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

151–160 of 168 posts

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#151

Post by Theodores »

flgr wrote: post #58
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.

Google should monetize Google Docs in situations like this, i.e. more than a dozen viewing, all with the same referer URL.

Regarding the thesis, it seems to me that unless you have read the advertiser guidelines then you are always going to have your viewing manipulated in ways you do not understand. The recommendations are really 'how best to monetize you'. So with music you may end up with mainstream artist recommends, not because the songs are inherently popular, it is just that they can be monetized.

Therefore, the best way to explore the back catalogue of an artist is to upload your own video and to then see what tracks by your favourite musicians you can set to it. So even within normal YouTube there is a 'better' search engine, better for you but maybe not so monetizable even though that is what the widget is about.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#152

Post by rainbowmverse »

dopamean wrote: post #140
syrrim wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

K-means clustering.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#154

Post by bcoates »

wybiral wrote: post #86
benawad wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting. Maybe YouTube needs to adjust their algorithm for that category or something.

If I had to guess, videos consisting of mostly text (screencasts/slide shows) are considered likely to be bad videos (spammy junk and make-money-fast scams) and programming stuff is getting caught in the crossfire

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#155

Post by scottlocklin »

mitchty wrote: post #93
wybiral wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Maybe YouTube needs to adjust their algorithm for that category or something.

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.

Keep your eye on their 10Q statements next quarter. If it is what you say, it should turn up in the financials.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#158

Post by avivo »

avivo wrote: post #157

The script and data used for this analysis is available here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10gLKGH1fqCp39x_UcEb9... And here is the original video from the creator with all the links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3H8D2LrLHc&feature=youtu.be

If you are interested in replicating this or extensions of this work, get in touch! You can reach via the email in the profile, here, or http://twitter.com/metaviv.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#159

Post by polishTar »

delecti wrote: post #75
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.

This exists already. "Demonetized videos" are more accurately described as partially monetized videos.

There is a tier of completely demonetized videos, but these are pretty rare to the extent that a lot of creators didn't realize there was this separate distinction.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#160

Post by wallace_f »

DerfNet wrote: post #66
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…

The only other factor I can think of with ReviewBrah is that he's often negatively reviewing products from huge companies (fast food chains) that might advertise on YouTube. Would Burger King want to run an ad before he reviews chicken fries or whatever?

If it were the case, would it be an anti-trust issue?
Post reply on HN