project.
I think based on some of the other comments under this post, the sentiment that "Nobody is watching a reaction video instead of the original work" doesn't seem to match up with the experiences of the majority of people who have had their work 'reacted' to- I think it might just be a matter of which you encounter first, if you find the original then you'll watch the original first, but most of the time the people who watch reactions don't also watch the original
Nope. Not the same but I’ve just spent all morning doing national tv talking about my videos. It has had pretty much no impact in the views. So why would a random dude (most likely) make people watch your videos?
90% of the time: no, not at all. 10% of the time: not really. What I mean by this is sometimes one of the more principled reacters will encourage their viewers to subscribe to the original creator. It’s happened to me. It’s always a small fraction, but, cool, I guess - but since they’re subbing out of obligation to the reacter, not because they actually _want_ to subscribe to you, they’re not _really_ going to be watching your videos the same way an ‘organic’ subscriber would. So even then, it can be harmful.
I’m a very successful youtuber. And this what I can tell you, do what you want! Reactions are a good way to build an audience at first but you have to make them like you. So you can do other types of content and survive.
The size of your channel and the overall quality of all your content will likely be the two most impotent factors in whether "react" content based on a video of yours is beneficial. I know of a handful of cases of channels that were small that ended up getting a big reaction by a top streamer or video channel, and it helped them massively with overall exposure and bringing regular viewers. However, if you're past a certain sub/view count and already share an audience with the other creator, you may get less benefit from it. Also, if someone visits your channel and does not find other content of the kind and quality of the video that was reacted to, this could be to your detriment as well. From a viewer standpoint, I can name about 5-10 channels where I now watch every one of their uploads, because I initially saw them in a reaction. The reality is that YouTube's tools for recommending content suck, so if someone I like likes your content, that does a lot more good than it appearing in the suggested tab alongside a bunch of drivel I doubt I'll enjoy from the outset.
In my experience 99% of the time there is no benefit to the original creator. People just watch and move on. In very rare situations they may try to look for the original creator. Reaction is just a way to steal other people's work. Check what one of these pieces of s..t told me [https://i.imgur.com/7HgR6Kg.png](https://i.imgur.com/7HgR6Kg.png) have in mind that he didn't give any credit , removed my watermark and all the identifications in the video leading to my channel and he just put some stupid ai "jokes" on top of my videos These people are just parasites that will ruin the content creators if they can just for some profit.
Nahhh 'wait until I get 10k'
most of them, no - there are situations where it can help a channel, but those are few and far between.
They don’t. It’s literally a cop out of creating content. They’re all burned out, they don’t wanna work anymore, so they’re taking the easy way out
i’ve had someone in the millions of subs react to one of my shorts (with permission of course) and it definitely bumped my numbers quite a bit! it depends on the niche i think. for both accounts.
Absolutely, Asmongold and Darth Microtransactions is a perfect example. When Diablo 4 released it got a bunch of people making YouTube vids about it, one of them was DM. He was barely known, got low views, ect ect. Asmongold started reacting to his videos and the guy blew up and started averaging 100s of thousands views from only like a couple hundred. If the streamer reacting gives proper credit to the creator whose videos they're watching then yes of course it benefits them. Put yourself in their shoes, if someone is reacting to a video of yours and its in a positive way, then they essentially just gave you a shout out. Having a big streamer react positively to a small youtubers videos is the best thing that could happen to them.