
YouTube networks drop thousands of creators as YouTube policy shifts - PuffinBlue
https://www.polygon.com/2018/4/23/17268436/fullscreen-socialblade-youtube-mcn-multi-channel-network-creators-monetization
======
Eridrus
> “[It] in effect forces MCNs to either watch every video uploaded by their
> partners, or at least be reasonably confident none of the videos they are
> uploading could possibly either in the present or in the future violate or
> even come close to violating a YouTube guideline/terms,” Urgo said.

Its funny how a lot of people think its totally reasonable to expect YouTube
to pay people to watch every video, and yet the people bundling the video
think thats unworkable.

To some extent, if you're bundling content and you want all your content to be
treated equally, there is a shared responsibility to not upload things
advertisers don't like.

~~~
CydeWeys
I think it's even simpler: No one is _owed_ advertising revenue. There are
entire classes of content for which the risks of being associated with
outweigh the benefits as far as advertisers are concerned. This goes well
beyond YouTube; it's affected a lot of network and radio shows as well. The
most recent example is Laura Ingraham, e.g.
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/laura-ingraham-advertisers-
drop...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/laura-ingraham-advertisers-drop-show-
she-goes-on-vacation/) .

I think that the best way to support video creators going forward is Patreon
or YouTube's built-in sponsorships. You can't rely on ad dollars from big
companies anymore unless you yourself are a big content producer, on the level
of an actual network.

~~~
wincy
What’s interesting is Laura Ingraham refused to back down and her viewership
when up, not down. And many of her sponsors did return.

[http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/383482-ingrahams-
ratings...](http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/383482-ingrahams-ratings-
spike-a-wake-up-for-advertisers)

~~~
matte_black
This will happen with audiences that like people who say what they mean and
mean what they say. Backing down can hurt more than doubling down.

------
geuis
I'm glad to see this policy. MCN's are a cancer on Youtube. I don't even have
a remotely popular channel, and I've still been contacted multiple times by
these folks when a small video starts getting legs. Its usually directly tied
to reddit, where a few times I've shared a video I made in a specific small
subreddit related to the content and it gets a small amount of upvotes. Its
really ridiculous.

A good friend of mine has just randomly posted a few videos over the years
that when "viral" in certain Reddit subs like /r/lego and he got deluged by
emails from various MCN's.

Their entire business model is to find niche, _sometimes_ entertaining videos
through reddit and then artificially inflate the views to reap the advertising
awards. And unless you're careful as the creator of the video, some of the
dodgier ones demand you to sign over copyright to them.

I'm happy to see pirhanas like this be forced out. Its partly because of their
shenanigans that Youtube is requiring partners to have at least a thousand
subscribers before monetization kicks in now. I have 150ish and its not like
that $2 a month was make or break, but there are other up and newcomers that
probably liked getting that $20-$40 a month or whatever the amount is and it
encouraged them to keep making interesting content.

I'm kind of hopeful that policies like this will help with this problem in the
long run.

------
torgoguys
I wish there was more transparency here from both the MCNs and especially
YouTube, but I'm also leery about some complaints from channel owners.
Specifically the ones that sound like they feel entitled to the services
YouTube provides them (free distribution, tooling, outsourced ad sales,
audience, cross promotion, etc) at zero "cost" (not necessarily monetary
costs) to themselves.

Creators should feel free to try and lobby YouTube to make things better for
themselves (YouTube depends on creators), but please try and steer clear of
things that look like entitlement. It's a bad look.

And if things really are so bad, don't distribute via YouTube if the downsides
of their policies outweight the benefits. If your content is good and a larger
movement starts, that's the strongest message you can send to YT.

~~~
Consultant32452
It's becoming more and more clear to me that Youtube's business model is even
less ethical than Uber's. Youtube expects you to produce massive amount of
content for them free of charge. You may win the lottery and get paid for your
work or not. If you get paid you might decide to make a business out of it.
Then Youtube can arbitrarily decide to go back to not paying you anymore. At
least with Uber you're going to get paid _something_.

~~~
RoyTyrell
> Youtube expects you to produce massive amount of content for them free of
> charge.

I think that's a rather one-sided entitled point of view, and here's why.

YouTube provides a hosting service for video content with no up-front hosting
fees. They do charge advertisers to host their content and use a large portion
of those fees to run their business, turn a profit themselves, etc. Also, they
share a percentage of those fees with the content creator so they have a
financial incentive to create more content.

Now, if those advertisers don't like your content they shouldn't be forced to
pay for it. The creators only get paid if the advertisers don't disapprove of
the message; YouTube is the middle-man in that scenario and basically bears
all of the risk for the advertisers and have to "police" the content.

Granted everyone is better off if there is clear communication between all
three parties and sure it would suck to rely on that as your sole source of
income but that's some of the risk when you're in business for yourself.
Content creators are basically throwing a video up on a market and hoping
someone will pay them for it, right? Or am I completely off base here?

~~~
apostacy
Please, can we stop saying that this is about advertisers not wanting to be
associated with certain things? It is clearly not true.

I really hate to post these links three times in one thread, but I feel it
really drives home my point.

This is not about advertisers disapproving of the content that their ads are
displayed over. Coca Cola had no objection to spamming people watching
coverage of the worst mass shooting in history[1], nor did other
advertisers[2]. The evidence clearly shows that they will associate their
brands with the worst acts of horror and violence, and YouTube will pay
corporate channels to show us horrible violence to an almost fetishistic
degree.

And YouTube discloses none of this. YouTube entices people to spend their own
time and money creating content, and then misleads them about their
monetization policies, and secretly picks winners for monetization. I also
think that this gaslighting on their part is part of a concerted effort to
"gentrify" their platform, and drive away independent creators, without openly
admitting that they are no longer welcome on their platform.

> Content creators are basically throwing a video up on a market and hoping
> someone will pay them for it, right? Or am I completely off base here?

You are completely off base. For years, YouTube was very loose with their
monetization. Now, they are imposing self serving and byzantine rules on
independent content creators, which are virtually impossible to follow
properly if you are doing anything other than makeup tutorials. Except if you
are someone they like, then none of these rules apply.

If YouTube is handling money, then they have a responsibility to be more
transparent. Both morally and I think legally.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/h3h3productions/status/91474720399799091...](https://twitter.com/h3h3productions/status/914747203997990912)

[2]
[https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/916132444662751259](https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/916132444662751259)

------
sschueller
If you don't agree with these policy shift I urge you to support projects such
as PeerTube[1] any way you can (code, running a node etc.).

[1]
[https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube](https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube)

~~~
romanovcode
Content creators do not give a shit about privacy. Since PeerTube is not-for-
profit nobody will move there.

All they care about the fact that the revenue source was pulled off of them.

~~~
pickpuck
Maybe the most open platform will win if the future is Patreon, Twitch, Brave
Browser...

~~~
romanovcode
Twitch is bought by Amazon long time ago. Brave is closed-source browser so
you have no idea what is happening there.

Patreon is amazing tho.

~~~
sschueller
Brave is open source [1] to my knowledge.

[1] [https://github.com/brave](https://github.com/brave)

------
Retroity
I'm just sitting here wondering how far YouTube will go to make the site "Ad
Friendly" with all these changes lately. At this rate it wouldn't surprise me
if the YouTube Partner Program went back to it's original form, where it was
invite only for a select few creators.

But this also highlights the need for creators to diversify their revenue.
Don't just rely on YouTube. Offer T-Shirts. Take sponsorships. Open a Patreon.
Start streaming on Twitch. Try to get to that point where the majority of your
revenue comes from sources outside YouTube.

------
chiefalchemist
Live by the hoard.

Die by the hoard.

Seems to me the bed being used is a bed that all have agreed to get into.

~~~
tempodox
You might benefit from using a dictionary.

~~~
chiefalchemist
Yes. Sorry.

------
chaoticmass
I watch a lot of YouTube, probably more than what is healthy, and I happily
pay for YouTube Red (ad free youtube). I have no idea how my subscription
supports the channels I actually watch. It would be nice if my subscription
payment actually was divided among the channels I actually watch. This way I'd
automatically be supporting the channels I enjoy simply by watching them,
regardless of how ad-friendly they are.

------
return1
it feels like youtube could avoid a lot of controversy by adding a button to
tip/pay creators directly on the site. But the broader issue is that Google,
an advertising company, will probably not do it. That's why youtube should
break out of google.

~~~
remram
Isn't that where they are doing with the "paid subscriptions"? Twitch has that
already with the "subscribe" and "bits" buttons.

------
shadowmore
BureaucracyTube -- the creators get no support or feedback, the networks get
no control over their clients, and the advertisers get played like a fiddle by
the loud minority of the easily offended.

Personal agency is dying, and Silicon Valley is, sadly, complicit.

~~~
PuffinBlue
> advertisers get played like a fiddle by the loud minority of the easily
> offended.

It seems you can replace the first word in that sentence with many others and
still accurately describe much of modern society.

I wonder if it was always so? Perhaps the same technology that brings offence
to them allows the offended to shout loudly their displeasure with it.

~~~
scottie_m
Why can’t you curse on broadcast tv or radio in the US? Just for one of many
examples where the previous “vocal minority” have dictated policy. Why are
there blue laws? Why is pot illegal at the federal level in the US?
Prostitution?

Religious and “moral majority” types still dictate to a less vocal majority.
That this only seems to have occurred to some people when the people
complaining include some on the Left speaks volumes. For me, I’d like neither
political pole to dictate to the rest of us, but I wasn’t born yesterday so
I’m not holding my breath. I’m also not acting like this is somehow new. The
only thing that’s changed is that the vocal types with clout aren’t just the
religious Right. On the bright side that means more people are empowered, on
the downside it now means that two extremes are fighting for power over us
instead of just one.

~~~
chiefalchemist
> "Why can’t you curse on broadcast tv or radio in the US"

Because SV has had a holier than thou attitude. SV has promised us it is
beyond tradition.

Those previous enemies are obvious. But SV said it would be __less__ of the
same.

Where are the jet packs we were promised?? Or was that (empthy) promise just a
press release?

~~~
scottie_m
I said US, not SV, and contrary to the beliefs of some in a bubble, one is not
the other. Silicon Valley is also a place full of different people and
companies, so no “it” didn’t say anything, the people and companies there have
made a ton of claims and promises, some of which they’ve even upheld.

Fortunately jet packs aren’t one of them, because I can’t think of anything
more likely to get people killed on a regular basis, while being terminally
noisy and polluting. Of course what serious person believed they were getting
jet packs? The same people who still think that flying cars will be in every
driveway? Some promises are made just because there are people with money who
are stupid enough to believe them, and predatory people can’t resist parting
fools and their money.

Don’t take it all so personally, and don’t invest in things like Juicero or
jet packs and you’ll be a lot happier and wealthier.

~~~
chiefalchemist
To clarify. To me. YT / Google is a reliable proxy for SV.

I was simply trying to answer the quoted question in that context.

Whether you like and/or agree with the answer is further discussion.

------
nukeop
Can anyone really keep up with Youtube's policies anymore? Especially when
they're partially created and enforced by automated scripts? I keep hoping
that the worse this situation becomes the better incentives people will have
to move to alternatives. A man can dream.

------
ironjunkie
Modern censorship at work.

People should not forget that Youtube is an extremely left leaning
organization and therefore polices videos under that angle.

Most people in tech are left leaning (especially in the Bay area) and as such
this is not seen as a big deal, but this censorship is growing and it is one
of the biggest democratic danger at the moment.

~~~
bllguo
Absolute BS. The only reason you would perceive YT to be "left-leaning" is
that advertisers in general don't want to be associated with alt-right
content. YT is merely mirroring the biases of the advertisers.

~~~
peterhadlaw
A 9th circuit judge (inarguably a left leaning court) has stated in a lawsuit
involving Google (YouTube) and PragerU (far from alt-right), that claiming
YouTube acts in a neutral way is "puffery" (yes that's a legal term).

~~~
asdsa5325
Prager's lawsuit claims that YouTube's censorship is violating their first
amendment rights. This is simply bullshit, since first amendment rights don't
apply to a private company like YouTube. YouTube has the right to remove /
restrict whatever it likes on it's own site.

~~~
tomsthumb
Your comment is all good and well, but while the tone is dismissive/combative,
its content doesn't interact with peterhandlaw's point.

Just so you know :)

~~~
asdsa5325
I'm just practicing my first amendment rights /s

It also does, since I was providing the content of the lawsuit that he
happened to fail to mention.

~~~
tomsthumb
The context of the lawsuit is irrelevant to the courts statement on puffery
aside from being the initiating reason the statement on puffery was made
(which we already knew).

The court could have made the same statement without Prager filing the suit
and it would still be accurate. The context doesn’t change the fact of the
statement. So again, your providing context does not change or challenge
peterhandlaw’s point r.e. Puffery.

