3 ms·
As a guess, they are moving to implement a much more stringent manual review of monetized channels, and the change to the eligibility criteria is an effort to r
by notatoad 9y ago
As a guess, they are moving to implement a much more stringent manual review of monetized channels, and the change to the eligibility criteria is an effort to reduce the number of monetized channels to a number that's more feasible to review. But if that's the case, I wonder why they don't just say it.
>Why not let... the advertisers decide this?
The advertiser's have been pretty clear they want YouTube to be the content police. That's what the big advertiser revolt a few months ago was about.
- shostack 9y agoThat's an interesting take when you start factoring in the broader landscape. Video is no longer about just the short form, and increasingly attention is pulled away from Youtube by services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and FB's video play. I wonder how much video CPMs (particularly mid-roll) and the premium big brands are willing to pay plays a role in this vs something like a desire to growing engagement. If you incentivize creators to attract subscribers, and you have more direct ability to control messaging channels to subscribers as a platform, you might gain some levers in driving revenue that may not have existed or had as large an impact before. You also nurture desirable user-base behaviors.
- Scoundreller 9y agoJust multi-tier it. You can pay more if you only want your ads against thoroughly vetted content. Or pay less if you don't care. Less video to bid against will raise ad costs for everyone.