I understand others may be in a different situation and I do feel bad for those that make a living on Youtube; however all I ever wanted was our views to come back. I thought in order to preserve ad revenue they would start suggesting kid viewers to content made for adults. This does not appear to be happening.revenue and views are down ;( The only reason views are up is only kid videos are shown to kids and less ads more retention time. Unfortunately animation is expensive about 5k per video
I'd appreciate it if you'd let us know.Ive just marked it "for kids" one of my biggest videos that fell hard after the change... lets see what happens... The thing is: that video used to get thousands of views coming from kid ralated videos and traffic from suggested kid videos... lets wait
I would be careful with sponsorships. Get a lawyer. There is real danger there... not in not marking stuff as "for kids or not for kids" (unless it's obviously nursery rhymes). See post below.Views for us doubled yesterday. I uploaded a new video yesterday and it actually performed like a video before the July changes. I don't care about the ad money. If this continues and gets rid of the people in it just for the money, I will be satisfied. I just want relevance and channel authority back. The lack of ad revenue is an easy fix. There are sponsorship's and other opportunities to make up for lost ad revenue. You may have to wait for the 4th quarter for most of the opportunities, but it is better than nothing.
Cocomelon, Baby Shark, Learn ABC, Nastya Vlog, Ryan Toys Reviews.... those are clearly content for children. The rest... is too much of a risk for the FTC to start dicking around, specially overseas. Their agreement with YT is already dodgy and gives them overreachment. They know content creators cannot comply or violate COPPA, since no data is collected through a YT channel (unless you are solicing that they register somewhere for a giveaway, or something external, which is why I say, careful with "just get sponsorships"). Also, they know that a channel comply with COPPA just as it cannot violate it, since you need to for instance, be able to ask for every single kids' parents under 13 for permission to collect or not data (which again, this data you do not even collect, but they twisted COPPA to apply this in terms of "collecting in behalf-of" to get the overreaching power of be able to fine people individually). So let's say you are for instance DanTDM, PewDiePie, Markiplier, or pretty much any of those youtubers that get millions of kids under 13 watching daily. A requisite to comply with COPPA is that you are able to ask their parents, EVERY SINGLE PARENT, if they want or not the tracking enabled. The fact that youtube channel owners cannot put in practice any of that should be obvious. Only YouTube, the billion-dollar corporation, is able to come up with technological measures to put that in practice, but no, they ignored all of that, and decided to put all onus on users, to remove liability, thus using them as meat shield to protect themselves, telling them to "get a lawyer" and discuss on a per video upload basis, if their content is ok for 12 year old kids but not ok for 13 year old kids or viceversa. This "for kids" thing to be judged by some random FTC boomer.If G rated films aren't targeting kids then I don't know what is. But yeah, if Frozen's target audience is not kids, then their is no such thing as content made for kids.
Also, I found it interesting that YouTube responded back to a question with the answer in the attached screenshot. So as long as part of your target audience includes kids, then your content is made for kids? That makes a whole bunch of channels who probably marked their vids as not for kids who should be then.
No one in real life cares. Only the COPPA advocacy groups which have aspergers and are obsessed with these things. This is shown by the statistics: parents don't give the YT Kids app to their kids, if they cared about any of this, they would. Also, no kid that's 8 or above is ever going to use YT Kids because they aren't retards and notice the lack of content, notifications, comments, and features to be missing. If you show up with that app on class, you get laughed at. I have relatives of that 8-13 age range, it's most of the traffic on YouTube, they already play Fortnite, GTA, COD... so in that age range, these measures change nothing. I wouldn't be worried if your content falls on that age range. Only if I was making Cocomelon, Nursery Rhymes etc, I would worry, and still, it's unlikely. Just look at previous COPPA cases. Like I said, just be careful to not actually collect anyone's data through giveaways, certain sponsorships..., that's what worries me. As an YT channel, we aren't collecting anyone's data, and it will be proven some day in court and both FTC and YT will be proven to be a bunch of crooks with this settlement.Saw a news story this morning about this. In a 30 second span, I think I heard them repeat that catchphrase, "This is to protect kids from danger". But no one ever explained what the DANGER was. Can anyone give me a rational, common-sense explanation as to how seeing a Target Ad, on a kid's video, presents an actual DANGER to a kid? I am not talking about psychological mumbo jumbo here, because we all know that more psychologists kill themselves more often than any other profession.
Like I said above, one of the requeriments to comply with COPPA, is being able to ask parents if they want tracking enabled or not. As an owner of a channel, you lack the technological tools to do so, because you are not an operator of anything, thus COPPA DOES NOT APPLY TO CHANNEL OWNERS, this whole thing is b******t and doesn't hold in court. If you are making serious money, I would advise that you get out of the US and then wait it out until they get told they are wrong. I wouldn't trust a country that has those agencies like the FTC, making crooked agreements with corporations to screw up the common folk.The only real answer to comply with the law is know the age of the viewer, period. If a parent wants to hand their kid their device with their credentials, that's on the parent and not the government.