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

101–110 of 168 posts

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#101

Post by nathcd »

kakarot wrote: post #82
nathcd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, it's one thing for serial content like a podcast or talk show, it's another for more artistic endeavors where it would lesson the artistic credibility to have an ad ingrained into the video. It's also not a suitable format for those who create many small 1-5m videos. Additionally, it prevents you from retroactively changing what ad gets sent with the video, which can lead to conflicts arising over severed busine…

> Yes, it's one thing for serial content like a podcast or talk show, it's another for more artistic endeavors where it would lesson the artistic credibility to have an ad ingrained into the video.

> It's also not a suitable format for those who create many small 1-5m videos.

I don't think having platform-handled dynamic ads (ie YouTube) differs from these dynamics in any meaningful way. The difference that matters is that with dumb ads the creator has complete control.

> Additionally, it prevents you from retroactively changing what ad gets sent with the video, which can lead to conflicts arising over severed business ties, and limit your overall ability to make residual profit from older videos.

This is a feature (of content-targeted advertising), not a bug. If a business model relies on tracking and targeting unknowing users who aren't aware that they can resist being tracked and targeted, maybe it was a crappy business model in the first place.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#102

Post by ZeroGravitas »

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…

I think you're over-generalizing from one example. I follow a few differnt channels that are totally harmless and boring, and they all complain about demonitization.

It seems like the algorithm just defaults strongly towards demonitization. Maybe it will learn and get better, but at the moment lots of things are getting demonitized.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#104

Post by cerebellum42 »

iainmerrick wrote: post #78
rbobrowicz wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

If your video gets demonetized no (or much fewer) ads get shown. If ads are shown, revenue is shared between Youtube and the creator.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#105

Post by cerebellum42 »

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

Not permitting ads from the user's end doesn't even influence the ranking and likelihood of showing up in recommendations (as far as we know). It's just demonetization from Youtube's side that has that effect.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#106

Post by mitchty »

wybiral wrote: post #95
mitchty wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd bet this behavior is their algorithm "working as intended". Aka, advertisers saying they don't want to waste ad spend on worthless programming videos. So they get demonetized for the first few days to reduce the impact of any ad spend on the times that would be most likely to get views, then turn it on so the drip of ad spend can treat the videos like problem children.

I'm more inclined to think that the algorithms are just a bit naive at this point. Surely some advertisers out there do want to target that market. The notice on my videos is: Limited or no ads due to content identified as not suitable for most advertisers [1]. Your video remains fully playable and is eligible to earn subscription revenue from YouTube Red. [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en

Sure, just curious that the videos would be monetized after the first few days. From what I've heard the first few days of a video basically makes/breaks a lot of videos as far as monetization goes.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#107

Post by maksimum »

make3 wrote: post #48
pwinnski wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which they would determine using... an automated algorithm which decides which category a video should be in, and comparing it to the category chosen. At which point...

it's not a training set anymore, but a machine learning production task

Well, it's both a challenging production task (which Google is great at) and a learning from streaming data task, which Google also has some experience with e.g. news. The latter is certainly a interesting challenge, but many researchers are already working on it.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#108

Post by mburns »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #6

The other day I stumbled upon this project: https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube It's a federated tube that uses ActivityPub and WebTorrent. I think this platform should be invested in and creators should consider moving. The interests of YouTube and its creators will never be entirely aligned.

Similarly, https://d.tube/ uses IPFS network to retrieve videos.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#109

Post by bballard »

corey_moncure wrote: post #56
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.

So you're telling me there's a way we might demonetize "kinder playtime", "hailey's magical playhouse", "funtoys", and "toys unlimited"?

THAT is a noble cause! Gimme the sixty-five. I'm on the job!

Post reply on HN