|
|
Post by maximgunn on Mar 5, 2018 18:28:31 GMT
What I'd really like to know is: Can YouTube actually afford to meet our demands? Perhaps all this unfair, miserly and discriminatory behavior we've seen recently has just been in a desperate attempt to keep the lumbering beast on life-support?
After a quick 'google' search, I'm no more enlightened than I was before. Some say they're breaking even, others say they're raking it in. Unions have killed a lot of businesses in the past, including the British automotive industry.
Is it even within their power to treat their 'partners' equally?
|
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 5, 2018 19:09:52 GMT
If it isn't, then youtube is responsible since they created an unsustainable business model to begin with.
What sort of respectable business expects it's workers (in this case: the content creators) to work for free, while raking in the profits all for themselves?
|
|
|
|
Post by maximgunn on Mar 5, 2018 19:32:14 GMT
Kill the host, eat the body and move on? I'm a partner, not a virus.
Then again, felling the giant tree called YT would open a massive hole in the canopy. Ultimately though we're going to get another giant tree so we need to work with it and not against it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jokkah on Mar 5, 2018 19:52:34 GMT
I like how you put it. "Kill the host, eat the body and move on? I'm a partner, not a virus."
Youtube started and still is a place were lots of people post their videos as a hobbie... I feel some demands are out of place, for example 2 of my channels got affected by the new terms of having less than 4k subs... in all honestly i think its a fair call that youtube is doing, it does prevent masive issues in the future... something to keep in min is that this Adpocalipsis didn't start on google headsquarters, or the bot going mad... it was a minority of the conters creators who initiated the whole thing.
Personally i do feel most of the calls youtube is taking are good meassures... nevertheless I do believe having a representing voice will add value.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Smithski on Mar 6, 2018 1:27:53 GMT
The more ads they show, the more money they get from advertisements. They need to push back on advertisers that censoring a platform to that degree will not work long term.
The second solution is Youtube Red, which is struggling to be extended outside of the US because of money and legalities.
The third solution - the Sponsor button is a step in the right direction but the tiers start too high (£4.99 lowest in the UK). This should be £1 since people watch several yotubers to whom they subscribe and if each puts out 4 videos a month the payout is 25p/25c per video divided up between the creator, advertiser, youtube and payment processor.
|
|
|
|
Post by maximgunn on Mar 6, 2018 2:00:58 GMT
This whole subscriber thing and sponsorship buttons seems like a retrograde step that would only benefit the large channels whom YT would then pay less.
I would like to suggest another option.
Advertising has always been a huge business but those who receive it on the television have been indiscriminate. Why don't we encourage that indiscriminate state to continue across all uploaded videos?
I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but this whole adpocalypse mess was caused by a 'certain group of people' who wanted to attack their ideological rivals not by the free exchange of ideas or open debate, they attacked the advertisers directly in a public setting. Of course they then immediately pulled out to avoid any perceived 'bad press'. What did they do with their advertising money right after that? Pulled it out of the youtuber's pockets and sunk it back into indiscriminate advertising.
Under this plan, no business could be singled out for product placement and no channel could be demonetized for being 'unsuitable'
|
|
|
|
Post by 4thekore on Mar 7, 2018 2:44:46 GMT
There to many cooks and not enough food. Channels need to be able to get other sources of funds on the platform itself.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
|
|
sulla
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by sulla on Mar 7, 2018 3:28:55 GMT
Because of how cheap they get bandwidth and how Youtube complements other parts of the company they are doing fine. The main problem is they are being attacked by the old media. They find some obscure video with some ad running on it and then they write stories and contact advertisers. Then Google tends to over react the other way. The real winners are the old media since they are loosing advertising to Youtube etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by hakachukai on Mar 7, 2018 3:33:13 GMT
To answer this question, we first have to understand the real problem. Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on what I understand, here is what happened:
1. A very small group of people decided to look up really nasty videos and logged the ad's that were shown on those nasty videos.
2. They then contacted the companies paying for those ad's and said "Do you really want to incur the wrath of the social justice warriors by having your ad's shown on these nasty videos?!"
3. The advertising companies freaked out and started contacting youtube saying "Hey, why are you showing our ad's on nasty videos!?".
4. Youtube caved in without even a fight and created the adpocalypse <-- this mistake happened right here!
Here's how step 4 should have gone:
4. Youtube explains to the advertising companies that ad's don't follow videos they follow USERS! That's what tracking cookies are for. That's what Google's entire massive data collecting empire is for. It's to track and identify users where ever they go, so that they can sell them relevant things that they might actually buy! It has nothing to do with whatever random nasty video they decide to watch today (though if they do it for long enough it will influence what ad's they see)!
They would then also remind the advertisers that there is no greater platform on the planet to advertise with and challenge them to prove it by simple examining their income and sales reports.
But... as we know... that's not what happened.
So, that's the problem in a nut shell. It doens't get any simpler than that. Youtube didn't even try to fight for us. They saw a decent excuse for complete control and censorship and they jumped on it like white on rice!
Now that we know what the problem is, we can ask the question: "Are we asking more than they can give?"
Absolutely not! All we are asking them to do is to simply do their job, set the ad companies straight ( which is reasonable ) and stop playing judge, jury and executioner on our content! Even if it were done by human hands it would be bad enough, but they didn't even do that! Instead they deployed an army of all powerful bot's that have the combined intelligence of a slightly shiny rock to do it for them!
This won't put them out of business if they respond in any way the resembles half way sane. However, if they continue on their already well established trajectory of complete insanity... then they NEED to go out of business so that someone else can do it right!
|
|
|
|
Post by shini616 on Mar 7, 2018 4:48:48 GMT
I think part of the problem is that some people have the perception that when a ad is played before a video that means the advertiser is endorsing the video. Adweek paid Survata to conduct a poll and found that 36% of those polled thought that an ad shown before a video on YouTube meant that the company was endorsing the video. If advertisers don't want to be seen as endorsing offensive content, it seems to me that a better solution would be to inform viewers that they advertiser is not endorsing the video. Maybe a notice at the bottom of ads informing viewers of this and a link explaining why, such as how it would be impractical for companies to endorse specific videos with the massive amount of content constantly being uploaded. www.adweek.com/digital/what-consumers-really-think-about-youtubes-offensive-content-problem-and-its-advertisers/ |
|
|
|
Post by whiskeytangofoxtrot on Mar 7, 2018 5:04:42 GMT
It's one of the reasons a lot of people were shocked Google bought YouTube. I was on YouTube back before Google. From what I understand, with the amount of money required to store all these videos, they aren't making money on the platform. BitChute's style might be a little more sustainable. But I have thought about this during all of this. From what I gather, they're losing money with YouTube.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 11, 2018 17:23:22 GMT
What I'd really like to know is: Can YouTube actually afford to meet our demands? Perhaps all this unfair, miserly and discriminatory behavior we've seen recently has just been in a desperate attempt to keep the lumbering beast on life-support? After a quick 'google' search, I'm no more enlightened than I was before. Some say they're breaking even, others say they're raking it in. Unions have killed a lot of businesses in the past, including the British automotive industry. Is it even within their power to treat their 'partners' equally? I am part way through writing an article discussing exactly that. I will post it here when done. Just got to double check the match and I'm trying to get a better source for the raw data |
|
|
|
Post by maximgunn on Mar 12, 2018 4:01:05 GMT
Good stuff, I'm interested to see your take on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 13, 2018 16:06:29 GMT
Kill the host, eat the body and move on? I'm a partner, not a virus. Then again, felling the giant tree called YT would open a massive hole in the canopy. Ultimately though we're going to get another giant tree so we need to work with it and not against it. If they can change terms of service and community guidelines for content creators at a whim. Then they damn sure can make changes to their business model and the prices for advertisers too. A responsible, successful company treats both it's partners AND it's customers fairly. Not shitting all over one of them, while coddling with the other. And as you say yourself, even if the giant tree is felled, then another one will seek to take it's place. Meaning that they will have to learn from Youtubes business mistakes. One of them being not underpricing their advertising services so they can't even afford to monetize their own content creators. (although I don't believe for a moment that Google can't afford it) |
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 13, 2018 16:14:19 GMT
It's one of the reasons a lot of people were shocked Google bought YouTube. I was on YouTube back before Google. From what I understand, with the amount of money required to store all these videos, they aren't making money on the platform. BitChute's style might be a little more sustainable. But I have thought about this during all of this. From what I gather, they're losing money with YouTube. Doesn't matter if they're losing money with youtube specifically. Plenty of corporate conglomerates run some of their individual companies at a loss, because the net profits from the other companies that they own and which rely on certain kinds of production from the other companies you run at a loss, outweight the losses. It's like if you run a housing/contracting firm. Then you're reliant on buying lumber, concrete, mortar, screws, bricks, roofing tiles etc. Now if you buy these things from another company, then you're buying them at retail prices. BUT if you owned a business that imports these construction materials, then you could get your necessary materials for building houses at wholesale instead, increasing your profit margins on the other business. And if you accept running one of these businesses at break even, or at a small loss then you could put yourself in a much more competitive position with the business that you're running at a profit, since you can maintain high profit margins, but prices lower than the less independent competition, which more than makes up for the small loss you're taking from the other business. It's also a way to diversify your investment. If the market for one of your businesses is taking a dive, then you could always transfer funds and resources from the one business to the other. This is why conglomerates exist in the first place. And I don't believe for a second that Google is running youtube at a loss purely out of charity. They're more than making up for it somewhere else in their conglomerate. |
|
