Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 11:39:16 PM

Login with username, password and session length

YouTube’s Adpocalypse and Jimmy Kimmel

Started by Hello! Replies Hidden, October 09, 2017, 08:01:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

biggytitbo

Quote from: newbridge on October 09, 2017, 03:34:37 PM
YouTube is doing this based on what advertisers want.

They really arent though, they're doign what means the least amount of real work for them, by relying on extremely clumsy algorothms that consistnelty wrongly flag content (ditto with their botched content id proicess). They have an appeal proces sbut byt the time the mistakeas are corrected the video in question has lost the time period 24-48 hrs after posting where it would have gained the vast majority of its revenue.

newbridge

Quote from: biggytitbo on October 09, 2017, 03:49:48 PM

They really arent though, they're doign what means the least amount of real work for them, by relying on extremely clumsy algorothms that consistnelty wrong flag content (ditto with their botched content id proicess). They have an appeal proces sbut byt the time the mistakeas are corrected the video in question has lost the time period 24-48 hrs after posting where it would have gained the vast majority of its revenue.

It's an algorithm based on what advertisers want. Of course they're not going to fucking hand-screen the 1,000,000,000 new videos uploaded daily.

marquis_de_sad

I'm not seeing why the question of how mass media is funded should be waved away simply because some of the loudest voices on a platform lean right.

Quote from: newbridge on October 09, 2017, 03:53:48 PM
It's an algorithm based on what advertisers want.

As far as I'm aware their algorithm is secret, so we don't know what it's based on.

biggytitbo

Quote from: newbridge on October 09, 2017, 03:53:48 PM
It's an algorithm based on what advertisers want. Of course they're not going to fucking hand-screen the 1,000,000,000 new videos uploaded daily.


There's no evidence I'm aware of that advertisers want videos they could have advertised against wrongly flagged. As Sterlings video explains, the whole process is completly broken.

newbridge

Quote from: marquis_de_sad on October 09, 2017, 04:00:27 PM
As far as I'm aware their algorithm is secret, so we don't know what it's based on.

The alternative being what exactly?

asids

It is a shame that a lot of great channels are getting stung by this stuff. I mean, the point that they shouldn't be relying purely on YT monetisation which isn't a very stable form of income I've got to admit, is a fair one. Thankfully a lot of these channels have established themselves on Patreon over the last couple of years so they can still get something out of the content they make. But I don't know why it didn't occur to some of them that something like this could happen and was probably inevitable as YouTube grew and became more mainstream, and they looked to another hosting site or another source of income like Patreon. The big guns with cash to throw around are always going to try and wrestle control away from small individuals.

Also, not watched the video posted but Ethan Klein is just a shitehawk these days, can't stand him. He seems to have turned himself into some sort of YouTube cult of personality who feels the need to always give his judgement on controversies which are often ill-informed and seem to often pander to your alt-right types. A shame, as I used to absolutely love H3H3, but that channel just went down the tubes.

marquis_de_sad

Quote from: newbridge on October 09, 2017, 04:04:53 PM
The alternative being what exactly?

That it isn't so precise as to be able to operate based on what advertisers want. It's also likely that google themselves don't completely know how their algorithm works, as they say it has been developed through machine learning. That's not to say they don't have control over individual videos, but as you say the upload rate is too large to manage manually.

Jackson K Pollock

As a YouTuber with close to a million subscribers, currently making a full-time (and very comfortable) living from my channel, I have to say, all of this stuff kind of freaks me out a bit, and I'm not sure where I stand.

From a personal level, I've always been very wary of putting all my eggs in the YouTube basket anyway. When I started my channel, because it relied on copyright music a lot I would often get flagged for content ID and have no recourse to make a (IMO quite legitimate) counter-claim.

At the time it was only a hobby, and it didn't bother me too much, but after a year or two of doing this YouTube informed us that they'd signed a deal similar to the PRS one that radio stations have, where we can use copyright music, but half of the revenue will automatically go to the copyright holders. Better to get 50% of something than 100% of nothing, I figured.

As time went on, my channel grew and grew and I, arguably, had no choice but to give up my day job, and pursue this crazy hobby that was somehow becoming a full-time concern.

Now I'm currently earning close to 5 times what I would ever have hoped to earn at my office job had I stuck there, and I have almost zero outlay, requiring only my camera, laptop, internet connection, and tools (which are now provided to me by a sponsor). I have no network/manager/agent or anything, so I basically get 100% of whatever comes in after tax.

It's insane.

However, I'm SUPER aware of the fact that this could change on a moment's notice, and it is scary. Over the last couple of years, I've started doing Patreon, merchandise, affiliate marketing, in-person workshops, and personally negotiating a few brand deals all to bring about some extra income, all whilst tripling the amount of videos I produce.

All of these are helping to increase my income, and I'm massively grateful for what's coming in, however without YouTube at the core of it, I'm pretty sure my channel would wither and die very quickly if I was forced to move to a less mainstream platform.

I work really hard to create popular, high quality educational content on YouTube and get comments from both hobbyists and real-life teachers/practitioners who enjoy my work and say it has positively affected their life/job/teaching/relationships in some way.

So seeing things like wrestling videos or gun videos demonetised overnight, even if I don't personally enjoy the content these channels produce, does wrangle a bit with me, as if they suddenly decide, for some reason, that my channel is 'not advertiser friendly', then I would go from making a full-time living, to nothing, in seconds flat, despite all the time, work, effort, and energy that I've put into my channel.

So for me it's a bit of a "First they came for the wrestling channels, and I didn't speak up because I don't produce wrestling content..." type situation, and I do wish there was maybe something more I could do about this.

-----

With all this being said: I'm basically aware that I'm in an *incredibly* fortunate position, my plan is to make hay while the sun shines, and that I haven't spent a penny more than I would've when I was earning 20% of what I'm earning now. If I have to go back into a regular job tomorrow, it would suck, but I am prepared for that eventuality.


touchingcloth

What does it even mean to demonetise an account? Does YouTube get 100% of the ad revenue from an account which is no longer monetised, or is it more complicated than that?

touchingcloth

And as a follow up question, what's to stop Pewtypops just shifting all his videos to a Pewtypops2 account and getting the ad revenue from there until he's sussed by YouTube, and repeating ad infinitum?

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Jackson K Pollock on October 09, 2017, 08:43:01 PM
I work really hard to create popular, high quality educational content on YouTube and get comments from both hobbyists and real-life teachers/practitioners who enjoy my work and say it has positively affected their life/job/teaching/relationships in some way.

Sounds like a channel I would like to watch can I ask what it is called?

Dr Rock


Zetetic

Quote from: touchingcloth on October 09, 2017, 09:01:05 PM
What does it even mean to demonetise an account? Does YouTube get 100% of the ad revenue from an account which is no longer monetised, or is it more complicated than that?
No, it's simpler than that - they switch the ads off.

TrenterPercenter


Zetetic

#75
Quote from: biggytitbo on October 09, 2017, 08:12:08 AMi think they still dont make money
Quote from: biggytitbo on October 09, 2017, 03:49:48 PM
They really arent though, they're doign what means the least amount of real work for them,

Well.

Even as someone who gets a bit worked up about the privately-owned public spaces issue, I do struggle to bring much enthusiasm to bear on the issue of revenue sharing on the same basis.

Zetetic

QuoteSo for me it's a bit of a "First they came for the wrestling channels, and I didn't speak up because I don't produce wrestling content..." type situation, and I do wish there was maybe something more I could do about this.

I guess the options are:

1) Collective bargaining by content producers. The problem here being even if you could organise sufficiently to be worth negotiating with that YouTube is probably still haemorrhaging cash and there isn't actually a solution to this because it's only sustainable while the bubble lasts.

2) Start negotiating with specialist advertisers yourself and make contingency plans to change hosting arrangements.

touchingcloth

What? YouTube makes a loss? What? What? What?

Why not just pay the makeup tutorial people less? They're buying mansions! Pay the vloggers less and bump the cost of advertising up, and they'll be in the black or the red - whichever one's the good one. I'd turn that ship around.

Zetetic

Quote from: touchingcloth on October 09, 2017, 09:51:08 PM
What? YouTube makes a loss? What? What? What?
Probably. Ball-park revenue figures are known ($10bn?) but costs largely aren't.

small minded cretin

Quote from: jobotic on October 09, 2017, 11:48:01 AM
I think he said something pro-gun control, you know, after a fucking massacre, and the alt-right cry babies are all upset now.

As for all this youtube business, do they believe in the free market or not?

No, like you they believe in censorship of people they disagree with.

Captain Z


Twed

I think the biggest issue here is how successfully the acceptable face of satire is being (lacking a better word) curated. I think there are a lot of very oppressive people who are very happy to promote figures like Kimmel and Trevor Noah and Colbert as the figures that people not on the right share on Facebook etc. to vent about the current Trumpish etc. state of the world, because those figures are in that sweet spot that isn't ever going to cultivate ideas that affect big pharma, Wall Street evil, denial of social services etc. (beyond the occasional bit of lip service to quell doubt about their alignment)

Even though we're finally at the point where anybody (at least in a first-world country) can broadcast freely, bigger powers are doing a great job (it's actually impressive) of keeping people tuned into the tracks of media they want them to tune into by promoting them heavily, keeping them present in social feeds, and giving their revenue streams special status. Jimmy Kimmel is indirectly paid for being a good boy.

Viewpoints outside of their framework they want are kept on the fringes via subtle propaganda (see Corbyn, Sanders - the media's reaction to them is fear and lies). Viewpoints that enforce their chosen figures as heroes are promoted in a bad light (Trump, etc.). It's okay to show how bad the Nazis are because it makes their anointed political figures look good in comparison, but good ideas that help people (anything that vaguely whiffs of socialism) are snuffed entirely because they contradict they make their chosen heroes look oppressive and evil.

When Russia did this on a MUCH smaller scale to influence the US election, they call it hacking.

Urinal Cake

For all it's grander aspirations (self-invoked and otherwise) it seems like YouTube is just doing business. It became a loss leader and now looking at cutting product lines that don't generate revenue.

The fact that YouTubers complaining on YouTube about YouTube has gone very little to change YouTube's policies but added to YouTube's identity as independent while making money is sort of brilliant.

marquis_de_sad

Quote from: Urinal Cake on October 09, 2017, 10:25:06 PM
For all it's grander aspirations (self-invoked and otherwise) it seems like YouTube is just doing business. It became a loss leader and now looking at cutting product lines that don't generate revenue.

That isn't what happened. Before, ads went on videos that had a lot of views. Sometimes the way they calculated what "a lot of views" meant changed — and was pretty opaque — but that was the basic principle. Then it became controversial that ads were on certain types of content. Probably advertisers jumped at the chance to re-arrange their deals with youtube and maybe pay less and get more (that is, more involvement in what videos get what ads). Youtube's response was sweeping, mainly because there are too many videos to be precise and discerning, but also because they have ambitions to be a place for more "mainstream" content.

Quote from: Urinal Cake on October 09, 2017, 10:25:06 PM
It became a loss leader

How can you tell? You could look at the stock of its parent company, but if you did you would see Alphabet stock continuing to rise. Google gives away many things for "free" and it does so deliberately. Youtube is very much part of that.

touchingcloth

Does YouTube not just put an ad on, say, every third video you watch then? That's how it seems as a viewer, but are they putting ads on every video from some users, and none from others?

asids

Quote from: touchingcloth on October 10, 2017, 12:27:26 AM
Does YouTube not just put an ad on, say, every third video you watch then? That's how it seems as a viewer, but are they putting ads on every video from some users, and none from others?

Pretty sure it's just ads on every video from specific channels, I keep getting this stupid fucking Churchill advert at the beginning of basically every video from a certain channel I watch.

Urinal Cake

Before it was acquired by Google it was making a loss and was banking it would be acquired by a huge multinational alarm Hotmail. YouTube broke even around 2015 from reports and we can gather it is making some sort of profit since then. It's in the process of expanding it's market share. It needs more than let's players and more ad revenue.

The difference between YouTube and Google's other products is that YouTube has been pretty much the leader from the start. Gmail, drive, android etc are Google's attempt to play catch-up with Microsoft, Apple and others realising that they can make a profit eventually through Adsense etc.

Rev

I don't give a shit about any of this except for one element:  could it possibly lead to the death of the term 'content creator?'  That'd be fabbo.

Repeater

Em, actually those talk show hosts make me fucking naseous. All coming on the evening of a tragedy, with their meme-baiting / RT garnering monologues, cutting through the bullshit and Calling People Out. Fuck, they must love Trump. I've never watched any of the shite because obviously, but fuck sake, at least in theory, they're the worst. Then you consider shite like SNL having Trump on their show for the ratings and humanising him in the run up to the election. I hate it.

Repeater

im not sure this is even the best thread for it but seeing my twitter feed filled with people talking about thier shows... eugh. boke.