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

261–270 of 271 posts

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#261

Post by Noos »

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…

I don't think anyone got rich assuming that viewers demand high quality content.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#262

Post by Noos »

ndespres wrote: post #8
ucaetano wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe so, but won't there be less incentive for someone new to post some obscure repair video later on, to help the few people who might benefit from it and make a few dollars?

sadly we'll probably just see mini networks where people will buy obscure repair videos in the same way they buy ebooks to sell as part of a brand, for virtually nothing, and then monetize though other people's content, huffpo style.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#263

Post by peapicker »

I have several musician friends who create excellent content, yet are still fairly niche. Every one of them is getting frozen out of their measly dollar a month from this, as they are all a bit short on hours of listening per year.

At least Spotify/Apple still pays musicians per stream. The small musicians on youtube are no longer getting that privilege. Big Music(tm) screws the little guys again.

(I know this is more than about indie musicians, but this is the effect I am seeing most in relation to my usage of Youtoob)

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#264

Post by anonytrary »

nemothekid wrote: post #79
anonytrary wrote: post #27

A signed suicide note by YouTube. It's those peanuts that motivate actual content creators to post content and grow. This is the problem with "free and always will be", smh. You get a centralized broker. In Google's case, between sellers and viewers, who are cast as buyers. This all happens under the shadow of "video content". Google feeds off of the creativity of everyone on YouTube, its own Hollywood. Then they dec…

>This is the perfect move to put more YouTubers past the tipping point. YouTube is dead for the ______th time. Now YouTubers will finally move to ______ with monetization strategy _______ and we will enter the golden age of online video. I agree with the other (downvoted) poster - YouTube has no where to go. They literally have no competition, and bled billions of dollars for years to get where they are today. No one…

I'm not saying they're dead yet, just guessing that it will be a massive turn off for new Youtubers. Perhaps we will see that platform soon.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#265

Post by anonytrary »

pjc50 wrote: post #136
anonytrary wrote: post #27

A signed suicide note by YouTube. It's those peanuts that motivate actual content creators to post content and grow. This is the problem with "free and always will be", smh. You get a centralized broker. In Google's case, between sellers and viewers, who are cast as buyers. This all happens under the shadow of "video content". Google feeds off of the creativity of everyone on YouTube, its own Hollywood. Then they dec…

> Something as simple as an organic comment promoting a product can actually drive real sales, and the John Doe that posts such a comment gets zilch. Of course, if you incentivise this, you destroy comments entirely as they fill with people pretending to be organic product recommendation. I (and I think quite a lot of other people) devalue information when someone has been paid to bring that recommendation to us, bec…

> they fill with people pretending to be organic product recommendation

Only if it's free to post, right? If no one has skin in the game, then you'll get spammers. Consider a simple system where people pay 10 gold to post and 1 gold to vote. At the end of the month, the pot of gold is paid out to the top posts and the voters who made the best bets.

I am not a game theorist/economist, but perhaps there is a set of rules such that every actor in the system is rewarded for their proper usage of the system, otherwise they get penalized, but this is only possible if it requires stake to be in the system, which is impossible in "free and always will be".

It needs to be expensive to go against the community, which is why actions should cost a nominal amount of money. If this is the case, dividends or incentives could be paid to users for participating in a productive protocol.

(Edit: Of course, there will always be the people who have tons of money and can manipulate the system, but how is this different than people with tons of money who buy account farms and drive impressions, e.g. fake news, ads, etc.?)

Isn't Youtube actually trying something like this, where community members can get paid to be moderators, essentially?

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#266

Post by yeukhon »

DanBC wrote: post #247
yeukhon wrote: post #95

> Starting today we’re changing the eligibility requirement for monetization to 4,000 hours of watchtime within the past 12 months and 1,000 subscribers. Is this an annual check? Or is it a one-time enrollement eligibility? The 4000 hours is a big entry bar... it’s already hard enough to gain subscribers. Indeed the small creators - those who get maybe 5k views per video + 1000 subscriber + 5 mins videos won’t be mak…

Doesn't 4000 hours rule out massive channels like SlowMoGuys? EDIT: 4000? That's 70 hours per week.

But it's difficult to get 70 hours of views already for most of the small channels now making some money. Let alone 4000 hours a year accumulated. So basically YouTube is saying we don't want to pay the smaller guys. But the fact is a lot of the smaller guys do good videos and deserve to have a stake too.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#267

Post by Scoundreller »

Noos wrote: post #262
ndespres wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe so, but won't there be less incentive for someone new to post some obscure repair video later on, to help the few people who might benefit from it and make a few dollars?

sadly we'll probably just see mini networks where people will buy obscure repair videos in the same way they buy ebooks to sell as part of a brand, for virtually nothing, and then monetize though other people's content, huffpo style.

Yay, the de-democratizing of online video.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#268

Post by sundvor »

Macha wrote: post #210
gkya wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a following in Patreon or any other similar platform, it shouldn't be that hard to jump ship and start uploading somehwere else. Any serious internet publisher should have at least one alternate channel for followers. I'd go with Twitter and a newsletter, so if YouTube decides to screw me, I can tell people "hey, I'm moving to [random platform here]". Patreon allows you to communicate with your followers…

This describes the benefit of being diversified but it doesn't explain how you get there in the face of YouTube's efforts to prevent that. I mean you could plug your Twitter then plug your patreon there but then you're relying on the YT -> Twitter conversion rate multiplied by the Twitter -> Patreon conversion rate. You could just plug it verbally and skirt the enforcement of the YouTube rules that way, but if they b…

I find it almost callous that not only do they make it super hard for "small timers" to monetize their channel using their own product, but then proceed to block any efforts to let fans contribute via others.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#269

Post by retox »

Let's not forget that this is a direct effect of the outrage culture coming from North America. By spuriously reporting videos and organising email campaigns, or in the case of the Wall St Journal publishing national stories, about ads appearing on your political enemies videos, offended students and general busybodies have taken food from the mouths of thousands.

They aren't solely to blame but I would wager they are a prevailing interest at mountain view and in the valley.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#270

Post by otalp »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #213
rubinelli wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There will always be new children who will go to youtube and find the most popular youtuber...unless he gets burnt out or feels he has enough money, he's going to keep raking it in.
Post reply on HN