Live data from Hacker News

Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

youtube-creators.googleblog.com

81–90 of 271 posts

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#81
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.

Exactly. If they care about monetization, they would sell merchandise or use Patreon or similar.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#82
post #14

Everyone's talking about how this is bad for small channels, but surely this is a big hit to YouTube itself as well. Since they've decided they need to vet all channels before ads are shown, and they can't do that to every channel, they've had to set an arbitrary view/subscriber limit. But now they're going to lose out on ad revenue for millions of previously-monetised videos, while still having to host them for free…

What if the only things that monetise are vlogs presented by cheery rich, happily married white American Christians that never swear?

This is bad news for advertisers too. Say your product is in demand by people outside the supposed ideal target audience then you won't be able to reach them.

Or if you do not care who buys your product so long as it sells. What if half of your audience are watching stuff deemed to be not monetisable? It doesn't matter if you vote Trump or not so long as you could drink more cola.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#83
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.)

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.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone please do this. (You'll probably need a lot of money.) In the meantime, download anything you enjoy today, because it may not be there tomorrow.

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.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#85
post #43
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.

If they do, then that is great. Since there is no compensation from youtube, these creators should upload the content to a bunch of online streaming platforms.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#86
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. If they care about monetization, they would sell merchandise or use Patreon or similar.

I've gone with patreon to support smaller channels, 1 to 10 dollars each, budget 20 dollars a month.

Mentions among creators drives me to new channels and I add to Patreon.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#87

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…

"Don't you hate those videos that are 5x longer than necessary? WHY ENCOURAGE THAT?"

From googles perspective it's because they don't care about the user, and are cowtowing to the advertisers. Longer videos mean more ads, which means more $$$.

I wish google had never bought youtube... I knew they would ruin it eventually.

I think the real discussion here though is more meta than just google... we have allowed advertisers to gain way too much power on the internet, and if we aren't careful they will ruin us just like they did newspapers.

This isn't just advertisers though, this is the general business model of internet companies. Here is the pattern:

1) Create cool new thing, with no ads, no tracking. Users love it and it spreads like wildfire.

2) Slowly boil the frog. Start tracking users and selling user data to third parties, justified under esoteric EULAs and TOS. Start small, unobtrusive ads.

3) Make the ads more prominent, more frequent, and harder to skip/ignore.

4) Allow your platform to be used as a corporate promotion tool that's more like sockpuppet central than regular advertising. Bots talking to bots, subtle corporate products in memes, etc.

5) Now that you have completely aliented the userbase, now is the time to ramp up all of the above and then go public, ride the boom wave up, and at peak sell a massively overvalued company to some dumbass group/company/people, run away with the cash, and take video of your product as it burns to the ground.

The users will stick around until someone else starts at 1 and does the same thing but under a different name.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#88
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…

> 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 of videos?

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#89
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…

> 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 person for kicks. Showing ads primarily against bigger videos means youtube has a chance to check the content. ie so-called brand safety.

See how the ad industry views the changes:

http://www.adweek.com/digital/youtube-is-finally-addressing-...

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#90
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…

> 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…

You're using logic again. His point is they're not logical unless you count "forest through the trees" fallacies as logic.

They want whatever is IN. Whatever is BIG. Whatever is the most POPULAR.

It's all about "big names" swirling around the community. "Have you heard of X?" Because "discovering X" and getting a big deal makes you famous.

"Driving profits up 3% over last quarter" is not what a hot shot maverick does. It's not cool.

So finding tens/hundreds/thousands of smaller (but successful!) channels isn't popular. Humans can't process that easily. And when it comes to impressing your boss in that industry, you want bite-size chunks. You want the next Macklemore, not 30 amazing electrical-engineering channels.

Post reply on HN