|
Post by spartacus on Mar 4, 2018 23:32:53 GMT
Jörg made some very sensible demands when starting this let’s focus on that and not on a million other things like if fake news should be allowed on YT, or how many subs you can win from each other... if we don’t focus this thing will fail before it starts!!!
Here a reminder:
Monetize everyone Bring back monetization for smaller channels.
Disable the bots Give at lest verified partners have the right to speak to a real person if you plan to remove their channel.
Transparent content decisions Open up direct communication between the censors ("content department") and us Creators.
Pay for your views Stop using demonetized channels as "bait" to advertise monetized videos.
Stop demonetization as a whole If a video is in line with your rules, allow ads on an even scale.
Equal treatment for all partners Stop preferring some creators over others. No more “YouTube Preferred”.
Pay according to delivered value Spread out the ad money over all YouTubers based on audience retention, not on ads next to the content.
Clarify the rules Bring out clear rules with clear examples about what is OK and what is a No-No.
|
|
|
Post by mattsawesomestuff on Mar 4, 2018 23:53:38 GMT
Very much in favor of this. If politics get into it, we're going to just sit around arguing and push out the sensible, common-sense 95% majority. Especially when you see someone you agree with, dragging conversations into things we don't have in common, step up and ask them not to have those discussions here. This isn't a political soapbox... the items Joerg outlined are things we all have in common and that is the particular focus of this particular group.
|
|
|
Post by maximgunn on Mar 5, 2018 0:17:12 GMT
I Couldn't agree more! It's an excellent set of objectives and we should try very hard not to lose sight of these core values as we move forward.
|
|
sulla
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by sulla on Mar 5, 2018 2:23:26 GMT
I agree but also keep in mind none of the demands matter if the union does not grow large enough.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 5, 2018 7:26:34 GMT
I agree but also keep in mind none of the demands matter if the union does not grow large enough. It won't grow, and more than anything not with the right people if the discussion is about setting up sub4sub programs and weather Alex Jones is an innocent hero of the truth that's being victimised by the liberals through censorship, or a despicable lying hound responsible for ruining people's lives that's bing treated responsibly by YouTube. I'll put it in another way: if this becomes an attempt to convince YouTube to losen their rules on what's admissible, or an attempt to stop them from fighting fake news, or an attempt to make sexual content, or gun content available to underage viewers, then this has already failed. The Union cannot, must not become an anti-censorship movement. Not because I think censorship is OK, but because this is a grey zone where you can never be right. A. It's obvious that YoTube can decide what they allow on their platform B. Free speech is an inalienable right, but one that comes with responsibility C. Free speech doesn't apply to YouTube - see A D. We will be judged by our lowest mark - if defending fake news and questionable content, then that's who we are Solution: Remember what Jörg said...
Clarify the rules Bring out clear rules with clear examples about what is OK and what is a No-No. Don's debate why the rules should be - that's up to YouTube.
|
|
|
Post by Joerg Sprave on Mar 5, 2018 7:44:46 GMT
Well said! I fully agree.
|
|
|
Post by greenbeetle on Mar 5, 2018 13:57:56 GMT
"Monetize everyone" - If you have less than 1000 subs why are you wasting your breath on a what probably amounts to a few $ per month instead of working vigorously on more and better content? Get your channel in tip-top shape with good content, good thumbs and good titles then reach out for a collab video with a larger channel. If your house in order you'll shoot over 1k subs. If you only have 4 videos all with poor sound, lots of "ums", shot on a cell and are letting YouTube choose your thumbs (i'm overstating my case here) then you will probably never have over 1k subs. At any rate providing collabs to quality content creators is probably best function of the union in regard to small channels. You should start a discussion thread on that, mod! "Clarify the rules" - This seems important. YouTube is enjoying the ambiguity that exists as it gives them flexibility to act with little real scrutiny. Not a reasonable policy but we have to balance that by remembering what happens when the creator community gets a peak behind the curtain and figures out exactly how YouTube values content - we game the system with clickbait and bewb-thumbs.
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 5, 2018 14:46:02 GMT
"Monetize everyone" - If you have less than 1000 subs why are you wasting your breath on a what probably amounts to a few $ per month instead of working vigorously on more and better content? Get your channel in tip-top shape with good content, good thumbs and good titles then reach out for a collab video with a larger channel. If your house in order you'll shoot over 1k subs. If you only have 4 videos all with poor sound, lots of "ums", shot on a cell and are letting YouTube choose your thumbs (i'm overstating my case here) then you will probably never have over 1k subs. At any rate providing collabs to quality content creators is probably best function of the union in regard to small channels. You should start a discussion thread on that, mod! Subs should never determine what you're paid. Views should be the sole decisive factor. Just because people are subbed to channels, it doesn't mean that they watch their content or the ads.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 5, 2018 15:03:57 GMT
coffekanon: Just to be clear - I never say anything along those lines. Your post quotes the wrong user... please correct it, your meant to quote greenbeetle.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 5, 2018 15:19:01 GMT
At any rate providing collabs to quality content creators is probably best function of the union in regard to small channels. You should start a discussion thread on that, mod! Forcing, or motivating people to do collabs has never, ever worked on YT - every MCN has tried it and it doesn't work. Collabs are based on feeling of sameness, trust, and mutual benefit... maybe friendship. These things don't scale very well. Anyway... this effort is not about helping small channels to get bigger, it's about making sure that everyone that brings viewership (money) to YouTube, gets a fair share. The majority of viewership (more than 60%) on YT is on channels that have less than 100,000 subs... since the adpocalypse these channels are getting a much lesser share of revenues. For some of us who have bigger channels the new rules are impacting us unevenly, and we're being bunched in with content that is in fact questionable, even when we do very responsible and rule compliant content. Every video published on the channels I work on (history documentaries) gets demonetized on upload - every time we request manual review it gets remonetized, but by then we've missed out on substantial amounts of revenue. And this is happening despite that I know people throughout the whole Google world, all the way to the top - they can't even do anything about it without breaking their own rules. The system is broken in that way, so they need a new system - that's what this is about. For growing your channel there's no system, just hard diligent work, networking, and quite a bit of luck.
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 5, 2018 15:36:52 GMT
coffekanon: Just to be clear - I never say anything along those lines. Your post quotes the wrong user... please correct it, your meant to quote greenbeetle. I quoted greenbeetle, but he also quoted you so both of you were included. But it should be fixed in my post now.
|
|
|
Post by greenbeetle on Mar 5, 2018 17:10:38 GMT
At any rate providing collabs to quality content creators is probably best function of the union in regard to small channels. You should start a discussion thread on that, mod! Forcing, or motivating people to do collabs has never, ever worked on YT - every MCN has tried it and it doesn't work. Collabs are based on feeling of sameness, trust, and mutual benefit... maybe friendship. These things don't scale very well. ... Every video published on the channels I work on (history documentaries) gets demonetized on upload - every time we request manual review it gets remonetized, but by then we've missed out on substantial amounts of revenue. And this is happening despite that I know people throughout the whole Google world, all the way to the top - they can't even do anything about it without breaking their own rules. The system is broken in that way, so they need a new system - that's what this is about. For growing your channel there's no system, just hard diligent work, networking, and quite a bit of luck. I suspect the amount any small channel will make by splitting YouTube's gross ad revenues based on minutes across every channel whether or not ads are shown will be an incredibly, disappointingly small $number. I don't know how to do that math system wide but based on the analytics for my own channel where last year I was paid $0.0001 per minute of watch time (45 million minutes total watch time), if everyone not getting paid wants a piece of that pie, are we talking maybe $0.00001 per minute of watch time after the money is divided up? $0.00005 per minute? Your channel has less than 1k subs and 4k minutes of watch time and you want $0.00001 - $0.00005 per minute for it? Whatever... That's 4 - 20 cents. Per Year. Screw it, let's say all small, non-monetized channels make as much (as little) as I did with a monetized channel and make 0.0001 per minute of watch time. You get $0.40 per year. Does that smell like success to anyone? So, if the goal of this union is to make sure every small channel that can't achieve monetization gets 4 - 40 cents per year, man, I don't know... And to do it on the backs of the meager earnings of other channels, like my 165k subscriber channel. That's what's called a lose-lose. Regarding demonetization YouTube has suggested uploading content under the "unlisted" category for a few days until their bots crawl it and if it's demonetized you can still appeal for review without the normal necessary views. I've been doing this since 4 of my vids were demonetized last year and so far it has worked. Knock on wood. Not a perfect fix for a broken system but it's saved me some heartache.
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 5, 2018 17:37:49 GMT
Forcing, or motivating people to do collabs has never, ever worked on YT - every MCN has tried it and it doesn't work. Collabs are based on feeling of sameness, trust, and mutual benefit... maybe friendship. These things don't scale very well. ... Every video published on the channels I work on (history documentaries) gets demonetized on upload - every time we request manual review it gets remonetized, but by then we've missed out on substantial amounts of revenue. And this is happening despite that I know people throughout the whole Google world, all the way to the top - they can't even do anything about it without breaking their own rules. The system is broken in that way, so they need a new system - that's what this is about. For growing your channel there's no system, just hard diligent work, networking, and quite a bit of luck. I suspect the amount any small channel will make by splitting YouTube's gross ad revenues based on minutes across every channel whether or not ads are shown will be an incredibly, disappointingly small $number. I don't know how to do that math system wide but based on the analytics for my own channel where last year I was paid $0.0001 per minute of watch time (45 million minutes total watch time), if everyone not getting paid wants a piece of that pie, are we talking maybe $0.00001 per minute of watch time after the money is divided up? $0.00005 per minute? Your channel has less than 1k subs and 4k minutes of watch time and you want $0.00001 - $0.00005 per minute for it? Whatever... That's 4 - 20 cents. Per Year. Screw it, let's say all small, non-monetized channels make as much (as little) as I did with a monetized channel and make 0.0001 per minute of watch time. You get $0.40 per year. Does that smell like success to anyone? So, if the goal of this union is to make sure every small channel that can't achieve monetization gets 4 - 40 cents per year, man, I don't know... And to do it on the backs of the meager earnings of other channels, like my 165k subscriber channel. That's what's called a lose-lose. Regarding demonetization YouTube has suggested uploading content under the "unlisted" category for a few days until their bots crawl it and if it's demonetized you can still appeal for review without the normal necessary views. I've been doing this since 4 of my vids were demonetized last year and so far it has worked. Knock on wood. Not a perfect fix for a broken system but it's saved me some heartache. So what you're saying is: the system shouldn't be reverted to the way it was before (that's right, any channel was eligible for monetization before, regardless of subs), because YOU don't want to share with smaller channels? I don't know if you realized it, but unions are about solidarity. Right now I don't see you showing much solidarity with fellow youtubers. What are you going to do when Youtube arbitrarily decide to increase the sub-limit to 10.000 subs? 100.000 subs? a million subs? After all, they can keep a lot of money to themselves if they decide to only have Logan Pauls and Pewdiepies channels monitized and leave "small fry" like yourself penniless.
|
|
|
Post by greenbeetle on Mar 5, 2018 19:16:28 GMT
I suspect the amount any small channel will make by splitting YouTube's gross ad revenues based on minutes across every channel whether or not ads are shown will be an incredibly, disappointingly small $number. I don't know how to do that math system wide but based on the analytics for my own channel where last year I was paid $0.0001 per minute of watch time (45 million minutes total watch time), if everyone not getting paid wants a piece of that pie, are we talking maybe $0.00001 per minute of watch time after the money is divided up? $0.00005 per minute? Your channel has less than 1k subs and 4k minutes of watch time and you want $0.00001 - $0.00005 per minute for it? Whatever... That's 4 - 20 cents. Per Year. Screw it, let's say all small, non-monetized channels make as much (as little) as I did with a monetized channel and make 0.0001 per minute of watch time. You get $0.40 per year. Does that smell like success to anyone? So, if the goal of this union is to make sure every small channel that can't achieve monetization gets 4 - 40 cents per year, man, I don't know... And to do it on the backs of the meager earnings of other channels, like my 165k subscriber channel. That's what's called a lose-lose. Regarding demonetization YouTube has suggested uploading content under the "unlisted" category for a few days until their bots crawl it and if it's demonetized you can still appeal for review without the normal necessary views. I've been doing this since 4 of my vids were demonetized last year and so far it has worked. Knock on wood. Not a perfect fix for a broken system but it's saved me some heartache. So what you're saying is: the system shouldn't be reverted to the way it was before (that's right, any channel was eligible for monetization before, regardless of subs), because YOU don't want to share with smaller channels? I don't know if you realized it, but unions are about solidarity. Right now I don't see you showing much solidarity with fellow youtubers. What are you going to do when Youtube arbitrarily decide to increase the sub-limit to 10.000 subs? 100.000 subs? a million subs? After all, they can keep a lot of money to themselves if they decide to only have Logan Pauls and Pewdiepies channels monitized and leave "small fry" like yourself penniless. No, I think reverting to the old way is fine, if you're monetized no matter what the size of your channel you deserve to be payed. Returning to the old standard for monetization is fine by me. If it makes small content creators happy to make $2 per year, well, they have bigger problems. But, yes, I make very little money on YouTube and have no interest in sharing it with small channels that can't capture their own ads or audience. Socialistically and without merit dividing up an already small pot of money among the monetized and non-monetized still leaves everyone poor. I suppose if you're a larger, demonetized channel the conversation is different. You are more clearly contributing to the ecosystem at that point. Preventing the demonetization or shutting down of content that doesn't actually break with the end user agreement / YouTube standards and more clarity around what, exactly that standard is, should be the main goal here, IMO. Rooting out any politically motivated favoritism towards content should be pursued. I worry we are seeing some of that from YouTube. If there's a way to strengthen the platform and bring in a diversity of advertisers to better match content and benefit everyone that would be a noble cause. At any rate the 'union' should focus on presenting a win-win of some kind to YouTube and large creators if it wants to make meaningful changes. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by maximgunn on Mar 5, 2018 19:17:32 GMT
Like any business, they seek to keep profits high and expenditures low. There will be a balancing point where new people have just enough incentive to replace the previous generation; but if they didn't need that incentive, they wouldn't give away a hot nickle.
I would love it if the free market would sort this out, but YT has something of a monopoly in this regard and are acting like a giant... The thing is, giants need a lot of food and the people it's stepping on right now are the ones that feed the beast.
|
|