4 ms·

Will youtube penalize creators who choose to use third party merchandising companies unaffiliated with youtube? After the stunt they pulled with Blender, I wou

by JackCh 8y ago

Will youtube penalize creators who choose to use third party merchandising companies unaffiliated with youtube? After the stunt they pulled with Blender, I wouldn't trust them not to.

kbenson 8y ago
> After the stunt they pulled with Blender Everyone seems pretty up-in-arms over that, but the longer I sit on it, the less I really care. If Blender approaches some random company tomorrow for video hosting, and was presented with a contract that required ads to support the hosting costs and turned down the deal because of that, we wouldn't vilify that company, their business model requires hosting be paid for in some manner. Everyone is treating Youtibe differently because a) it was previously free for Blender, and b) we're all used to it being "free" to host stuff on Youtube. In the end, that's irrelevant, because that's in the past, and there's no contract. Really, Blender should just thank Youtube for the years of free hosting they got out of it, and seek a hosting solution that better fits their needs. Youtube is clearly heading a specific direction, and if Blender is very explicitly opting out of that design, it's to be expected eventually there would be a parting. That's not to say we all should just be happy with Youtube and continue to watch and use it. If as a consumer you don't like advertising and aren't willing to pay for their ad-free service, avoiding it when possible is the clearest possible signal you can send that you want to support other types of content and revenue models. And as a bonus, we'll get an ecosystem which isn't so heavily weighted towards Youtube, and more options in general. Blender leaving is a good thing. I wish there were a lot less cries along the lines of "the near-monopoly in video that I use doesn't want to host this company I believe in, I wish they would just host it!" and a lot more along the lines of "oh good, now maybe we'll see even more content being spread around so there's more competition."
- dannyw 8y ago
  Services like YouTube portray themselves as platforms, not record labels. Individualised, private requirements and restrictions for channels (with no notice!) goes against all of that. This is like Apple emailing you, "hey, your free app is costing us too much money in bandwidth. Add IAP, or we're deleting your app in 24 hours." If YouTube wants to require large channels to enable monetisation, it should standardise this policy, and give reasonable notice; not suddenly disabling a channel. --- Note that all of this is moot, because apparently Blender being disabled is an error: https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blender-videos-worldwide/ https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > Services like YouTube portray themselves as platforms, not media companies. Is the implication there that "platform" means there's no rules? Because that's clearly not the case on any platform, and if there are rules, I'm not sure what specific difference you're trying to call out. I suspect it's something to to with freedom of choice or money, but I'm not exactly sure how to reply without knowing where you're going with that. > Individualised, private requirements and restrictions for channels goes against all of that. Just because we've only heard of one or a few cases, doesn't mean it's individualized. It could very well be that if oyu hit some threshold of content serving costs they require it be paid for in some manner. If I wanted to upload every public domain movie I could fine and then heavily promote them, but refused all monetization by Youtube, should they be forced to allow that? Should they be demonized for disallowing what to their eyes is likely me clearly abusing their system? > If YouTube wants to require large channels to enable monetisation, it should advertise this policy, and give reasonable notice; not suddenly disabling a channel. If that's what you want, you want a contract. If you want a contract, you generally pay for the luxury. If you're running a business, or a professional organization of some sort, or even if you just want assurance things won't change on your, you get a contract. Blender had to deal with a day of figuring out new hosting and changing some webpage links, and all they got in exchange was a few years of free very high quality hosting up to that point. Certainly, they got the short end of the stick, right? > Note that all of this is moot, because apparently Blender being disabled is an error Like I said, contracts. Whether it's an error or not, now Blender truly knows how important the video hosting is or is not to them, and whether it's worth switching still, or at a a minimum setting up a secondary video host they can switch to very quickly if needed, but costs very little or nothing until used.
    - zrobotics 8y ago
      While it is fine for Google to require monetization, since you are right that it does cost money to host video, I think you are missing the reason people got upset. They provide an option in the channel mgmt UI to turn off ads, and they changed their minds without any warning. Had they given blender a month or 2 to change this setting, I expect people would have been less upset. If it's such a problem for them, then why do they offer the option to disable ads in the first place? This is just another example of YouTube acting capriciously, which doesn't do much to encourage people to trust even more of their revenue to them.
- snuxoll 8y ago
  > "oh good, now maybe we'll see even more content being spread around so there's more competition." I'd like to agree with you, but video streaming platforms like YouTube are expensive - there's a reason we lack competition in this space outside a few niche players. Google is still probably losing money on YouTube, they're trying REALLY hard to monetize the platform as of late hence the introduction of YouTube Red/Premium/WhateverTheyRenameItNextYear and the "advertiser friendly" policies they've adopted for AdSense-monetized videos. There's also a network effect that's developed on YouTube, and as much as I hate to admit it when I want to search for video content (reviews, how-to's, and a hell of a lot more) the first (and often only) place I search is in fact YouTube. Hell, I even pay for YouTube Premium so I can run uBlock without feeling guilty. I'd love for there to be a proper competitor for YouTube, but truth be told I think it's easier to compete with Facebook.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > I'd like to agree with you, but video streaming platforms like YouTube are expensive Which is part of my point. If you find that nobody else can serve your content for as cheap, maybe that points towards the original host having a point in trying to find a way to pay for it. > There's also a network effect that's developed on YouTube, and as much as I hate to admit it when I want to search for video content (reviews, how-to's, and a hell of a lot more) the first (and often only) place I search is in fact YouTube. Well, I think we've had this problem before, and it was mostly solved with search engines. Google already returns Youtube and other hosted video content in searches. The only thing I think we'd really be losing is a more powerful recommendation system, but that's a small price to pay in my eyes. > I'd love for there to be a proper competitor for YouTube, but truth be told I think it's easier to compete with Facebook. I don't doubt it's easier to start a Facebook competitor. That said, I think its a lot easier to actually compete with Youtube, at least now that they are actually trying to monetize their platform. Creators have already been playing with other platforms, like Twitch. It only made sense to do so for a lot of people after Youtube started making specific changes and requirements of people that they chafed at. This announcement is both another option for creators, but also comes with it's own set of requirements. The minimum membership fee, for example, is quite a high, and some creators might find it's not the right price point for their audience. I support quite a few people through Patreon (not much in video though), and one of the features of that which I like is the ability to do specific amounts per month, or if the artist sets it up, an amount per item delivered, but with a cap. Some people will find this much more amenable to their needs, which is the market at work.
- ec109685 8y ago
  There is no requirement for YouTube creators like Blender to include ads with their videos. They have to opt into displaying ads.

by JackCh 8y ago

Will youtube penalize creators who choose to use third party merchandising companies unaffiliated with youtube? After the stunt they pulled with Blender, I wouldn't trust them not to.

kbenson 8y ago

> After the stunt they pulled with Blender Everyone seems pretty up-in-arms over that, but the longer I sit on it, the less I really care. If Blender approaches some random company tomorrow for video hosting, and was presented with a contract that required ads to support the hosting costs and turned down the deal because of that, we wouldn't vilify that company, their business model requires hosting be paid for in some manner. Everyone is treating Youtibe differently because a) it was previously free for Blender, and b) we're all used to it being "free" to host stuff on Youtube. In the end, that's irrelevant, because that's in the past, and there's no contract. Really, Blender should just thank Youtube for the years of free hosting they got out of it, and seek a hosting solution that better fits their needs. Youtube is clearly heading a specific direction, and if Blender is very explicitly opting out of that design, it's to be expected eventually there would be a parting. That's not to say we all should just be happy with Youtube and continue to watch and use it. If as a consumer you don't like advertising and aren't willing to pay for their ad-free service, avoiding it when possible is the clearest possible signal you can send that you want to support other types of content and revenue models. And as a bonus, we'll get an ecosystem which isn't so heavily weighted towards Youtube, and more options in general. Blender leaving is a good thing. I wish there were a lot less cries along the lines of "the near-monopoly in video that I use doesn't want to host this company I believe in, I wish they would just host it!" and a lot more along the lines of "oh good, now maybe we'll see even more content being spread around so there's more competition."

dannyw 8y ago
Services like YouTube portray themselves as platforms, not record labels. Individualised, private requirements and restrictions for channels (with no notice!) goes against all of that. This is like Apple emailing you, "hey, your free app is costing us too much money in bandwidth. Add IAP, or we're deleting your app in 24 hours." If YouTube wants to require large channels to enable monetisation, it should standardise this policy, and give reasonable notice; not suddenly disabling a channel. --- Note that all of this is moot, because apparently Blender being disabled is an error: https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blender-videos-worldwide/ https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...
- kbenson 8y ago
  > Services like YouTube portray themselves as platforms, not media companies. Is the implication there that "platform" means there's no rules? Because that's clearly not the case on any platform, and if there are rules, I'm not sure what specific difference you're trying to call out. I suspect it's something to to with freedom of choice or money, but I'm not exactly sure how to reply without knowing where you're going with that. > Individualised, private requirements and restrictions for channels goes against all of that. Just because we've only heard of one or a few cases, doesn't mean it's individualized. It could very well be that if oyu hit some threshold of content serving costs they require it be paid for in some manner. If I wanted to upload every public domain movie I could fine and then heavily promote them, but refused all monetization by Youtube, should they be forced to allow that? Should they be demonized for disallowing what to their eyes is likely me clearly abusing their system? > If YouTube wants to require large channels to enable monetisation, it should advertise this policy, and give reasonable notice; not suddenly disabling a channel. If that's what you want, you want a contract. If you want a contract, you generally pay for the luxury. If you're running a business, or a professional organization of some sort, or even if you just want assurance things won't change on your, you get a contract. Blender had to deal with a day of figuring out new hosting and changing some webpage links, and all they got in exchange was a few years of free very high quality hosting up to that point. Certainly, they got the short end of the stick, right? > Note that all of this is moot, because apparently Blender being disabled is an error Like I said, contracts. Whether it's an error or not, now Blender truly knows how important the video hosting is or is not to them, and whether it's worth switching still, or at a a minimum setting up a secondary video host they can switch to very quickly if needed, but costs very little or nothing until used.
  - zrobotics 8y ago
    While it is fine for Google to require monetization, since you are right that it does cost money to host video, I think you are missing the reason people got upset. They provide an option in the channel mgmt UI to turn off ads, and they changed their minds without any warning. Had they given blender a month or 2 to change this setting, I expect people would have been less upset. If it's such a problem for them, then why do they offer the option to disable ads in the first place? This is just another example of YouTube acting capriciously, which doesn't do much to encourage people to trust even more of their revenue to them.
snuxoll 8y ago
> "oh good, now maybe we'll see even more content being spread around so there's more competition." I'd like to agree with you, but video streaming platforms like YouTube are expensive - there's a reason we lack competition in this space outside a few niche players. Google is still probably losing money on YouTube, they're trying REALLY hard to monetize the platform as of late hence the introduction of YouTube Red/Premium/WhateverTheyRenameItNextYear and the "advertiser friendly" policies they've adopted for AdSense-monetized videos. There's also a network effect that's developed on YouTube, and as much as I hate to admit it when I want to search for video content (reviews, how-to's, and a hell of a lot more) the first (and often only) place I search is in fact YouTube. Hell, I even pay for YouTube Premium so I can run uBlock without feeling guilty. I'd love for there to be a proper competitor for YouTube, but truth be told I think it's easier to compete with Facebook.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > I'd like to agree with you, but video streaming platforms like YouTube are expensive Which is part of my point. If you find that nobody else can serve your content for as cheap, maybe that points towards the original host having a point in trying to find a way to pay for it. > There's also a network effect that's developed on YouTube, and as much as I hate to admit it when I want to search for video content (reviews, how-to's, and a hell of a lot more) the first (and often only) place I search is in fact YouTube. Well, I think we've had this problem before, and it was mostly solved with search engines. Google already returns Youtube and other hosted video content in searches. The only thing I think we'd really be losing is a more powerful recommendation system, but that's a small price to pay in my eyes. > I'd love for there to be a proper competitor for YouTube, but truth be told I think it's easier to compete with Facebook. I don't doubt it's easier to start a Facebook competitor. That said, I think its a lot easier to actually compete with Youtube, at least now that they are actually trying to monetize their platform. Creators have already been playing with other platforms, like Twitch. It only made sense to do so for a lot of people after Youtube started making specific changes and requirements of people that they chafed at. This announcement is both another option for creators, but also comes with it's own set of requirements. The minimum membership fee, for example, is quite a high, and some creators might find it's not the right price point for their audience. I support quite a few people through Patreon (not much in video though), and one of the features of that which I like is the ability to do specific amounts per month, or if the artist sets it up, an amount per item delivered, but with a cap. Some people will find this much more amenable to their needs, which is the market at work.
ec109685 8y ago
There is no requirement for YouTube creators like Blender to include ads with their videos. They have to opt into displaying ads.