YouTube Unveils New Monetization Rules Killing Ad Revenue for Small Creators

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

REPLY TO THREAD
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  4 Weeks Ago
YouTube Unveils New Monetization Rules Killing Ad Revenue for Small Creators

Amid seemingly endless controversies about content on YouTube (including, most recently, a Logan Paul video shot in Japan’s “suicide forest”), Google announced major changes last night to how videos would be monetized on the site. Going forward,
the company says big channels included in its coveted Google Preferred
program will be manually vetted for ad friendliness. Far more
drastically, the video-sharing site is making it a lot harder for small
channels to make money off the platform—and uploaders are pissed.https://gizmodo.com/youtube-unveils...even-1822154823
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
  4 Weeks Ago
I have a small channel of a little under 1000 subs. I'm going to lose monetization in February... technically, there is something I could do to prevent that, but I'm not going to worry about it.  I'm also planning on starting a new channel soon, and am working very hard on a lot of things in preparation for the launch of the new channel, which is still probably a couple of month off.  I'm one of the very few people who isn't upset by this change.  On the whole, I think it's better for the platform.  
 
  4 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by AndrewGaus: I have a small channel of a little under 1000 subs. I'm going to lose monetization in February... technically, there is something I could do to prevent that, but I'm not going to worry about it.  I'm also planning on starting a new channel soon, and am working very hard on a lot of things in preparation for the launch of the new channel, which is still probably a couple of month off.  I'm one of the very few people who isn't upset by this change.  On the whole, I think it's better for the platform.  
Agreed sir.
The  cost of running server farms & Data centers is very high.
It is simple economics.

A for profit entity cannot continue to run a worldwide "free"  service
at a loss ,as Google has, since they aquired youtube in 2007.
It is nothing personal against the "little guys".

look at the vast number of shows canceled
from all of the major TV& cable networks each season
for the last decade.
They were determined to be not profitable for the network
based on not meeting certain rigid numerical targets.
Quality of the content/shows is  a factor.
 However It is the view numbers that prevail .

It makes no business sense for Google to continue to run youtube like some
free sideshow in the village square.

If it is to compete with the major networks it has to operate
like the major networks.. that is the reality.

Those who wish to keep their youtube partnerships
will have to meet their numerical targets just like any 
sitcom ,Drama or sci fi show trying to stay "on the air"
on any of the major media  outlets.
Those who fail will have to find alternative distribution outlets
Much like all of the actors/writers from canceled shows like "Dark Matter"
Had to find new gigs.
The nature of "Show business" Mates.

Last edited by ThreeDDude : 4 Weeks Ago at 12:12 PM. Reason: spelling
 
  4 Weeks Ago
I don't see the fuss with cutting monetization for smaller videos. If you're having your money cut, it isn't small people making a living, it's people who earn enough for one cheeseburger per month. If you're not even getting 1000 views on a video then why even bother sticking adverts on it in the first place?
__________________
Matthew O'Neill
www.3dfluff.com
 
  4 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by imashination: I don't see the fuss with cutting monetization for smaller videos. If you're having your money cut, it isn't small people making a living, it's people who earn enough for one cheeseburger per month. If you're not even getting 1000 views on a video then why even bother sticking adverts on it in the first place?

Advertisement is not just some stochastic process where you get a random amount of buyers based on a given number of ad views.  It is also important to take the "quality" of the viewers into account. If you have a 1000 viewers that are will to spend big money on a given product, a 1000 viewers can be worth a lot.

But, here is the interesting part with all these social media and sharing platforms that many seem to forget: They are private enterprises and can do what ever they want with their monetizing schemes. It is not a public institution that is bound by law to follow the will of the people.
 
  4 Weeks Ago
Quote: It makes no business sense for Google to continue to run youtube like some
free sideshow in the village square.

If it is to compete with the major networks it has to operate
like the major networks.. that is the reality.

The only thing is that Major Networks have content that is not demonetized even on YouTube.   They can have racey jokes, show news and talk about the news without being demonetized.  
I think that people need to cut out the Adsense middle man if they start getting good viewership.   If I had a million viewers "adsense" would be my fun money but real money I would have paid sales reps go out and find me sponsorship related to my videos.       I'd just use my videos to promote my own personal businesses as well.    I think many creators have it wrong.  You don't need adsense.  
__________________
www.howtomakeyourownanime.com
 
  4 Weeks Ago
Google is a super monopoly anyway. Regular business rules don't apply for it any more than it does for Disney.
If a company is so big it can get governments to give it tax money or rewrite laws for its benefit, then it is another entity completely.

The internet is roughly like the early 60s when cheap color movie film came on the market and lots of people were able to get into moviemaking professionally with little ties to the Hollywood majors which were in bad shape and out of touch with audiences despite having unlimited money. Then they created the blockbuster and killed off the smaller players, thus reducing variety again, which is the way they like it.
Efforts to tame the internet seem to work the same way--the aim is to reduce free expression and uncontrolled information streams. It's bad for their business in all senses of the word.

For creators, some kind of  stable monetizing structure is preferable. Despite the amazing advances in technology and  distribution it is like a needle in a hay stack the size of Mt Everest. Youtube offers at least some recognizable port of call.
I made money through an Amazon service merely due to the fact that you get so many more eyeballs randomly.
But it's not stable--consider how Amazon gutted IMDB-and does not even care that everyone left the site.
__________________
Sword and Sorcery book trailer/cg demo
 
  4 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by kelgy: Google is a super monopoly anyway. Regular business rules don't apply for it any more than it does for Disney.
If a company is so big it can get governments to give it tax money or rewrite laws for its benefit, then it is another entity completely.

The internet is roughly like the early 60s when cheap color movie film came on the market and lots of people were able to get into moviemaking professionally with little ties to the Hollywood majors which were in bad shape and out of touch with audiences despite having unlimited money. Then they created the blockbuster and killed off the smaller players, thus reducing variety again, which is the way they like it.
Efforts to tame the internet seem to work the same way--the aim is to reduce free expression and uncontrolled information streams. It's bad for their business in all senses of the word.

For creators, some kind of  stable monetizing structure is preferable. Despite the amazing advances in technology and  distribution it is like a needle in a hay stack the size of Mt Everest. Youtube offers at least some recognizable port of call.
I made money through an Amazon service merely due to the fact that you get so many more eyeballs randomly.
But it's not stable--consider how Amazon gutted IMDB-and does not even care that everyone left the site.
This post is an amazing insight. Thanks for posting.
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
  4 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by masterofacid: Advertisement is not just some stochastic process where you get a random amount of buyers based on a given number of ad views.  It is also important to take the "quality" of the viewers into account. If you have a 1000 viewers that are will to spend big money on a given product, a 1000 viewers can be worth a lot.

But, here is the interesting part with all these social media and sharing platforms that many seem to forget: They are private enterprises and can do what ever they want with their monetizing schemes. It is not a public institution that is bound by law to follow the will of the people.
Whilst this is true, the difference in ad revenue for a simple channel with low value viewers and a channel with high ranked viewers is roughly 1:2. ie. you could have bought two cheeseburgers instead of one. Either way, the threshold they've set seems mostly there to cut out a load of admin and monitoring work from channels so small that the ad revenue isn't worth the time it takes them to handle objectionable content and copyright issues.

My beef with this as a news story is that many are framing this as big bad google stomping on the small guys. Personally I think it is fine for them to cut out people earning pennies who just waste their time. If you care about turning your channel into a source of income, asking that a video get a small handful of views first really isn't asking much from the creator.
__________________
Matthew O'Neill
www.3dfluff.com
 
  4 Weeks Ago
Quote: My beef with this as a news story is that many are framing this as big bad google stomping on the small guys. Personally I think it is fine for them to cut out people earning pennies who just waste their time. If you care about turning your channel into a source of income, asking that a video get a small handful of views first really isn't asking much from the creator.

The fact is they are big, bad.  Not just the small guys.   
They do garbage like demonetize a video even from a big name YouTuber that shouldn't be demonetized.   By the time they fix it after the big time YouTuber complains and it is reviewed it is 3 days to 5 days later where viewership dropped off loosing the creator a lot of money.    I mean that is a lot of money if the first 2 million views are not monetized.  

They let whoever flag something with a "copyright" strike even though it is Fair Use or doesn't even belong to that person putting up the Copyright strike.   They give the flagger the benefit of the doubt.   Some flaggers have made a living out of it, flagging things and get to earn income on that video till the flag is removed.    Also this puts a strike on the YouTubers record.

They always do a knee jerk reaction to everything instead of thinking it through.   Those advertisers backed out but in reality they will come back...YouTube is a big platform especially for the demographic most folks who watch Youtube.  Folks ain't watching TV like they used to, especially the 18-40 folks.  

Oh and the sad thing is a YouTuber will do the exact same thing someone like Jimmy Kimmel is doinig or talking about and guess which person does not get demonetized?

So yeah it is turning into the support the big guy vs do what we did that made us great.  
__________________
www.howtomakeyourownanime.com
 
  4 Weeks Ago
Google Big and Bad?.....Eh. Maybe.
Incompetent?...................Absolutely!
I still remember the day when I heard that Youth Tube was going to start paying people for their videos.
As a person who has managed people for decades I was horrified because I knew EXACTLY what was going to happen.....And it did.
They taught these people that what they were doing was a "job" and worth getting paid for it. And I knew that was going to end up being a huge train wreck when realty sets in and it goes away.

*My all time favorites are the people that say they post videos to "help" other people. Not for the money.
*Then they flip out and complain like spoiled children when they get demonitized.
*That's absolutely hysterical to me. They don't understand that they've just admitted that they're lying, money grubbing,  hypocrites.

I'm a YT creator myself and know how much "work" is involved to make videos.
Yes. It's not exactly easy. But it's nowhere near a "job" level activity either.
Kids on the other hand think everything they do is precious and worth money. And YT created a monster by catering to that warped snowflake mentality.
YT set them up for slaughter when they started paying them. Only to yank it away from them when it no longer was feasible. And I knew this was going to happen way back on the first day this paying for videos crap started.
If I was there I could have told them exactly what was going to happen the first day they thought about paying people for their videos. And NOT to do it.

When YT came along. They gave us a place to post FREE videos. And that was fantastic.
But then humans being humans. Instead of using it and being grateful for it. They got greedy, and started abusing it as a way to avoid getting a job where they REALLY DO work hard.
Once again proving this general rule to be true: Humans ruin everything that's good and decent because of greed and money.

-ScottA
__________________
My Gallery
 
  4 Weeks Ago
Youtube has a horrible UI design on its website, and the Android app for phones is even worse.

There really is no good "ordered catalogue" you can dive into on Youtube to try and discover things in a more properly indexed way.

The recommendation algorithm also really boxes you in after a while - you start to see the exact same types of videos over and over again based on what the algo things you are interested in.

All of this makes is seriously difficult to establish a monetized presence on Youtube - people essentially search for keywords or get algorithm driven recommendations to find your video.

Some sort of well ordered index  -  for example    CARS  >  SMALL CARS  >  ELECTRIC  > ASIAN MADE  - would make for a totally new way to discover content.

Youtube is basically  a video-streaming datacenter with the Google search algorithm running on top of it, a poorly tuned recommendation algorithm and a basic way to like and comment videos.

Youtube could be so much more imho.

So I wouldn't expect huge monetization from such a website in the first place. YT is not a well designed or well run site.
 
  4 Weeks Ago
Youtube is not a "democracy"
it is private property

Posting ones content there is
not a civil right.


If your content is that good start a patreon
and ask your "fans" to make a monthly commitment.

https://www.tresillian.org.au/media...779220030000000

Last edited by ThreeDDude : 4 Weeks Ago at 07:40 PM. Reason: spelling
 
  4 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by Scott Ayers: Google Big and Bad?.....Eh. Maybe.
Incompetent?...................Absolutely!
I still remember the day when I heard that Youth Tube was going to start paying people for their videos.
As a person who has managed people for decades I was horrified because I knew EXACTLY what was going to happen.....And it did.
They taught these people that what they were doing was a "job" and worth getting paid for it. And I knew that was going to end up being a huge train wreck when realty sets in and it goes away.

*My all time favorites are the people that say they post videos to "help" other people. Not for the money.
*Then they flip out and complain like spoiled children when they get demonitized.
*That's absolutely hysterical to me. They don't understand that they've just admitted that they're lying, money grubbing,  hypocrites.

I'm a YT creator myself and know how much "work" is involved to make videos.
Yes. It's not exactly easy. But it's nowhere near a "job" level activity either.
Kids on the other hand think everything they do is precious and worth money. And YT created a monster by catering to that warped snowflake mentality.
YT set them up for slaughter when they started paying them. Only to yank it away from them when it no longer was feasible. And I knew this was going to happen way back on the first day this paying for videos crap started.
If I was there I could have told them exactly what was going to happen the first day they thought about paying people for their videos. And NOT to do it.

When YT came along. They gave us a place to post FREE videos. And that was fantastic.
But then humans being humans. Instead of using it and being grateful for it. They got greedy, and started abusing it as a way to avoid getting a job where they REALLY DO work hard.
Once again proving this general rule to be true: Humans ruin everything that's good and decent because of greed and money.

-ScottA
Great insights in the above post ..

Thank you
 
  4 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by ThreeDDude: Youtube is not a "democracy"
it is private property


You can't really call a website "YOU-TUBE" as in "YOU" not "OUR-TUBE" and then claim "it is not a democracy". The whole premise of the site was that it is about YOU.

Originally Posted by ThreeDDude: Posting ones content there is
not a civil right.


In that case we need a PEER-TO-PEER alternative to Youtube based on a Torrent-like engine. Content would be stored on tens of millions of user PCs forming one great big video streaming cloud. There would be no need for Youtube or any other video streaming website ever again.

Watch how quickly Google bends over and says "Its a civil right, its a civil right" when that happens.


Originally Posted by ThreeDDude: If your content is that good start a patreon
and ask your "fans" to make a monthly commitment.


Except that Patreon is small, most video watchers hate paying for videos, and Youtube has the big content catalogue that makes "browsing" - like zapping in the old TV days - highly rewarding.

The only way a system like Patreon has any chance of survival is micropayments - where you pay, for example, 1/100th of a cent for each video you watch.

That in turn would piss off the Credit Card companies mightily, unless it is THEM that make the big bucks from micropayments.


Put more simply - Youtube built an advertising system based on a false premise - that Youtubers could earn something from it. It didn't deliver not because of economics but because Alphabet is greedy.

Alphabet probably decided it should keep 98% of all ad revenue for itself, and that fucked up Youtube.
 
reply share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.