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

Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

youtube-creators.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 271 posts

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#121

Post by mrweasel »

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…

I doubt that your video is making Youtube any money with a 1000 views a month on a niche subject. Yet they let you stay on their platform, for free.

Most videos like yours aren't made to make $2 extra each month, they're made because people wanted to share the information. Youtube provides a platform, allowing people to distribute videos, for free. The most prolific content producers are given a cut of the profit, or make their advertising deals.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#122

Post by Strom »

Scoundreller wrote: post #3

tl;dr: Unless you have 4000 hours of watch-time AND 1000 subscribers, you're getting axed from monetization. 1000 subscribers is going to be impossible if your content is niche. That guy who put together that excellent 40 minute step-by-step video on fixing my garage-door opener (plastic gears, seriously?)... why would I subscribe? Youtube is pivoting to being a TV-replacement.

> 1000 subscribers is going to be impossible if your content is niche.

Yeah the subscriber part is going to shut down my partner status. I'm not an active youtuber by any means, but I do have one long video which last year generated 10000 hours of watchtime and $100 as my ad revenue share. However because I don't pump out new videos I only have around 150 subs. Fortunately I don't depend on this income, but it does feel unjust. Especially if it's only about stopping paying me my share and the ads will still appear.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#123

Post by 72deluxe »

protomyth wrote: post #12
ucaetano wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're making So only <1% of impacted channels might be materially affected.

Yeah, but that 1% how-do-I-do-this video is a big reason to come to YouTube. Auto repair and some construction videos are life savers. I think they missed the boat on fixing their problem by pulling up the drawbridge and cutting down on the utility of their service.

You are right. I mainly commented because your last sentence has 3 metaphors in it which made my brain explode:

1. missing a boat

2. pulling up a drawbridge

3. cutting down (like a tree)

Now I am confused if the boat they missed was actually in the moat over which their drawbridge was positioned, and the tree they cut down was actually their boat mast?

Or have I got it wrong?

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#124

Post by c0rkscrew »

jopsen wrote: post #84
CryoLogic wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bandwidth prices are dropping every year, but ATM it's very difficult to be profitable with video streaming. Like crazy hard. 200k views of a 250mb video is 40tb bandwidth which is $3600-$4600 streaming from Amazon S3 depending on if you use CloudFront or not. You basically need your own data centers and wholesale bandwidth, aka scale.

Amazon is pretty expensive for bandwidth, scaleway.com sells cheap VMs and baremetal with 200 MBit/s unmetered bandwidth at like 3 EUR/mo. Building a reliable service, handling peak, etc. is hard, and driving down latency will probably cost more... But 40TB can be done a lot cheaper than 3-4k USD.

>scaleway.com sells cheap VMs and baremetal with 200 MBit/s unmetered bandwidth

I'm sure if you rented hundreds of those and actually used the bandwidth they would kick you out.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#125

Post by DominikD »

cloudwalking wrote: post #55
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…

99% of the affected channels make less than $100 per year. I don't think most of these types of videos are made with a plan to make money. I think people like making videos explaining things they understand.

Not everyone lives in the US. $100 for me or you may not be worth putting hundreds of hours into making a bunch of videos but it may be for others. My father's late friend used to do that since he was disabled and had few other options. He was in this sub-$100 category.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#126

Post by Grue3 »

Youtube is run by idiots. What they needed is to create their own Patreon clone/gift system (like Twitch did, for example) and open it to all the users. Bang, no more ads needed! Even if big advertisers don't like some channel's content, both youtube and the creator are still getting money off it, as long as fans are willing to support the creator.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#127

Post by sundarurfriend »

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…

"1. Fast streaming, everywhere, on phones and browsers" and "4. Good search and discovery experience" are the essentials (with 1 including the hosting requirements). Most users are ready to put up with moderate resolution videos, the content will accumulate surprisingly quickly as long as there is some initial content to draw people in, and it'll be good news for the platform when spam and copyright issues become actual problems. But feature 1 is big enough in cost and difficulty, to be a big barrier to entry by itself.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#128

Post by zimpenfish »

x0x0 wrote: post #89
thinkloop wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't run on economically rational real-time bidding systems, it runs on trend-chasing and reputation What do you mean by "trend-chasing and reputation"? I really want to understand this point, but I'm not seeing why an advertiser would care if their ad was shown once on 10 small videos, rather than 10 times on 1 big video. Do advertisers specifically ask for the most possible impressions on the least number o…

Because youtube attracts a lot of brand advertisers: think Cheerios, Volvo, Swiffer, etc. These ads are designed to create awareness of the products and to create warm feelings for the brand. Hence cute kids eat Cheerios or Volvo brags about safety or Swiffer shows how easy it is to have an immaculate mansion. All of the above dread showing up next to eg some jackass going to a suicide forest and showing a dead perso…

> Showing ads primarily against bigger videos

Which does fall down somewhat when the jackass going to a suicide forest is one of the biggest creators (estimated 4th highest paid in 2017) -and- was a Preferred Partner.

> means youtube has a chance to check the content

Sure but they apparently approved his suicide forest video.

https://www.polygon.com/2018/1/9/16869430/youtube-logan-paul...

"[...] YouTube moderation team had reviewed Paul’s video and deemed it acceptable."

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#129

Post by HlessClaudesman »

Shitting on millions(?) of small creators in order to better please the big fish is short sighted. It risks shrinking the total pie of views, if 9 creators get axed will pewpewdie's views really go up 10x to cover the shortfall?

It reminds me of the time my bank canceled my credit card because I always back before any interest has accrued, I wasn't degenerate enough for them to make margins. Totally short sighted because, there is nothing to say I wouldn't need emergency cash tomorrow.

Likewise with youtube there is nothing to prevent todays small fry producing super engaging content tomorrow. After all, how does one get to the big time without going through mediocrity first?

Other video hosting platforms, such as the vimeo, suddenly got a lot more attractive.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#130

Post by zimpenfish »

sundarurfriend wrote: post #127
tanilama wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"1. Fast streaming, everywhere, on phones and browsers" and "4. Good search and discovery experience" are the essentials (with 1 including the hosting requirements). Most users are ready to put up with moderate resolution videos, the content will accumulate surprisingly quickly as long as there is some initial content to draw people in, and it'll be good news for the platform when spam and copyright issues become act…

> 5. The ability to battle spams and handle external copyright claim to avoid lawsuit.

That's also vital. Otherwise you're risking your entire platform on lawsuits from film and music companies when copyrighted content is inevitably uploaded.

Post reply on HN