Changes to the YouTube Partner Program • Hacker News Board

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#101

Post by baud147258 » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 9:10 AM UTC

jeffmould wrote: post #13

As one of the people whose channel is affected by this policy change, I have to say I am not happy. There are a few issues I have with their new policy: 1) They should not have made this change retroactive to channels. If you already met the criteria you should be grandfathered into the new program. To terminate monetization entirely gives me no incentive to continue with YouTube. 2) For niche channels, like my own,…

Have you seen the comments on the blog post? The firsts are all about asking people to suscribe to their channel, possibly with subing back.

Edit: Well, all the comments are asking for suscribers.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#102

Post by yAnonymous » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 9:14 AM UTC

Scoundreller wrote: post #2

Great. /s I published ONE video about how to easily fix a head-scratching computer hardware problem, because there isn't any other guide on it. I get about 1000 views a month, tons of thank yous and make a few dollars. Because I won't get 4000 hours of watch time[1], and nobody will subscribe, I'll get squat. And zero motivation to publish more videos. The next time I figure out a life-trick[2], I won't bother. Who s…

>The next time I figure out a life-trick[2], I won't bother.

Your motivation for uploading that one video was money? Just wondering, because if that was the case I'd expect you to have more than one video.

And 1000 views a month is nothing. Certainly not enough to expect any kind of worthwhile revenue.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#103

Post by madshiva » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 9:16 AM UTC

Ok let's summarize. Poor content that generate a lot of view is not touch by this change, but good content that have not some many views get nothing, like always. Very fair. If people don't sub what's the matter? I'm done with Google.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#104

Post by baud147258 » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 9:23 AM UTC

cjslep wrote: post #75

Unsurprisingly, people are turning to tit-for-tat subbing to get around the subscription limit, which opens a different kind of headache for enforcement.

All the comments on the blog post were basically this: links to YouTube accounts.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#105

Post by eropple » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 9:24 AM UTC

Nition wrote: post #43

mc32 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>) For niche channels, like my own, it can be easy to have the views but difficult to have the subscribers. These two should not be tied together for purposes of monetization. I completely agree. I've saved hundreds of dollars [and time] on car maintenance/repairs and plumbing by watching some guy or gal on youtube with very specific information (for a given make/model/year) for example. I hope these kinds of instruc…

Honestly I think people will keep making those sorts of videos anyway. We never get paid anything for posting on Stack Overflow or Hacker News yet here we are. And YouTube had lots of good videos before it had monetisation.

> We never get paid anything for posting on Stack Overflow or Hacker News yet here we are.

About 30% of my consulting revenue last year came directly from "I saw you on Hacker News and--".

It is rather harder for a car mechanic to do that.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#106

Post by a888 » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 9:39 AM UTC

sgentle wrote: post #64

I think people are missing the forest for the trees here. Despite what the PR says, this has very little to do with the relationship between YouTube and creators, and everything to do with the relationship between YouTube and advertisers. YouTube is renting out billboards at a music festival, and the advertisers, predictably, want to know who's playing. "Well, I dunno, like, whoever shows up" has proven to be an answ…

>Party's over, folks. YouTube is an advertising company and now it's realising it has to act like one.

Is this meant to be a revelation to anyone? Well back in 2007 when ads started appearing it became clear YouTube's remit has shifted. It was a transition that was perhaps fully realised by 2012, when they began to pay out in view hours.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#107

Post by cobbzilla » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 9:44 AM UTC

I wonder how much more momentum this gives to https://lbry.io which is a sort of p2p YouTube. There's no good reason that, in the long run, a single centralized entity should control so much video distribution.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#108

Post by a_imho » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 9:45 AM UTC

tanilama wrote: post #92

joelrunyon wrote: post #11

When is there going to be a legitimate YouTube contender? Seems like it's ripe for a replacement...

Never was, and probably won't be there for a long time. If you wish to compete with Youtube, consider a feature match of the followings: 1. Fast streaming, everywhere, on phones and browsers. 2. Super High resolution videos. 3. Huge content reserves. 4. Good search and discovery experience. 5. The ability to battle spams and handle external copyright claim to avoid lawsuit. 6. Robust ad platform and sales and the inf…

I don't necessarily think one needs to replace youtube by brute force. It mostly offers cheap disposable entertainment and that's not so hard to come by. Noted I'm probably not their main target audience.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#109

Post by mfrommil » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 9:46 AM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #46

mc32 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>) For niche channels, like my own, it can be easy to have the views but difficult to have the subscribers. These two should not be tied together for purposes of monetization. I completely agree. I've saved hundreds of dollars [and time] on car maintenance/repairs and plumbing by watching some guy or gal on youtube with very specific information (for a given make/model/year) for example. I hope these kinds of instruc…

Sure, but why does youtube need to care? From their perspective, those videos probably aren't helping their bottom line. It might be better if they weren't uploaded in the first place: Less disk space used, no need to index them, etc. (I echo your agreement, for what it's worth.)

Youtube absolutely should care. The "long tail" is one of Youtube's competitive advantages. Sure, each individual video in the "long tail" may only have a couple thousand views, but collectively as a whole the "long tail" is the reason why you instinctively check YouTube over any other site when looking for:

"how to replace xx on 1998 honda",

"2002 winter olympics highlights",

"insert 1980s tv show name theme song"

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#110

Post by dbbk » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 9:53 AM UTC

sgentle wrote: post #64

I think people are missing the forest for the trees here. Despite what the PR says, this has very little to do with the relationship between YouTube and creators, and everything to do with the relationship between YouTube and advertisers. YouTube is renting out billboards at a music festival, and the advertisers, predictably, want to know who's playing. "Well, I dunno, like, whoever shows up" has proven to be an answ…

I think you're missing the fact that they already DO split it up. They have a premium advertising tier for YouTube called Google Preferred.

https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/products/google-preferred/

> Google Preferred aggregates YouTube's top content into easy-to-buy packages for brand advertisers. Brands access the top 5% of content on YouTube and receive the measurement results they need to maximize the impact of their campaigns.