[closed] YouTube's New "Advertiser-Friendly" Policy (all discussion goes here) **

[Rails2Revolution]

Also, legit question. Does this mean when less videos gets monetised, higher ad revenue to those that CAN get their videos monetised? Something about ad placement bidding?

Actually that would be quite interesting to find out. If channels really are getting figures up to 50% of videos demonetised, that could create a large spike in cpm for remaining monetized videos. I guess only time will tell.[DOUBLEPOST=1472736985,1472736858][/DOUBLEPOST]

Seems like a bit of a shakeup, scare everyone about losing monetization, get them to clean their act up to YouTubes "new standards".

Thing is there have been many scares from TOS updates and whatnot, but none of them really carried any weight behind them. This, possibly being one of the least positive scares has also been on of the first to have such a dramatic impact, especially on large YouTubers. YouTube must be serious this time if it's cutting it's main money making machines

 

[JRTrax]

We have got to stop calling this a freedom of speech issue. It's not that at all. The guy having problems on his history channel, I hear your concerns loud and clear. That one is confusing to me.

 

[AM2PM]

People will have to adjust. If people are watching your videos because you swear your content or fans need some help.

 

[Jawad Soomro]

I came to know about this issue 2 month ago. Somebody posted here that YOUTUBE demonetized their videos because the topics they covered were sensitive. I know YOUTUBE is becoming too strict, they shouldn't do that. Thats why I don't monetize sensitive videos. Even TV news channel are getting paid through advertises by talking about violence reports, so why can't YOUTUBE? Overall YOUTUBE can never beat TV. YOUTUBE is YOUTUBE, TV is TV.

 

[GrantsMod]

I think it's pretty damn stupid.

 

[MintApocalypse]

I don't really have any words to express how I feel about this topic yet, but I'm wondering if they're going to put this in effect for channels like CNN, Vevo, Fox News etc. I get the feeling that they won't and that's even worse, to play the system for bigger names with lots of money. I'm wondering if this is going to effect youtubers like Pewdiepie, their top dog, you'd think they'd be dumb to disable monitization from him, but considering Phillip Defranco, Boogie2988, and Vlogbrothers have already been hit I wouldn't be surprised unless only the popular superstar vloggers are excluded or something. I'm just watching and waiting to see what the big names do, whether they head to a different platform or if they stick around...

 

[TheScarletBlaze]

I think youtube is really overdue some kind of age rating system video games and movies have them and even music has the parental advisory stickers why not youtube to out right banning it or demotising itis not the way to go besides there are plenty of brands that could advertise on videos covering more controversial topics or adult humor a couple of things that come to mind are Alcohol adverts or condoms y'know the kind of stuff that gets played after the watershed in the uk

 

[PsySpy Gaming]

Honestly what YouTube could've done instead is make some sort of auto 'sensitive topic warning' (which would've still been a bad move imo) or something rather than demonetizing videos but I still find it stupid how they're not allowing sensitive topics to be discussed, people can easily exit the video if they're not interested.

They might actually put something like Trigger Warning? For the oversensitive saps on there?

 

[xingcat]

This has been going on for ages, at least a year. It's certainly nothing new. There have been loads of threads in the monetization forum of people being affected by it. Those monetization rules were put in place ages ok. I guess people like DeFranco only cry about it when it affects them.

If I put myself in the shoes of an advertiser, then I certainly wouldn't want my products and services being associated with some of the crap that gets uploaded on YouTube and that's the reasoning behind it. $ talks.

Indeed. And honestly, I can imagine that it may be a bit more enforced lately because the general consensus of most marketers (I work in a marketing firm, so I try to keep up with what advertisers are saying and CMOs are interested in) is that social media advertising doesn't really have the payoff it promised. The fact that advertisers don't want to slap their ads on every single person who wishes to sit in front of a camera for a few minutes is very much within the direction of web advertising. It used to be number of impressions. Then number of click-throughs. Now it's number of directly-accountable purchases made for any particular ad in any particular place at a particular time by a particular type of customer. Eventually, it's going to go the way that blogging did about 10 years ago, when it used to be possible to make a decent living writing copy with Google ads on the sidebar, then you had to contract directly with advertisers, and then....there aren't many bloggers making money these days.

It's not censorship. It's basically going back to the YouTube that was there before, where ads were rarely placed on videos, and you had to pass through certain YouTube-installed hoops to have the right to monetize at all.

 

[Crown]

Indeed. And honestly, I can imagine that it may be a bit more enforced lately because the general consensus of most marketers (I work in a marketing firm, so I try to keep up with what advertisers are saying and CMOs are interested in) is that social media advertising doesn't really have the payoff it promised. The fact that advertisers don't want to slap their ads on every single person who wishes to sit in front of a camera for a few minutes is very much within the direction of web advertising. It used to be number of impressions. Then number of click-throughs. Now it's number of directly-accountable purchases made for any particular ad in any particular place at a particular time by a particular type of customer. Eventually, it's going to go the way that blogging did about 10 years ago, when it used to be possible to make a decent living writing copy with Google ads on the sidebar, then you had to contract directly with advertisers, and then....there aren't many bloggers making money these days.

It's not censorship. It's basically going back to the YouTube that was there before, where ads were rarely placed on videos, and you had to pass through certain YouTube-installed hoops to have the right to monetize at all.

+1

I agree.


Let's not forget that the current CEO of YouTube, Susan Wojcicki is an advertising expert. She was head of adwords for 15 years before becoming CEO of Youtube in 2014. It's no surprise that her strategy for Youtube is very much focused on the advertisers' needs and wants.