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

[ItsBecky]

In some ways i do agree with this, as some youtubers make youtube videos purely to be nasty and spread drama about others just to get views, and you shouldnt be paid for practically bullying others they wouldnt allow it at work so why allow it on youtube?
The whole swearing thing is debatable i always try and keep my videos family friendly but i admit in some i do still swear, and cursing has never really bothered me but sometimes i do think surely you can do this video without swearing so much if its just constant. There is a curse word i do actually hate though i can be a real potty mouth but i still hate when people say this one word, and it would put me off if used in a video.

I remember a while ago i made a video with the word b***h in the title, they got rid of my monetisation on that video, so i censored the word and it came back.

I do have a question probably stupid but does it only affect all future uploads or do they look at old ones too? As at the moment all mine it may affect are still monetised

 

[chottom]

I do have a question probably stupid but does it only affect all future uploads or do they look at old ones too? As at the moment all mine it may affect are still monetised

Yes, they look old one too.
It is purely algorithmic (for now) and it is based on title, tags, description.

PS. And it seems that it is not so much about swearing but rather the main topic of your video.

 

[ItsBecky]

A note from a member of youtube staff

Hey guys,



I know there has been some confusion today regarding our long-standing advertiser-friendly content guidelines. So to quickly clarify things: we did not change our policy of demonetizing videos that may not be appropriate for Google’s brand advertisers. Nor have we changed how these policies are enforced.



Our policy of demonetizing videos due to advertiser-friendly concerns is long-standing and not a recent change. However, we recognize that in the past we have not done an effective job of notifying and explaining to creators when this happens.



We recently started rolling out improved notifications in Video Manager to make it clearer to creators when a video is demonetized due to advertiser-friendly content concerns, as well as to make it easy toappeal. This change is just one part of our broader effort to improve our platform and help our creators build strong businesses on YouTube.


Here is the run-down of the specific notification changes we’re rolling out over the next few weeks:

1. We’ll change the $ icon in Video Manager to yellow with the hover message “Not advertiser-friendly. Request manual review” to make it more clear when a video is demonetized.
2. We’ll send you an email notifying you if a video is newly demonetized due to advertiser-friendly content concerns. Note that demonetization decisions may not happen immediately, so a video may be monetized for a period of time after it is uploaded and then become demonetized.
   
3. You can click on the yellow $ icon next to any video that is demonetized due to advertiser-friendly content concerns in Video Manager to request an appeal by human reviewers. You will be notified once a decision is made on the appeal, and if it is successful, your video will immediately be monetized again and have a green $ icon in Video Manager.

Guess will just have to wait and see if any of my videos are affected

 

[XXLRay]

Its's not YouTube not wanting to pay but the advertisers. They simply don't want to have the image of their brand related to something negative. Promoting e.g. Valentines Day gifts on a video that is about torture may not really work out - right? I find it understandable as it's burnt money for them.
Advertisers already can choose to only display ads on certain keywords anyway. So the difference in earnings may actually be not that big. It's furthermore not an issue for creators who bring up a controversial topic only once in a while. Just re-organize your content so that you probably put all controversial stuff in a separate video such that all others remain monetized.
I see a problem for channels that are solely based on negativity though. Nevertheless they can still go out to search their own sponsors. This is how e.g. I Like To Make Stuff makes a living. Of course they will then realize how hard it is to actually find somebody who is willing to pay for their negative content. They can still earn money by selling merchandise or having their Patreons support them.
The thing is that YouTube needs to concentrate on content that brings in the money to run the platform. Otherwise advertisers will turn away from it and the platform needs to shut down. There's no free lunch!

whenever I upload a video to Facebook, I get about 10X the views, because it's more easily shared

Nope - the view numbers are higher because they are counted differently. Facebook even counts scrolling over your video with autoplay a view.

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

In principle yes. Less places for ads mean that the bid for each place needs to be higher to get it. There is a cut where all ad budgets are spent though.

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

While having AdWords add a 18+ option may be a good idea in principle the market is still so small compared to the big players that it will hardly be a compensation for effected videos.

This will cause people to bail from YouTube. As soon as another company comes with less strict guidelines, Youtubers big and small will move over there.

Likely only people that make advertiser unfriendly content will move over. It's hard to believe how such a platform could ever survive. These people won't bring a lot of money in but hosting videos is expensive. There is a reason why there is no similar Vimeo drama - they actually charge you money.

The content is not marked unmonetized for just being controversial, it's marked for simply engaging in discussion about any controversial subject.

Does this make me a "bad" channel if I simply talk about a subject that has mixed opinions?

It just means advertisers don't want to pay money to get in some way related to a negative image. Nothing more but also nothing less.

 

[Crown]

It just means advertisers don't want to pay money to get in some way related to a negative image. Nothing more but also nothing less.

+1

It's exactly the same as companies who sponsor athletes. If the athlete says or does something that the sponsor doesn't like (and therefore breaks their contract), then the sponsor has the right to stop paying the athlete money. The athlete isn't being censored - but the sponsor no longer wants his products and services to be associated with the person. It sounds like a fair deal to me.

 

[KidsCorner]

+1

It's exactly the same as companies who sponsor athletes. If the athlete says or does something that the sponsor doesn't like (and therefore breaks their contract), then the sponsor has the right to stop paying the athlete money. The athlete isn't being censored - but the sponsor no longer wants his products and services to be associated with the person. It sounds like a fair deal to me.

I love the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds you", fits perfectly here as well.

 

[Uncle Eggnog]

This winds me up so much i actually did a video

 

[HyDraid]

Hmmm, Interesting

 

[TaxOwlbear]

Not sure what privately owned businesses have to do with it.

As a private entity, Google can sue it's freedom of expression to restrict what it tolerates on its website. A publicly owned entity can't do that up to that degree.

 

[PictureFIT]

+1

It's exactly the same as companies who sponsor athletes. If the athlete says or does something that the sponsor doesn't like (and therefore breaks their contract), then the sponsor has the right to stop paying the athlete money. The athlete isn't being censored - but the sponsor no longer wants his products and services to be associated with the person. It sounds like a fair deal to me.

It's the ambiguity of their reason to de-monetize that's troubling at hand. What are the grounds to separate content such as PewDiePie's from getting hit with de-monetization from a channel that is much smaller? If they're going to have guidelines, then stop playing favorites and hit everyone equally. Sure, they have their rights to do as they please, private company or not, but it's the content that drives in the money. The point is that they're applying favoritism for their own benefit instead of trying to show some sort of "moral" stance.

I love the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds you", fits perfectly here as well.

Thing is, who's feeding who? Content drives the advertisement. Sure, YouTube provides the platform, but they won't be making anything if it wasn't for people watching the channels in which they are giving a platform to. IMO, it's not a "bite the hand that feeds you" scenario. It's a partnership.

As a private entity, Google can sue it's freedom of expression to restrict what it tolerates on its website. A publicly owned entity can't do that up to that degree.

I get what you're saying. Regardless, private or not, if you're trying to shut people out from saying or doing something that is within the grounds of freedom of speech, it's considered censorship, legally or not. Just like a mother telling their son to cuss. Not a big a deal, but falls within the definition of censorship. In this case, though, YouTube isn't necessarily "censoring" anyone, but they sure are demotivating people from acting a certain way by taking away the money.