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

[Shakycow]

Host your videos on youtube as UNLISTED, and then stream them through your own website with your affiliate links.

All small creators should create their own websites, and just use youtube as storage. That way youtube only makes money, when people watch the video through your own site and when you are making money as well. Then creators don't have to put up youtubes restrictions and rules.

All videos, whether public, unlisted, or set to private have to adhere to the same exact rules and restrictions, they will all be passed through Content ID, and it won't stop someone from flagging it if they happen to find it offensive.

What doing what you recommend would do is take a channel completely out of the search engine and make it infinitely more difficult to find new viewers and subscribers.

I could tell how to bypass these new requirements in less then one day, but I won't because it invovles dark web stuff that is a violation of the TOS.

Considering that it's no longer an automated process to become monetized, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Even worse, any channel that happens to reach the new requirements in a short time frame would find itself under extra scrutiny (where did the views come from, how people found the video, is it original or copyrighted materials, etc.).

IIf you wrote an Ebook and put on Amazon.com and then one day Amazon said that "All authors with less then 1000 ebooks sold will not earn royalties." Would anyone think that woukd be a GOOD policy? Nope! How is a video any different then an ebook? Both electronic artistic creations. Why is it okay to want to get paid for one, but not the other?

Both are electronic artistic creations, but that's where the similarities end. They're two completely different business models that cannot be compared. There are no royalties or sales with YouTube. If you post a video on YouTube, it is with the understanding that it is free for the world to view. If, on the off chance that YouTube/ Google decides to place ads on your video they will split the earnings with you, but there is no guarantee that they ever will... nor is there any guarantee that, if they do place ads, people will watch/ click on them.

YouTube doesn't even offer the option to create paid content anymore.

 

[Jungle Explorer]

Wow! Is it that people on here have no reading comprehension or is it somthing else? Nothing you said even remotetly comes close to adressing what I said. It is more ramblings of "Youtube fanboys" who always, always defend youtube not matter how badly they act.

Everything I said is true and accurate and your uninformed "Speculative Opinions" does not change that.

Fact: Anyone can create a website and stream youtube videos through it.

Fact: If you want people to watch your videos on your website where can earn money from them, it would sekf defeating and stupid for you to want them to be watchable on youtube where you won't earn anything? DUH! Only an idiot would do that.
(You said: "What doing what you recommend would do is take a channel completely out of the search engineand make it infinitely more difficult to find new viewers and subscribers.) ROTFL!!!!!

FACT: If you are trying to earn money through affiliate marketing on your own website, then you don't give a flip about meeting Youtubes requirements for monetization? Double DUH!

FACT: Authoring a video or a book is the exact same thing. In both cases the AUTHOR deserves to get paid for thier work. Just because people like you have been brainwashed into thinking that you have to give your content away for other people like youtube to make money off of does not change this. If people chose to give their content away for free, that is their choice. It does not change anything. The author deserves to get paid for their work. Do you disagree that " A Worker is worthy of thier wage"?. Please say you do!

Next time you feel the urge to chop my statement up to make your youtube defense case, try reading and understanding first.

P.S. as far as your effort to discredit what I said about people subverting youtubes useless efferts to stop them; you have no clue what tou are talking about. Plus it is the epitome of stupidity to try to make a case against what I said, when I never told you what methods I was refering to. A year from now when youtube alters the rules once again and punishes honest creators in their effort to stop the "Bad Actors" I expect an apology from you and admission that I was right and you were wrong. You know as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow that is going to happen.

 

[Shakycow]

Fact: Anyone can create a website and stream youtube videos through it.

I never said they couldn't. I only stated that those videos would be held to the same standards (and be run through Content ID) just as every other video on YouTube.

Fact: If you want people to watch your videos on your website where can earn money from them, it would sekf defeating and stupid for you to want them to be watchable on youtube where you won't earn anything? DUH! Only an idiot would do that.
(You said: "What doing what you recommend would do is take a channel completely out of the search engineand make it infinitely more difficult to find new viewers and subscribers.) ROTFL!!!!!

There are (roughly) 1.3 billion people worldwide on YouTube. Having a video public on YouTube allows your video to be discovered by those people... but, apparently, you would prefer to be fully responsible for promoting and advertising your website instead of using their system to the fullest capabilities... teaser videos, links in the descriptions, and the like would make more sense than simply using YouTube as a hosting server.

FACT: If you are trying to earn money through affiliate marketing on your own website, then you don't give a flip about meeting Youtubes requirements for monetization? Double DUH!

I never said anything about YouTube's requirements...only that, by taking yourself away from YouTube, it would be far more difficult to build a viewer base- whether that's on YouTube or your own website.

FACT: Authoring a video or a book is the exact same thing. In both cases the AUTHOR deserves to get paid for thier work. Just because people like you have been brainwashed into thinking that you have to give your content away for other people like youtube to make money off of does not change this. If people chose to give their content away for free, that is their choice. It does not change anything. The author deserves to get paid for their work. Do you disagree that " A Worker is worthy of thier wage"?. Please say you do!

YouTube doesn't make any money off of your video unless you also make money from it. Workers are worthy of their wages, but they also choose their own wages. In the case of YouTube, they are choosing to not earn anything... or, at most, are taking a gamble that they *might* earn something after posting something free to the public first.

As you said, "If people chose to give their content away for free, that is their choice." Anyone who posts something on YouTube made that choice.

Brainwashed? Hardly. I simply understand how YouTube works and how to use it to my advantage. I "give" my work away to YouTube because they give me an easy way of showing my work to the world... an audience that would be extremely difficult for me to reach on my own and, from the extended viewership, I receive offers for other, larger paying jobs.

For me, YouTube is free advertising... and, on the off chance YouTube earns some money for displaying my work, I earn money as well.

P.S. as far as your effort to discredit what I said about people subverting youtubes useless efferts to stop them; you have no clue what tou are talking about. Plus it is the epitome of stupidity to try to make a case against what I said, when I never told you what methods I was refering to. Duh Again!

I don't need to know what, if any methods, you were talking about. That it's no longer an automated process and that all channels now need to be manually reviewed means that the vast majority of tricks and illegal techniques will be easily caught under scrutiny.


You would fare far better if you dropped the condescending tone and needless name calling.

 

[phoebechitchat]

This just really hurt small creators that haven't met this requirement yet, 4000 hrs is 166 days which is 5 and a half months, that don't seem so bad if you get more than a 1 hr of watch time per day. Now if your making 2-10 min videos then and get less than 1 hrs of watch time per day it would probably take you a year or two to reach the 4000 hr requirement hats why this is stupid. The only people that don't think this is stupid is creators that passed these requirements. If I upload 2 music videos a day and last about 2-3 mins and they get about 3-15 views and if people only watch the for 30 sec up to a min how in the world Im suppose to meet this requirement Im not going to start uploading 5-10 videos a day thats insane so what am im suppose to do I don't want to give up like how most small creators did when they seen this but I'm just feeling really hopeless.

I feel your pain since I'm on the same boat as you in term of meeting the requirement. But don't discourage, the watch time is really still doable.
I'm a new creator and has been posting only one video per week. Right now, I'm getting in average of 6000 hours watch time per 28 days. What I'm concerning is getting 1000 subscriber, but it's possible. So please keep what you do and you will get there. All the best.

 

[Kenyanese]

Just in case we forgot,
Youtube/Google is in the business of self preservation first. They will only go for stake holders such as the targeted smaller channels if it furthers their interests.

I’d do the same if I were in their shoes

 

[Jungle Explorer]

All videos, whether public, unlisted, or set to private have to adhere to the same exact rules and restrictions, they will all be passed through Content ID, and it won't stop someone from flagging it if they happen to find it offensive.

What doing what you recommend would do is take a channel completely out of the search engine and make it infinitely more difficult to find new viewers and subscribers.




Considering that it's no longer an automated process to become monetized, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Even worse, any channel that happens to reach the new requirements in a short time frame would find itself under extra scrutiny (where did the views come from, how people found the video, is it original or copyrighted materials, etc.).




Both are electronic artistic creations, but that's where the similarities end. They're two completely different business models that cannot be compared. There are no royalties or sales with YouTube. If you post a video on YouTube, it is with the understanding that it is free for the world to view. If, on the off chance that YouTube/ Google decides to place ads on your video they will split the earnings with you, but there is no guarantee that they ever will... nor is there any guarantee that, if they do place ads, people will watch/ click on them.

YouTube doesn't even offer the option to create paid content anymore.

I actually don't disagree with you said here. Some of what ypu said though seems related to a conversation you are having with someone else beside me.
At no point did I say anything about people subverting the content approval process. In your last two responses you have mentioned it and I am not sure why you are trying to push that point when I never said anything about it. All along I have done nothing but talk about Good Honest creators. Why you want to twist what I said into something I never meant is offensive.

I also never said that people should not use youtube to the fullest potential to promote themselves. So where you got that Idea is another mystery.

Let me put in to simple terms to avoid further confusion.

I am not anti-youtube. I amd PRO ME!. My post here were to encourage small creators that are ways to make money off of youtube other then monetization. Why you have to come against that is another mystery.

Personally, the new rules do not effect me as I meet the new requiments easily. But I am not a selfish self centered person who does not care about the small guy. I feel what youtube has done was unjust and unfair to the good honest small creator that did not thing wrong. I also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that in probably less then a year, youtube will once again do this kind of crap again, further taking their rage out on the small honest creator.

The simple fact is this move by youtube is useless, because it does not solve the underlying problem. I have a much better solution that would all but eliminate abuse of the system for good, and it wouldn't hurt the small creator.

 

[Ezrider92356]

I thought of a much better way YouTube could have gone about this than what they did that I think would have been better for all involved.

they could have said due to the problems in the last year bla bla bla all creators under 1000 subs 4000 watch hours will be restricted to limited to no ads until they cross that threshold then they will be reviewed to receive full monetization after that threshold. basically they may play some ads for advertisers that are ok with higher risk video's and still share the YouTube red revenue.

people still would be unhappy with that but I think they would be less unhappy than they are now

 

[Jungle Explorer]

I just can't understand how everybody here can't seem to come up with any other solution then to punish small creators that have done nothing wrong in order keep a few bad actors from abusing the system. It is completely anti-sound reasoning to think this way.

 

[Ezrider92356]

I agree, although I think that a big part of the decision though was based off a cost benefit analysis of the manpower required to monitor such a large number of small channels that make up a smaller % of there income. because as we all know the robot sucked.....lol

 

[MarkRodriguez2012]

I just can't understand how everybody here can't seem to come up with any other solution then to punish small creators that have done nothing wrong in order keep a few bad actors from abusing the system. It is completely anti-sound reasoning to think this way.

Not to mention the little guys suffer while the bad actors they were talking about still get paid and profit.

Honestly, Youtube should have just said it was to bring more advertisers and whatnot and left out the whole 'bad actors' thing from their official statement on their blog. The 'bad actors' thing is clearly pointing the finger at Logan Paul, and then they screw people that have nothing to do with it. Again, I wasn't the one that filmed someone dead and made jokes about it, nor did I yell racial slurs during a livestream or pay people in some other country to hold racist signs because 'I didn't think they'd actually do it'. Leave my channel the f**k alone, Youtube.