6 ms·

Did I read this correctly? It sounds like YouTube will continue to host his content, but will now pocket the money they would have paid him. That doesn't seem

Did I read this correctly? It sounds like YouTube will continue to host his content, but will now pocket the money they would have paid him. That doesn't seem right to me. If they were to cease hosting his material, that would maych their corporate-speak blurb. This sounds to me like more money for YouTube.

JacobThreeThree 3y ago
My understanding is that when a channel's content is not monetized, no ads are displayed. So no, YouTube is not pocketing the money they would have paid him.
- znpy 3y ago
  Still keeping the engaged users though. Such users will see ads on other videos. So they’re still making profits off someone else’s work (without retribution)
- pseudosavant 3y ago
  YT most certainly runs ads against demonetized content. They just don't share in the take with the creator. What a principled stance... "I will make even more money because you did something bad somewhere else!"
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    Well so much for the "we censor because of the advertisers demands" excuse for their censorship then.
    - ThatPlayer 3y ago
      There's a bit more nuance to that. Some advertisers can choose to put ads on videos that are labelled undesirable. But because there's less advertiser demand for ads on such videos, they're generally very cheap.
      - fallingknife 3y ago
        Yeah that's not so bad then. They are probably losing money hosting it.
      - hinkley 3y ago
        There was a time after I took a media class where I had insomnia and watched a lot of late night TV. I knew about targeted advertising, and the kinds of ads on late night TV at the time… oh boy. The lowest quality camerawork, dialog, and product. For a while I felt insulted, that they thought I was the target audience for this schlock. Then I realized that no, this is just the cheapest ad slots of the day, and so they are running bottom of the barrel ads during this time. So I guess we can expect to see wannabe-Billy Mays ads on demonetized shows.
  - m-p-3 3y ago
    The user in question can take out its content at any time as well too.
    - hinkley 3y ago
      If they're blocked?
      - m-p-3 3y ago
        Is he?
        hinkley 3y ago
        That is unclear to me. It changes the story a lot if it is. What does “blocked” mean to YouTube?
  - kylebenzle 3y ago
    That's not how any of this works. 1. YouTube can show ads BETWEEN videos and keep 100% of the money. 2. YouTube runs ads WITHIN videos if owner "monetizes", and shares the profit. 3. Creators run "promotions" within their videos and keep 100% of the money. They only stopped #2. Both YouTube and Brand are still both making money off brands videos on YouTube.
    - timClicks 3y ago
      Pre-roll and post-roll ads are part of the revenue share agreement, as well as things like the static ads off to the side.
    - mito88 3y ago
      do creators get from google any % from premium user fees?
    - yreg 3y ago
      As for 2: If you are not partnered, YouTube runs ads within videos and keeps 100% of the money.
  - thrwy_918 3y ago
    >YT most certainly runs ads against demonetized content. It seems pretty clear that there are no in-video ads running on Brand's channel currently. People are welcome to check for themselves: https://www.youtube.com/user/russellbrand https://www.youtube.com/user/russellbrand
  - reddog 3y ago
    No. Since there is a lot of disagreement about this in the surrounding comments, I just watched 20m of an old Russell Brand YT video. As of a few minutes ago there were no YT ads in the video. That includes the very beginning and the end. However there were Brand narrated promotions in the video. The video was actually much easier to watch without the blasted YT ads that normally pop up every 5 minutes. And I suppose Brand still gets paid 100% for the embedded promos he narrated and negotiated with the advertisers.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      > The video was actually much easier to watch without the blasted YT ads that normally pop up every 5 minutes. You don't have an ad blocker?
  - Aunche 3y ago
    What Youtubers call "demonetization" usually refers to their monetization status changing to "limited to no ads." Even if their video is in the category of "limited" ads, the video tends to make a small fraction of what a regular video would make because there are fewer bidders for these ad slots, so from their perspective, it's basically the same as not being paid at all. In Russell Brand's case, it looks like his channel got completely demonetized, so his channel shouldn't have any ads.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- yreg 3y ago
  It is crazy but they do indeed run ads, even on demonetized videos.
- ren_engineer 3y ago
  unless they changed things, last year YT made it impossible to not display ads on your videos even if you wanted to let people watch your videos without ads
- timClicks 3y ago
  I believe this is true when you are a partner and you opt out of ads for a video. But if you're not a partner yet, then YT will serve ads that you don't receive any income for.
beebmam 3y ago
The less money that creators get from YouTube, the better. Content becomes a swamp when content gets monetized for the creator. The internet was so much better before everything was monetized. The platform should always be pocketing all the money.
- egypturnash 3y ago
  This leads to either more paid sponsorships and harder pitches for the creator's Patreon, or it leads to fewer professional creators. Are these things you want?
  - beebmam 3y ago
    Yes, both are preferable to the current system.
turquoisevar 3y ago
YouTube has been doing this for a while. If you’re just starting out and don’t qualify to become a “partner”, you can’t monetize your videos until you reach X amount of subscribers and Y amount of watch hours. This doesn’t mean your videos won’t have ads on them. They most assuredly will have ads on them. It just means that YouTube doesn’t consider you good enough to share the revenue with you. Load of BS of course. Either content is good enough to place ads on, revenue of which is shared, or your content isn’t good enough to place ads on. Making profit over someone else’s content (however abhorrent the person might be) is just dirty imho.
- judge2020 3y ago
  consider it ads on UGC to operate the service.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    or, massive profit!
- blibble 3y ago
  operating the service isn't free and there's going to be some fixed cost component of introducing a new partner arrangement as long as the number isn't too high I don't really see a problem with it
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    A reasonable point, but the lack of transparency from YouTube's end means their pitch to content creators is basically 'trust us.' There's no way for new entrants to the market to predict how much they can make in proportion to views, so they're incentivized to just chase the lowest common denominator all the time.
  - miguelazo 3y ago
    Given the scale and metrics involved, seems pretty nominal. Maybe not free, but for the context might as well be. Something that could be highly automated if it were transparent and fair.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
baja_blast 3y ago
Just like how Youtube will demonetize videos with things like violent retro video games. But they don't take down the video or hide it, they just collect all the ad revenue for themselves.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> It sounds like YouTube will continue to host his content, but will now pocket the money they would have paid him. If he is demonetized, then his videos won’t get ad placement, so Google won’t make the money in the first place, as it will contribute neither to advertising revenue nor to the marginal benefit from the Premium users derived compared to non-Premium users in avoiding ads. Since Google pays creators less than it makes from their content, Google is giving up money (in a narrow analysis) by demonetizing Brand, not keeping additional money. (In a broader analysis, the rational for demonetizing is that monetizing toxic content hurts the brand and alienates advvertisers, so it is profitable to demonetize that content in the long run despite the immediate hit from any particular decision to do so.) The exception is demonetization for certain copyright claims, which effectively isn’t “really” demonetization, its letting the copyright holder take the creators place for monetization.
- zdkl 3y ago
  > marginal benefit While Youtube may be discounting direct revenue from this specific and limited set of content, Alphabet recognises the value of ostensibly being the quasi-exclusive repository & catalogue of video content. Denying to their "users"/viewers the availability of some subset of content hurts their reputation more than "losing" a negligeable fraction of direct monetisation. Leaving aside the morality of repudiating monetisation while allowing access, this is a sound strategy for maintaining the Youtube platform's monopoly and raison d'être. Which is after all the core of their ability to maximise shareholder value, and what else matters to a corporation?
- rwhyan 3y ago
  > If he is demonetized, then his videos won’t get ad placement Not necessarily true. YouTube definitely runs ads on demonetized videos and channels.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    There's complete demonetization where videos have no ads altogether (e.g., videos from BBC if you're in UK). There's partial stuff like Content ID matches. If you post my song, YT still shows ads, but you get no money. I now get your ad money (and YT its cut). Not sure what they meant in case of Russell Brand, but I bet they will show ads for advertisers who don't opt out and pocket the profit.

JacobThreeThree 3y ago

My understanding is that when a channel's content is not monetized, no ads are displayed. So no, YouTube is not pocketing the money they would have paid him.

znpy 3y ago
Still keeping the engaged users though. Such users will see ads on other videos. So they’re still making profits off someone else’s work (without retribution)
pseudosavant 3y ago
YT most certainly runs ads against demonetized content. They just don't share in the take with the creator. What a principled stance... "I will make even more money because you did something bad somewhere else!"
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Well so much for the "we censor because of the advertisers demands" excuse for their censorship then.
  - ThatPlayer 3y ago
    There's a bit more nuance to that. Some advertisers can choose to put ads on videos that are labelled undesirable. But because there's less advertiser demand for ads on such videos, they're generally very cheap.
    - fallingknife 3y ago
      Yeah that's not so bad then. They are probably losing money hosting it.
    - hinkley 3y ago
      There was a time after I took a media class where I had insomnia and watched a lot of late night TV. I knew about targeted advertising, and the kinds of ads on late night TV at the time… oh boy. The lowest quality camerawork, dialog, and product. For a while I felt insulted, that they thought I was the target audience for this schlock. Then I realized that no, this is just the cheapest ad slots of the day, and so they are running bottom of the barrel ads during this time. So I guess we can expect to see wannabe-Billy Mays ads on demonetized shows.
- m-p-3 3y ago
  The user in question can take out its content at any time as well too.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    If they're blocked?
    - m-p-3 3y ago
      Is he?
      - hinkley 3y ago
        That is unclear to me. It changes the story a lot if it is. What does “blocked” mean to YouTube?
- kylebenzle 3y ago
  That's not how any of this works. 1. YouTube can show ads BETWEEN videos and keep 100% of the money. 2. YouTube runs ads WITHIN videos if owner "monetizes", and shares the profit. 3. Creators run "promotions" within their videos and keep 100% of the money. They only stopped #2. Both YouTube and Brand are still both making money off brands videos on YouTube.
  - timClicks 3y ago
    Pre-roll and post-roll ads are part of the revenue share agreement, as well as things like the static ads off to the side.
  - mito88 3y ago
    do creators get from google any % from premium user fees?
  - yreg 3y ago
    As for 2: If you are not partnered, YouTube runs ads within videos and keeps 100% of the money.
- thrwy_918 3y ago
  >YT most certainly runs ads against demonetized content. It seems pretty clear that there are no in-video ads running on Brand's channel currently. People are welcome to check for themselves: https://www.youtube.com/user/russellbrand https://www.youtube.com/user/russellbrand
- reddog 3y ago
  No. Since there is a lot of disagreement about this in the surrounding comments, I just watched 20m of an old Russell Brand YT video. As of a few minutes ago there were no YT ads in the video. That includes the very beginning and the end. However there were Brand narrated promotions in the video. The video was actually much easier to watch without the blasted YT ads that normally pop up every 5 minutes. And I suppose Brand still gets paid 100% for the embedded promos he narrated and negotiated with the advertisers.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > The video was actually much easier to watch without the blasted YT ads that normally pop up every 5 minutes. You don't have an ad blocker?
- Aunche 3y ago
  What Youtubers call "demonetization" usually refers to their monetization status changing to "limited to no ads." Even if their video is in the category of "limited" ads, the video tends to make a small fraction of what a regular video would make because there are fewer bidders for these ad slots, so from their perspective, it's basically the same as not being paid at all. In Russell Brand's case, it looks like his channel got completely demonetized, so his channel shouldn't have any ads.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
yreg 3y ago
It is crazy but they do indeed run ads, even on demonetized videos.
ren_engineer 3y ago
unless they changed things, last year YT made it impossible to not display ads on your videos even if you wanted to let people watch your videos without ads
timClicks 3y ago
I believe this is true when you are a partner and you opt out of ads for a video. But if you're not a partner yet, then YT will serve ads that you don't receive any income for.

beebmam 3y ago

The less money that creators get from YouTube, the better. Content becomes a swamp when content gets monetized for the creator. The internet was so much better before everything was monetized. The platform should always be pocketing all the money.

egypturnash 3y ago
This leads to either more paid sponsorships and harder pitches for the creator's Patreon, or it leads to fewer professional creators. Are these things you want?
- beebmam 3y ago
  Yes, both are preferable to the current system.

turquoisevar 3y ago

YouTube has been doing this for a while. If you’re just starting out and don’t qualify to become a “partner”, you can’t monetize your videos until you reach X amount of subscribers and Y amount of watch hours. This doesn’t mean your videos won’t have ads on them. They most assuredly will have ads on them. It just means that YouTube doesn’t consider you good enough to share the revenue with you. Load of BS of course. Either content is good enough to place ads on, revenue of which is shared, or your content isn’t good enough to place ads on. Making profit over someone else’s content (however abhorrent the person might be) is just dirty imho.

judge2020 3y ago
consider it ads on UGC to operate the service.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  or, massive profit!
blibble 3y ago
operating the service isn't free and there's going to be some fixed cost component of introducing a new partner arrangement as long as the number isn't too high I don't really see a problem with it
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  A reasonable point, but the lack of transparency from YouTube's end means their pitch to content creators is basically 'trust us.' There's no way for new entrants to the market to predict how much they can make in proportion to views, so they're incentivized to just chase the lowest common denominator all the time.
- miguelazo 3y ago
  Given the scale and metrics involved, seems pretty nominal. Maybe not free, but for the context might as well be. Something that could be highly automated if it were transparent and fair.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

baja_blast 3y ago

Just like how Youtube will demonetize videos with things like violent retro video games. But they don't take down the video or hide it, they just collect all the ad revenue for themselves.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> It sounds like YouTube will continue to host his content, but will now pocket the money they would have paid him. If he is demonetized, then his videos won’t get ad placement, so Google won’t make the money in the first place, as it will contribute neither to advertising revenue nor to the marginal benefit from the Premium users derived compared to non-Premium users in avoiding ads. Since Google pays creators less than it makes from their content, Google is giving up money (in a narrow analysis) by demonetizing Brand, not keeping additional money. (In a broader analysis, the rational for demonetizing is that monetizing toxic content hurts the brand and alienates advvertisers, so it is profitable to demonetize that content in the long run despite the immediate hit from any particular decision to do so.) The exception is demonetization for certain copyright claims, which effectively isn’t “really” demonetization, its letting the copyright holder take the creators place for monetization.

zdkl 3y ago
> marginal benefit While Youtube may be discounting direct revenue from this specific and limited set of content, Alphabet recognises the value of ostensibly being the quasi-exclusive repository & catalogue of video content. Denying to their "users"/viewers the availability of some subset of content hurts their reputation more than "losing" a negligeable fraction of direct monetisation. Leaving aside the morality of repudiating monetisation while allowing access, this is a sound strategy for maintaining the Youtube platform's monopoly and raison d'être. Which is after all the core of their ability to maximise shareholder value, and what else matters to a corporation?
rwhyan 3y ago
> If he is demonetized, then his videos won’t get ad placement Not necessarily true. YouTube definitely runs ads on demonetized videos and channels.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  There's complete demonetization where videos have no ads altogether (e.g., videos from BBC if you're in UK). There's partial stuff like Content ID matches. If you post my song, YT still shows ads, but you get no money. I now get your ad money (and YT its cut). Not sure what they meant in case of Russell Brand, but I bet they will show ads for advertisers who don't opt out and pocket the profit.