>he's not entertainment industry You can make cliched

>>1597584
Market's way too saturated. There are much better opportunities.

>>1597584
Wow somehow that guy manages to pull off a trash 'stache surprisingly well. I wonder if it's the suit?

>>1597584
Ahhh it's a /biz/ starts a thread about industries it knows nothing about thread
One word: Distribution.

You need a distribution channel with a proven revenue stream.

I could easily produce profitable fare: I have the technical ability, I have the experience. However I don't have the distribution method or following (customers).

Content in and of itself is virtually worthless without exposure, to get exposure you either need to buy airtime with a traditional broadcaster or slowly build up a niche audience through targeted advertising, publicity stunts etc. etc. etc.

Then once you have exposure, how do you monetize it?
Youtube has virtually killed content as an income source -- unless you get massive volume like Jenna Marbles or those kids, you can't make enough money. So you have to look at niche audiences and finding other sources of revenue. Home Video and mail order videos for example aren't an option any more, there's too much competition from various makers on Youtube, you need to look further afield.

Also you need to reinvent your value proposition: a comedy or a horror doesn't cut it any more if you're making traditional narrative, it needs to have a gimmick or an experience beyond the watching of the film.

>>1597584
>You can make cliched schlock and rack in money
>Uwe Boll.
It takes an audience and years of building them up to be mediocre and still make bank. Take Tyler Perry or Wes Anderson. They make garbage but they have an audience and worked hard to inflate it over their years.
You just can't make shit and make money.
Or you're Uwe Boll this shitty film maker who didn't care about the quality of his work and expected people to just give him money and praise for it.

>>1597705
Uwe Boll must be some kind of front in a larger money laundering operation.

At the very least his films are flagrant abuse of tax-offsets for investment in film and "art"

>>1597683
>complaining about distribution channels in 2016
but who was youtube

>>1597744
Sure Youtube is great if you just want to GIVE away your product for little to no return.

>>1597747
That's why you make a website with extra shit, that's why you make T shirts based on in jokes or your channel, that's why if you're smart you create multiple streams of income centered around you and your content, not Youtube alone.

>>1597748
I agree with that. But OP was trying to suggest by making schlock alone you can make $$

Obviously ad revenues isn't enough, and using youtube videos as a method of building a larger brand which you can merchandise is a far more viable business model.