Goal-Setting: What do we want from Youtube and Advertisers?

Advertisers should not get to choose how or when their ads show up on youtube.

Content creators are STILL the ones who create an audience for youtube in the first place. Without content creators, there is no youtube. (at least not one worth a nickle)

If an ad show up in a video, no one assumes that the company behind the ad "endorse" any message or ideal presented in that particular content. Everyone knows that it's largely based on algorithms, such as which videos are trending and how many views a particular video gathers up (more views = bigger chance the ad shows).

Advertisers should be forced to support ALL content on youtube, because they are the ones who wish to have their ads on youtube and using the fame and audience that content creators have gathered in the first place.

The content creators made the legwork. Therefore, advertisers have no right to pick and choose or micromanage in a way that favors some content creators over others.

And if they don't like it... Well then they can go back and advertise in the dying media that nobody cares about anymore (television and newspapers) and see how well that turns out.

Well, I think the advertisers may be given a choice if that is what YouTube wants. It is their job to get us advertisers. I don't want to mingle with THEIR task.

Question is how is the money distributed. I say it should be distributed over the minutes watched, no matter if that watchtime led to clicks on an ad.

Means, even if no ads are shown on a video because of YouTube's preference for some content, if that video attracted many views and plenty of watchtime, the creator should get his peace of the cake.

But if you concede to that, then it creates more problems than it solves, because that means youtube will have to cater to advertisers every little whim regarding the ad placement. Basically, youtube will be forced to sit down and watch all videos on beforehand and then determine if a particular ad can be placed in it or not, because some ad companies have certain demands while others have different demands.

Youtube has already resorted to bots and automated services (which hurt the content creators) because they simply can't adress every single issue with a human due to the massive amount of data that Youtube has to process daily.

So while you might not want to mingle with their task, it's probably in the best interest of everyone to get youtube to take a more hardline stance about their exclusive right to handle the ad placement on their platform instead of allowing every single advertiser to make their own special demands about "vetting" which videos their ads can be shown in and which they can't be shown in.

After all, they are purchasing a service from youtube. They are not purchasing a service from individual content creators. Therefore, youtube should be the one deciding ad placement (and naturally they should do it with content creators benefit in mind, because the content creators are what keeps youtube in business to begin with).

If advertisers think it's more important to micromanage what their ads are "associated" with on youtube, instead of getting maximum exposure, then they are perfectly free to contact individual youtubers (whose content they agree with) and discuss sponsorship deals with the promise that the content is kept "advertiser friendly" according to the standards of that particular advertiser. But if you turn to youtube directly, then the deal should be: exposure according to the amount that you pay for, but you relinquish control over which type of videos your ads show up in.

I know a common belief is that "the customer is always right". And youtube's customers are the advertisers so many believe they should cater to their every whim.

But as Henry Ford also put it: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”

Also, I agree that you should be paid even if no ads are shown in your videos if you still got many views. Because many views mean that you attracted a lot of people to youtubes platform, which means that they get exposed to ads in other videos since almost no person watch a single video and then turn their web browser off immediately.

So it is better that views dictate how much money you earn.

I understand. I just believe it will be easier to get them to meet the Union demands if there are good suggestions about how they can meet them.

I think it's plain to see that there's a bigger danger if youtube starts losing content creators who are being abused by their fuzzy and arbitrary decisions and rules, than youtube losing an advertiser or two.

Right now, it seems that there's an adversarial situation between the content creators and the advertisers. Content creators want freedom to create the content they wish to do. And some of the advertisers are demanding increasing regulation and restrictions on the content on the platform. Youtube is in the middle. And they are conceding too much to the demands of advertisers rather than their content creators, but I think that in the long run it's bad for their business.

I can appreciate this line of thinking.  But my successfully monetized channel already took a big hit last year on ad revenue.  If I play by the rules and attract advertisers to the platform it is difficult for me to accept I will be splitting my already meager ad revenue for ads shown on my channel with channels that generate no ad revenue and attract no money to the platform.  If those channels have value outside of their ability to attract ad revenue they will be able to attract a sponsorship or a patreon following.  If they can't do ANY of those 3 things I'm not sure how its justifiable they should expect to get paid for their content.  

I worry you are flirting with the idea that "just because I put a video up on youtube, i should get paid for it."  But what if it's garbage?  What if it has no monetary value to anyone who consumes it? Many people write books that never get published, should we search them out and pay them for their time spent not successfully publishing a book?  Artists that can't sell their paintings?