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 Display Modes
  01 January 2018
Quote: They got greedy, and started abusing it as a way to avoid getting a job where they REALLY DO work hard.

So all the actors, TV show writers, directors, show hosts, etc don't have a real job?   
YouTube is a job.  It is a job for many people.    Folks have made millions off of YouTube.  I hate when people say it ain't a job.  So what is a job to you?  
You do art?  Well some folks would say that ain't a real job but you and I know it is a real job.  
Why would creating a YouTube channel and working on it be anything else?   
What is a job?
Working for the man 40 hours a week?  
If you work in art you are basically doing the same key strokes as someone who is making a YouTube video.    
I don't think it is cool that Jimmy Kimmel gets 3 million views and gets paid 13 million a year when someone on YouTube get 5 million views a video and doesn't get that amount of money, even though doing the same job.  

I don't think folks should rely on YouTube for their income though.   They should use it to upload their videos and use their Bandwidth but build your own brand and find your own advertisers and sponsors.   
You get a million views...I'm sure you could score some deals with very targeted, related ads.

But to say YouTube wasn't a real job and yet thousands have turned it into a real job is a discredit to creators.   
__________________
www.howtomakeyourownanime.com

Last edited by ilovekaiju : 01 January 2018 at 11:44 PM.
 
  01 January 2018
^ The words people put in the  titles of their threads ( such as "Small Creators" ) are there for a reason.

-ScottA
__________________
My Gallery
 
  01 January 2018
It is not about the same job. That is not how the market works. Still to this day most folks here do not understand basic economics. Any late night host gets paid for there market value, also they employ many other people and pay a lot in taxes to the man. That is like the argument that Jessica Chastain should be payed as much as Matt Daimon even though he draws more people to this theaters based on his market value and also screen time is a factor. Working hard does not always dictate how much income a person makes, if I as an employer sees value in your work then I pay you more but if you are just a burger flipper doing a job anyone can easily do then your market value is worth less and why should you deserve fifteen dollars an hour just because you can do a job anyone can do. And if people are trying to justify the cost of living being an issue, then I suggest fighting those areas that increase the cost of living before jumping to demanding a wage hike as a bandage to the real problems and I doubt it is strictly a greed problem, more like something to do with government perhaps. This is why those CEOs make as much as they do as they are qualified to do so and employ other people into the thousands, pay huge taxes to the man and work hard to keep the business afloat. Try running a fortune 500 company and tell me how hard it is to run. I used to work around the rich, they barely get to be home and are loaded with responsibility's so I for one would not want to be one of them but good for them because they can employ me for what I am valued at. If a you tube video creator has more views and subscribers then yes there market value goes up and they make more income. That is what is fair. I think people need to learn lessons in economics in school or home, Economics In One Lesson is a good start.

Last edited by PA00 : 01 January 2018 at 01:09 AM.
 
  01 January 2018
Oh goodie. Another genius know-it-all who thinks he's smarter than everyone else. And feels the need to school us.
Nothing says I'm smarter than most of you people more than a huge run on sentence of babbling off topic gibberish.
Really impressive........................................ .................................................. .................................................. ......................      ......................NOT!

-ScottA
__________________
My Gallery
 
  01 January 2018
Originally Posted by skeebertus:





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.

Explain exactly what is false about it please.

 Prolific youtubers with big sub numbers,
 view counts and sponsors still "earn something from it".


It is not "greed" for a corporate entity, with responsibility
to shareholders etc.,  to refuse to pour money into a nonprofitable
 video hosting &Data service forever.


Post a link to some official  ABC's /Googles"promise" to humanity
that we would have a life time opportunity
to earn income from our internet banality
under the comforting shelter of performance standards
that will never be subject to changing market conditions.


Being a so called" youtuber" was always  a limited partnership
with google being the senior partner $$assuming all of the risk$$
thus dictating the terms.
This sort of thing happens all the time in "show business"
 
  01 January 2018
Originally Posted by PA00: It is not about the same job. That is not how the market works. Still to this day most folks here do not understand basic economics. Any late night host gets paid for there market value, also they employ many other people and pay a lot in taxes to the man. That is like the argument that Jessica Chastain should be payed as much as Matt Daimon even though he draws more people to this theaters based on his market value and also screen time is a factor. Working hard does not always dictate how much income a person makes, if I as an employer sees value in your work then I pay you more but if you are just a burger flipper doing a job anyone can easily do then your market value is worth less and why should you deserve fifteen dollars an hour just because you can do a job anyone can do. And if people are trying to justify the cost of living being an issue, then I suggest fighting those areas that increase the cost of living before jumping to demanding a wage hike as a bandage to the real problems and I doubt it is strictly a greed problem, more like something to do with government perhaps. This is why those CEOs make as much as they do as they are qualified to do so and employ other people into the thousands, pay huge taxes to the man and work hard to keep the business afloat. Try running a fortune 500 company and tell me how hard it is to run. I used to work around the rich, they barely get to be home and are loaded with responsibility's so I for one would not want to be one of them but good for them because they can employ me for what I am valued at. If a you tube video creator has more views and subscribers then yes there market value goes up and they make more income. That is what is fair. I think people need to learn lessons in economics in school or home, Economics In One Lesson is a good start.

+1

Yes ,understanding basic economics, especially labor economics, would help people a lot to understand the relationship between Productivity (NOT HARD WORK) and wage. People often gets very upset when I try to tell them that hard work DO NOT equal high wage. Tehy mostly get angry, because this is the "truth" that they have been hearing their whole life: "if you work hard, you will be rich". No, you will not (you might be, but there is NO physical law that postulates that). Ask any mother of 10 in a developing country what they think about this "truth". 

And this translates very well into arts and 3D graphics. Many seems to think that just because they spent 4 months on creating a picture, it should have a high value, not because it is good (good is very subjective, but lets say: give higher utility to someone willing to pay for it), but because they worked so hard for it. Well, when you go to the store and buy a t-shirt you do not give a "F" how hard those people in Bangladesh worked to produce that t-shirt, you only care about what value that t-shirt gives to you. Otherwise , IF you paid based on the amount of sweat that was needed to produce the t-shirt you would perhaps be willing to happily pay $500 instead of $9.99. But you don't do that. Same with everything else. So, people don't care how hard you worked (your problem if YOU are inefficient and have to work hard!), they only care about the result (what utility=value does it give).

Of course it would be nice with a system that gave something back to those who share their ideas and knowledge, but first you have to recoup the price of the data-centers and the people that made that service possible in the first place. If you are not happy with what YouTube offers creators, why not start your own service?! (no, you can. Just as some unknown coders (Facebook) killed Myspace, you can kill YouTube)

EDIT PS: I completely forgot one thing. When you post something on YouTube you do that in a speculative manner, no one asked you to perform a job. You speculate that someone wanted you to do that job.

Last edited by masterofacid : 01 January 2018 at 01:38 PM.
 
  01 January 2018
Originally Posted by ThreeDDude: Explain exactly what is false about it please.

 Prolific youtubers with big sub numbers,
 view counts and sponsors still "earn something from it".


The numbers earned by Youtubers are tiny compared to what Alphabet/Google and the advertisers earn from YOUR content.

Say you post popular news videos about the latest cars on Youtube. Audi or Volkswagen or General Motors place one 15 - 30 second ad in front of your 5 million views video and sell maybe 1,000 to 2,000 additional 45,000 Dollar cars as a result of that ad.

Would the money YOU make from that one 5 million views video that you produced, and you promoted, and you uploaded, and you promoted buy you even 1 newly minteded production car?

So WHO precisely is making the big money from your Youtube videos, YOU, the content creator, or THEY, the companies just slapping their 30 second advertising onto your content?

And WHO is taking the big risk with their TIME, MONEY and PRODUCTION EFFORT - the Youtuber making the videos, or the advertiser who just says "this account looks kinda popular right now, lets slap our 30 second Product ad onto this for a few weeks and see how much we sell"?


Originally Posted by ThreeDDude: It is not "greed" for a corporate entity, with responsibility
to shareholders etc.,  to refuse to pour money into a nonprofitable
 video hosting &Data service forever.


,
NOBODY forced Google to buy YOUTUBE. Google made very, very, very large amounts of money from a fucking internet search algorithm that only took a handful of good brains to build.

If operating Youtube is "boo boo boo soooo expensive" then Google should sell the fucking site to someone else. There would be plenty of companies that will buy Youtube in an instant.


Originally Posted by ThreeDDude: Post a link to some official  ABC's /Googles"promise" to humanity
that we would have a life time opportunity
to earn income from our internet banality
under the comforting shelter of performance standards
that will never be subject to changing market conditions.


Was it not Larry Page and Sergey Brin who touted their "Don't Be Evil" slogan over and over from day one, until everybody believed that Google will "never do evil"?.

And is it not Larry Page and Sergey Brin who have completely stopped using the "Don't Be Evil" slogan, because that principle went out the window for them years ago?

If "Don't Be Evil" was not some sort of iron principle or promise, then what precisely was it?


Originally Posted by ThreeDDude: Being a so called" youtuber" was always  a limited partnership
with google being the senior partner $assuming all of the risk$
thus dictating the terms.
This sort of thing happens all the time in "show business"



What precisely is this "big risk" for Google? Youtube is THE go-to site for internet video on the entire PLANET. The second ANYTHING video related is talked about, from the latest Taylor Swift music video to the latest viral sensation, tens of millions of people from around the rush to Youtube.com to see it.

And Youtube mines the fuck out of their visits to the site, and sells that data to tens of thousands of companies who advertise on Youtube.

This gives Google MASSIVE POWER, MASSIVE VISIBILITY, MASSIVE MARKET DATA ON EVERBODY in the market. The cost to Google? Basically just buying enough CPU time and bandwidth on some data centers.

Compare this to the RISK taken by a film studio spending 3 years and 200 Million Dollars making just one 2 hour film that may or may not do well.

Or the RISK taken by BOEING or AIRBUS when they spend 6 to 10 years and billions of Dollars creating a new passenger airliner?

Precisely where is this "RISK RISK RISK" that Google is taking with Youtube?
 
  01 January 2018
Originally Posted by skeebertus: The numbers earned by Youtubers are tiny compared to what Alphabet/Google and the advertisers earn from YOUR content.

Say you post popular news videos about the latest cars on Youtube. Audi or Volkswagen or General Motors place one 15 - 30 second ad in front of your 5 million views video and sell maybe 1,000 to 2,000 additional 45,000 Dollar cars as a result of that ad.

Would the money YOU make from that one 5 million views video that you produced, and you promoted, and you uploaded, and you promoted buy you even 1 newly minteded production car?

So WHO precisely is making the big money from your Youtube videos, YOU, the content creator, or THEY, the companies just slapping their 30 second advertising onto your content?

And WHO is taking the big risk with their TIME, MONEY and PRODUCTION EFFORT - the Youtuber making the videos, or the advertiser who just says "this account looks kinda popular right now, lets slap our 30 second Product ad onto this for a few weeks and see how much we sell"?




,
NOBODY forced Google to buy YOUTUBE. Google made very, very, very large amounts of money from a fucking internet search algorithm that only took a handful of good brains to build.

If operating Youtube is "boo boo boo soooo expensive" then Google should sell the fucking site to someone else. There would be plenty of companies that will buy Youtube in an instant.




Was it not Larry Page and Sergey Brin who touted their "Don't Be Evil" slogan over and over from day one, until everybody believed that Google will "never do evil"?.

And is it not Larry Page and Sergey Brin who have completely stopped using the "Don't Be Evil" slogan, because that principle went out the window for them years ago?

If "Don't Be Evil" was not some sort of iron principle or promise, then what precisely was it?





What precisely is this "big risk" for Google? Youtube is THE go-to site for internet video on the entire PLANET. The second ANYTHING video related is talked about, from the latest Taylor Swift music video to the latest viral sensation, tens of millions of people from around the rush to Youtube.com to see it.

And Youtube mines the fuck out of their visits to the site, and sells that data to tens of thousands of companies who advertise on Youtube.

This gives Google MASSIVE POWER, MASSIVE VISIBILITY, MASSIVE MARKET DATA ON EVERBODY in the market. The cost to Google? Basically just buying enough CPU time and bandwidth on some data centers.

Compare this to the RISK taken by a film studio spending 3 years and 200 Million Dollars making just one 2 hour film that may or may not do well.

Or the RISK taken by BOEING or AIRBUS when they spend 6 to 10 years and billions of Dollars creating a new passenger airliner?

Precisely where is this "RISK RISK RISK" that Google is taking with Youtube?

Mate ...seriously.... cost control
 A Hollywood movie studio  
has a per project budget that does not include
the cost of thousands of people each hour of each day
showing up on the set expecting to eat the catered meals for free
with some even expecting to be paid  a living wage for thier
attempts to be entertaining also.


This is also true with Aircraft manufacturing
their year over year costs 
are controled internally and are not open ended 
and affected by thousands of people who show up each hour
of each day ,at a boeing plant expecting free  use of boeing's resources for life.


If you can not  see the risk  in a business
model  like youtube compared to  manufacturing,
or even traditional film making  then you are beyond my capacity
to explain  it further . 
 
  01 January 2018
Originally Posted by masterofacid:
EDIT PS: I completely forgot one thing. When you post something on YouTube you do that in a speculative manner, no one asked you to perform a job. You speculate that someone wanted you to do that job.
 Indeed
thank you.
 
  01 January 2018
Originally Posted by skeebertus:



Was it not Larry Page and Sergey Brin who touted their "Don't Be Evil" slogan over and over from day one, until everybody believed that Google will "never do evil"?.

And is it not Larry Page and Sergey Brin who have completely stopped using the "Don't Be Evil" slogan, because that principle went out the window for them years ago?

If "Don't Be Evil" was not some sort of iron principle or promise, then what precisely was it?



That reminds me of an interview Michael Eisner did after he took over Disney and he said something like "the power this company has is awesome and isn't it wonderful that it will be used for good and not evil?" Haha just the fact that he would think of that,  and make that vow , is probably an indication not to take someone at their word. 
And it was Eisner who said he wanted Disney to be "entertainer for the Globe." That doesn't sound like a man who believes in national cinema or competition.

The lunacy of current media--the guy who played Michael Myers in the original Halloween is coming back for the umpteenth sequel reboot--he's 70 years old.
At best that isn't exactly much of a marketing hook. But it shows how closely Hollywood is associated with necrophilia and a lack of fresh ideas.
Imagine if airplane manufacturers  encouraged people to fly by advertising that they are going to use 50 year old parts. Or beverage companies said they were going to use oranges from 1978.

This kind of bizarro stuff only happens with media because it is so far beyond simply supply and demand. And on top of it they said 2017 was the worst US summer box office since 1992--but it was a successful year thanks to foreign sales. Or so they say. 
__________________
Sword and Sorcery book trailer/cg demo
 
  01 January 2018
Strange coincidence this occurs shortly after the current US administration/FCC handed the keys to ISPs to virtually rape everyone.

Greed is a virus...eventually it corrupts everything and reduces it down to commercials about pills, cars, and cartoons made to sale toys (rather than toys made from cartoons).

On the other hand, I'll be more than happy to see some of these kids playing video games treating others like crap get out of their parents basements at 35 years old and get a real job.  ... the nice ones, I'll be sad to see go :/

Last edited by quaziconscience : 01 January 2018 at 06:19 AM.
 
  01 January 2018
Originally Posted by friendfromarea51:
Greed is a virus...eventually it corrupts everything and reduces it down to commercials about pills, cars, and cartoons made to sale toys (rather than toys made from cartoons)

To look at greed from the opposite direction, please read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged or The Fountain Head. It is always important to get both sides of the story....
 
  01 January 2018
Originally Posted by masterofacid: To look at greed from the opposite direction, please read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged or The Fountain Head. It is always important to get both sides of the story....
From my own casual  non scientific observation,
 it seems that people ,in general ,very quickly develop 
an unhealthy sense of entitlement over time when given things
they perceive to be "free".

When the paradigm changes, (as things tend to do)
The  Myopic,shrill narrative often sounds like
that of people who have had some fundmental human right 
Abridged  by the big evil overlords above them.

The internet has exacerbated this mentality in my view.

I am not here to carry ABC/Googles Water,  they can sod off
as far as I am concerned.


However ,Anti Corporate Emotionalism aside,
What has actually happened here??


The entertainment branch of a media company has raised the bar for entry into limited parnterships
with members of the general public who aspire to earn income 
in the highly speculative endeavour of getting other members of the 
general public to consume their unsolicited content.


So those apsirants ,sitting at home, with a minimal investment
in equipment now have to become more competitive to comply with higher standards
to make money by being more  "popular" with strangers who watch  their videos.


What an utterly first world dilemma.
 
  01 January 2018
A hypothesis. The last 30 years private corporations have taken over a lot of responsibilities and services that government used to have and provide for, which can be both good or bad depending what responsibility or service we are talking about. Most public services are free* or are heavily subsidized through tax payment. So when people get used to free services, I think they might start regard them as public services/public goods. Pure public goods have two properties that normal private goods do not have, they are non excludable  (Everyone has access to it, and no one can be stopped from using it) and they are non rivalrous (if I listen to radio, won't exclude you from listen to radio too). So, If people start to believe that YouTube is a public good, of course there is an outrage when they start to feel excluded. How dare the "state" exclude them, since they as citizens/taxpayers believe they have same right to the good as everyone else.
 
  01 January 2018
I don't know what to say about Net Neutrality except if big corporations claimed to be for it, then I have to pause and reflect.
Big corporations tied to media are not just interested in making money, they are interested in content and message control which is bad news for culture and society because they currently do have a lot of power and influence.

So whatever it is, this is not about free markets or capitalism. That only applies to small businesses dependent on consumers.

Basically situation is you have some very wealthy people who all attend the same parties and share the same philosophy controlling most of the media--and they are not dependent on consumers at all. Either they make money from other business assets or they  make it from foreign sales.
Whatever the case, they do what they want, they don't care about public tastes.
  The idea that the public wanted less variety, more sequels, more remakes, and less original content is debunked by a few simple observations.

1--if movie studios can't take risks (which is what they say when people complain about the dumbing down of content), why did they pick a guy who worships Annie Hall to make Star Wars?  That sounds like they were willing to take a risk.

2--where did the Kardashians come from? I don't remember the public asking for Kardashians. The media owners selected them and promoted them--it had zero to do with public interests.

3--if movie companies are guided by profits, then how did Woody Allen get funding for films? He has made at least a movie a year since 1970, AFAIK no actor has ever refused him, he has never needed to raise funds (unlike other directors who had made more populist films) and not even that scandal with his wife and daughter dented his film career.
Likewise with Kubrick. 2001 didn't make money for ten years, A Clockwork Orange was banned in the UK-and yet Warner Bros. didn't say "ah shucks, sorry Stanley, we cant take anymore risks."


I think the media ownership situation is kind of  like.... there is this  wealthy guy --he was born with a lot of money--aristocratic--and he has friends with money, and he has a talentless nephew who fancies himself a singer--so the wealthy uncle buys all the best sound equipment in town, amplifiers, megaphones, everything--so his nephew can sing his heart out to the public and they have no choice but listen since his music is blaring everywhere and nothing else.
Meanwhile there is a singer on the street corner who has  a much better voice, but  no access to sound equipment. He cant get anyone to fund him either because the uncle has made everything so scarce/expensive. Just not worth the investment as a private funder. So the singer has only two choices-get paid to perform some songs written by the nephew, or  hum on the corner and be satisfied.
Then along comes a new sound system--and the street singer starts using is--until the uncle buys up the business and restricts access for his nephew's benefit.

That is sort of where we are with media.
It does not encourage professionalism or opportunity or merit (that is, merit based on public interests).
This is not a supply/demand situation.
Guaranteed, if the big media companies were forced to sell off their tv and news and other holdings, there would suddenly be a lot more diversity in content and more creative risks.


 
__________________
Sword and Sorcery book trailer/cg demo
 
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 09:46 AM.


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