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

131–140 of 168 posts

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#131

Post by bthallplz »

vlunkr wrote: post #113

On the upside of this, I've seen lots more creators including sponsors in the actual video. (This video brought to you by Blue Apron) seemingly with lots of creative control over how they present it. This seems like a much more sustainable method. Ad blockers can't do anything about it, and they are safe from random de monitization. On the other hand it's more work for the creator, and for people just starting it may…

Hm is anyone aware of a third-party marketplace for placing YouTube Creators with advertisers?

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#132

Post by wolfgang42 »

nathcd wrote: post #124
kakarot wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is a false dichotomy. There exists a large, partly unexplored space between hard embedded pre-recorded ads and targeted advertising that makes use of trackin…

Hmmm, that's a possibility I haven't considered. I suppose because I'm having trouble imagining what that in-between space looks like. If an ad is targeted at a user, doesn't that necessarily mean they were tracked to some degree (i.e. some data is known about them, and an ad is being shown to them based on whatever that known data is)? Conversely, if nothing is known about the user (they haven't been tracked at all)…

The parent isn't arguing against content-targeted advertising, just pointing out that it doesn't have to be baked immutably into the content the way YouTube/Podcast sponsorship messages are.

One example of this is the https://www.projectwonderful.com/ model of auctioning ad slots the same way you would sell e.g. a billboard. The only targeting in this model is based on demographics of the content's audience at large (e.g. advertising Bobcat in a Box on Explain XKCD).

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#133

Post by jowsie »

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

You do realise you're comparing a company that makes its money from advertising on top of an otherwise video sharing platform, with a company you pay a fixed monthly fee to access the internet, right?

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#134

Post by mtgx »

kakarot wrote: post #16
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.

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.

They can use stuff like Patreon or STEEM/other tipping cryptocurrencies (that should be baked into the platform with an easy to click upvote button).

Before you laugh, I've seen people make $1,000 a day consistently like this. And this sort of community is still tiny (fewer than a million people). Can you imagine if 100 million or a billion people could upvote content like that?

I think something like STEEM is the future of content monetization.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#135

Post by syrrim »

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…

Another hypothesis I've heard that would explain the same effect is that youtube groups uploaders with the preferences of their viewers. If someone has lots of viewers who also watch videos of undesirable topics, that uploader will be considered undesirable as well.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#136

Post by ksk »

JohnStrange wrote: post #29
eref wrote: post #3

I think it is right to „soft“-censor in this way (i.e. the information is accessible but not promoted). Reality without sorting and filters would be inhuman because market incentives to grab people’s attention would maximally exploit our tribal instincts and thereby completely destabilize our societies. This is already happening and it needs to stop immediately.

You don't have to go that far to justify demonetization. It's a way to encourage higher quality content in contrast to low quality clickbait and sensationalism. That's good for the users and also in Youtube's long-term interest. On a side note, that's not censorship at all, neither hard nor soft censorship, it's just a kind of automated editorial work.

>It's a way to encourage higher quality content in contrast to low quality clickbait and sensationalism.

Maybe its higher quality, but you will essentially get the same type of content you already get on cable. Its content that has the potential to be popular, is bland enough that advertisers don't mind seeing their logo on the content, and is conducive to people buying things that the advertisers are selling.

YouTube is going the way of being just another cable provider. They flirted with the "community" aspect for a while, but in the end decided they care much more about advertisers. Which is fair enough, IMO.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#137

Post by ksk »

libeclipse wrote: post #4

> This will in turn lead to censorship of political ideologies, HTBQ+, mental health awareness, suicide awareness and prevention, etc. Sounds like a slippery slope argument.

My Subaru has four wheels just like a Ferrari.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#138

Post by arkitaip »

libeclipse wrote: post #4

> This will in turn lead to censorship of political ideologies, HTBQ+, mental health awareness, suicide awareness and prevention, etc. Sounds like a slippery slope argument.

Mental health awareness channels already have their videos demonetized. Whatever strategy Google is using, it's afflicting every community on youtube regardless of topic covered, whether they are left or right, etc.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#139

Post by sergiotapia »

SebastianFrelle wrote: post #114
bballard wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Could you elaborate on what these channels are and why you would want them demonetized? Are their videos actually sponsored by Disney et.al.?

MK ultra training.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#140

Post by dopamean »

syrrim wrote: post #135
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…

Another hypothesis I've heard that would explain the same effect is that youtube groups uploaders with the preferences of their viewers. If someone has lots of viewers who also watch videos of undesirable topics, that uploader will be considered undesirable as well.

Is there a name for this type of "guilty by association" algorithm?
Post reply on HN