Just Curious. How does YT make money on Demonetized videos?

[Jungle Explorer]

Okay, so this is just a curiosity. Logically, it stands to reason that hosting streaming video is the most bandwidth consuming element on the internet. So this makes it the most costly type of internet content you can host. So, for youtube to host your videos, cost them money. Since youtube does not charge to host videos, it must make money through other means, which is advertising. This is just logical.

But now youtube is demonetizing hundreds of millions of videos or listing them as "Not suitable for most advertiser" or "Restricted". But these video are still hosted by youtube and available to be watched, so they are costing youtube money. Right? So it would seem that, for every video that youtube demonetizes or restrict, they are shooting their own self in the economic profitability foot. This is a totally illogical course of action for any business to take. It makes no senses at all.

Now it might make more sense if youtube was just targeting a very small category of videos like, Terrorism or Real Life Violent Crime. But youtube has targeted every single category and is going after everything that might even seem minutely offensive. Even common everyday generally socially acceptable stuff. They are hitting every channel with demonetization to the tune of hundred of millions of videos, possibly billions.

So my curiosity is, how is youtube making money on these hundreds of millions of demonetized or restricted videos to offset the cost of hosting them?
Now it seems to me that there are only two possible answers here.

1. They are losing money on them.

2. They are still running ads on them but not sharing the profits with the creators.



What do you guys think about this?

 

[Shakycow]

By limiting ads to advertiser friendly videos, more advertisers are willing to place ads/ willing to spend more.

Not to mention, ads aren’t shown every time someone watches a video. Non-monetized videos keep the audience on YouTube longer.

 

[Scootakip [Lana]]

It's essentially just to suck up to advertisers and copyright holders.

 

[Jungle Explorer]

Non-monetized videos keep the audience on YouTube longer.

So what you are saying is that by demonetizing hundreds of millions of videos, youtube does not have to share the profits with the content creators, but they still make money off them because these demonetized videos attract a more people to the youtube site to see their ads. So creators get raped while youtube makes more money. Does that about sum it up?

 

[Shakycow]

So creators get raped while youtube makes more money. Does that about sum it up?

Really, raped?

YouTube is taking a closer look at and veering on the side of caution far more than they have in the past, but the rules for advertising are nothing new... and are relatively easy to abide by (or contend with if falsely flagged).

Likewise, if the content creators don't care for Google's policy, they're free to go elsewhere. As you pointed out, hosting videos can be extremely costly. They're free to go to any of the other video hosting sites or pay to host it themselves.

YouTube is free, allows creators (who follow the rules) to earn money, and, even for those who don't earn anything, it allows the videos to be shared and found by a worldwide audience (something that hosting yourself wouldn't allow).

 

[Idec Sdawkminn]

YouTube only makes money when their content creators do. It is in their best interest to have us make more money. The advertisers were leaving because they didn’t want their ads to be funding videos that gave their company a bad name. YouTube can’t possibly manually check every video, so they made a bot. Demonetizing videos hurts YouTube as much as the creators, but it was the only reasonable solution to keep advertisers coming, and possibly increase down the line.

 

[Xynudu]

By demonetizing the bad stuff (from an advertisers perspective), YT gets more advertisers/back, and spreads the adverts over the remaining channels. Both parties benefit.

YT is not losing money on the "bad stuff" at all, as they still attract viewers. YT wouldn't apply this current system f they were losing money overall. Do you really think that a big company like YT isn't corporate savvy LOL.

 

[Jungle Explorer]

Really, raped?

YouTube is taking a closer look at and veering on the side of caution far more than they have in the past, but the rules for advertising are nothing new... and are relatively easy to abide by (or contend with if falsely flagged).

Do you really think that YT rules are "Relatively EASY to abide by". Can you even tell me what they are? YT intentionally hides behind ambiguous words and platitudes and absolutely REFUSES to give out any clear instructions on their policy.

And then you say that Falsely Flagged videos are also easy to contend with. You cannot even ask for a review unless your video is getting 1000 views a WEEK!!! Not a month, not a year, but a dad blame week! That means that 99% of the videos on YT cannot be CONTENDED at all!

I have been with YT since 2005. I have never once had any kind of negative mark from YT. Not once. All of my videos are ten times more family friendly then most of what you see on public network TV (most of which I won't even watch because it is so bad and offensive). Every single one of my videos could be shown to a church on Sunday, and in fact, I have show quite a few of them to my pastor friends. So NOOOO, TY is not veerring on the side of caution. They have lost their minds and are attacking anyone and everyone, even people like me that have followed all their foggy, unclear, ambiguous rules to the best of my abilities, who have done nothing wrong, and have unblemished track record for 12 years. And they are giving us ZERO opportunity to even ask for a review. THAT IS THE TRUTH

[DOUBLEPOST=1508548956,1508547920][/DOUBLEPOST]

By demonetizing the bad stuff (from an advertisers perspective), YT gets more advertisers/back, and spreads the adverts over the remaining channels. Both parties benefit.

YT is not losing money on the "bad stuff" at all, as they still attract viewers. YT wouldn't apply this current system f they were losing money overall. Do you really think that a big company like YT isn't corporate savvy LOL.

If YT was actually demonetizing "BAD STUFF" I would agree with you. But you know very well that YT is demonetizing million of perfectly alright videos. Videos that honest hard working creators spent time energy and money to make in the hopes that they would generate a little revenue for them, and now these millions of videos will never ever have a chance to earn anything because YT will never give the creators a chance to have the looked at because they don't meet the Criteria to get reviewed.

"By demonetizing the bad stuff (from an advertisers perspective), YT gets more advertisers/back, and spreads the adverts over the remaining channels. Both parties benefit."

Think long and hard about your statement here. Since is it is well established that GOOD content from small creators is also getting cut by YT with no avenue to challenge it (because it is on a SMALL channel), what you are saying is that, YT is stepping on and taking advantage of little guy that has no voice so they they and the BIG channels (that have a voice because they are BIG) can make more money because there is less creators to spread it around with. So, while all the little creators make the videos that draw viewers to YT, YT and the BIG channels make all the money. That is the definition of economic rape.

I agree that YT is not going to lose any money. That was the whole point of my OP. So you and I are in complete agreement. Youtube is demonetizing hundreds of millions of videos so they can earn more money and don't have to share it with small good honest content creators.

 

[Xynudu]

Youtube is demonetizing hundreds of millions of videos so they can earn more money and don't have to share it with small good honest content creators.

How much of that is original content, and how much is other people's original content used without their permission ?

 

[Jungle Explorer]

How much of that is original content, and how much is other people's original content used without their permission ?

100% of my content is original content that I personally created, with the exception of some music that I download from YT's free Music database, but that is only on a couple video.