3 ms·

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

by Nition 9y ago

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.

Scoundreller 9y ago
Isn't google's advertising cut 30-40%? How many dollars does it cost them to vet a channel? My 3 minute video makes me ~.3 cents per view. It's actually less than 3 minutes, most don't watch the whole thing. 4000 hours in a year = $240 revenue. So, advertisers are paying $360. If you have just 2000 hours of views per year, Google is throwing away $60/year in revenue. My linked gmail account alone with 10+ years of data should scream legitimacy alone.
- Nition 9y ago
  I don't think they're worried about whether you're a legitimate account, they're worried about whether your videos are advertiser-friendly, and they've decided that to verify that they'll need to manually check your channel. Which would take forever if they didn't set some threshold. They tried to crowdsource it with YouTube Heroes. I guess that didn't end up being enough.
  - Scoundreller 9y ago
    > manually check your channel. Which would take forever if they didn't set some threshold. It's Google. They'll tell advertisers that every channel will be manually reviewed to make them happy, but the degree of manual review will vary. They'll score most channels as low risk and do a cursory manual review to 'check-the-box', and the degree of review will go up from there.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
mwill 9y ago
Youtubes reputation seems to have taken a hit with mainstream brands recently because of content controversy, maybe they're hoping to curb that and sign some more lucrative deals, that will outweigh the loss of cheap ads on non-vetted videos? Ironically though, most of the controversy is from large content creators that won't be effected by this so, who knows.
QAPereo 9y ago
Not to mention that they just threw the door open wide for another company to, as many here love to put it, “disrupt” the online video hosting space. Thank god for that.
Theodores 9y ago
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.

by Nition 9y ago

Scoundreller 9y ago

Isn't google's advertising cut 30-40%? How many dollars does it cost them to vet a channel? My 3 minute video makes me ~.3 cents per view. It's actually less than 3 minutes, most don't watch the whole thing. 4000 hours in a year = $240 revenue. So, advertisers are paying $360. If you have just 2000 hours of views per year, Google is throwing away $60/year in revenue. My linked gmail account alone with 10+ years of data should scream legitimacy alone.

Nition 9y ago
I don't think they're worried about whether you're a legitimate account, they're worried about whether your videos are advertiser-friendly, and they've decided that to verify that they'll need to manually check your channel. Which would take forever if they didn't set some threshold. They tried to crowdsource it with YouTube Heroes. I guess that didn't end up being enough.
- Scoundreller 9y ago
  > manually check your channel. Which would take forever if they didn't set some threshold. It's Google. They'll tell advertisers that every channel will be manually reviewed to make them happy, but the degree of manual review will vary. They'll score most channels as low risk and do a cursory manual review to 'check-the-box', and the degree of review will go up from there.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

mwill 9y ago

Youtubes reputation seems to have taken a hit with mainstream brands recently because of content controversy, maybe they're hoping to curb that and sign some more lucrative deals, that will outweigh the loss of cheap ads on non-vetted videos? Ironically though, most of the controversy is from large content creators that won't be effected by this so, who knows.

QAPereo 9y ago

Not to mention that they just threw the door open wide for another company to, as many here love to put it, “disrupt” the online video hosting space. Thank god for that.

Theodores 9y ago

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.