Aren't MCNs to blame?

[Opticgeekify]

Thanks for following up! In terms of your adsense review: I've yet to see any cases where a user would get presented with a notice to prove something they own while they were under an mcn or currently managed. Can you point to any big channels/users who this has happened to?

Nerdcubed!

Thanks for following up! In terms of your adsense review: I've yet to see any cases where a user would get presented with a notice to prove something they own while they were under an mcn or currently managed. Can you point to any big channels/users who this has happened to?[DOUBLEPOST=1387837648,1387837577][/DOUBLEPOST]

You are partnered but you are not managed, you are an affiliate (hence you do not have instant monetization and contend id scans). What i'm getting at is the old mcn system/managed users of the new.

I got found out before the change , when i had Instant monetazation!

 

[Tarmack]

Thanks for following up! In terms of your adsense review: I've yet to see any cases where a user would get presented with a notice to prove something they own while they were under an mcn or currently managed. Can you point to any big channels/users who this has happened to?

I have dealt with 4 separate ContentID claims while partnered with BBTV first, and then Curse from Audiomicro due to my licensed intro song. I disputed these claims and was successful as I had paid to use this content. These claims all happened prior to the recent changes (6-12 months ago)

What happened in December is ContentID had it's whitelist ****** up and default rules altered. This is why so many companies were all of a sudden claiming content and yet acting confused because they didn't initiate it. The affiliate review change hasn't happened yet and starts in January, so watch for that drama.

I should add that I don't have a lot of love for most of the MCN's. But in this case, it's YouTube shrugging it's shoulders and the MCN's reacting in the only way their new rules allow in order to keep doing business. They're just ad agencies. They shouldn't have to be responsible for any content they don't create, which is the whole point of managed.

 

[clerick]

I have dealt with 4 separate ContentID claims while partnered with BBTV first, and then Curse from Audiomicro due to my licensed intro song. I disputed these claims and was successful as I had paid to use this content. These claims all happened prior to the recent changes (6-12 months ago)

What happened in December is ContentID had it's whitelist ****** up and default rules altered. This is why so many companies were all of a sudden claiming content and yet acting confused because they didn't initiate it. The affiliate review change hasn't happened yet and starts in January, so watch for that drama.

I should add that I don't have a lot of love for most of the MCN's. But in this case, it's YouTube shrugging it's shoulders and the MCN's reacting in the only way their new rules allow in order to keep doing business. They're just ad agencies. They shouldn't have to be responsible for any content they don't create, which is the whole point of managed.

Thanks for providing that info, it helps a lot putting this all together.

So my only guess is the way mcns are going to survive now is the new sytem that lets mcn keep revenue 100% after a certain threshold (I've yet to find info on what kind of $ number that threshold is however).

 

[Tarmack]

So my only guess is the way mcns are going to survive now is the new sytem that lets mcn keep revenue 100% after a certain threshold (I've yet to find info on what kind of $ number that threshold is however).

No such system I'm aware of. They could always do this as YouTube just pays them a chunk of money for each channel (55% of the channel revenue) and then it's up to the MCN on how to dish that out to partners. MCN's could do any split they want to. And in the case of some bigger partners, they already do 100% of revenue up to $X, and lower revenue share after. They don't need YouTube to do this.