Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Toughens Advert Payment Rules (bbc.com)
YouTube is introducing tougher requirements for video publishers who want to make money from its platform. From a report: In addition, it has said staff will manually review all clips before they are added to a premium service that pairs big brand advertisers with popular content. The moves follow a series of advertiser boycotts and a controversial vlog that featured an apparent suicide victim. One expert said that the Google-owned service had been slow to react. "Google presents the impression of acting reactively rather than proactively," said Mark Mulligan, from the consultancy Midia Research.
[...] The first part of the new strategy involves a stricter requirement that publishers must fulfil before they can make money from their uploads. Clips will no longer have adverts attached unless the publisher meets two criteria -- that they have: at least 1,000 subscribers; and more than 4,000 hours of their content viewed by others within the past 12 months.
[...] The first part of the new strategy involves a stricter requirement that publishers must fulfil before they can make money from their uploads. Clips will no longer have adverts attached unless the publisher meets two criteria -- that they have: at least 1,000 subscribers; and more than 4,000 hours of their content viewed by others within the past 12 months.
Dear youtube publishers, it will help us by taking all of your money if you are a smaller publisher, because we had trouble with one of our largest publishers. Thanks for understanding!!
Patreon tried the same trick a few months ago. Jim Sterling tells in his latest video that other companies prefer to have fewer people to pay to considerable amounts of money. There has to be something, a fee or a law, that makes small payments a chore. Does anyone know any better?
... of Logan Paul, yet wouldn't affect Logan Paul.
Great plan.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Making repair and electronic instructional videos on youtube ;).
Not that I ever made much money on it, but I gain about a 10-100 subs a month and the hope was that it would get a bit bigger and be a decent secondary income for me.
No, the problem is they demonitize videos from smaller youtubers all the time for arbitrary, confusing reasons. But, they left up that Logan Paul video even after a storm of criticism. It needs to be a fair system. Not just algorithms.
anticompetitive google censors everyone
A lot of indie musicians post good content on Youtube and monetize their videos. No doubt, it's a useful source of income to further their careers. The quality can be quite good, but I see a lot of subscriber counts in the hundreds. They will lose the income, even though they've done nothing wrong. This punishes a lot of people who haven't done anything wrong, because of the actions of a relatively small number of creeps and hate-filled people.
Everyone will make content that advertisers want in leu of a focus on what the audience wants. If the soap salesman doesnâ(TM)t want his product in a politically or socially incorrect video no one will take a risk and push the envelope.
This sucks.
... advertisers don't want to pay for ads on content that nobody watches or cares about?
No way.
Come on, you know that's what they'll end up doing, don't you? Conservative, right-of-center, Euroskeptic or Muslim-critical videos will be deemed "unworthy of monetizing."
Subject says it all
So, somebody makes new content on Youtube, but Google gets all of the ad revenue from their content. That makes no sense whatsoever. Surely there will be a lawsuit or class action against that. Google is likely making a net profit by hosting even small-audience videos because there is still ad revenue and the hosting marginal costs for Google are tiny.
If they need 4000 hours watched in the past year, that means they need to spend ~11 hours a day producing videos, right?
If it means fewer advertisements before minor videos, great.
If they continue to have advertisements but refuse to pay the content creators, then this is just a massive greed move on their parts.
I really do look forward to Patreon and Youtube being replaced now.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
over the little ones and turning YT more into online television. Which is the direction they've been wanting to go anyway.
YouTube does not owe you a living. The talented and truly worthwhile will survive.
They aren't stopping anyone from posting videos. They are still hosting videos for people for free. That isn't changing. When YouTube started there were no ads, and nobody was getting paid, yet people still made videos. What's happening now is Youtube is transitioning to whitelisting and away from blacklisting so it's easier to control what videos to run ads on. If I had to guess, there is way more to it than just making sure the video is "appropriate.". Obviously this has a negative effect on a large amount of people and maybe changes the quality of YouTube as a whole. But people forget, YouTube changed a lot initially when people started making money from videos in the first place. Whatever dropoff in quality of content has already happened. It became less and less about what YOU want to post, and more about getting clicks. But from YouTube's standpoint, they are still providing the same general service they provided from the beginning. People are still going to upload videos, paid or not. The biggest concern is will YouTube start making non monetized videos harder and harder to find.
For my new, raw tech channel: http://youtube.com/renerebe anyone? ;-)
You guys really DO live in your own little echo chamber.
Fascinating.
This is not good for people hoping to monetize a viral video, or a video they hope will go viral. This is because a lot of videos with millions of views actually have far fewer followers on the creator's channel. For example, a cute cat/animal video that was shared millions of times, or something that went viral on social media, a 4k demo clip, whatever. The creator got lucky and caught a viral moment on video but chances are low that such moments can be captured reliably again, or the creator targeted search terms and made videos for those search results. Either way, once the viewer got what he needed, he moves on.
This policy change definitely favors vlogs and channels that can create a following over a long period of time over infrequent but popular uploads.
A baby brother bitting his older brother's finger or a grumpy cat will no longer be set for life because of YouTube ad revenue. When their first video went viral and got hundred million views in a week it was like they won the lottery. YouTube will still have ads and the non-skip 30 second ads but Google will keep the 1/1000th of a penny per view.
Pointing out that the DNC rigged their primary to steal it from Bernie Sanders IS an unpopular view to the left.- yes..but true.
Pointing out that the IRS targeted citizens for censorship based on political views is also unpopular with the left.- Not true. The IRS focused on groups who by the virtue of the classification of the group , they should not have been supporting or endorsing specific candidates. They investigated both left and right wing groups (this aspect is not something the right wants to talk about. Also, they don't like to talk about how the groups may have been in violation of their classification as a non-profit and violated the tax laws as a result).
Noting that Clinton got $145 million in BRIBES from Russia for approving the Uranium One deal is also unpopular with the left.- Not true. Clinton did not approve any uranium deal. Several federal agencies had to sign off on it. The issue some have with this claim is it ignores the whole story for a nice sound bite that is factually false.
Also noting that Clinton paid $9 million for Russian propaganda, used to attempt to influence a US election is very unpopular considering the ongoing Muller investigation into Trump.- Facts please? From non-right wing sources if possible.
Pointing out Trump has had multiple quarters of +3% GDP growth, a feat Obama didn't achieve over 8 years is also unpopular with the left.- Actually, another falsehood. See: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth You'll see that Obama acheived several qtrs of 3% or greater in his term...after being handed a recession in process.
Pointing out that black unemployment is the lowest in 17 years is also unpopular with the left.- Of course, this is simply a continuation of the downward trend seen since 2011.
No...racist is using phrases such as Lugenpresse (a German term frequently used by Nazis), the Alt-Right marching wearing and/or holding symbols used by White Supremacists..and a President who refuses to condemn the violence and death caused by such. The avoidance of calling Whites who commit mass murders terrorists, but declaring all from specific countries possible terrorists, rapists, etc...(even though the countries actual foreign terrorists who have committed terror acts in the US have never been considered being banned..). No..that is what is racist.
Of course, telling the truth hasn't been a strong suit of the GOP in quite a few years. They seem to have forgotten we can record what they say and do and watch it over and over again to confirm what was actually said or done.
The more YouTube tightens its rules, the more people are going to find themselves on the wrong side of those rules through no fault of their own. They may survive that, but only until a competing service provider (or several) takes chunks of the uploaders they refuse to pay, and the influx of new creators dries up. Then they will decline from attrition.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
After becoming successful and killing the cable companies using the sweat and labor of thousands of small video creators, Susan and her cohorts have decided to slap those same loyal and hardworking creators in the face and shut them out of what they created over many years and BECOME a cable company (the most hated businesses in the country) and only cater to their advertiser's and a few select channel's desires. This is a direction that they have been on for awhile now with their subscription and cable channel offerings and incremental impediments to their creative base. The company that used to say "Do no evil" has completed its transformation into that evil. Time to replace them. They have nothing to offer anymore.
You're right, it makes no sense. We need to find out why people are making content and uploading it to someone else's website (e.g. Youtube) for that website owner to make money on. Is it pure selflessness, or is Youtube using force or threats or blackmail to make them do it against their will?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I am just at 3000 hours pr year and 450 views pr. day right now(11 hours pr day now).
I enabled monetization just to see what would happen and with 1000 views pr day which happened at some point, I had seen income from $1 to $4
With 450 views pr day, it was around $0.3 to $0.5 pr day
So with only 4000 hours of viewing pr year, it matters little, I am guessing 100-200$ pr year.
Now I have disabled ads again, no need to bother people with that crap for a few $ that isn't going to make any difference.
Also, I am just doing it for fun, because it was a challenge for me to do and lean, and I am doing everything wrong, like not uploading every day or week, not sticking to one subject or style, varying quality and boring content of interest to no one. :)
And now I am going to take a break for a few months which means less views because people who have viewed a video, will not get recommended another one if you don't upload at least every week it seems as views on random videos goes down.
L'Idiot
All this talk of advertising on YouTube is scary. I really hope no one ever gets the bright idea to put ads on YouTube. It probably wouldn't be hard to convince them they could make good money off of it, but ads would completely ruin the YouTube experience.
If YouTube ever added advertising, it would make the site useless.
I subscribe to no channels, because I don't want distracting alerts. But there are channels I regularly browse for anything interesting. So I don't think it's fair to judge a channel's worth by its subscriber count.
It costs money to host the content. It's not clear if YT has ever had a true net profit.
So you made the world a slightly worse place today and you came here to boast about it?
DTube relies on the Steem blockchain for authentication, and according to that blockchain's FAQ: "To create an account on the blockchain, it costs STEEM tokens. When you create an account through Steemit.com, Steemit Inc. is supplying the tokens to pay the account creation fee. [...] The only way to have an account created via Steemit.com is to supply your email and phone number." If the previous holder of your email address or phone number was a Steem user, or if your phone is in an unsupported country or on an unsupported carrier, you will end up having to pay to create an account: "There is a third-party tool called SteemCreate that accepts credit cards, or BTC to create a Steem account. You do not need to have an existing Steem blockchain account to use the service, but there is a charge on top of the blockchain account creation fee for using the service." In turn, from that service's description: "Account creation cost is $45"
only until a competing service provider (or several) takes chunks of the uploaders they refuse to pay
I don't see "a competing service provider" taking away YouTube's usage share as likely to happen soon, seeing as Vidme has recently gone out of business.
Consent Order where the IRS admitted to breaking the law in court.
Not only did they do it, they ADMITTED to it in a court of law. So I am just going to go with the rest of your "debunking" is lies (They are but this was the easiest and indisputable).
Wow, you must live in an echo chamber to be such an expert on these topics without actually knowing about these topics.
I did. You know what the best part of it was? They didn't do a fuckin thing to me!
Ha Haaaaaaaaaa! So fuck your mother.
Gonna go throw up in someone's mailbox now.
Why do I need to subscribe? In fact, even without an account at Youtube, it remembers what I watched and searched and displays most all of what I want to keep track of already. Almost to the point of being obsessive, it can be hard to find new stuff that isn't identical to the old stuff. Telling it I want to track the old stuff will just make it more 'focused'
Basically, the ad-sponsored revenue model suffer from implicit censorship through the pedestrian sensibilities of the major advertisers and this probably can't be fixed.
If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
In the modern eyeball economy, the coyote walks off the branch into space, but doesn't fall down. He just floats there on a hidden wire gathering eyeballs. Once enough eyeballs are harvested, coyote retires the hidden wires, and then all the sparrows sputter in disappointment that economic gravity was never truly suspended in the first place.
In an economy with a large cognitive surplus, the barrier of entry of explicit motivation (payment scheme) over intrinsic motivation (scratching your own creative itch) tends to be a daunting increment, open to the select few.
Ignore the levitating coyote. Thus it has ever been.
The underlying force here is how the average consumer votes with his or her wallet. Most people use an extremely narrow high-pass salience filter over emotional valence, with negatives weighted about five times higher than positives (the cognitive norm).
And then we all sit around and wonder why the pedestrian sensibilities of major advertisers has them acting en masse like unhappy rabbits.
People seem think they can funnel other people money with hardly any thought involved (I wants it, because I saw it on TV!) and not end up ultimately making their own beds to lie in.
Way to miss the point... The users were granted a share of the ad revenue in exchange for posting content. That revenue sharing is being unilaterally withdrawn by Google. Looks bad, smells worse, plain sucks.
All his trolls are belong to us
Meme it right
I hate advertising so I only watch YouTube videos that advertisers won't touch with a 10-ft pole. I only subscribe to the controversial channels who've been demonetized, and have been known to send them contributions now and then.
Google is not the one that would buy the laws. The record industry and the movie industry are pushing in multiple countries to require all video hosts to perform proactive scanning of all uploads for possible copyright infringement, as opposed to merely acting on a notice of claimed infringement. A smaller company isn't going to have the resources to build its own counterpart to Content ID.
Why don't they just let the market decide?
I will explain. Advertisers who wish to avoid appearing on "edgy" and adult content can sponsor the fluffy censorious version which currently calls itself Youtube.
The vast majority of advertisers who just don't care what the far left does, and knows it's basically bad for business to kowtow to them (marvel et al), can get better numbers of eyeballs for less by sponsoring "normal" random Youtube, the Youtube we once knew and loved. Let the market decide.
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen