Live data from Hacker News

Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

youtube-creators.googleblog.com

211–220 of 271 posts

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#211

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…

> Who subscribes to videos about fixing stuff anyway?

Me. I subscribed to a few DIY home repair channels, plus a channel on modding a Mark7 Golf R.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is their reasoning, then it is YouTube that is missing the forest if they think destroying the environment that fosters and encourages small content creators is a smart move. All of the big players started there once. As the taste for content matures and viewers search for higher-quality content, hacks like PewDiePie dwindle and pros like Binging with Babish rise. Locking into the cesspool of current popular…

Advertisement is a bad model for niche content creators anyway. Selling "premium" content, contract work, and donations are how most are paying their bills. EDIT: And PewDiePie won't disappear. He provides the perfect wish fulfillment for kids that would love to stay in their bedrooms and be paid to play videogames all day long.

Ironically it's easier to use YT as free advertising for your own content - and have YT pay you for it, even if the pay is a joke - than to rely on traditional ad revenue.

Maybe if YT wasn't so fixated on ad revenue it wouldn't be missing out on a huge potential market.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is their reasoning, then it is YouTube that is missing the forest if they think destroying the environment that fosters and encourages small content creators is a smart move. All of the big players started there once. As the taste for content matures and viewers search for higher-quality content, hacks like PewDiePie dwindle and pros like Binging with Babish rise. Locking into the cesspool of current popular…

Advertisement is a bad model for niche content creators anyway. Selling "premium" content, contract work, and donations are how most are paying their bills. EDIT: And PewDiePie won't disappear. He provides the perfect wish fulfillment for kids that would love to stay in their bedrooms and be paid to play videogames all day long.

No way can he sustain the attention beyond his 30's. His demo will grow up and he'll eventually be a creepy old guy the next generation isn't interested in.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#214
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…

Or they could, ya know, pay these people called "writers" and a "production crew" to make them a bunch of "shows".

But nah man that's the old way of doing things.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#215
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wish google had never bought youtube... I knew they would ruin it eventually. If Google hadn't bought YouTube, YouTube would no longer exist.

Really? I would find that story interesting reading if you'd be willing to share.

There's not really that much to it. Pre-acquisition Youtube was burning through cash at a rapid and increasing rate. There was clearly no way they were going to find a revenue source which would even come close to covering their operating expenses. Google was one of only a few companies who were willing and able to keep Youtube going as a loss leader.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#216
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wish google had never bought youtube... I knew they would ruin it eventually. If Google hadn't bought YouTube, YouTube would no longer exist.

Really? I would find that story interesting reading if you'd be willing to share.

Here's the most likely result of Youtube not being bought by Google (or any other large company).

https://vid.me/

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#217

What I find most interesting is that immediately the top comments on the post are all channel owners asking for subscriptions from other channel owners in exchange for subscribing back. To be honest these new thresholds seem entirely too low to do any good. The spammers and scammers can easily reach the thresholds. But small scale operators who aren’t interested in gaming the system will be the hardest hit.

There'll be a new gold rush for paid sockpuppets who will bring a channel up to the subscriber threshold.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When I was in business school, we had a case study of a large supermarket chain that carried 18,000 or so different items per store. The management team wanted to save on cost and narrow down to just the essentials the chain's customers bought. So they did an analysis and determined that only 6,000 or so of the products they carried sold in any significant amount. The other 12,000 were niche items that sold in small…

This is so spot on!

This isn't exclusive to supermarkets but many other industries and the problem is always the same. Someone looks at the bottom line and realizes that hey 50%, 60%, 80%, of revenue comes from product A, and B through F are just producing 10%, so why not get rid of them, or call them a failure. But what they are missing is the bigger picture because the user experience that drives to go with Product A needs the other products.

It's really interesting that such simple concepts are missed by most people in management roles, and even though here you have a brilliant and simple explanation, most people don't get it.

This is a bit off-topic in a sense, but this one comment just really hit on something for me that I've been dealing with for two years and I'm going to be sharing this explanation with other people because it really captures this specific problem is so perfectly.

Thank you!

On the subject of Youtube, this is a pretty massive change, it is definitely not a benefit to a lot of creators, but as others have said, Youtube is really the only game in town. Vimeo basically disappeared into a premium offering, so they are acting a bit more monopolistically.

The funny thing is if they never really had low standards to share monetization, I don't think that would have affected the way creators create and upload content, but now that they gave it to them, and are taking it away, it's going to cause a backlash for sure. Unfortunately, there's no clear #2 for those creators to goto.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#219
post #200

I just got an email that my channel will de-monetized by this. I thought it was pretty funny actually. There are all these huge content creators losing out on their livelihoods because of Google's unpredictable de-monetization behaviour, and then Google even decides to demonetize even my tiny channel with only a few videos (that are over 9 years old). I turned on monetization a few years ago and I think I've made may…

This is why one should not entrust their livelihood to any company. I'm a fan of the Patreon model. If I was starting a video publishing enterprise (say something like Primitive Technology or Computerphile or a music band channel) I'd definitely use all the most popular subscription services available, and a newsletter & blog with proper RSS. I'd upload to YouTube to drive viewers, than take them to my blog, show the…

Except for when Patreon updated how they collect payments about a month ago and that made it very expensive for patrons to donate to a large number of different people small amounts so they started cancelling their $1 and $2 donations because of the extra fees involved. So all of a sudden if you were getting 20% of your income from these smaller patrons you would lose that.

Now they did eventually reverse it, but it just shows you that when you are dependent on X, you are dependent on X. It could be better or worse, but it's still a middle man in the system.

You could go to a straight donation model like using Paypal, but that limits your global subscriber network since Paypal isn't used everywhere and you will also be missing out on the platform benefits. Meaning if someone is donating already on Patron they will more likely donate to someone else. Likewise if someone is subscribed to one channel on Youtube they will more likely subscribe to a second.

I think ultimately there is a trade off here where you have to understand what you are exchanging in terms of freedom, control, and dependence, with the platform you choose to use.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#220
post #219
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why one should not entrust their livelihood to any company. I'm a fan of the Patreon model. If I was starting a video publishing enterprise (say something like Primitive Technology or Computerphile or a music band channel) I'd definitely use all the most popular subscription services available, and a newsletter & blog with proper RSS. I'd upload to YouTube to drive viewers, than take them to my blog, show the…

Except for when Patreon updated how they collect payments about a month ago and that made it very expensive for patrons to donate to a large number of different people small amounts so they started cancelling their $1 and $2 donations because of the extra fees involved. So all of a sudden if you were getting 20% of your income from these smaller patrons you would lose that. Now they did eventually reverse it, but it…

Quoting myself:

>> I'd definitely use all the most popular subscription services available

I have about five of them bookmarked. There definitely exists more.

You need to rely on someone at some point, but redundancy and decoupling can make the potential backstab less hurting.

Post reply on HN