Is my channel is dying?

[Jungle Explorer]

Were those videos about hitting (and possibly hurting, torturing or even killing) rodents? Or did you just shoot in the air so the animals were scared by the sudden boom and ran off?
Shooting at animals is a different cup of tea, I think, than scaring them away by undirected shots only causing sudden loud noises. In the former case I can understand the videos getting flagged as restricted although it's not for the animals' sake but for the "poor" advertisers who don't want to see their "valuable" ad next to a "possibly disturbing" shot of someone torturing or even killing animals.

You can make up all the rules you want, but none of the wording you just used is in the Youtube TOS, so don't think that what you just said is anything more then just your own personal opinion.


Here are some facts.

1. Hunting is legal and is supported and practiced by billions of people around the world.
2. Hunting is a multi-billion dollar a year industry in the US and around the world, with hundreds of millions, if not billions, being spent on advertising.
3. Some the largest most successful stores in America are outdoor sports hunting stores. Ever heard of a Cabelas?
3. There are plenty of advertisers that would want their ads on a hunting video.

Those are the facts, whether you agree with them or not.

While I agree that there might be some advertisers that feel the way you suggest, there are plenty that don't. YouTube is supposed to play RELATED or RELATIVE ads on videos. These would be ads that are related to the video content or relative to the viewer based on their tracked browsing history. This means that if a person has been watching HUNTING videos, they should be seeing ads related to one of the millions of hunting related products that are out their. In which case, the advertiser is very glad to have that ad appear.

You may not agree with hunting personally, but that does not make it ADULT content or ILLEGAL. Their are millions of people that feel that video games are bad and harming young minds. I can guarantee you that there are millions of video games on youtube that show far more GRAPHIC violence then anything in my videos. Is Youtube banning or restricting video games, because their are millions of people that don't like them? No.

This is not about what people agree with or disagree with, because their are people that disagree with pretty much every subject you can think up. This is about freedom and making money. Their is plenty of ad money for youtube to make from the outdoor sports industry. Hundreds of millions, if not billions. And, there are billions of people that love watching hunting videos that would love to see related product ads on the videos they watch. There are also,no RULES in the Youtube TOS that prohibits hunting videos. If there were, then we would not be having this conversation.

The problem here is that, there are individuals at youtube who PERSONALLY don't like something and persecute creators that produce videos they personally don't like, REGARDLESS of whether it violates the TOS or not.

All I am saying is this. If youtube does not want hunting videos, then they should write it in their TOS. Have they done that? NO! Youtube should be CLEAR, EQUAL and UNBIAS application of the rules. Youtube's rules should not be subject to the opinions and BIAS of the an INDIVIDUAL. I hope you can agree with this last sentence.

 

[mytechliving]

You are looking at this the wrong way. YouTube is a two way business, you.have those paying for ads, and those being monetized by the ads. You're only.looking at it from the perspective of you and your channel, but you need to look at it from the other perspective. Having a restriction on your video has nothing to do with advertisements, but rather age and content restriction.
Those who pay for the ads have as much say, if not more, over what videos/types of videos their ads are played over. Similarly, the marketing aspect of it could make.certain types of videos have less ROI or return of investment.

From a marketing standpoint, videos related to weapons and firearms Garner a specific clientele. Normally young to middle aged men. This limits the types of ads that will be played. On the other hand, you have companies that want to send a political message, so they'll limit the content their ads are played on by not allowing videos about firearms, violent content, etc. Both of these will limit the ads/types of ads played on your videos.. this is often times higher paying ads.

You found a nitch audience that works, unfortunately with how polarizing politics and the anti gun movement currently is, it will effect your overall performance and the amount you make.

I can guarantee you that if you changed your content to no longer be about/contain guns, ammo, violence, anything of the sort, then you will increase your revanue.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Jungle Explorer]

You are looking at this the wrong way. YouTube is a two way business, you.have those paying for ads, and those being monetized by the ads. You're only.looking at it from the perspective of you and your channel, but you need to look at it from the other perspective. Having a restriction on your video has nothing to do with advertisements, but rather age and content restriction.
Those who pay for the ads have as much say, if not more, over what videos/types of videos their ads are played over. Similarly, the marketing aspect of it could make.certain types of videos have less ROI or return of investment.

From a marketing standpoint, videos related to weapons and firearms Garner a specific clientele. Normally young to middle aged men. This limits the types of ads that will be played. On the other hand, you have companies that want to send a political message, so they'll limit the content their ads are played on by not allowing videos about firearms, violent content, etc. Both of these will limit the ads/types of ads played on your videos.. this is often times higher paying ads.

You found a nitch audience that works, unfortunately with how polarizing politics and the anti gun movement currently is, it will effect your overall performance and the amount you make.

I can guarantee you that if you changed your content to no longer be about/contain guns, ammo, violence, anything of the sort, then you will increase your revanue.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I agree with everything you just said, but you are either choosing to ignore or intentionally dodging the issue I am stressing, which is, FAIR and EQUAL application of the rules. Do I really need to post 2000 links to SUPER violent hunting videos that are NOT!!!! Restricted. They are NOT restricted! (just in case you did not see it the first time).

As I clearly Stated in post #3 " I have stopped making videos about any gun related content as well, just in case someone wants to take off on that tangent and blame that.". Yes, the people on this forum are THAT predictable. LOL! I would really appreciate it if people would READ what I am saying, so I don't have to keep repeating myself to people who think they are making some kind of a point by pointing out an issue that I have already conclusively proven is not the issue.

Fact 1: Hunting videos are NOT prohibited by the TOS.
Fact 2: There are thousands of hunting videos on YT that are NOT Restricted, that include live footage of animals being shot with AR-15 Machine Guns. (Did I mention, (THEY ARE NOT RESTRICTED!)
Fact 3: There are many video games that feature far more graphic violence then anything seen in my videos, that are NOT restricted.
Fact 4: My videos that are restricted are not about FIREARMS! They are about AIR rifles.
Fact 5: Hunting is legal and is a multi-trillion dollar a year industry with billions being spent of advertising. There is no lack of ad revenue for hunting videos.

Fact 6: This is the most important FACT of all. Out of 130 videos, only 7 of my videos are about hunting and only 2 of those are restricted.
Fact 7: 90% of my videos are Homsteading and are HOW TO Instructional videos or Product Reviews for equipment related to Farming and Homesteading.

Get this through your head if you are going to comment. My channel is not about HUNTING. I only have a few hunting videos I made for fun a long time ago, and I stopped making them. OKAY! So stop trying to make everything that is going on with my channel about HUNTING. It's not about that. It's about why my revenue is falling while my channel is growing faster then ever before.

P.S. One more fact. Before being restricted by YT, the two videos that were restricted were some of my HIGHEST earning videos. So YT obviously has advertisers that WANT to run their ads on hunting videos.

 

[mytechliving]

You can lead a hourse to water...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Jungle Explorer]

Just in case you don't believe. Here is a hunting video that is NOT Restricted, that is even disturbing to me.

This channel has 120 videos just like this one, 6.5 Million views and 14K subs.[DOUBLEPOST=1525889281,1525889119][/DOUBLEPOST]

You can lead a hourse to water...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I know you think a cute little quip makes you right, but in the real world, actual proof is what makes you right. If you think I am wrong, please make a reasoned fact based argument to prove it. I am willing to learn, but you won't get anywhere with me with snide quips and opinions. I only listen to fact based reason.

 

[HiEnergy]

post removed

 

[mytechliving]

Just in case you don't believe. Here is a hunting video that is NOT Restricted, that is even disturbing to me.

This channel has 120 videos just like this one, 6.5 Million views and 14K subs.[DOUBLEPOST=1525889281,1525889119][/DOUBLEPOST]


I know you think a cute little quip makes you right, but in the real world, actual proof is what makes you right. If you think I am wrong, please make a reasoned fact based argument to prove it. I am willing to learn, but you won't get anywhere with me with snide quips and opinions. I only listen to fact based reason.

Look, I have no issues with guns or hunting, infact I would happily promote them, but you fail to see the difference between monetization, ads, equality, and videos relating to hunting and/or guns. Despite the fact that you don't post gun related content anymore, in the past you have, so your channel is already flagged for it. Furthermore, ad content is controlled by the customer who purchased the ad content, moreso than Google. Is you claim equality issues when Google is controlling the ads, then yes, you have a leg to stand on. The issue is that it isn't Google most of the time, but rather the customers who actually pay for the ads.

Most of the higher paying ads are from larger companies who have some sort of political motivation. Because of that, they choose, not Google, to not have their content shown on a channel, or content that's related to guns, sex, violence, or any combination of them. That has nothing to do with being equal. A company is paying for a product; in this case the product is an ad. There for the customer controls and dictates where their money is going or not going.

Lastly, other videos have nothing to do with your videos. It doesn't matter if a video is flagged or restricted. Any of the videos could still make money and be fully monetized. Or they may not. But again, it's at the discretion of the company paying for the ad space, just as much as it is Google. As a content creator our only voice, or recourse, is to remove our content in it's entirety. No content means ads won't be displayed. No ads means products won't be sold. No ads means Google won't make any money.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Jungle Explorer]

What's the difference between being killed by an ICBM, a machine gun, a rifle or a slingshot? Killing is killing, no matter what.


How many real living beings are killed by video games? How many by <netiquette prohibits me from using those words here> shooting at defenseless and harmless animals?


See my first statement in this post.


There are lots of things which are legal but not right.

Q: "What's the difference between being killed by an ICBM, a machine gun, a rifle or a slingshot? Killing is killing, no matter what."
A: I agree. My comment was in response to a statement by mytechliving about firearms. I was just pointing out that my restricted video were not about firearms.


Q: "How many real living beings are killed by video games? How many by <netiquette prohibits me from using those words here> shooting at defenseless and harmless animals?"
A: All YT videos are Digital Representations, not reality. Digital depictions of violence, whether of a real event or digitally created are the same thing to your eyes and brain. The only person who would claim there is a difference is a person who is either so ignorant (not an insult. It means a person lacks knowledge of something) as to not know that hunting is not going on, or chooses to blindly refuse to acknowledge that hunting is a globally accepted and practiced activity.

Q: "See my first statement in this post."
A: See my response to you fist post.

Q: There are lots of things which are legal but not right.
A: Totally Agree! But if your implication is that Hunting is legal but Wrong, then that is your personal opinion. It is not fact, nor is it an opinion shared by YT as they have no rules in the TOS against it and as I have previously stated many times, there are thousands of UNRESTRICTED hunting videos on YT.

 

[HiEnergy]

I guess I went a bit overboard and overlooked that this thread is not about personal opinion on hunt, weapons and killing but about videos being rejected for monetization by YT. For not further derailing the thread I deleted my initial controversial post.

 

[Jungle Explorer]

Look, I have no issues with guns or hunting, infact I would happily promote them, but you fail to see the difference between monetization, ads, equality, and videos relating to hunting and/or guns. Despite the fact that you don't post gun related content anymore, in the past you have, so your channel is already flagged for it. Furthermore, ad content is controlled by the customer who purchased the ad content, moreso than Google. Is you claim equality issues when Google is controlling the ads, then yes, you have a leg to stand on. The issue is that it isn't Google most of the time, but rather the customers who actually pay for the ads.

Most of the higher paying ads are from larger companies who have some sort of political motivation. Because of that, they choose, not Google, to not have their content shown on a channel, or content that's related to guns, sex, violence, or any combination of them. That has nothing to do with being equal. A company is paying for a product; in this case the product is an ad. There for the customer controls and dictates where their money is going or not going.

Lastly, other videos have nothing to do with your videos. It doesn't matter if a video is flagged or restricted. Any of the videos could still make money and be fully monetized. Or they may not. But again, it's at the discretion of the company paying for the ad space, just as much as it is Google. As a content creator our only voice, or recourse, is to remove our content in it's entirety. No content means ads won't be displayed. No ads means products won't be sold. No ads means Google won't make any money.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Again. I totally understand what you are saying and I agree with the function of how ads work part. But you make some unfounded statement and you are ignoring some very important facts about my case. Take this one for example:

"Despite the fact that you don't post gun related content anymore, in the past you have, so your channel is already flagged for it"

First off, as I have pointed out many time, YT has no rules against videos containing guns in general. So the idea that YT flagged my WHOLE channel as result of a few videos, would indicate that you believe their is a SECRET set of rules that YT goes by that are not in the TOS. If you can show me some verifiable evidence for the existence of this Secret set of rules, I will accept your statement here. Otherwise, it is just your opinion. Secondly, while there are few very specific things like Bump stocks and such that are restricted now, these rule changes are very recent. As I showed in the Graph I posted, my channel's earnings started declining back in Sep of 2017, a long time before these new rule changes. The fact is that those rule changes had zero measurable effect on my channel. So again, your comments fail to address anything to with what is going on with my channel.

Most of your comments were about the people who pay for the ads having the choice of where they are shown. No disagreement there. But as I stated at the end of my last comment to you, the restricted videos were some of my highest earners, until they got restricted by YT. So the evidence that is available shows that the issue, is not with the political agenda of advertisers, but with the personal opinion of a YT employee.