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.
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.
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.
This is what YouTube will do to repair it's relationship with advertisers INSTEAD of fixing Elsa-gate.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
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.
Everyone except corporations or super-big channels.
My guess is that Logan Paul and any other big channel targeting tweens will get picked up on this new "paring" program since it is big enough.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
They probably round up. So produce 3 shitty 2 minute videos every day instead of one well produced 1 hour video a week.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
YouTube does not owe you a living. The talented and truly worthwhile will survive.
In theory, 1000 subscribers and 4000 view hours per year means 240 view minutes per subscriber per year. That can be satisfied if all your subscribers, say, view one 5-minute video a week.
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? ;-)
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.
It's not Google, it's the advertisers.
Before the adpocalypse happened, YouTube slapped any ad on top of any video and things were good.
The problem is that people started realizing (because the election of a certain president seems to have given legitimacy to viewpoints that at best were controversial, at worse, something generally disallowed (we fought wars against Nazism, for example)) that certain videos were being sponsored with ads. Advertisers got very worried - they're a thin-skinned bunch and it appears that if their ad shows up one of these videos, it's a clear indication that the company supports those viewpoints. So advertisers left in droves - including many big ones.
(Yes, it doesn't help that many of those people think if some webhost or other doesn't take down their content, it's because they support or endorse the content. There's a difference from "I offer service equally (and blindly)" to "I support you". Cloudflare was one of these companies - it only pulled support for DailyStorm after the site promoted that since Cloudflare still provides them service, they agree and support them. No, Cloudflare was trying to be fair and equitable by not caring about the sites that use their services, not that they explicitly endorse or support those sites).
YouTube cracked down harder when again, advertisers discovered their ads were placed on videos that advertisers didn't want, and again, more advertisers pulled out.
So YouTube was forced to demonetize videos that basically could not find ad sponsorship. This is preferable to the alternative, which is YouTube banning or deleting those videos. But it also means people whose content consists of potentially controversial topics are unlikely to ever get monetized because YouTube has no advertiser lined up to support that content. That's why gun videos are hard to get monetized - with all the mass shootings that happen, no "regular" advertiser wants to be seen supporting anything that leads to another Las Vegas or similar incident.
Think of advertisers as people who need trigger warnings, and if your video is likely to cause any of those warnings, it likely won't be monetized. YouTube monetization only happens because of advertisers.
People will just not use the site ads on offer.
The video will have an ad spoken about by the presenter as part of their video.
The ad can find the content and work direct with the content creator.
No need to have site ads and be under the control of new SJW site rules.
That real ad in the video uploaded supports the content creator directly not the site.
The more the site makes demands on the people who make the content the more other sites that respect freedom of spec and freedom after speech stat looking better.
Creative people can take their skills, content, ad support and fans to other sites that still respect creativity and freedom of speech. The ads, tech and servers are no longer so unique to one brand.
Once a site has so many SJW rules that such new rules become more work than creating content then other normal upload sites become attractive.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
People already do that on YouTube - you get lots of videos sponsored by various companies.
The problem is,
1) You need to be an established creator with lots of views, or ad companies won't talk to you
2) It irritates viewers because they are now forced to sit through ads, and YouTube stats have shown the forced ad is the worst regarded ad. Granted, people can skip through them by advancing the play bar so it's a bit better.
3) Your only statistic is views. You don't know how many people actually sat through the ad versus simply skipped ahead. No analytics means a severe restriction on price.
4) Once your video is up, you cannot edit it without starting from scratch. So if your advertiser drops you, you can't edit the advertiser out of your previous videos and add in a new advertiser. Your only option is to upload a new video replacing the old video and start from 0.
So at best, all you have is an upfront per-episode payment from an advertiser, because they know their ad will be up for all eternity and they really have no statistics about it other than views, so they may have to scale their payment so you don't upload crap that gets no views.
The subscriber count has almost no correlation with the view count or watch time. I have 60k subscribers and my videos get anywhere from 5k to 1 million views. If I could actually count on 60k people watching every video it would be a completely different animal.
Re " they really have no statistics about it other than views"
A discount word mentioned that is only given for that creator to use.
The number of people who then follow the link and enter the word
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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.
Well, changing terms is not a nice thing to do, but then again, Aiphabet provides hosting and cdn at no cost to the content creator, so if the want to maxsimize therir net ad revenue, I cb't realy blame them. Contetnt creators meay need to look at alternative revenue streams or other vido streaming platforms.
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