Hot Topic New monetization changes: 4k hours & 1k subs (**discussion here only**)

[jessegreathouse]

How so? They'll have the same chance to grow a fanbase now as they did before.

It's unlikely that, in the future, they'll continue to have the same appearances in search and recommended because they're not monetized. Youtube has eliminated so much of the available monetization space that Youtube will lose a tremendous amount of money if they don't optimize for monetized videos in which videos get placement under search and recommended. The channels that remain partners benefitted from costing less for google to show to viewers. It now costs more to show a viewer a non-monetized video, so the 95% of creators who had their partnership revoked are now at a disadvantage. When adsense bidding reacts to the far lower supply of available monetizable content, it's likely going to cost a lot more for google to show a non-monetized video to a viewer.

 

[Shakycow]

It's unlikely that, in the future, they'll continue to have the same appearances in search and recommended because they're not monetized. Youtube has eliminated so much of the available monetization space that Youtube will lose a tremendous amount of money if they don't optimize for monetized videos in which videos get placement under search and recommended. The channels that remain partners benefitted from costing less for google to show to viewers. It now costs more to show a viewer a non-monetized video, so the 95% of creators who had their partnership revoked are now at a disadvantage. When adsense bidding reacts to the far lower supply of available monetizable content, it's likely going to cost a lot more for google to show a non-monetized video to a viewer.

Popular videos are favored in searches. That's always been the case and there's no reason for that to change.

You're mistaking your 95% number for channels and total views. The creators that had their channels' monetization disabled aren't getting the views. The vast majority of total views will still come from the channels that are monetized. Overall, very little has changed.

 

[jessegreathouse]

Popular videos are favored in searches. That's always been the case and there's no reason for that to change.

You're mistaking your 95% number for channels and total views. The creators that had their channels' monetization disabled aren't getting the views. The vast majority of total views will still come from the channels that are monetized. Overall, very little has changed.

I have not mistaken anything. 95% of the partners have been removed from the partner program. There is very little reason for google to show a non-monetized video to a viewer. The change is that a lot of channels wont have as much opportunity for a viewer to see the thumbnail of their video in the first place. Therefore it becomes harder to cross that subscriber threshold because smaller channels are less exposed to the audience.

 

[antonio33333]

If you are not monetizing your videos it will NOT affect your search engine discoverability/suggested videos or any other form of being discovered on Youtube.

Youtube tweeted that, they also mentioned that in most requested questions post. I emailed few Youtube gurus and one of them (Brian G Johnson) replied
"Not at all my friend. Not at all. Focus on
making great videos, that is the
path to what you want my friend."

What Youtube will look like in the future is something that we don't know. Maybe they will change it again in a year and threshold could be even higher. Maybe they will promote monetized channels more but that is something that nobody knows right know and it's not something that is happening right know. Algorithm still promote both types of channels regardless of your monetizing situation.

Actually only few percent of youtubers got their first 1,000 subs/4,000 hours of watchtime from suggested videos or search anyway. Most of people get those numbers from forums, commenting other videos and those type of things. As all Youtube gurus are saying you can have best content, thumbnails, SEO, channel banner art but if you are not active in community your videos will not be found. So regardless if Youtube promote you or not it's on you to get out there.

This is really funny. People are terrified about Youtube not promoting them but still they don't have those numbers that Youtube asks for (1,000 subs/4,000 watchtime) what indicate that they wasn't promoted by Youtube anyway. Irony, right?

 

[Shakycow]

I have not mistaken anything. 95% of the partners have been removed from the partner program. There is very little reason for google to show a non-monetized video to a viewer. The change is that a lot of channels wont have as much opportunity for a viewer to see the thumbnail of their video in the first place. Therefore it becomes harder to cross that subscriber threshold because smaller channels are less exposed to the audience.

There is zero proof that Google treats a non-monetized video any different than a monetized one. If anything, YouTube has gone on record disputing that that's the case.

YouTube does, as it always has in the past, promote established videos over lesser viewed ones. New/ smaller channels are at no more of a detriment now as they were at any other time and, as it's always been, it's up to the channel to make and promote great videos.

 

[tokoo]

ing over the little guy" or how "without the financial motivation, I no longer see the point or have t

Advertisers want that mystical, mythical engaged high value viewer and YouTube is trying to give them that, but in actuality they're just raising the floor and providing the same value without the available bottom tier, because that ugly bottom tier seemed to mask the value from the remaining partners, however now instead of paying the price for that tier of the 5% remaining partners, that tier will naturally elevate through bidding until the value is still skewed badly, at a much higher cost.

The is simply the best way to look at it. YouTube is really shooting their self in the foot so to speak, but then again we will have to wait and see.

 

[tokoo]

What the new requirements will do is hinder channels who steal/ repost videos for a quick buck and encourage channels that may have gotten lucky with a single viral video to make more and build a following.

Since a new channel isn't able to be monetized, wouldn't it mean more people more then likely to steal other videos, so to get more popular, or to just take views away from other.

 

[Shakycow]

Since a new channel isn't able to be monetized, wouldn't it mean more people more then likely to steal other videos, so to get more popular, or to just take views away from other.

Channels who steal usually do it as a quick money grab... steal a video, post it, and collect before they're caught. With these requirements and that new channels have to be personally authorized, it should put a serious damper on that.

Likewise, the extra time it may take for a channel to become monetized means the likelihood of them getting caught and earning a strike quickly grows.

 

[KatyAdelson]

Sooo...I had most of my videos NOT monetized for a long long long time. Then I put on a few banner ads and earned a good $0.01 per click lol. I literally just turned on skippable ads January 10th for a lot of my videos (not all), and haven't noticed a change in anything regarding search result ranking (I released a video the next day, so that's where the views bump came from in the chart I have included below...). If anything, turning on ads caused my subscribers to decrease slightly.


In my experiences, YouTube doesn't care if your video is monetized or not. If a video can help keep folks on their platform longer, YouTube will promote it whether they earn money from it or not.

I still haven't monetized all my videos (ads are annoying), and my videos without ads are doing just fine. I don't think anyone has to worry about not having their videos promoted without monetization enabled. ^_^ Taylor Davis has almost none of her videos monetized, and she has 2 million+ subscribers and ranks at the top of almost everything in her genre of stuff. It's possible guys! Don't worry about money -- try to focus on building up a following. ^^ A following is far more valuable than your eligibility to put ads on a video.

 

[Jungle Explorer]

My 2 cents.

My channel is safe as I easily meet the new criteria. So my comments are not from an irritated disgruntled person. In fact, I believe this change will actually benefit me by making more ads play on my videos, since there is more to go around now.

My concern here is justice, not for me, but for the very scincere honest creators that are being hurt due to no fault of their own.

Youtube says that the reason for these changes were made because of a few bad actors. Now, we all know that bad people need to be punished and no one disputes this, but the questions is, is it just and right to punish and hurt innocent countless people in order to get to just a few.

Pretend we were not talking about youtube. Say we were talking about a city that was trying to prevent and punish people that rob convenience stores. The city decides that they should arrest everyone below a certain income bracket in the whole city and put them in jail in order to punish the few that rob the stores.

Does that sound look a just and right thing to do? Of course not!. But that is exactly what youtube has done. They have punished tens of thousands of honest innocent small creators in their effort to punsih a few bad actors.

As I said before, this move does not hurt me and may even help me. But only a selfish person would ignore the injustice and suffering of the countless honest creators that have been destroyed by this, due to no failt of their own.