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

231–240 of 271 posts

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#231

Post by notatoad »

protonfish wrote: post #163
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…

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…

From their blog post, the majority of the smaller creators that are affected by this change are earning less than $100 per year. There's three types of creators that are impacted by this:

- people who will never earn more than this off youtube, but aren't motivated by earning money.

- people who are currently earning less than this, and are motivated by money but are on a trajectory to quickly exceed 1000 subscribers. they'll be minimally affected.

- people who are currently earning less than $100/yr, but are motivated by money and are unlikely to exceed 1000 subscribers anytime soon. If they're actively working to grow their channel but can't break 1000 subscribers, losing them is probably for the best.

I don't see how this is going to really harm youtube's content pool.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#232

Post by [deleted] »

protonfish wrote: post #194
pavel_lishin wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As the taste for content matures and viewers search for higher-quality content, hacks like PewDiePie dwindle and pros like Binging with Babish rise. I'm not disagreeing with you, but just because you don't like something doesn't mean there's not a huge audience for people like PewDiePie, especially among the younger demographic - which still spends money, and which is a constantly-replenishing spring.

Don't forget the racists that love him too.

[deleted]

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#233

Post by darepublic »

z3t4 wrote: post #160
x0x0 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Those brand advertisers really destroyed advertising on the web, with the help of bot clickers ... Pay per click !? Great we don't want clicks ... I got 1000 clicks! Nope, all bots! Advertising went from fully automated to fully manual. There's billions of dollars wasted on manual marketing, and I know many have tried, but if you can make advertising fully automatic again, there's your unicorn startup!

I'm sure there are ways to detect real clickthrough vs fake? (via monitoring the behaviour of the visitor upon clicking through) Why isn't this the magic bullet (or unicorn) you speak of.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#234

Post by notatoad »

jakebasile wrote: post #21
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,…

> The ones that seem to be causing the biggest headaches on YouTube lately are the bigger creators. This is a great observation. They're punishing the small, niche channels for the terrible shit pulled by the huge channels, with Logan Paul just being the most recent and which is probably the precipitating event here.

They're not punishing small channels for logan paul. he's an incredibly easy problem to deal with, and they already solved that problem by kicking him off YPP.

This is to deal with the much larger problem of small channels posting awful content in such huge volumes that it's difficult to police, and causing headlines like this one: https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/youtubers-made-hundre...

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#235

Post by apendleton »

d1zzy wrote: post #228
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…

Then why does Youtube stop ALL monetization, they should stop only ad-based monetization to these channels and still allow the channels to be payed out of Youtube Red visits or any other (possible future) types of non-advertising income. This feels shady and short sighted to me and combined with so many other issues disproportionally affecting small channels (like the adpocalypse) it's just one more nail in the coffi…

I think they do only stop ad-based monetization? This post is about revenue from the Youtube Partner Program, which is the advertising monetization program. Content that gets demonetized for other reasons (e.g., queer content) still earns Red revenue, so I imagine this is the same.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#236

Post by jacksmith21006 »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #76
Nition wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. And although it sucks for small content creators to not get any revenue from their videos anymore, it sucks even more for Google because not only do they get no money from advertising on those videos, it costs them to host the video. I'm sure they're hoping fervently that this plan leads to more lucrative ad deals considering how knife-edge YouTube's chance at profitability has always seemed.

It's still a big bet. Youtube gets views multiplication by the suggested video feature which redirect people from the random video they stumbled upon into the big ticket videos. All the small creators also saturate the search space with all kind of topics and content, which drives people naturally via suggestions to the larger channels with fat advertisers, so the benefit is twofold. Bet they did the math and they st…

Google reported over 1.6 billion hours being consumed a day on average as of mid 2017 so they have a lot to work with.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#237

Post by apendleton »

developer2 wrote: post #131
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…

How about this for an idea: YouTube dictates to advertisers how things work, and not the other way around. This woven tale about how advertisers will abandon YouTube en masse if they're not in full control is such a load of baloney. If YouTube firmly planted their feet and said "tough luck advertisers - we dictate the terms", any company trying to "abandon" the platform will be back within a month upon seeing massive…

That's what they did initially. Many advertisers left and Youtube ad revenue dropped like a rock. Eventually maybe advertisers would have realized that in the age of cord-cutting they have increasingly limited ways to buy <=millennial eyeballs, but communities are fragile and I think Youtube was justifiably worried that by then their highest-value creators would have abandoned them for better-paying platforms (which was already happening and is continuing to happen). Someone above said this post was really aimed at advertisers and not at creators, and I think that's half-right in that advertisers really are the immediate audience, but making advertisers happy is a thing many creators have been pushing for too, so advertisers will come back and ad payouts will go back up.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#238

Post by darepublic »

dagw wrote: post #83
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Sure, but why does YouTube need to care? Those videos get me to YouTube in the first place. Once there they can try to get me to watch 'better' videos and the videos I do watch gives them lots of useful information about me that they can sell to advertisers.

These videos get me to youtube, but I only watch them, I don't watch segments of Jimmy Kimmel like a chump. Also: adblocker.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#239

Post by [deleted] »

richdougherty wrote: post #112
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…

> The rates for the shit package would be so bad that current YouTube revenue starts to look like winning the lottery. Still, getting paid something is better than getting paid nothing, right?

[deleted]

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#240

Post by jacksmith21006 »

viridian wrote: post #230
Feniks wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll see. As it stands there aren't a lot of YT clones. Hosting a billion videos that will continue to multiply for eternity can't be cheap. Lets face it most of the stuff on YT has very little ad revenue.

Twitch basically seems to be the only real competition at this point, but they are rapidly building up to take the fight to YouTube. They are publicly shifting away from the gaming focus and towards general content creation. This whole thing seems to be more in the hands of PR and network effects than anything else. Like if the Jiu jitsu community goes to twitch I have little reason to go on youtube anymore.

Google has over 1.6 billion hours a day being consumed and Twitch does not even register. #2 is Facebook with 119 million hours. So Twitch is not really competitive.

Plus Amazon purchased Twitch and then removed the app from the Roku which does not help grow the platform.

https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/amazon-pulls-twitch-channel-... Amazon Pulls Their Twitch Channel from Roku - Cord Cutters News

Post reply on HN