Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube monetization analysis

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 168 posts

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#71

Post by wybiral »

burger_moon wrote: post #70
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.

What's a link to your channel? You've at least got me interested in checking it out.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6tqFmkqznYJTzidBerHA8g

The video from yesterday (08 - CSS and static files) is still demonetized. If that gives you any context.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#72

Post by Bromskloss »

IceDane wrote: post #63
corey_moncure wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Someone will read these comments and it will be posted on 4chan within a few minutes, if it hasn't been already.

We might as well start posting suggestions for targets right away.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#73

Post by falcolas »

vbernat wrote: post #67
wybiral wrote: post #15

Every single video, without exception, that I've uploaded in the past few months has been demonetized within a day or two. Then I request manual review and they're monetized again within another day or two. My content is clean and all of it is programming/tech related (programming tutorials and some Raspberry Pi stuff). So if there is an algorithm it's really naive at this stage or it doesn't apply until you request…

Some users are publishing the video as a private video first, get demonetized, ask for the review, the video is monetized again and user can publish it as a public video.

This doesn't help people posting time-sensitive content such as news or reviews. Those who used to fill this niche who have been targeted by the algorithms are seeing upwards of 90% loss in revenue despite having all videos re-monitized after manual review.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#74

Post by delecti »

vbernat wrote: post #67
wybiral wrote: post #15

Every single video, without exception, that I've uploaded in the past few months has been demonetized within a day or two. Then I request manual review and they're monetized again within another day or two. My content is clean and all of it is programming/tech related (programming tutorials and some Raspberry Pi stuff). So if there is an algorithm it's really naive at this stage or it doesn't apply until you request…

Some users are publishing the video as a private video first, get demonetized, ask for the review, the video is monetized again and user can publish it as a public video.

Are you sure that's possible? I've heard that a video needs to be averaging a certain number of videos (something like 1000/week) before they'll do the manual review.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#75

Post by delecti »

petercooper wrote: post #57

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.

This has been my thought as well. Adding a "sub-par" video level between "any ads" and "no ads" to allow less strict brands to advertise anywhere seems like it would help both supply and demand of ads. Maybe Fischer Price doesn't want to advertise on profanity-laden "let's plays" of gory video games, but beer brands probably don't care as much.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#76

Post by falcolas »

ebbv wrote: post #19

Seems to me content creators who get upset at their treatment by Youtube have made a serious mistake; they believe they are Youtube's customers. They are not. Neither are the people watching the videos. The advertisers are the customers, just like most other Google services. You are the product. If you don't like it, you need to switch to a platform where you are the customer and the provider cares about you on that…

I don't think they're under that misunderstanding. However, they correctly believe that they are the hook which pulls in viewers - the product - to sell to advertisers.

Take away those hooks by removing their incentive to post videos, and you pull in fewer viewers, resulting in fewer ad sales to YouTube's customers.

Sadly, the most affected are those who cover niche categories, which means YouTube can afford to fuck it up and not feel any significant pain. (Yes, I consider 90% loss in revenue for their bait, err, content creators to be worthy of the phrase "fucking it up").

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#77

Post by delecti »

danjoc wrote: post #59
iagovar wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Youtube not providing extra promotion for content is different from Comcast charging extra to even access that content.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#78

Post by iainmerrick »

rbobrowicz wrote: post #51
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.

Wow, I would certainly have assumed that if they show ads, they must share the revenue.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#79

Post by krapp »

falcolas wrote: post #76
ebbv wrote: post #19

Seems to me content creators who get upset at their treatment by Youtube have made a serious mistake; they believe they are Youtube's customers. They are not. Neither are the people watching the videos. The advertisers are the customers, just like most other Google services. You are the product. If you don't like it, you need to switch to a platform where you are the customer and the provider cares about you on that…

I don't think they're under that misunderstanding. However, they correctly believe that they are the hook which pulls in viewers - the product - to sell to advertisers. Take away those hooks by removing their incentive to post videos, and you pull in fewer viewers, resulting in fewer ad sales to YouTube's customers. Sadly, the most affected are those who cover niche categories, which means YouTube can afford to fuck…

>Yes, I consider 90% loss in revenue for their bait, err, content creators to be worthy of the phrase "fucking it up"

I'm not certain Google are "fucking it up," or at least, that this effect isn't intentional. How much revenue do those niche creators generate for Google? How much first party content do they include, that media companies might object to? Google may consider them to be a risk not worth the reward if their intent is to optimize their algorithm to prefer first-party commercial content, in order to increase the value of their platform to advertisers.

The existing system clearly hasn't been working for Google, so to me it seems more likely that the apparent failures of its algorithms are part of an attempt to forcibly pivot the platform while maintaining good PR. I could be wrong, though.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#80

Post by benawad »

wybiral wrote: post #15

Every single video, without exception, that I've uploaded in the past few months has been demonetized within a day or two. Then I request manual review and they're monetized again within another day or two. My content is clean and all of it is programming/tech related (programming tutorials and some Raspberry Pi stuff). So if there is an algorithm it's really naive at this stage or it doesn't apply until you request…

I make programming videos too, and a similar thing happens to me. The first day I release a video it's demonetized, and even if I don't request a manual review the video will be remonetized a couple days later.
Post reply on HN