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
  3 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by kelgy: 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

Since when are a media companies different from any other company, in terms of profit maximization? Are media companies own by the state or the people? I am curious, what is "public interest" in this case? Should we vote for which car designs GM should put out on the market, or have a committee deciding which which colors companies are allowed to use for sneakers? I think limiting the freedom of expression and speech is the right way to go to stop these greedy companies that force us all to binge watch series and spend hours on ends on social media...
 
  3 Weeks Ago
It seems different.  Take soda pop.
In Canada despite the presence of Coca Cola, Pepsi, and other big players, as well as a myriad of other beverages, you can still find a few Canadian made boutique soda pop companies. Why is there not a total monopoly on beverages like there is with the motion picture  media?

Well of course media is more portable, but even in the days when it was not, Canada always seemed to be doing Hollywood favors at the expense of local filmmakers. As one professional filmmaker put it, imagine if the government got into the shoe-making business, and  the effect that would have on shoe companies if the gov was giving out free pairs of shoes (which is what they do with government-financed educational film). Canadian filmmakers cannot get into the business because the government makes the educational films itself.

 
A Canadian fiction filmmaker also  faces the dilemma that private investors cannot make money with Hollywood controlling all cinemas and most of the tv as well. Who would want to invest in something when it is so hard to make money back?
The Canadian government also does Hollywood favors by discouraging competition (since the government will only fund domestic film if it does not contain elements that violate the criminal code--so no depictions of crime like you find in the average Hollywood film). But the Canadian government does not mind giving lots of Canadian tax money to Hollywood--to make content that violates the same rule on depictions of  criminal activity!

Canada is a young country culturally-speaking--yet we have the same situation in England which did have a functioning film industry for a few decades  (1950-1970).

This sort of monopoly control only seems to plague  a few businesses like media, banking etc.
We should be seeing conglomerate monopoly control of everything, but there are still lots of mom and pop clothing stores and other businesses despite the presence of much bigger companies on those fields.
__________________
Sword and Sorcery book trailer/cg demo
 
  3 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by kelgy: It seems different.  Take soda pop.
In Canada despite the presence of Coca Cola, Pepsi, and other big players, as well as a myriad of other beverages, you can still find a few Canadian made boutique soda pop companies. Why is there not a total monopoly on beverages like there is with the motion picture  media?

 

There  has always been independant filmakers in the predigital age 
as there is now. 
There is no "Total Monopoly in the motion picture media"


The difference is in Economies of Scale and marketing and 
distribution capability.

your little "mum and pop" soft drink makers in canada
are likely family owned operating on family owned property
and have a small base of loyal customers with no financial ability to compete
with global brands like pepsi etc.


I am given to understand that
Hollywood Films in Canada so often  due to  Canada's Abundance
of generic, relatively modern Cityscapes and lack of the draconian
permit fees and local living costs they would incur in New York or Los angeles.


Also consider that a major hollywood production may pour tens of 
Millions of Dollars into a local canadian cities economy, in a matter of weeks.


Compare this to what some local indie film makers
,working out of their homes, would likely spend on catering
,hotels, restraunts, car rentals etc.

Last edited by ThreeDDude : 3 Weeks Ago at 06:07 PM. Reason: spelling
 
  3 Weeks Ago
The Hollywood majors always had a monetary  (and government connection) advantage. This is why saying it is simply a matter of supply and demand is bogus. They had unlimited funds to start with.
They had 80% control of UK cinemas by 1930! Come on-Hollywood was in its infancy then-how did it get control so fast-especially when it was violating Edison patents to establish itself?


RKO and Walt Disney were different--they didnt have that foreign cash-- Disney was a household name entirely from the public  merit of his content (unlike Woody Allen who had to be boosted by friends in the media).
 The point with Canada is that the government discourages domestic production but encourages Hollywood domination. They give free money to Hollywood to film in Canada. Big corporations getting welfare.
But Canada does not discourage domestic soda pop or other businesses--in fact, they offer money to Canadian start ups to create businesses that offer Canadian versions of US ones.
It is only with media that we find this kind of selective treatment.

As for airplanes--transportation is a little different from culture--and unlike media, it must remain a merit-based enterprise. if the plane doesn't fly, there is no business. God help us if the owners of Hollywood were making airplanes--there would be crashes all over the place...

Cultural products are more subjective--but there is enough evidence to suggest that Hollywood has lost touch with domestic audiences (worst summer since 1992 according to Box Office Mojo) and yet  they do not appear to be hurting. They have money.
Even the phenomenon of "Hollywood accounting"  is peculiar to Hollywood only--not other businesses. The inflated costs associated with movies--why do other industries not have these kinds of wild cost overruns?

Not to mention those various sex abuse scandals.
The cover up could only happen because the media people all know each other and the news media wouldnt  talk about it. Another sign of monopoly control.
__________________
Sword and Sorcery book trailer/cg demo
 
  3 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by kelgy:
Cultural products are more subjective--but there is enough evidence to suggest that Hollywood has lost touch with domestic audiences (worst summer since 1992 according to Box Office Mojo) and yet  they do not appear to be hurting. They have money.
Even the phenomenon of "Hollywood accounting"  is peculiar to Hollywood only--not other businesses. The inflated costs associated with movies--why do other industries not have these kinds of wild cost overruns?

Not to mention those various sex abuse scandals.
The cover up could only happen because the media people all know each other and the news media wouldnt  talk about it. Another sign of monopoly control.


Every time a movie is made a new production "company" is incorporated
often several such entities.
many of the costs are attibuted to paying those production companies
for "services " so indeed some clever
accounting can result in a tax deductable Loss equal to the 
losses incurred if the box office intake fails to exceed the total production an Marketing costs.


Lovely... Welcome to Capitalism mate.


Also Consider that Hollywood movies are no longer even made for western
audiences ,Many of whom do not pay but instead wait for the Clean BluRay rips to appear on torrent.


Chris Pine( AKA young Captain Kirk) ,
repsonded, in an interview,
to the criticisms of the JJ Abrams trek films being mostly
"lens flare/explosion fests with minmal story"


Chris said bluntly( paraphrasing): 


"We can not make a "cerebral" star trek
we have to appeal to the lowest common Denominator and that includes
Foreign audiences with different  levels of cultural literacy"
( China /Iran etc)



If we want the production Quality we see in "Thor ragnrak"
we have to accept the Near juvenile Dialog and penis jokes
that even people in china will understand ,to recoup production
and marketing costs.


People can bang on about Hollywoods "monoploy"
 as much they want in theoretical  web forum Discussions
and Articles in web blogs.
But Hollywood does not produce anything that can be eaten, lived in, treat disease
or worn on the human body for warmth.


Relax mate
its  all just a bit of disposable entertainment.
 
  3 Weeks Ago
Quoting Chris Pine as an authority on film business suggests to me you are not being serious bud so I guess we can say the conversation has reached its limits. lol
I was trying to encourage critical thinking--...The press release Pine was reading from  says they have to make stupid movies because it must appeal to China.

Two obvious questions:

a) why must they appeal to China?

b) why must they make films that cost $200 million?

They do not have to, they choose to. Just as they choose to send jobs over seas or to countries where ther governments will give them public money. Those poor struggling multi-national corporations.

There is no "must" to it--and this is supported by the fact that the last Star Wars movie is said to have bombed in China.

There should be a crisis about it at Disney--instead they spent $60 billion on a company purchase.

All BS--well I guess it is good that someone believes the corporate press releases.
__________________
Sword and Sorcery book trailer/cg demo
 
  3 Weeks Ago
Wow. This thread has gone way off topic.

To bring it back  OT. Here's the history of YT that has led up to small channels being demonetized:
- YT created a platform for people to upload videos for free
- YT then found a way to make Ad money from it by paying people to upload videos
- YT brain washed kids into thinking that uploading their videos was an actual "job"
- YT started mistakenly flagging content as not suitable for monetizing. Nick named Adpocalypse1,  Adpocalypse2, Adpocalypse3. And the users got pissed when they lost their "YT Job Money"
- YT recently implemented new rules for being eligible for monetization. And demonetized small channels that were making small amounts of money.
  This pissed off the people that YT themselves had previously brain washed into thinking that their little channels and videos were actually a "job" and worth money.

When you look at the history laid out like this. It's easy to see when, and where, things went horribly wrong for YT.
As soon as YT started telling people that  uploading videos is worth money. They doomed themselves to the problems that followed. And will continue to follow. Their problems are not over.
Before the paying people nonsense. People were just happy to have a free video hosting service. But when YT brought money into it they doomed themselves.
Anyone that has the dumb idea of making their own YT service where they pay people to upload will absolutely go through he same pains and problems.
Because as I said before.  Humans always  ruin everything that is good and decent. Especially when money is part of it. Always.

-ScottA
__________________
My Gallery
 
  3 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by Scott Ayers: Wow. This thread has gone way off topic.

To bring it back  OT. Here's the history of YT that has led up to small channels being demonetized:
- YT created a platform for people to upload videos for free
- YT then found a way to make Ad money from it by paying people to upload videos
- YT brain washed kids into thinking that uploading their videos was an actual "job"
- YT started mistakenly flagging content as not suitable for monetizing. Nick named Adpocalypse1,  Adpocalypse2, Adpocalypse3. And the users got pissed when they lost their "YT Job Money"
- YT recently implemented new rules for being eligible for monetization. And demonetized small channels that were making small amounts of money.
  This pissed off the people that YT themselves had previously brain washed into thinking that their little channels and videos were actually a "job" and worth money.

When you look at the history laid out like this. It's easy to see when, and where, things went horribly wrong for YT.
As soon as YT started telling people that  uploading videos is worth money. They doomed themselves to the problems that followed. And will continue to follow. Their problems are not over.
Before the paying people nonsense. People were just happy to have a free video hosting service. But when YT brought money into it they doomed themselves.
Anyone that has the dumb idea of making their own YT service where they pay people to upload will absolutely go through he same pains and problems.
Because as I said before.  Humans always  ruin everything that is good and decent. Especially when money is part of it. Always.

-ScottA


Agree completley 
 
  3 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by kelgy: Two obvious questions:

a) why must they appeal to China?



b) why must they make films that cost $200 million?





Because they have run out of  original ideas decades ago
and foreign audiences , from historicly closed cultures,
have not  a clue how badly Hollywood  strays from the
source material when they remake Classics like Ghostbusters

or even mediocre Kids TV shows like"power rangers" or "DragonBall Z"
as they did not "grow up" watching american TV.

No one "must" make a $200 million dollar film mate.
any more than Apple "Must "make a $990 Dollar Smart phone.
There are many low  cost "art films" made each year
just google the filmography of B list actors.
Not really sure what kind of answer you are hoping to hear on movie 
production costs.. I mean  IT  IS THEIR MONEY  to spend/waste not yours or mine

"The Force awakens" bombed
 in China???..pity.. but did over a billion worldwide.


"Warcraft" Bombed badly in America...but was highly profitable
from overseas box office Like china & india and has a sequal green lighted
from published reports.


It is a  Dynamic global market mate   no going back to the "old days".
 
  3 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by ThreeDDude: Not really sure what kind of answer you are hoping to hear on movie 
production costs.. I mean  IT  IS THEIR MONEY  to spend/waste not yours or mine
You can't answer--I am just humoring you since you keep replying.

You are forgetting money they get from taxpayers.
Canada etc. though.

And since Box Office Mojo and the studios themselves that they haven't been doing so well domestically  I think that suggests that they are losing  domestic audiences due to their globalist art policies.
Have to say, in the history of the world, we have never had "global art."  It always reflected the particular culture of a group. I.e. film was created in Europe and dramatic literary structure and theater which film uses came from Europe as well. 
So we are in new territory here. Experimental.
As for the claim that there are lots of alternatives to the tentpole--not according to Box Office Mojo stats.
Check out the stats sometime--after the big studio films there are a smattering of smaller company offerings (Christian, Chinese etc) nowhere near like it used to be--before the big companies bought up distribution companies.
This didn't happen because the public demanded they buy them up and limit diversity-the companies with the money made that decision for the public. Nuff said really.
__________________
Sword and Sorcery book trailer/cg demo
 
  3 Weeks Ago
Quote: a) why must they appeal to China?

b) why must they make films that cost $200 million?

Good ol fashioned American greed, waste and unions.    I was just looking at Guillermo Del Toro's newest film and it cost 19 million to make as well as Pan's Labryinth.   And you are telling me it takes 50 million to make a movie like Central Intelligence?    Granted it has the Rock and Kevin Hart but Pan's Labryinth has tons of special fx shots.     Kind of tells you where the money really goes.  
__________________
www.howtomakeyourownanime.com
 
  3 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by ilovekaiju: Good ol fashioned American greed, waste and unions.
But you do not see that kind of cost ballooning in other industries. 

I wonder why?

If it was just good ol fashion American greed, why hasn't infected EVERY industry? Textiles, pencils, paints, bolts...every business should be in the same state of chaos today, loss of quality, need to appease Chinese standards...

Other factors can explain the fragmentation of the cultural businesses--tv,  games, piracy etc. but that still wouldn't explain why there has been this fantastic change in film content within a mere 25 year period.
First they said audiences only wanted the blockbuster --then they said they weren't making enough money so they had to cater to China too.
Now they say all that matters is China.
Or maybe it doesn't matter anymore--maybe it's Vietnam and Cambodia and Indonesia that matter most. Or  maybe its Africa.
It is a little weird for cultural business based in the West to say that all that matters is the East.
Imagine Homer telling his fellow Greeks, "I can''t afford to sing the Iliad for you anymore--I have to add Chinese and Japanese characters and dialogue  too."

Someone might say, "cultural industries are different." Maybe, but artmaking used to be a  working class business too. Some disciplines are not affected by the same cost ballooning--live theater, local music.
Seems to be a problem with management peculiar to media business and the lack of diversity in ownership due to monopoly conditions (with no direct consumer relationship anymore).

Ultimately what matters is whether there is a business and technological environment to allow grassroots cultural media business to happen. In recent years the only things the corporate media has trumpeted about has been the Asylum (which was tied to big Hollywood), and Blumhouse (which seems to be the new Weinstein Company--hopefully without the STD problem).  The latter company is the one bringing back a 70-year old Michael Myers for Halloween so excuse me if I am not enthusiastic about them.

I don't think it's a problem with talent or ideas--just media ownership and distribution.

I didn't see Youtube as a salvation BTW--just zeroed in on it being a monopoly situation as well.

Somewhat related, here's an article about Netflix cutting back on film availability--I think the anecdote by Leonard Maltin about having to order a physical disc of a 1970s movie because he couldnt find it streamed is most interesting (and I have read that Disney has a bad rep for releasing catalogue items so they may do the same with their FOX inventory).
http://www.newsweek.com/2017/09/22/...ics-664512.html
__________________
Sword and Sorcery book trailer/cg demo
 
  3 Weeks Ago
In the end, I hope some day, everything stops being about numbers.
 
  3 Weeks Ago
Originally Posted by friendfromarea51: In the end, I hope some day, everything stops being about numbers.

...and instead?
 
  3 Weeks Ago
^ Sharing information and ideas with each other.  Just because it's the right thing to do. And not about making money.
The same reason why the internet was created in the first place.

-ScottA
__________________
My Gallery
 
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 07:39 PM.


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