Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Now Requires Channels To Have More Than 10K Views To Make Money Off Ads (cnet.com)
YouTube is getting a little pickier about who can make money there. From a report on CNET: Google's massive video site said Thursday that channels must reach 10,000 total views before they qualify to run ads, the most direct way to make money there. The logic, essentially, is to remove one of the main incentives that spur bad actors to set up bogus accounts with somebody else's content -- the easy money. It also comes two weeks after YouTube suffered big advertiser pull-outs after a rash of news reports about brands' commercials running next to objectionable videos, like those with racist language.
Maybe this will cut down a little on spam and clickbait?
They're not. They never said they would. As the text you quoted says, they're removing an incentive for someone to re-post someone else's content.
RTFTYQ - Read the Fucking Text You Quoted
They don't need to.
The original owner can file a takedown claim once they see it copied to other channels.
The copiers need to see the video, know that it's going viral, upload it to an account they have monetized (10,000 views or more), and wait for the money to come in.
In the time it takes the copiers (and there will be multiple competing with each other), the original video is still "going viral". By the time the copier channels get 10,000 views they'll be buried in the search results or have their shit taken down.
I suggested a similar approach when this shit was blowing up, but I suggested it on a per-video basis. Unless Google adds additional policing of accounts, this move won't help much. They'll have prepped 10,000 view accounts ready to go, or they'll farm up 10,000 views on new accounts with bots.
Does this mean that ContentID won't scan videos on channels with under 10K views? Considering YouTube only care about copyright for purposes of advertising (who gets to monetize, etc.), these channels are no longer 'taking away money' from the Cartel, and so can be ignored.
are probably the worst case of preying other people honest efforts to publish something.
If their entire channel has less than 10K views, they're probably losing $10 or less from this. I doubt the loss of $10 is going to kill entire genres of music.
This space intentionally left blank
I blogged about a similar proposal earlier in the week but I suggest that they go even further.
They should also come up with two content pools -- one (the premium pool) containing YouTube channel partners who meet a much tighter criteria -- such as 10 million views and 100K subs -- and another that contains all the others. These "premium" content creators would be vetted for the nature of their content (ie: ad-friendly) and offered to the J&J, Verizon, UK Government advertisers who are presently not advertising because of the hate/racist/extremist vids their ads were appearing against.
If they properly vetted these premium channels then they could offer big-dollar advertisers placements which they know would not be on offensive content -- and attract a premium ad-rate at the same time.
I recall back when the YT Channel Partner program kicked off, earnings were good for content creators because the entire ad-revenue pie was divided amongst a much smaller number of content creators. Viewers also got a much better experience because we didn't have every man and his dog monetizing 30 second "cute cat" videos with a 30 second unskippable preroll. Advertisers also got a good deal because their ads were only being placed on channels that had proven their worth and the quality of their content by having been chosen for the program.
Once they opened the doors so that everyone could monentize, the existing channel partners saw a huge drop in earnings. Now, with the big-dollar advertisers fleeing in droves, they're probably going to see yet another drop. This is further aggravated by the bugs in YT's new system for automatically detecting and demonetizing potentially "unfriendly" vids. Lots of YT's biggest channels have had significant numbers of their vids automatically demonetized by this lame system -- so are seeing an even greater drop in revenue as a result.
Unfortunately it's YT's greed that has created the current situation so I doubt they'll wind the clock back enough to solve it.
So what you are saying limiting by number of views does not really do anything other than reduce accounting costs. So 1,000 views should be a more reasonable limit and to kerb cheats, payments should be delayed to allow the content to be contested prior to payment, say between 30 and 90 days. If youtube was serious about better control of up loaders they should allow end users to block you tubers they do not want to see or bother to try to remember not to see and keep statistics of the blocked youtubers ie make it worth while to register. There is a whole bunch of crappy up loaders I want to block, fake thumbnails, bullshit titles, scraped content, photos as videos, machine voices, crap reviewers, propagandists, government agents, corporate junk, ads masquerading as content, VEVO (heh heh, although I can quite readily remember to avoid that one). Allow blocking of uploaders you bloody fucknuckles, grrr!
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen