Youtube advertiser's exodus and demonetization

[mr friendly guy]

Ok, where to start. Some channels I subscribe to namely the David Pakman show and Secular talk, over the last week or so are asking for money because of youtube's demonetization. So naturally I got interested into how all this started.

It seemed that the wall street journal in late march reported that ads were being played in racist and "objectionable" videos. This sparked an exodus of companies who didn't want their brand to be associated with racist shit.

Youtube tried to change the algorithm which led to lots of videos being demonetized. Some youtubers were not pleased and accused the Wall Street Journal of making fake screenshots in a war against new media, but funny enough took down that video because it was false. The original claim was that the creator of the racist video wasn't receiving ad revenue, so its fake. However what they didn't realise was that the reason it didn't receive ad revenue was because it was subjected to a copyright claim (from the music being played) and someone else was receiving the ad revenue. Not that it changes the original point, that ads are being played on racist videos and some companies don't want their ads to be played on these videos, irregardless of whether the uploader actually made money or not.

BTW - anyone want to take a guess who ran with this false story of the fake screenshots by the WSJ? If you guess right wing turds like Paul Joseph Watson and Milo NAMBLApolis, you were apparently right.

So now YT has changed its algorithm, lots of channels are being demonetized. Even ones who argue against the "objectionable content." So for example, the algorithm appears to not be able to distinguish between an anti racist video and a racist one.

Now I am going to predict what some people are going to / have already said.

1. Its against free speech.

Because you have the right to say what you want, but companies don't have the right to choose where they advertise. Freedom for me but not for you.

2. Youtube is a public space so free speech

Sorry, its not. Its owned by google, a private company. They can do what they want. Don't like it, you can set up a rival company as the free market advocates would say, and a lot of these people are free market advocates.

3. Ah, but more diverse views leads to more people viewing which is better for youtube.

Not in this case, since having the extra racist view actually prompted companies to not run ads on youtube. Less ads on youtube = less money = BAD.

4. Its a war by old media on new media.

Possible, but no evidence. In any event, even if there is a "war", its damn legitimate tactic to point out this fact to companies since its cleared some of them do not want their ads to run on racist videos.

*******************************************************************************
Now what I do think is a problem, is that YT is metaphorically throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Its current algorithm is too broad, prompting big channels to seek patreon donations if they didn't already have one.

Channels which actually do some research, will have problems since they do have large overheads. Some of them are asking for up to $20 K a month. Channels which just give an opinion which minimal research, eg the Sargon of Akkads can get by with smaller patreon donations.

Hopefully this gets sorted out, because I would miss listening to those shows.

[Lord Revan]

I think big part of the problem is that Youtube still has de facto monopoly that has bred complencency in Google.

As it stands Youtube content management systems are in serious need of an overhaul, something that would benefit all in the long run after all if a lot of popular channels will turn to Patreon or other means besides monetization of their videos for revenue adds will not be played and the advertisers won't be getting any money (nor will google).

Not mention if there comes a company that can provide the same quality of videos as safely as YT but with better content management in place YT's popularity would probably plummet if the current system is still in place

[mr friendly guy]

I think youtube has close to a monopoly in western countries. There are things like dailymotion (French site) for example which seems less strict with enforcing copyright and I am sure there are others as well. However I don't think they have the anywhere near the same number of users as youtube.

Going on, I also suspect the news and politics channels which will have been demonetized, won't make a large portion of youtube's views. I mean how many videos does a news program have to make to even match Gangnam style. Therefore youtube could most probably get away with demonetiziing these videos, even if its not ideal.

[Tsyroc]

I've seen a few videos by YouTubers who have pointed out that Google/YouTube has tended to de-monetize videos that are conservative or right wing while giving leftist video producers a more or less free pass.

I might be getting this confused with how they required people to be logged in to view some videos/channels because of "adult content" but will allow others through as not restricted. YouTube certainly seems to give The Young Turks a pass considering all of their swearing, but then they did host them in their LA studio when they were getting set up as an internet only organization.

There are some good videos that show that this attack from the WSJ and others is more of a move by old media to target Google because old media is dying hard. Pretty much the majority of people 40 and under get more of their news and entertainment from new media than from the old. Millennials even continue to not go with old media when they settle down, get married and have kids.

What has been kind of funny is that even if the big boy advertisers pull out there are a boatload of smaller guys willing to jump right in. It's possible that the prices for ads go down a bit but I'm not sure how this really hurts Google other than being annoying ie... having to defend yourself from politicians who believe the crap their local papers/TV put out without double checking first.

As far as I know, Google is still losing money on YouTube which kind of makes me think that this is a battle to wipe out the competition, and then make some money.

[mr friendly guy]

Funny thing is, the leftist channels I watch have all been demonetized. I have heard The Young Turks are still ok, but then they derive money from membership as well, so they may not be hurting so bad.

[Bernkastel]

I'll note that I've seen a return of ads to the two leftist channels you mentioned in your initial post.

[General Zod]

Maybe the right wing channels just aren't as popular as they thought they were and want the excuse to bash leftists.

[mr friendly guy]

I'll note that I've seen a return of ads to the two leftist channels you mentioned in your initial post.

On all or most videos, or just one? Because they are reporting some monetization, just ridiculously low like less than $10 for a day dispute lots of views.

[Bernkastel]

Most of them. If I don't get an ad for one video, clicking on another video will get an ad. Others in comments are also mentioning getting ads, though it does seem to vary. Some have said they just get one ad or rarely get them.

[R.O.A]

I am not sure this is a purely left wing vs. right wing thing, as I know of a radical left wing channel that complains a lot about demonetization.

[Lonestar]

Funny thing is, the leftist channels I watch have all been demonetized. I have heard The Young Turks are still ok, but then they derive money from membership as well, so they may not be hurting so bad.

Basically all the gun review channels have gotten de-monetized.

[Formless]

To give an example that this isn't just a right wing thing, the David Pakman show is claiming to have been flat out blacklisted because his video titles contained words that could be considered "controversial" such as... "secular". And "homosexual." So, in other words, words that a news source would obviously use as context demands. moreover, in his video he talks about how even this is likely bullshit, because the sheer variety of titles that got demonetized don't appear to be even that controversial, including a video whose title literally says "such and such is a David Pakman fan?"

Note that according to him, this information came from an advertiser. One which actually wanted to put ads on his channel, but can't because of Youtube itself, rather than the other way around. I've barely heard of this guy, but if true that just sounds disgusting, especially considering that "controversial" SHOULD NOT be considered the same as inappropriate! It comes off like Youtube is complicit in trying to destroy alternative news media deliberately, and censoring channels that talk about things like fucking religion or even some of the medieval history channels I watch.

[His Divine Shadow]

This seems like a bad move in general by youtube.

[SolarpunkFan]

This seems like a bad move in general by youtube.

Not that that's a new phenomenon or anything (possible NSFW): https://youtu.be/XeRop_FOuws

Note its upload date.

Basically, YouTube has been shafting people for years now; though this particular finger that Google gave to content creators is a lot bigger and more insulting than the previous ones for sure.

[Rogue 9]

This seems like a bad move in general by youtube.

Not that that's a new phenomenon or anything (possible NSFW): https://youtu.be/XeRop_FOuws

Note its upload date.

The style is an obvious ripoff of this from a couple months before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSxQnZ3TM8

[SolarpunkFan]

The style is an obvious ripoff of this from a couple months before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSxQnZ3TM8

Oh jeez!

Back to the topic on hand though: I think there's some connection between events here.

You see, the 2009/2010 redesign shafted creators at least a little (as the video I posted alluded to). If the creators tended to monetize their videos more often then there might have been a downtick in views and therefore ad revenue. This would reduce the amount of money both the creators and Google would have gotten overall per-annum. And YT was already operating at a net loss since its beginning, the redesign would have only exacerbated that problem.

So Google starts getting a little fidgety on the monetization of YouTube front.

So much like the powder-keg of alliances/ententes that ensured an eventual World War, all it would take is a single spark to light the whole damn thing on fire.

For Europe: it was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. For YouTube and Google: it was the current and continuing political atmosphere around racist/reactionary YouTube uploaders. When advertisers saw their ads on those videos, they start to jump ship.

Google, realizing that YT was going to be even worse off on revenue now, was hasty and did quite a bit of collateral damage in the process. Maybe due to the blunders it made in years past.

Things aren't too bad right now, but things could get worse at any time.

Well that's my hypothesis. It's quite likely I'm just reading too much into this situation.

[Sea Skimmer]

This seems like a bad move in general by youtube.

it is, but on the other hand I had wondered before how long the until a moment ago strategy was going to last. I remember when youtube was a big deal already and Google claimed 24 hours of video was uploaded each minute. Now they claim 400 hours, and I don't think they are lying on that. I don't really think ad revenue increase has matched that, actually IIRC its only quadrupled in that timeframe, and youtube basically always did loose money IIRC again. Google bought it originally because they wanted video search data, the same reason they bought many other things, but that can only justify so much. So while this latest change is going to hurt them and drive people to other platforms, even back towards paying to host content, it was probably overdue. And end of the day sponsors always drive decisions in anything funded by advertising.

[General Zod]

Honestly I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. If it keeps all the "reviewers" who think they deserve to get paid for their shitty videos reviewing someone else's content out of Youtube then I'm in favor of it.

[Formless]

If only it were that simple, Zod. Because, you know, every fucking youtuber I've seen has been effected regardless of what kind of content they put out. Every. One. All of them have seen their revenue hit because of advertiser pullout or one or more videos demonetized by youtube itself. Or both. This isn't the kind of thing that only effects the Angry Joe's and lets players for once, and you are a moron if you think otherwise. This isn't about copyright for once. This is advertisers and Youtube itself overreacting to what can only be called hit pieces by the WSJ and other news outlets who should know better because racist and terrorist content really is statistically uncommon on youtube videos *. Oh, wait, they probably do know better.


*Comments section notwithstanding, of course.

[bilateralrope]

Honestly I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. If it keeps all the "reviewers" who think they deserve to get paid for their shitty videos reviewing someone else's content out of Youtube then I'm in favor of it.

What exactly is wrong with people being paid for making videos that people want to watch ?

All I'm seeing from your post is that you don't like those videos.

[Soontir C'boath]

I seem to be noticing Youtubers I am subscribed to are running more ads on their videos including those that were in the blacklist. Frankly, it's looking like Youtube and advertisers are getting what they want and people like myself who want to support the channels we follow are getting shafted with more time wasted and less revenue.

[jwl]

If only it were that simple, Zod. Because, you know, every fucking youtuber I've seen has been effected regardless of what kind of content they put out. Every. One. All of them have seen their revenue hit because of advertiser pullout or one or more videos demonetized by youtube itself. Or both. This isn't the kind of thing that only effects the Angry Joe's and lets players for once, and you are a moron if you think otherwise. This isn't about copyright for once. This is advertisers and Youtube itself overreacting to what can only be called hit pieces by the WSJ and other news outlets who should know better because racist and terrorist content really is statistically uncommon on youtube videos *. Oh, wait, they probably do know better.


*Comments section notwithstanding, of course.

Only because the ones hit are the only ones talking about it. Roberto Blake, for example, has seen his ad money go up, but he only mentioned it because he runs a channel that has to talk about that kind of thing. https://youtu.be/idfGygj6yLY?t=415

[mr friendly guy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Enxv1m8rU

David Pakman is describing an uptake for like 2 days, but now he is getting 7% of adds on videos viewed compared to 60% of adds (ie 6 out of every 10 videos used to have adds) and the monetizing is less, so he is like earning 3.5% of previous add revenue. So the crisis is still ongoing.

[SolarpunkFan]

Apologies for grandstanding, but for me the UI change is the main reason why I've (finally) left YouTube. Though the recent news on the advertising fiascos is what got me to think about doing so in the first place (even though I'm not affected by it). My tentative home for now is Vimeo, but I might switch to something with more storage soon.

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Enxv1m8rU

David Pakman is describing an uptake for like 2 days, but now he is getting 7% of adds on videos viewed compared to 60% of adds (ie 6 out of every 10 videos used to have adds) and the monetizing is less, so he is like earning 3.5% of previous add revenue. So the crisis is still ongoing.

At this point I think that YT is just screwing over your average uploader in favor of existing media outlets who are likely more lucrative. "Obvious" of course, but only because it's less subtle than before. Sure, YT was probably going down that route long before. The only reason it's become noticeable is because Alphabet was careless in handling this.

[Vendetta]

Internet advertising has been fucked as a revenue stream for years. Many of the youtube channels I watch are either sponsored or funded by patreon or a twitch subscription.

Quite simply, advertisers overdid it and now everyone runs adblock.