Youtube's "advertiser-friendly" policy

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Kagayours, Sep 7, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I remember when the thing everyone hated the most about Youtube was its bullshit copyright policies. Ah, what sweet naivety that was...

    I mean, we all know Youtube's copyright system was (and still is) bad, but at least you can sort of understand why they'd want to remove copyrighted content from the website in the first place -- even if the way they went about it was awful and backwards and all that.

    But now the cool new thing to hate about Youtube is that they're taking monetization away from channels whose content isn't "advertiser-friendly". And the requirements for being "advertiser friendly" are that you apparently have to be as perfectly squeaky-clean and family-friendly as possible. Meaning: nothing sexual or suggestive, nothing alluding to drugs or violence, no foul language, and nothing controversial. ...I shouldn't have to explain how ludicrous it is that anyone would try to enforce standards like that on Youtube of all places.

    Here's a fun little video talking more about the subject, although there are definitely more serious videos out there that I'm sure people will link to in this thread once I get it posted:



    Anyway, I was just sort of surprised that there wasn't already a thread about this. ...Unless I missed it. >.>

    Also, tagging @Gwazi Magnum since he seems to take a lot of interest in Youtube's terrible policies.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. I saw Jim Fucking Sterling Son's take on this, and I can't remember if Ethan has done a video on this yet, but let me just say that this is really stupid.

    Mainly because if it's "Advertiser Friendly" then it seems a bit hypocritical. Some of those same advertisers advertise on TV Channels with content (and sometimes advertise stuff) that can be worse than what's on YouTube.

    Those TV Channels have ways of making their own money, money that's not the advertisers. Granted, some of it does come from advertising, but not all of it. Meanwhile, on YouTube, some of these peoples' jobs are YouTube. And solely from the advertising revenue they gain. The rule is stupid, the way they're going about it is wrong, and it's ruining lives.

    Anyway, that's my take on it. I'm pretty much repeating what's been said, but, eh.
     
  3. To clarify on what's happened on YouTube, this advertiser friendly policy isn't new. They've been doing this for over a year now, what's changed is that only recently have YouTubers been getting notified of such things. So it's technically a good change YouTube's made, it just drew attention to something far, far worse.

    The damaging ramifications of such a system should be obvious though either way, and although one can make the argument of "TV doesn't deal with this!" the problem is advertisers (mostly) don't treat the Internet as seriously yet. So while movies are treated like adults with advertisers going "This is serious, but respectable" they look at YouTube and go "Kids, stop trying to look edgy".

    Now, an easy way for YouTube to fix this (other than the obvious of not using god damn bots) would be to let advertisers choose for themselves what kind of content they'd like to avoid, and block those specific advertisers from channels flagged under it. Not do a universal "Have a flag, no ads period" approach.

    That being said, if YouTube doesn't fix this then the community will via Patreon. And that wouldn't bode well for YouTube, cause now (other than popularity) it has nothing to incentivize YouTubers, so it could easily lead to people slowly migrating to another site, at first they just host on both and eventually make the jump entirely.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Nice execution! Nice execution! x 1
  4. IT'S AN SJW CONSPIRACY TO SILENCE ALL MUH RANT CHANNELS UWAAAHHHH

    In all seriousness this shit is old. Hella old. Hays Code old. It's YouTube cozying up with corporations to win more advertiser money, which, in all fairness, makes (corporate) sense seeing as how YouTube still doesn't turn much of a profit for Google. It also makes sense that they're trying to extend their automated monetization system, seeing the sheer mind numbing number of copyright breaking videos that happily trapeze all over YouTube and discourage big corps from advertising there. Plus the system itself is... Really stupid to begin with. It just fires a random pool of ads in front of any video that is set to monetize. Even Cable TV has a more advanced system of ads than this--with advertisers picking specific TV shows and time slots to air their ads in, and generally being alerted ahead of time what kind of content is in a time slot or TV show that may be associated with their ad. (Ex: You probably don't want to air your ad for diapers and baby's products in the same time slot that a show about a brutal cannibalistic rapist is on.)

    With Patreon being a thing, if video creators want to get money for their products on a regular basis, they just have to ask their fans to pay them directly--thus skipping the need for advertisements altogether. The advertisers are under no obligation to pay them, and neither is YouTube--the fact that YouTube even offers this is a rather unique service. This would be like if Iwaku started running ads to cover ends meat, but cut me a cheque every time someone clicked on any of my guides or role plays.

    People seem to forget that YouTube itself is a free service where you can upload any video you create (that fits their guidelines) all the way up to 1080P, and then YouTube will shoulder the entire burden of server costs and infrastructure and bandwidth to allow anyone to watch it whenever they want. TV shows don't get this sort of leniency on TV channels. YouTube isn't hiring these people to make them videos and then not paying them--they're just enforcing advertiser rules to make more advertisers happier and safer to pay more per ad and thus generate more profit for themselves.

    The only insulting part of all of this is YouTube coming out of nowhere with these changes and, as usual, being vague as fuck as to how it's actually working. This isn't new with YouTube however, and I feel little sympathy for people who are banking their entire lives on a platform that is under zero contractual obligation to pay them anything. They took this risk, and now for some of them, it's biting them in the ass.

    You'll note they aren't taking these videos down. They aren't censoring them. The Great War channel is one of my favourites, and it doesn't get any ad revenue because it talks about war, death, plagues, and politics. They're still allowed to talk about whatever they want, they're just not going to make any money from advertisements on their shows--which is why they have a patreon account that rakes them over 10K a month, thus allowing them to cover the costs of their show.

    If anything this is one of the most mild fuckups YouTube has done in its history. It still needs tweaking, but the people decrying this as the "end of YouTube" and as "widespread censorship" are fucking hysterical and need to calm down.

    Especially the people blaming this on SJW's. Like, fucking what? Y'all are out of your minds if you think the whiny cunts on Tumblr & Twitter have any ability to cause changes like these.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  5. The funny thing is, Youtube already does this. When this issue blew up on Reddit not too long ago, an Advertiser came in and provided screenshots of the options Advertisers could choose to place their content on. I can't find that specific post (with the screenshots) now, but this comment chain has a few people stating advertisers can choose.

    Anyway, for me personally, I've never monetized my videos and I don't care to. I think what Youtube is doing doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I don't really have pity for any of the Youtubers either. The whole pro vlogger thing was pretty much accidentally invented by Youtube. Youtube is a free hositng service and yeah while some people make their livings on it... Time to evolve. Even strippers gotta pay their club fees. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
     


  6. IHE is a good channel. Don't do this, YT.

    Doesn't Google adjust your ads based on what you view, or is that just FB?
     
  7. Google adjusts your ads based on what you view and I believe, other factors, as well, like age. I'm not 100% sure, but yes, Google adjusts your ads like that. :)

    EDIT: here's something about how google ads operates
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  8. Kind of hypocritical since some ads are red band trailers. Though it explains why the Trojan and edgier ads that used to play around midnight disappeared. I will never forget you, Durex dogs.
     
  9. This video by one of my favorite YouTubers says all:



    @Brovo while you do make good points and I mostly agree with you, you have to understand that YouTube has NO competition whatsoever which is pretty much the main reason why they're pulling this shit and why they've been fucked up ever since Google took over. If Twitch or Netflix had their own video platforms, YT would lose a LOT of users. This policy is bullshit and there is NO justifying it AT ALL. Just because you disagree with a video or don't like it doesn't mean it should be demonetized. I don't care if it's Anita Sarkessian or Devon Tracy. NO ONE should lose money because of their content or opinions.

    As for making money, while you are right that people could just use Patreon and PayPal, some YouTubers don't want to do that because they fear being called sell-outs, losing subs, and a bunch of other bullshit. Yes that has happened. The logic of the interwebs no? Not much of an argument I know but still.

    So yes people do have the right to be angry because this is screwing with some peoples' livelihoods and yes I consider this censorship because they're losing money due to YT and advertisers not liking their content/opinions. They're bringing their personal feelings into their work. Biting the hands that feed them. YouTube needs PEOPLE in order to be successful. If it wasn't for the many channels and users, the site wouldn't exist. How can we broadcast ourselves with that stupid policy? I sure as hell can't see how.
     
  10. One of the YouTubers I watch frequently (Darkkefka) said the same thing. If people do migrate to another site, it'll probably be Twitch. Dailymotion is dead sadly.
     
  11. The problem with Patreon is that I feel like you kind of already need to have a big fanbase to begin with in order to really get anywhere. So, while Patreon may make a good replacement for Youtubers who are already really popular, the same can't really be said for channels who are just starting out. :/
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Thank Thank x 1
  12. I second this.
     
  13. Welcome to business 101/entrepreneurship. Most small businesses starting out (esp. ma & pa stores) run in the red for their first few months of operation, especially if they require a physical location. Those operating out of a person's house generally have a cheaper overhead, but let me give you a general idea of how this works. It's based primarily on a capitalist concept called supply & demand. If you have a lot of businesses all attempting to provide the same service, you will find that said businesses will struggle and cut corners and do anything they can to provide the cheapest, best service possible to attract a larger chunk of the demand than other businesses possibly could.

    The only start-up business ventures that turn into runaway successes are those that generally define or create new products or services which at least a significant minority of the population finds appealing or necessary to their lives.

    Another, comparable business model online to YouTube are Art Commissions--especially popular on sites like DeviantART. The people who make a living off of art commissions online, are the people who have speed, quality, and customer assurance on a level that is beyond that of their competitors. That doesn't stop thousands of other people from attempting to compete in the same marketplace, but it does mean that they need to think realistically. They need to consider their overhead and how stable their income is. A lot of commissions artists also hold part time jobs (and some full time jobs), and a lot of starting ma & pa businesses run out of a house until they attract enough consistent income to allow them to expand to a small business location nearby.

    I would also like to note that DeviantART provides no compensation for ads run on their site on art commissioned pieces. There is no monetization scheme on DeviantART--again, YouTube is unique for this, and is (and has never been) under any contractual obligation to pay anyone in this way, no matter how dependent on it they may be.

    This is why I mentioned Patreon. Are most people going to be able to pay all of their bills via patreon? Probably not. If they seriously want to continue this, they either need to...
    • A. Adjust their content to fit YouTube's new rules for ads so they can run ad content.
    • B. Adjust to the income loss that YouTube's new rules provide, suffer with minimal to no ad revenue, and calculate a new overhead that allows them to survive--even if it means they need to take up a job in the real world alongside a small patreon account.
    It is not YouTube's responsibility to save channels that are not popular enough to survive on their own 100% without any other source of income. The people who decided to dedicate their lives to... Making videos on a free video hosting site, are entirely responsible for their own decisions and their own risks. The fact that some of them deluded themselves into thinking that the company that they are beholden to the mercy of would never change, and would always provide them the income they need, is fucking foolish.

    Now I would feel more sympathy toward people who were contractually obligated to provide content and then didn't get paid for it--like people who work for Machinima, or other distributor companies that operate on YouTube. Then that's more like a TV show deal and not paying the people who are forced to make you content by contract obligation is fucking obscene. That is, however, not the case.

    YouTube set up a flea market. People set up stalls. YouTube changed the rules on how profit sharing on their advertisements work. Some flea market stalls are now probably going to close, and new ones will open to take their place.

    Welcome to business. Unless you're big enough to set the trend or smart enough to invent a new product or service everyone wants, swim with the current or die.
    They do, to a certain extent. There are however a couple of massive fucking glaring problems with the system.
    1. You can view your personalized ads here, so long as you have a google account. You'll probably notice that the vast majority of those categories are bland, and vague, and don't really mean much of anything. You'll also notice stuff that you never have shown much interest in, but which Google assigned based on a random youtube clip you may have clicked on back in 2010 or something. Which brings me to...
    2. Advertisers don't get to control where their ads appear. They can control which categories their ads belong to (so Ford would put their ads in the categories of Ford, Automobiles, Sports Cars, et cetera), but they have no power over which videos they actually appear in. They could appear in a video clip about Nascar, or they could appear in a video clip about a guy ranting about the Jewish conspiracy for 40 minutes.
    It should also be noted that the number of people that actually ever look at their personalized ad settings and pick the categories which interest them? Are... Pretty few and pretty far between. Advertisers know this, so they're going to pay less per ad because it's less likely that their ads are going to reach the correct target audience in the first place.
    Swim or die, man. Swim or die.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. [​IMG]
     
  15. You'll note they do compete in pricing their products, and prior to these three we used to have other competitors in the market like Atari and Sega--who did not survive in this market.

    If anything, this demonstrates that these companies are big enough to establish the rules and everyone else who wants to make games in the console market has to play by these rules.

    Still basically capitalism 101. You're just seeing the ugly croynism side of it, festering and corrupting an industry, because Capitalism is an imperfect economic system, but this is the wrong thread for that topic. :ferret:
     
  16. Yes I know ^_^ I just wanted to lighten the mood a bit :)

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. I missed replying to this so I'll just do a quickie.

    #1: YouTube does have competition. Cable TV, Hollywood, Video Games--other forms of entertainment media. Within its own industry? Twitch is an up and coming contender that is looking to do blows with YouTube, especially since Twitch has started hosting videos, and YouTube has started a live stream service. If YouTube pisses off enough of its creators and they decided to move to another site, they would drag hundreds of thousands of people with them.

    You'll also want to note that some channels (like Cinemasins and Collegehumor) have created their own sites and hosted their own videos. Collegehumor in particular is a company that does actually hire people to create new videos for them. ThatGuyWithTheGlasses has been doing this for several years.

    When YouTube decides to go so puritanical that they fully embrace the Hays Code era of advertiser-friendly way of doing things, yes, some creators will not survive. Others will happily go their own way and create content on their own sites, and ironically probably just use YouTube as an advertising platform to redirect people to their own website.

    #2: On that note about Nintendo and Sony and Microsoft and so on, take note of the PC platform. There are big triple AAA giants on the playground here, of course. EA and Activision are going nowhere and they're going to keep releasing terrible overly expensive tech demos that they dare to call "video games." On the other hand, you'll also note that over the past few years, the Indie genre has fucking exploded and there are now more indie games than there has ever been before. When there's a market for something, and people are willing to pay for it, that market will come to exist.

    The last time the video game industry became choked in corruption and people hated it too much to use it, it ended up crashing. Nintendo brought it back to life, and did so via methods that avoided the previous crash.

    That's the thing about Capitalism that a lot of people don't really seem to understand. There's a term called "Creative Destruction" which means that industries which become too petulant to survive and which are ultimately unnecessary (most entertainment mediums) collapse, or an alternative market appears that fills a niche which the bigger market doesn't fill and satiates people.

    If YouTube wants to try and Atari the industry and turn their entire platform into kiddie-friendly garbage, they'll destroy themselves, and the market that still exists for entertainment of this nature will very easily fund a new YouTube. That, or one of YouTube's competitors will set up and take the mantle and learn from their mistakes.

    It's like evolution, but applied to economics.

    #3: Those people that accuse YouTubers of being sell-outs were never fans to begin with, and probably don't understand that there is nothing truly free in the world. That, or said YouTubers were providing garbage content that nobody really wanted anyway which only 13 year old boys found fun... And 13 year old boys are not the most stable economic market.

    #4: I'm not saying that people don't have a right to be angry. People have every right to be angry at whatever they want, they just have to understand the reality of the world in which they live. For example, I think Capitalism is a flawed economic system in dire need of repairs. It infuriates me that services which everyone needs--like electricity, or water--are privatized and charged fees, even though nobody has any choice but to take these things to survive.

    I'm also mad that Battlestar Galactica had a fucking stupid ending.

    This does not mean however, that anyone owes me anything. I don't like the way the water and electricity companies are set up here, but I have to live with them and play by their rules, because I'm smaller than they are, and I have no interest in competing with them in their market.

    Always read the fine print before you dedicate your life to something. I have a job, but they can fire me if I fuck up at that job with two weeks notice. Even that, however, is still more security and stability than a YouTube career. People had every opportunity to realize at some point that this is not a stable career. It is a volatile market run by a bigger fish.

    You can complain that the bigger fish isn't playing fair, or isn't playing the way you want it to, but unless you're willing to do something else for a living, you play by the rules of the bigger fish... Or the fish will swallow you whole.
     
    • Nice execution! Nice execution! x 2
  18. That comment chain is really just redditor's going back and fourth. :/
    But in all honesty, I need more than "some people on reddit said it" before I start acknowledging said claim as fact.

    (And before anyone jumps on me for beign anti-reddit, I'd say the same for 4Chan, or ANY comment chain).
    You're both confusing the source of the anger/worry as entitlement here.

    The whole issue is this move is just stupid for YouTube to be making. Their entire website is reliant on the content put onto it, their content is reliant on the site that hosts them, it's mutually beneficial for big enough channels to set up business agreements so that the YouTubers can provide even better content, full-time. So when YouTube starts going around painting such broad strokes on what's still allowed or not it makes for a very uneasy relationship.

    No one (sensible) is looking at this and going "Online Videos are going to die!", they're just annoyed with YouTube's lack of communication or business sense. And take note of Patreon, people are already starting to adapt to make up for YouTube's unpredictability. Doesn't mean people can't still be mad at YouTube for not being cooperative, but it certainly means it YouTube keeps this up they could lose the very content that makes them relevant the second a competitor takes advantage of this.

    And if that happened? No one's coming in to replace them, cause if Big Time Channels had trouble what small channel in their right mind will try to replace them on YouTube when an alternative let's them flourish more easily?

    TL;DR No one's saying "YouTube Owes me this money!" they're saying "WTH, we had a good deal going. Why are you being so stupid?".
    If I had to make the bet I would say Twitch is the most likely replacement. But honestly I wouldn't rule Facebook out either, it already has the edge like YouTube of almost everyone checks on it daily. So while Twitch requires an alteration to people's routine, Facebook won't for the most part.

    Granted, Facebook would need to implement a whole video hosting side to their site (one competent enough to support Channels, and ideally separate their feed from the normal news feed). So, not 'as' likely as Twitch but still an option.
    Yes and No.

    True that small channels won't get enough off of Patreon alone, but small channels likely weren't getting enough off YouTube alone either. And I'd say the amount who were comfortable through a combination of both were minimal, and that minimal amount is likely just on the breaking grounds of getting enough support on either one to have a full living off of.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  19. I already mentioned patreon and directed my responses specifically at the "youtube gonna die" crowd. My posts were specifically there to teach market economics, and why trusting YouTube in the first place was a huge gamble, more than anything else. Again, I'm not against people being mad--be mad at whatever you want fam. Just don't expect anything to change just because you're mad about it. :ferret:

    As for YouTube losing content, I doubt it for the near future. Distant future? Possible. Depends. Remember: YouTube is not making Google money right now. In spite of One Billion viewers, it's not making Google any serious amount of money. It's, at best, breaking slightly over even.

    You can't really expand much beyond One Billion on the Internet right now (because real world 2/3rds of people out there don't have reliable Internet), so what else can you do to generate more profit? They tried introducing some premium services (movies, a phone app, et cetera) but people rejected them overwhelmingly. So one of their last options to actually turn a profit on YouTube is to get more money off ad revenue--but that means playing by the rules of the advertisers, not by the rules of YouTubers. If they're playing by advertiser rules, all their deals will be riddled with caveats saying "details kept secret from public" everywhere.

    Stop for a moment and look at the bigger picture of profitability. One billion people in any industry should be making that industry fucking roll in dough, yet that's not happening here, because YouTube as a platform is by design too inefficient to do this.
    Facebook would be a horrible alternative for numerous reasons, but most prominently because they have utterly zero protection for people's videos being stolen. If YouTubers moved there, ad revenue on Facebook would plummet because corps would pull out in objections to all the copyright infringement and Facebook would have to find an automated system to try and appease them back.

    It's a catch-22 right now. YouTube probably shouldn't have gotten as big as it has, but, well, here it is.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. To be fair their most recent attempt at this, YouTube Red needs time to grow.

    It's like Netflix in that no one's going to pay 10$ a month when there's only minimal options, but as the options grow so will the people who pay.

    That being said, you'll always get that audience (which Skyrim Modding knows all too well) who expect everything for free. Though you've got enough people sensible enough to understand the logic of creators needing a living that they will start paying, if there's enough being offered to make it seem worth the price.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.