YouTube monetization analysis • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#51

Post by rbobrowicz » Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 4:16 PM UTC

iainmerrick wrote: post #41

What is "demonetization"? I've never heard of this before. Does it mean YouTube stops inserting ads in your videos? As a viewer, that sounds pretty great to me. It sounds like they also stop suggesting your video to random viewers, which is understandable if they're not making money off it. Surely the real problem is that ads are toxic, the ad-supported content model is toxic, and YouTube's automatic recommendations…

>What is "demonetization"?

YouTube deciding your video is ineligible for earning ad revenue. So the creator gets nothing (or close to nothing, not sure). I'm not sure if it actually stops running ads on the videos since I've been using an ad blocker for ages.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#52

Post by alva » Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 4:17 PM UTC

I am almost certain another factor is clickthrough from "undesirable" referral links. ReviewBrah [0] (The Report of The Week) is the most family friendly channel with high subscribers that I can think of. He reviews fast food and has a unique fashion style and personality. Very clean.

He has become a popular meme and is regularly linked to from 4chan. I struggle to find a single thing that could warrant demonetisation (having looked through the youtube guidance), yet a large chunk of his videos are automatically demonetised.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeR0n8d3ShTn_yrMhpwyE1Q

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#53

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 4:17 PM UTC

kawsper wrote: post #30

wybiral wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I uploaded a video yesterday that's already demonetized. It's part of a series to write an RSS feed reader in Python (specifically the part about adding static files to the server). Tags: python, rss, feedparser, feed reader, news aggregator, flask, css, static files It doesn't seem "controversial" to me.

Do you know which excluded_ads labels it was tagged with?

[deleted]

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#54

Post by 1_2__4 » Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 4:18 PM UTC

wybiral wrote: post #39

koolba wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should try making the same video with a parser written in Golang and see if that get's demonetized as well.

The series before this one was about Golang and they all got demonetized too.

I'm not sure which is funnier, his comment or your deadpan response.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#55

Post by nathcd » Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 4:22 PM UTC

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #25

kakarot wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a cool project. However, to make videos with quality content at a reasonable frequency, many of these creators depend on YouTube for income or at least partial income. Any P2P / federated service would have to find an agreeable way to A) send ads in a safe and private way to each viewer B) stop people from manipulating the system to game ads while accurately determining if an ad was viewed.

Tools like Patreon can help fill this gap.

Also, there's no reason creators couldn't use "dumb ads" where they read ad copy during their videos, and sell the spots themselves. Seems to be the main revenue source in the podcast world.

It feels weird to be an advocate for something like dumb advertising (maybe "content-targeted advertising" is a better name?), but dumb ads and Patreon really are a breath of fresh air relative to the status quo of web content.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#56

Post by corey_moncure » Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 4:24 PM UTC

alva wrote: post #52

I am almost certain another factor is clickthrough from "undesirable" referral links. ReviewBrah [0] (The Report of The Week) is the most family friendly channel with high subscribers that I can think of. He reviews fast food and has a unique fashion style and personality. Very clean. He has become a popular meme and is regularly linked to from 4chan. I struggle to find a single thing that could warrant demonetisatio…

Of course, this would mean that YT has handed 4chan a laser cannon to demonetize videos at their discretion.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#57

Post by petercooper » Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 4:27 PM UTC

Does YouTube let sponsors/advertisers opt-in to advertising on "demonetized" videos at all? For example, let's say I really want to advertise on all of a certain channel's videos.. can I do that? Surely if I'm happy to pay money to do so, they should allow that to happen regardless of if big-name brands like it or not.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#58

Post by flgr » Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

staltz wrote: post #28

Who is Karlaplan? And why choose Google Docs to share information which Google may dislike and remove?

I was wondering if they might not be baiting Google into doing that. If they start removing content critical of them from Google Docs that's another big story.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#59

Post by danjoc » Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 4:29 PM UTC

iagovar wrote: post #49

iainmerrick wrote: post #41

What is "demonetization"? I've never heard of this before. Does it mean YouTube stops inserting ads in your videos? As a viewer, that sounds pretty great to me. It sounds like they also stop suggesting your video to random viewers, which is understandable if they're not making money off it. Surely the real problem is that ads are toxic, the ad-supported content model is toxic, and YouTube's automatic recommendations…

The report not only talks about that. It also talks about videos that, because of being demonetized, they also appear less in YT searches and related content. In other words, if you video has ads, then the probability of appearing in searches and related content is higher, thus you, as used, are more exposed to ads.

>In other words, if you video has ads, then the probability of appearing in searches and related content is higher

So users that permit ads on their video get a virtual "fast lane" on the Comcast internet service. You know, I'm sick and tired of these internet service providers violating Net Neutrality principles.

Oh, wait. It's YouTube? Oh, that's fine then./s

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#60

Post by jijji » Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 4:31 PM UTC

make3 wrote: post #35

adekok wrote: post #18

I never understood why Youtube didn't have uploaders select various categories for videos. It would do a number of things: * allow them to demonetize / ban / block videos for abuse of categorization * train machine learning on the various categories It's a lot more socially palatable for Youtube to say "Hey guys, we HAVE a blood and violence category, but you didn't use it for this video. So we'll punish you for that…

this would be an extremely dirty dataset, as there is no incentive to not put your videos in as many categories as possible. if you can only have one, people will still put it in the most popular category a large fraction of the times I'm sure, not the correct one

yes, it might be a better idea to let viewers of videos choose tags/categories and vote on these categories, than to allow the uploader.