YouTube demonetizing "advertiser unfriendly" videos

[GennGreymane]

Well, it does say that they will demonetize videos that contain things they consider to be controversial political conflicts.

If youtube was doing it for the advertisers, they would allow the advertisers to set their own preferences on which videos their advertisements play for. Instead youtube is just taking the reins and deeming videos not fit for advertisements based off of their personal interpretations and not the advertisers.

Which can include anything, basically, they do things for advertisers. Look at their copyright claim policies... that was designed with third parties in mind, not youtube, and not the content creators.

[spinner981]

Which can include anything, basically, they do things for advertisers. Look at their copyright claim policies... that was designed with third parties in mind, not youtube, and not the content creators.

I don't see how this is for the advertisers when the advertisers aren't the ones choosing which videos they are ok with putting their ads in. Best case scenario this thing causes a certain advertisement to be shown on all the types of videos that the advertiser wants but none of the ones that they don't want, and I don't see that being the case for the majority of advertisers. This is effectively youtube removing the ads from these advertisers without input or preferences from the advertisers themselves.

Yes, that is the point. Political 'conflict' can include basically anything. So it is entirely up to youtube to decide which videos to demonetize or not based on their political stances and opinions. Calling Hillary a 'whore' might get a video demonetized because it is 'sexist' (or because the higher ups in youtube lean to the left, which is a very reasonable assumption based on what I've seen coming from them) but calling Trump a filthy, racist, sleazeball, mother-effing, greedy ass, bigoted spawn of satan might get overlooked if the higher ups in youtube don't like Trump. Wackier things have happened, and I wouldn't be surprised one little bit if that is exactly what goes down.

[GennGreymane]

I don't see how this is for the advertisers when the advertisers aren't the ones choosing which videos they are ok with putting their ads in. Best case scenario this thing causes a certain advertisement to be shown on all the types of videos that the advertiser wants but none of the ones that they don't want, and I don't see that being the case for the majority of advertisers. This is effectively youtube removing the ads from these advertisers without input or preferences from the advertisers themselves.

Why pick and choose when you can conform? Get more kinds of videos you want to advertise on and reach more of an audience. Youtubers are also unpredictable.. one day they are playing a funny little game, and the next is a big rant about some company somewhere who added microtransactions.

[spinner981]

Why pick and choose when you can conform? Get more kinds of videos you want to advertise on and reach more of an audience. Youtubers are also unpredictable.. one day they are playing a funny little game, and the next is a big rant about some company somewhere who added microtransactions.

How would this action from youtube cause more videos to have advertisements on them?

Also, this isn't about youtubers, it's about individual videos, since channels are having some videos demonetized and others not.

Also, are you serious about the "Why pick and choose when you can conform?" thing?

[GennGreymane]

How would this action from youtube cause more videos to have advertisements on them?

Also, this isn't about youtubers, it's about individual videos, since channels are having some videos demonetized and others not.

It would be more predictable, more friendly towards advertisers who want some assurance that their advertisements will not be attached to content they deem unsavory. Now instead of 1 out of every lets say 50 channels being fine to advertise on, now its 40. And each of these channels will be more conformed to fit what they want going forward.

And yes this has plenty to do with youtubers, as they make the individual videos. Many of them curse, do controversial things, etc etc... not in every video, but think of it like this

You have 3 objects, if you touch objects 1 and 2, nothing happens, but if you touch 3, you get a shock..... will you keep touching 3?

[spinner981]

It would be more predictable, more friendly towards advertisers who want some assurance that their advertisements will not be attached to content they deem unsavory.

And yes this has plenty to do with youtubers, as they make the individual videos.

But once again, that is besides the point. Youtube isn't giving advertisers any choice in the matter here. They can't choose which types of videos for their advertisements to play on. Youtube is choosing for them, which to a lot of them probably translates to absolutely nothing except "Now less people will see our advertisements."

If it has anything to do with youtubers as you say, and youtubers are unpredictable and could make 'unsavory' content in the blink of an eye out of nowhere, then wouldn't it be safer to just stop advertisements on all videos? If that isn't the case, then this is indeed about videos on an individual basis, because videos based on their content are being demonetized, not channels.

[Charge me Doctor]

Don't forget music. I guess music videos like Anaconda will get banned, though good riddance since most of the trash music videos are from terrible genres like pop and rap.

Almost all death metal and whatever edgy people listen to these days should be banned too, because most of it is about drinking puss off suppurating wounds of a virgin or whatever.

[GennGreymane]

But once again, that is besides the point. Youtube isn't giving advertisers any choice in the matter here. They can't choose which types of videos for their advertisements to play on. Youtube is choosing for them, which to a lot of them probably translates to absolutely nothing except "Now less people will see our advertisements."

If it has anything to do with youtubers as you say, and youtubers are unpredictable and could make 'unsavory' content in the blink of an eye out of nowhere, then wouldn't it be safer to just stop advertisements on all videos? If that isn't the case, then this is indeed about videos on an individual basis, because videos based on their content are being demonetized, not channels.

You are missing my point, which is Youtube is trying to get more advertisers to buy more space on their website by having content creators conform content. No, they cant necessarily pick and choose, which is why some advertisers abstain from youtube, and youtube wants those advertisers to give them money.

Some smaller advertisers dont care and are more than happy to sponsor videos, thats why snack boxes and shavers along with Loot crate are a common sponsor of youtube channels. So is audible.com from what I remember. Youtube wants bigger advertisers, Youtube wants to be the go to place, just like TV.

Youtube makes money off advertisements, there is no way they would stop advertisements on all videos. What they want, as I have been stating and repeating, is more advertisers. Because they would give money to Youtube.

[spinner981]

You are missing my point, which is Youtube is trying to get more advertisers to buy more space on their website by having content creators conform content. No, they cant necessarily pick and choose, which is why some advertisers abstain from youtube, and youtube wants those advertisers to give them money.

Some smaller advertisers dont care and are more than happy to sponsor videos, thats why snack boxes and shavers along with Loot crate are a common sponsor of youtube channels. So is audible.com from what I remember. Youtube wants bigger advertisers, Youtube wants to be the go to place, just like TV.

Youtube makes money off advertisements, there is no way they would stop advertisements on all videos. What they want, as I have been stating and repeating, is more advertisers. Because they would give money to Youtube.

So they are trying to create more opportunity to advertise by forcing a massive amount of videos to be demonetized and therefore unable to put advertisements in, to hopefully obligate youtubers into making only videos that are squeaky clean, down to the last absence of a swear word, so that their videos can be once again considered 'sufficient' under youtubes new arbitrary rules to allow them to be advertised on again so that all the advertising companies that currently see youtube and say "Yuck!" will somehow feel better about putting their ads on there? Is that about right?

So they are effectively screwing over their content creators and their current advertisers for more money from advertisers who aren't yet associated with them? Or at least they think that is what they are doing? As well as screwing over themselves if this convoluted idea doesn't work?

[GennGreymane]

So they are trying to create more opportunity to advertise by forcing a massive amount of videos to be demonetized and therefore unable to put advertisements in, to hopefully obligate youtubers into making only videos that are squeaky clean, down to the last absence of a swear word, so that their videos can be once again considered 'sufficient' under youtubes new arbitrary rules to allow them to be advertised on again so that all the advertising companies that currently see youtube and say "Yuck!" will somehow feel better about putting their ads on there? Is that about right?

So they are effectively screwing over their content creators for more money? Or at least they think that is what they are doing? As well as screwing over their advertisers and themselves if this convoluted idea doesn't work?

I think we have reached an understanding now

They are indeed screwing over their content creators.
They are demonetizing videos that have already been made and received a bulk of their views. They want to "incentivize" current content creators to conform to a more "friendly" audience. Would big companies want advertisements on Keemstars video calling other people pedophiles? Would These companies want to have their brands associated with filthy frank and what ever the fuck he does?

When a video is demonetized btw, generally the advertiser is still advertising, the youtuber is not making money from it though. I just want to clarify that for you. So youtube is still making money from those videos, but the content creators are not.

[GennGreymane]

I agree with rules 1 and 2. I however DON'T agree at all with the other rules. As for being Advertiser friendly. That makes no sense. Advertisers go where the people are. Typically they never cared about what is broadcasted.

Thats true for traditional media, Youtube is a bit more unpredictable as there is almost no control over content creators. Lets say for example, you want to have a product advertised on a TV channel, you know can see what kind of content they do, and you know they abide by the FCC and you can even take a look in advance of what will be airing. Youtube is not like that. Its much more random compared.

- - - Updated - - -

BTW before anyone twists my words

I am 100% against this. Youtube needs to stop bending over backwards for third parties. Their treatment of fair use is telling on how they will handle this.

I must sleep now.

[the game]

"Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language"
Guess 90% of the videos i see will be fucked then

they aren't removing the videos. They're removing the ability for youtubers to receive ad revenue from those videos.

[spinner981]

I think we have reached an understanding now

They are indeed screwing over their content creators.
They are demonetizing videos that have already been made and received a bulk of their views. They want to "incentivize" current content creators to conform to a more "friendly" audience. Would big companies want advertisements on Keemstars video calling other people pedophiles? Would These companies want to have their brands associated with filthy frank and what ever the fuck he does?

When a video is demonetized btw, generally the advertiser is still advertising, the youtuber is not making money from it though. I just want to clarify that for you. So youtube is still making money from those videos, but the content creators are not.

So wait, if the advertisement is still running, but the content creators simply aren't getting money from it, doesn't that not solve the 'issue' of advertisers not wanting their advertisements associated with videos they consider 'unwholesome' or whatever? So the entire goal is to hope that the content creators tow the line that they set just to bring in more third party advertisers? They only expect these big third party advertisers to start coming in once some huge arbitrary percentage of youtubers have effectively censored themselves?

[THE Bigzoman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbph5or0NuM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9JCZhvkpOY

Was thinking about going with Youtube Red but they can kiss that shit good bye. Now I'm going to stick with Ad Blocker so the site itself doesn't get ad revenue. Youtube is really shooting their selves in the foot with this. We're just right back where we were just before TeamFourStar was taken down.

Wait, they took down TFS? Why? Those pricks. Vegeta PLays are the only Let's plays I like.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd give it about a year or year in a half. We'll see a youtuber go in smoke after YouTube acts on this policy.


People saying "don't worry" now will say "They're a private company they can do what they want" in a years time.

[Deleted]

Wait, they took down TFS? Why? Those pricks. Vegeta PLays are the only Let's plays I like.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd give it about a year or year in a half. We'll see a youtuber go in smoke after YouTube acts on this policy.


People saying "don't worry" now will say "They're a private company they can do what they want" in a years time.

Youtube will not go up in smoke. They've been doing this for years.

The difference is that previously they didn't notify people.

[Ryme]

Seeing videos like this all over my subscriptions, a lot of people seem to be worried the direction things are going in. That or ironically cashing in on the drama.

[Azadina]

Conservative 1 to gay who was discriminated against: Omg go use some other service! Vote with your wallet! Don't try to infringe my buddys freedom to discriminate against you!

Some time later Youtube chooses to vote with their wallet, against stuff they don't want on their site;

Conservative 1: OMG WAT YOU NOT BE ALLOW TO SILENCE ME!?!!? STOP!

Where did that great vote with your wallet mantra dissappear? Or is it only relevant when it doesn't target someone personally?

[nextormento]

Why pick and choose when you can conform? Get more kinds of videos you want to advertise on and reach more of an audience. Youtubers are also unpredictable.. one day they are playing a funny little game, and the next is a big rant about some company somewhere who added microtransactions.

Those youtubers that seem unpredictable to you are the product of conforming over the years to YT's funky algorithms.

They're as much a product as microcompanies themselves. And they're competing in a micro-market entirely controlled by YT. When they produce a LP one day and a rant the next, they're simply diversifying their product to reach a wider audience. Some choose to segregate their content in different channels, some don't, depending on their resources and their ability to figure what's en vogue according to YT's algorithms. Sometimes it's longer videos to capture fidelity; sometimes it's smaller ones to appeal to the casual viewer; sometimes it's series on a topic; sometimes it's bulk production; sometimes it's periodic uploads.

The predictability advertisers seek is the same predictability youtubers seek. YB simply sucks a little bit in informing their content creators about how and when the rules of their micro-market are enforced.
Youtubers are predictable: they'll follow whatever pattern of behavior YB favors. YT itself is not predictable. Not by advertisers, not by youtubers. When advertisers demand predictability, the culprit is YT, not the content creators, and this is just another instance in a long series of YT unpredictable behavior.
So why doesn't YT systematically conform instead?. It pretends to be predictable when facing advertisers; it doesn't when facing creators. It's just like the derpy child that slaps you for no reason whatsoever and then claims "I'm so random, lol".
YT, of course, is rightfully allowed to control their market in any manner they see fit. But it won't stop producers to complain when the market enforcer is behaving against their interest.

[Templar 331]

Wait, they took down TFS? Why? Those pricks. Vegeta PLays are the only Let's plays I like.

It was a few months back which lead to the "Where's the fair use" stuff. They were brought back up after that and Youtube changed it's policies about copyright flagging.

[GennGreymane]

So wait, if the advertisement is still running, but the content creators simply aren't getting money from it, doesn't that not solve the 'issue' of advertisers not wanting their advertisements associated with videos they consider 'unwholesome' or whatever? So the entire goal is to hope that the content creators tow the line that they set just to bring in more third party advertisers? They only expect these big third party advertisers to start coming in once some huge arbitrary percentage of youtubers have effectively censored themselves?

Yes...... this is actually what they are trying to do. And you are totally missing the point. Advertisers currently on the site likely do not care. Youtube wants to attract more. They want to conform future content to meet the new arbitrary standard so they can get more companies to pay for advertising space. This is to make content creators create more friendly content. Videos that are demonetized right now were already made, and thus already received the majority of views they are going to get. If videos like those are made in the future, the content creators will not make money. This is an "incentive" to not make videos like the ones that are currently demonetized. Its basically trying to hammer a small nail with a giant sledge hammer.

What I think you are not understanding is that Youtube wants more companies buying ad space, meaning companies who are not on the site. Chances are they may have had deals with some companies only to have them back out because of youtube's community.

- - - Updated - - -

I know what you're saying but youtubes thought process still makes no sense. Getting rid of prank channels and sexual content (for monetization) I agree with. But youtube seemed to have no issues with any if that content until recently. Where the fuck were these rules when keemstar was making bank falsely accusing people of being a pedo? What happened to Sam pepper when he groped chick's as a "pranks"? The no profanity rules bothers me the most.

Bigger channels make them more money. This is a sorry attempt at trying to appease companies to buy ad space

"see we are not a cesspool and your product wont be tainted by association!"