13 ms·

Isn't it possible that her content just wasn't that good? I mean her website is a pretty typical looking 'illuminati controls everything' crazy conspiracy site,

by orf 9y ago

Isn't it possible that her content just wasn't that good? I mean her website is a pretty typical looking 'illuminati controls everything' crazy conspiracy site, if her content is similarly poorly produced getting down ranked seems natural.

coldtea 9y ago
>Isn't it possible that her content just wasn't that good? Even so, she still had 366,591 views, which should all that matters re revenue.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  Are you sure? There are certain coveted demographics that advertisers are willing to pay a lot more money for than others. I don't think it's true that all views are counted the same for monetization purposes. And then there's views that are desired so little (e.g. those on whacko conspiracy theorist channels) that advertisers aren't willing to pay to put ads on them at all, and you end up with "demonetization".
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Are you sure? There are certain coveted demographics that advertisers are willing to pay a lot more money for than others. I don't think it's true that all views are counted the same for monetization purposes. I'm not saying any kind of 350,000 views will pay the same -- but unless there's something off (e.g. monetization off, copyright infringement, etc) 350,000 views pay substantially more than $0.1 whether the demographic.
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      There's plenty of content that advertisers are not willing to spend any amount of money to be associated with. To use a trivial example, imagine if the KKK had a YouTube channel. And as a more nuanced example, this woman's channel. There is some minimum cost per view, and if the ads aren't even worth that much then there won't be any revenue, rather than a small amount. There's been a rash of negative blowback over the past couple years for being associated with certain types of content, to the point where being monetizable at all is increasingly not the default state. Advertisers would rather not risk it.
  - xster 9y ago
    By that same logic, aren't paranoid audiences ready to throw their money at post-nuclear-war supply kits and male vitality pills gold patches for advertisers?
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      They aren't, though. Ads on mainstream popular stuff sells for much more than conspiracy theory stuff.
- evgen 9y ago
  300k or even a million viewers a month that no one wants to pay to reach should still be worth $0. Assuming that just collecting eyeballs gives you some expectation of an income is erroneous.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Actually just collecting eyeballs, if the channel is in the ad program and monetize, should give you a few 10s or 100s of dollars. That's how it works in YT IIRC -- it's not like a specific advertiser has to sponsor/approve your channel before.
    - MertsA 9y ago
      A lot of those videos were of content that no company in their right mind would want to place their ad on. One of her channels was demonetized completely and from the look of it she separated her channels by language so if one isn't eligible entirely and the other channels are basically the same content in a different language it doesn't sound unlikely that many of those videos were demonetized as well.
- NicoJuicy 9y ago
  Except if the views are bots, copyright infringement or a wrong niche ( violence)
  - jimmies 9y ago
    But were them though? I don't see reasons for the views in her videos indicating those problems.
    - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
      Many Youtuber's pay for a package of Bots to watch their videos. You can get 1 million views for less than 10 dollars. It used to be a great way to cheat Youtube and Advertisers, but they have gotten better and better at catching it. My guess is that she probably did this. You can still get away with it big time, if the bots are not the majority of your traffic. If you just use them to get to sort of prime the pump. ESPECIALLY if you don't have ads enabled on the video. Then Youtube doesn't care AT ALL. Then you just use your massive view count to approach a real advertiser directly.
      - NicoJuicy 9y ago
        https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2016/12/20/methbot-biggest-ad-fraud-busted/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2016/12/20/methb... 5 million/day...
      - jimmies 9y ago
        She could have bought the views. But if she did and she knew she did, she wouldn't have been so outraged when she doesn't get any money then. I guess this person was genuinely feeling being ripped off by Youtube because she really had an audience but then with no money in return.
        ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
        >If she did and she knew she did, she wouldn't have been so outraged. Maybe a rational person would think like that... But besides knowing she wasn't a rational actor because of the crime she committed, if you spend any time in with the criminal justice system you will find many people 'feel' they have a right to things, even if they procured them illegally.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  That isn't remotely true. I spend a big part of my day making sure my company's ad budget isn't wasted on websites/videos etc that we don't want to associate with. If we could get 1 million views for a penny, we wouldn't want it if it was on a video showing a cat being brutally murdered. Also look at the videos that are still up on her website... There is a video about the "Anal Sex Safety and Health Concerns". How much do you think views on that video are worth? Do you want to associate your brand with hatred of homosexuals? This lady was a really weird mix of values. Vegan + Anti Gay. No matter what side of the political spectrum you are on she was probably offensive.
- burger_moon 9y ago
  Curious if you feel that way about other people who have been in the limelight lately like Logan Paul (I think that's his name), Pewdiepie, or even Alex Jones. I'm in the camp which agrees with you, but people often say this until it's about content which they disagree with.

by orf 9y ago

coldtea 9y ago

>Isn't it possible that her content just wasn't that good? Even so, she still had 366,591 views, which should all that matters re revenue.

CydeWeys 9y ago
Are you sure? There are certain coveted demographics that advertisers are willing to pay a lot more money for than others. I don't think it's true that all views are counted the same for monetization purposes. And then there's views that are desired so little (e.g. those on whacko conspiracy theorist channels) that advertisers aren't willing to pay to put ads on them at all, and you end up with "demonetization".
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Are you sure? There are certain coveted demographics that advertisers are willing to pay a lot more money for than others. I don't think it's true that all views are counted the same for monetization purposes. I'm not saying any kind of 350,000 views will pay the same -- but unless there's something off (e.g. monetization off, copyright infringement, etc) 350,000 views pay substantially more than $0.1 whether the demographic.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    There's plenty of content that advertisers are not willing to spend any amount of money to be associated with. To use a trivial example, imagine if the KKK had a YouTube channel. And as a more nuanced example, this woman's channel. There is some minimum cost per view, and if the ads aren't even worth that much then there won't be any revenue, rather than a small amount. There's been a rash of negative blowback over the past couple years for being associated with certain types of content, to the point where being monetizable at all is increasingly not the default state. Advertisers would rather not risk it.
- xster 9y ago
  By that same logic, aren't paranoid audiences ready to throw their money at post-nuclear-war supply kits and male vitality pills gold patches for advertisers?
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    They aren't, though. Ads on mainstream popular stuff sells for much more than conspiracy theory stuff.
evgen 9y ago
300k or even a million viewers a month that no one wants to pay to reach should still be worth $0. Assuming that just collecting eyeballs gives you some expectation of an income is erroneous.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Actually just collecting eyeballs, if the channel is in the ad program and monetize, should give you a few 10s or 100s of dollars. That's how it works in YT IIRC -- it's not like a specific advertiser has to sponsor/approve your channel before.
  - MertsA 9y ago
    A lot of those videos were of content that no company in their right mind would want to place their ad on. One of her channels was demonetized completely and from the look of it she separated her channels by language so if one isn't eligible entirely and the other channels are basically the same content in a different language it doesn't sound unlikely that many of those videos were demonetized as well.
NicoJuicy 9y ago
Except if the views are bots, copyright infringement or a wrong niche ( violence)
- jimmies 9y ago
  But were them though? I don't see reasons for the views in her videos indicating those problems.
  - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
    Many Youtuber's pay for a package of Bots to watch their videos. You can get 1 million views for less than 10 dollars. It used to be a great way to cheat Youtube and Advertisers, but they have gotten better and better at catching it. My guess is that she probably did this. You can still get away with it big time, if the bots are not the majority of your traffic. If you just use them to get to sort of prime the pump. ESPECIALLY if you don't have ads enabled on the video. Then Youtube doesn't care AT ALL. Then you just use your massive view count to approach a real advertiser directly.
    - NicoJuicy 9y ago
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2016/12/20/methbot-biggest-ad-fraud-busted/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2016/12/20/methb... 5 million/day...
    - jimmies 9y ago
      She could have bought the views. But if she did and she knew she did, she wouldn't have been so outraged when she doesn't get any money then. I guess this person was genuinely feeling being ripped off by Youtube because she really had an audience but then with no money in return.
      - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
        >If she did and she knew she did, she wouldn't have been so outraged. Maybe a rational person would think like that... But besides knowing she wasn't a rational actor because of the crime she committed, if you spend any time in with the criminal justice system you will find many people 'feel' they have a right to things, even if they procured them illegally.
ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
That isn't remotely true. I spend a big part of my day making sure my company's ad budget isn't wasted on websites/videos etc that we don't want to associate with. If we could get 1 million views for a penny, we wouldn't want it if it was on a video showing a cat being brutally murdered. Also look at the videos that are still up on her website... There is a video about the "Anal Sex Safety and Health Concerns". How much do you think views on that video are worth? Do you want to associate your brand with hatred of homosexuals? This lady was a really weird mix of values. Vegan + Anti Gay. No matter what side of the political spectrum you are on she was probably offensive.
burger_moon 9y ago
Curious if you feel that way about other people who have been in the limelight lately like Logan Paul (I think that's his name), Pewdiepie, or even Alex Jones. I'm in the camp which agrees with you, but people often say this until it's about content which they disagree with.