As an ex- youtube project - google employee - I can say with 100% confidence, that they do not care about absolutely anything, when we worked there, our opinions were heard, but completely ignored, management does whatever they want while giving you the "chance to speak" but only for you not to feel ignored, in reality, no one cares. Also, their platform for content creator support is one of the worst systems/things you could ever possibly work with (I wonder why ;)
I actually specifically avoid the shorts feed. It keeps feeding me trash that I am not interested in. I see one video in the shorts shelf on the home page that I am interested in (usually the very first one) I click on it and watch it and then back out and go and watch some longer form content. Though I am using Premium so I am out of this discussion anyway.
When I tried the shorts feed, it would always show the same shorts interspersed with gameplay of people screaming in foreign languages. It's poorly implemented in the main app. No timeline scrubbing/skipping, swiping up doesn't take me to the description and comments like I'm used to, the shorts have no relevance to what i normally watch, and playing shorts from a channel's page plays a random short next instead of the previous/next short that channel uploaded.
@@GreenPlasma I actually like that the algorithm seems to be separate because i get such horrible trash on shorts that i dont want recomended on my normal feed lol
Since the first ad-pocalypse, it always floored me how google had all the power to protect it's content creators, and they keep throwing them away. This just feels like another thing where they're gonna keep squeezing.
Why would they protect the content creators though, they are a company that only wants more profits? The only thing they have to keep in mind is not becoming bad enough that people leave in droves for something else and even then they can buy out pretty much any potential competition before they get to that point. So as long as they remain the market dominator they don't care.
There are many creators and many more will come if there's room, while UA-cam has Adsense and who's going to compete with that? Any competitor either has to ask for subscription money or work with Google for ads.
@@J_Stockhausen They actually do! It's just the matter of which industry you are in, if ur in Hollywood for example Lizzo and sixty nine are the exact beneficiaries for the target demographic/profiteers for them, so therefore Hollywood and the "corresponding" artists are in a relation profitting each other. The ONLY occasion when the artist wouldn't be benefitting from Hollywood would be due to their differing music style from the market. Look up Jacob Collier, for example, and why he is not topping the charts already.
I know why: used to be an app developer. The first ad a user watches is worth the most in adsense and costs the most for the advertiser. And it almost halves beginning the 2nd ad
I agree that the first ad that plays when I click on a short should NOT go into the pool. Because it should all be going to the content creator that made me click in the first place. Not that ads play for me, but you know, the point still stands.
Keep in mind their competition is TikTok paying pennies. Paying creators any more than that is still "better" and that's what google wants, the bare minimum to see if it'll be enough first.
ChatGPT summary of the transcript: "UA-cam has changed its revenue sharing policy for shorts by pooling the revenue from ads that appear in the shorts feed and splitting it into two pools - one for fees and music licensing and the other for creators. This change was made to make shorts more profitable and to compete with TikTok. However, there are important caveats to this revenue sharing policy. For example, only the revenue from the ads in the shorts feed will be counted and not views from outside the shorts feed. Additionally, UA-cam takes 55% of the remaining ad revenue after the music industry takes its share, and the rest is split among eligible creators based on views. There are concerns about the policy, as some creators feel that UA-cam is not being transparent about revenue sharing and some ads are not being counted towards the pool." How did it do?
If they don't want to pay they should not show the ads. If someone clicks on a video thumbnail and a pre roll ad is played that should be more than enough to pay the creator for the pre roll ad no matter if the video is short or long.
Idk about the rest of it, but the shorts clicked on from the creators page not being associated with the shorts pool makes sense because the normal adshare rules apply to it when ads play before it when clicked that way.
Some, or much, of this may be poorly worded. On the mobile app, YT keeps screwing around with stuff so you sometimes end up watching a short even if you didn't intend to. Sometimes, the hamburger menu button has a tiny touch target and you end up playing a video accidentally. While scrolling, I've also seen videos with a title box, but there's nowhere for a thumbnail to be. Sometimes it ends up being a short. A really annoying one is they made every video that wasn't widescreen, which includes shorts, 4:3 videos, and songs where the video is an image of the album cover as the background, take up the width of the screen in portrait mode in the video feed. Not just while you're playing the video. They frequently like to leave shorts in the regular video feed, as opposed to the horizontal list of shorts that normally appears. They made stories disrupt the user experince by forcing you to watch one posted by the channel when you tap their pfp, instead of going to the actual channel. On top of that, they don't even appear in your watch history or anywhere else on the poster's channel.
The great thing about UA-cam shorts is they're actually videos. You can replace the url with s regular video URL, as per usual the bit at the end has to be whatever is the bit at the end of the shorts url and you get the short as a video. There's even a chrome extension to do this automatically it's great
It comes back to companies just don't care about people. Remember the Instagram boss that said they aren't changing the feed settings because it's good for growth? Then that person's reply went viral saying "what if we don't care about your growth". Companies forget that sometimes change doesn't need to happen. But that doesn't make money.
I liked making shorts before they changed it, honestly brought a lot of traffic to my channel. But now I pretty much avoid making any shorts because the feed seems so over saturated now and it’s painful to see!
I know exactly what you mean. Ive seen channels with over 1 mil views on a shirt and not even 5k subs unless you're one of the giants like nick digiovani, Lisa Nguyen, etc. Then shorts views≠consistent subs
I have never used the Shorts Feed. I go to shorts directly from either the front page or a creators page. Because I know I like their content and I want to see this thing. It was by pure accident that I even knew that the thing even was a 'feed' by scrolling when going to close a window. And the video underneath was completely wrong for my interests. Why would I scroll through random videos instead of choosing what I want to watch?
It gets better with time, the more you scroll the more videos you like will be shown, I guess because of a mixture of retention rate, likes and comments from you
Google seem to be taking a leaf from the insurance companies. They talk about how they will pay everything, but then fill the agreement with fine print that basically lets them get away with paying nothing to anyone.
my experience of shorts is that its a doubled edged unsorted mess where it'll throw sharp edges from multiple political spectrums right next to "Cute videos" and some proper edutainment. UA-cam as a whole has been getting... increasingly bad at just giving anything consistently wholesome and non-toxic to me it seems and shorts are just a microcosm of that problem.
Yeah totally. I discovered the existance of Andrew Tate in UA-cam Shorts. It took months, and hundreds of dislikes from me on Tate videos before they stopped appearing on my feed. I don't know if the disappearance was personalised, or if UA-cam deleted or hid the content, but nevertheless it shouldn't have taken that long. And with all the data Google and UA-cam has on me, their algorithm should be able to figure out that I won't like that shit, even without the manual disliking of them.
I think the reason they're fighting over scraps is they've finally realized the platform is unsustainable and they're trying to stop it from sinking. Profit is basically logarithmic while costs are linear. Long ago, they passed the crossover, and only now have they realized there is one.
Essentially, this means that creators will get less than 1/4 of the add revenue if they use anything copyrighted, even though the short isn't long enough for the song used to even matter than much half the time. Huh... good luck with that...
But if it goes viral because, between other things, of the music and makes 10x more money. Though, it's impressive you have to get 4x more views to earn the same of short without music.
there are more than a few songs i can name within the first 2 seconds off the top of my head, and there a plenty of people like me, that means a lot with copyrights. sorry but it would actually matter, though i wont say they have the right solution.
@@TheFreeBro A copyright lawyer can't give you a confident answer either unless there's been clear case law for exactly this sort of thing, but you could certainly argue it's fair use. In which case they aren't entitled to any compensation. (It also depends on country, etc.)
Another stupid thing with shorts is that if you're connected through Comcast and you want to watch a short on your phone or on the TV, you have to disconnect from Chromecast and kill your queue
Yeah I'm with Luke. This smells 100% like "we need to make 6% more in revenue for next quater" and then 200 people are scrounging for scraps and this one of of those. As in "what if we'll just stop paying every first ad that the users see while taking a bathroom break and watching 10 minutes of content. That's like... 30% of their ad viewtime right there. I've done my part now, so I've definitely earned my 20K quaterly bonus."
UA-cam doesn’t want the first ad to count since they keep forcing the app to open on the shorts page and then people change back to their regular “home” screen
Although I agree with Linus in that clarifying something like that seems like splitting hairs, with how much UA-cam has been pushing Shorts recently it wouldn't be unheard of for them to make the Shorts tab open automatically when you first open the app. That is the one reason I could see this "first ad" policy being implemented.
Never base your business model solely in the hands of another business. Any gig work like UA-cam, Uber, Amazon etc are all subjected to change and the business model you built on THEIR platform could be destroyed in a second.
lmao the engineering team probably did something goofy They probably engineered it so it loads the shorts queue after you click on the shorts tab, but if there's an ad it defers loading the queue until after the ad has loaded. The ad is probably in charge of checking/reporting the videos before and after it and when it tries to access the queue, it errors out because there isn't a queue when the ad loads or potentially it was getting a stale queue and it was accidentally attributing the wrong videos. It probably cost to much for them to fix the bug, so they just decided that they wouldn't deal with it. It could also be that ads aren't supposed to play before the first short, but it happens sometimes and they haven't figured out a way to reproduce it in such a way that they can remove the bug. They can probably see when it happens because it leaves a trace in the logs/data, but they haven't been able to intentionally cause it to happen.
Shorts Feed has some Shorts that are labeled ads, and you can click on them. So I guess, if you click on them, you want to see them. Also, small, screen, button to add short, short add and another short. So in reality sometimes you have 1 short and 1 add, and the add is easier to click. And that is on my screen, I think that the small phones get like the add and half a short at most. So yeah, that is the youtube add, and technically you clicked on it, but again, if you made a section about adds we will ignore it, we do not go to shorts to see ads :D. We see ads to be able to watch shorts
UA-cam has done some dumb things recently especially in the gun community. Videos that were fine are getting deleted so creators are losing there catalog. You can’t insert a magazine on video etc bunch of dumb rules. I would pay for Floatplane if some of my favorite gun UA-camrs came over.
Well I can see YT's point in the first ad being on them, the only reason I would see an ad from the shorts tab because I missclick, then click on the start pages before anything loads, only for the audio of the first short to start playing in the background.
About 0.045 RPM on one of my older shorts over a three day period. Much lower then on regular videos and you're still reliant on the algorithm to be in the shorts feeds.
I'm convinced, at this point, that the size of a corporation, and the brain cells shared between those at the wheel, are inverse exponentially correlated. And you know what the funny thing is? There's precedent to actually make a research paper on that hypothesis. _In that there aren't enough exceptions to that rule to counter the hypothesis._
we've come to the point where your job gets taken by automation and even that is automated to the point that you get fired by email. this is why i'm guessing the HR department will get automated next.
They thrive because there's little to NO real option out there. YT/Google gets away with their BS b/c they KNOW there's little to no recourse- where can creators go?! What alternative do you have?! We NEED another option- something other than JUST UA-cam- something that actually matters.
3:43 I asked mom for a candy bar on the way to the grocery store. She said no, so now I will throw my tantrum in the store in front of everyone. And from now on I will only throw my tantrums in public.
The way Google works so hard to milk every penny out of it’s creators, it almost feels like they’re at the verge of going under. And I know exactly why. They overpay all of their engineers to do as little as possible. I have a friend who’s a software engineer at Google, they just eat, nap and eat some more (food is free). And gets paid $200k, starting. The reason they need to milk every penny is to afford staying afloat after being irresponsible with their spending.
I’ll accept that some of their workers may be skating and management isn’t holding them accountable, but they can’t be who they are now if that’s the norm.
as someone who was gifted a subscription to youtube premium i now have learned how youtube premium works for regular videos but i wonder how my youtube shorts viewing with a premium account works. i am trying to limit my shorts watching anyways though but i still want to make sure everyone is getting paid properly
Thank you internet lads for Adblocker code to block shorts and "Trending" off of my YT entirely LOL Shorts just spammed my Subs list until i had enough....Spotify is the same.... "HERES ONLY PODCASTS ON YOUR HOME SCREEN HAHAHAHAHAHAHA"..... But i just want music? "Please write a request on our forum......" .... Oh look years of requests to change this aspect lol
“You rent our building for your store, so people stepping through the door means your first sale from each customer goes directly to us.” - Google Landlord
"Dont Be Evil" ...That aged well... As for the the 'Why' - I strongly suspect that it comes down to a mix between hollowing everything out to: a - Serve the purely financial needs of shareholders, and b - Serve to justify padding the bonuses of financially-motivated executives. I'd like to hear a rational alternative explanation.
It(the pre-short ad BS) getting slid in, relies on our propensity to allocate to identity. It's logically easier to hear 'can't tell who it goes to' and assume allocation is infeasible. Compared to the one-layer of obfuscation of an institution is collecting it, not an identity. It's harder to explain, and less accessible of an assumption, and you can guarantee it was presented with that intention.
Why don't they get the full revenue of shorts, take the copyright cut, take their cut, and divide the rest by the creator's percentage of the total shorts views?
When you think about it, the insane thing, is that taking out the first pre-shorts ad roll from the pool could remove up to 50% of ad revenue from the pool….
UA-cam doesn't make money when you don't see an advertisement so why should you? People might get around the system by posting a link to their short on other social media and get direct views and potentially a larger piece of the pool. They would need to show an advertisement every time someone views the short via direct link not just in between scrolls.
One thing that seems to be a big problem is that companies like UA-cam (and their shareholders) have a growth mentality, where if they aren't growing they're not succeeding. This appears to be common in the U.S.A. and honestly seems to just be an inherent flaw in free market capitalism. Growth at the cost of everything.
I suspect carving that first ad out is because it's almost a garunteed piece of revenue for 50% of clicks on the shorts feed. Where as ads on the shorts feed are going to be space more irregular a potentially not have as many impressions in general unless a user is doom scrolling so that first ad probably would contribute more to the Poole than the other ads that play maybe every 10 shorts let's say. If UA-cam ups the amount of ads to every two videos for example drop offs and initial clicks are probably going to fall off. So they can garuntee themselves a consistent cut and then keep retention on watches while watering down the pool itself That's my thoughts on why it's like that. It makes sense to me but I could be wrong 🤣
the problem is that the floor is too low (tiktok doesnt share in any significant way with creators and is the hugest by a lot for shortform) so that's what's going on here. plain and simple. the other stuff (eg vis a vis layoffs) at yt or google, it's difficult to say whether it's related or not.
the depressing fact. I don't click on the shorts feed. I CHOOSE what Short i want to watch. so does that mean my premium paid account wont go to those creators?
tbh youtube taking ad revenue from the first time someone specifically taps the shorts tab sounds like the smallest issue out what was mentioned...a much much bigger issue is the not paying up when shorts are viewed from the creator's channel
Actually if a short is selected from someones channel their ad revenue for those interactions are just not split with the pool, they make more ad profits. I thought the same thing when I first heard that though
The only time I see the shorts whatever is when I missclick subscriptions link. To me shorts and tiktaks have the same problem of causing my brain to leak out of my ears, I'd like to keep what little I have left please.
I say this with no inside knowledge or extra understanding other than what you said in this video, but the way you said the statement to me is what it sounded like means this. When you click on the first video it uses that video to then build the list of videos that become the cue. Cue. They're not including the first video in the list because the way they wrote the code is to average out the cost over the generated playlist and I think the argument is they don't want to go back and try and find a way to include that first video in the generated playlist cuz they don't store them together. Not that the output is any different or that changes anything for the creators, but at least it would be a logical argument.
Although the revenue is going to be small for UA-cam, my guess is UA-cam is trying to increase its profits. Even if this added 1% to UA-cam's revenue, that's a lot of money to leave behind. It's like free features being put behind the paywall.
I don't see why they are shifting to a "pool" of money. Could they not split the money with percentages while using a traditional ad model like on UA-cam proper?
I really don't buy that the algorithm king can't figure out how to spread out the money. They're only using the crappy pool model because TikTok got away with it
I've been thinking lately the mic audio quality on WAN show is terrible compared to everything else..I get post, but I don't think that's it here, sounds like I'm listening on the radio or the phone. Maybe intentional, but bad)
Also, closing the shorts shelf and seeing the "ok, we'll show you back the shelf in 30 days" is SOOO passive aggresive it pisses me off so hard, I'll never watch a short.
Shorts are awful for users anyway. I'm glad that I can use AdBlock programs to hide them. I just wish that you tube would let me adjust my settings so I'd never see one again or be suggested one again.
Well this won't mater that much since 99% of content creators don't have enough views to see any revenue from Shorts anyway... But I'll keep reposting my Instagram reels as shorts to see what it does.
I pretty much ignore shorts. I am better than shorts, or shorts creators even. I never want to be the person who cannot remain focused on something more than 1 minute in duration.
youtube doesn't care about creators. To even monetize shorts you must get the same 1k subscribers and 10m views over 3 months which is not possible for small creators. Before they claimed that shorts funds would be distributed to creators with 1k+ views a month as long as the video is original but now shorts funds has the same requirements as UA-cam partnership program.
As an ex- youtube project - google employee - I can say with 100% confidence, that they do not care about absolutely anything, when we worked there, our opinions were heard, but completely ignored, management does whatever they want while giving you the "chance to speak" but only for you not to feel ignored, in reality, no one cares.
Also, their platform for content creator support is one of the worst systems/things you could ever possibly work with (I wonder why ;)
If only oh if only there was some good platform for creators these days oh man if only i wish in my dreams
Question, what percentage of middle managers are Indian/Asian
@@pacmanrespector9552 I would say it's 50% India, 25% Asia, 25% UK/IE/US, but this was in 2019/2020, might have changed*
I LOVE the fact that my daily reminders of your former employers being a bunch of piss-drinking chimps is now DOUBLE-CONFIRMED.
Was there ever any internal discussion/bets on how long until a youtube replacement contender appears?
How does youtube premium work for shorts
I don't get ads so I guess it does
@@bourne_ that's not what they asked
I'd home the same as for videos but hell knows what UA-cam did
Very well, thank you 🙈
@@SunbleachedAngel the question wasn''t detailed but I see what you mean
I actually specifically avoid the shorts feed. It keeps feeding me trash that I am not interested in. I see one video in the shorts shelf on the home page that I am interested in (usually the very first one) I click on it and watch it and then back out and go and watch some longer form content.
Though I am using Premium so I am out of this discussion anyway.
I mute it for 30 days every time it pops up.
Ditto.
When I tried the shorts feed, it would always show the same shorts interspersed with gameplay of people screaming in foreign languages.
It's poorly implemented in the main app. No timeline scrubbing/skipping, swiping up doesn't take me to the description and comments like I'm used to, the shorts have no relevance to what i normally watch, and playing shorts from a channel's page plays a random short next instead of the previous/next short that channel uploaded.
Same. Only watch the ones that are actually interesting with actual effort like indie animations.
@@GreenPlasma I actually like that the algorithm seems to be separate because i get such horrible trash on shorts that i dont want recomended on my normal feed lol
Since the first ad-pocalypse, it always floored me how google had all the power to protect it's content creators, and they keep throwing them away. This just feels like another thing where they're gonna keep squeezing.
Why would they protect the content creators though, they are a company that only wants more profits? The only thing they have to keep in mind is not becoming bad enough that people leave in droves for something else and even then they can buy out pretty much any potential competition before they get to that point. So as long as they remain the market dominator they don't care.
There are many creators and many more will come if there's room, while UA-cam has Adsense and who's going to compete with that? Any competitor either has to ask for subscription money or work with Google for ads.
Protecting creators is not conducive to their profit margins.
The music industry thinks way too highly of itself.
They talk about musicians as If the industry benefits them lol
@@J_Stockhausen They actually do! It's just the matter of which industry you are in, if ur in Hollywood for example Lizzo and sixty nine are the exact beneficiaries for the target demographic/profiteers for them, so therefore Hollywood and the "corresponding" artists are in a relation profitting each other. The ONLY occasion when the artist wouldn't be benefitting from Hollywood would be due to their differing music style from the market. Look up Jacob Collier, for example, and why he is not topping the charts already.
I know why: used to be an app developer. The first ad a user watches is worth the most in adsense and costs the most for the advertiser. And it almost halves beginning the 2nd ad
7:46 They removed their "Don't be Evil" slogan way back, and I still find it funny that people still defend them.
Did they not just remove the first word?
I agree that the first ad that plays when I click on a short should NOT go into the pool.
Because it should all be going to the content creator that made me click in the first place.
Not that ads play for me, but you know, the point still stands.
Keep in mind their competition is TikTok paying pennies. Paying creators any more than that is still "better" and that's what google wants, the bare minimum to see if it'll be enough first.
UA-cam has failed so horribly at fair use and other stuff i just hate how good it COULD be
ChatGPT summary of the transcript:
"UA-cam has changed its revenue sharing policy for shorts by pooling the revenue from ads that appear in the shorts feed and splitting it into two pools - one for fees and music licensing and the other for creators. This change was made to make shorts more profitable and to compete with TikTok. However, there are important caveats to this revenue sharing policy. For example, only the revenue from the ads in the shorts feed will be counted and not views from outside the shorts feed. Additionally, UA-cam takes 55% of the remaining ad revenue after the music industry takes its share, and the rest is split among eligible creators based on views. There are concerns about the policy, as some creators feel that UA-cam is not being transparent about revenue sharing and some ads are not being counted towards the pool."
How did it do?
Wait, we got ads on UA-cam? I haven't noticed.
If they don't want to pay they should not show the ads. If someone clicks on a video thumbnail and a pre roll ad is played that should be more than enough to pay the creator for the pre roll ad no matter if the video is short or long.
Idk about the rest of it, but the shorts clicked on from the creators page not being associated with the shorts pool makes sense because the normal adshare rules apply to it when ads play before it when clicked that way.
Some, or much, of this may be poorly worded.
On the mobile app, YT keeps screwing around with stuff so you sometimes end up watching a short even if you didn't intend to.
Sometimes, the hamburger menu button has a tiny touch target and you end up playing a video accidentally.
While scrolling, I've also seen videos with a title box, but there's nowhere for a thumbnail to be. Sometimes it ends up being a short.
A really annoying one is they made every video that wasn't widescreen, which includes shorts, 4:3 videos, and songs where the video is an image of the album cover as the background, take up the width of the screen in portrait mode in the video feed. Not just while you're playing the video.
They frequently like to leave shorts in the regular video feed, as opposed to the horizontal list of shorts that normally appears.
They made stories disrupt the user experince by forcing you to watch one posted by the channel when you tap their pfp, instead of going to the actual channel. On top of that, they don't even appear in your watch history or anywhere else on the poster's channel.
The great thing about UA-cam shorts is they're actually videos. You can replace the url with s regular video URL, as per usual the bit at the end has to be whatever is the bit at the end of the shorts url and you get the short as a video. There's even a chrome extension to do this automatically it's great
Just discovered that too! I found a Userscript I can use on mobile Safari
It comes back to companies just don't care about people. Remember the Instagram boss that said they aren't changing the feed settings because it's good for growth? Then that person's reply went viral saying "what if we don't care about your growth". Companies forget that sometimes change doesn't need to happen. But that doesn't make money.
Thank you so much for these clips! I can finally watch the podcasts in a reasonable time span not 2 hours in a row.🎉
I liked making shorts before they changed it, honestly brought a lot of traffic to my channel. But now I pretty much avoid making any shorts because the feed seems so over saturated now and it’s painful to see!
I know exactly what you mean. Ive seen channels with over 1 mil views on a shirt and not even 5k subs unless you're one of the giants like nick digiovani, Lisa Nguyen, etc. Then shorts views≠consistent subs
I have never, at any point, gone to UA-cam's Shorts page. What few shorts I click show up on the main page.
I have never used the Shorts Feed. I go to shorts directly from either the front page or a creators page. Because I know I like their content and I want to see this thing. It was by pure accident that I even knew that the thing even was a 'feed' by scrolling when going to close a window. And the video underneath was completely wrong for my interests. Why would I scroll through random videos instead of choosing what I want to watch?
It gets better with time, the more you scroll the more videos you like will be shown, I guess because of a mixture of retention rate, likes and comments from you
Google seem to be taking a leaf from the insurance companies.
They talk about how they will pay everything, but then fill the agreement with fine print that basically lets them get away with paying nothing to anyone.
my experience of shorts is that its a doubled edged unsorted mess where it'll throw sharp edges from multiple political spectrums right next to "Cute videos" and some proper edutainment. UA-cam as a whole has been getting... increasingly bad at just giving anything consistently wholesome and non-toxic to me it seems and shorts are just a microcosm of that problem.
Yeah totally. I discovered the existance of Andrew Tate in UA-cam Shorts. It took months, and hundreds of dislikes from me on Tate videos before they stopped appearing on my feed. I don't know if the disappearance was personalised, or if UA-cam deleted or hid the content, but nevertheless it shouldn't have taken that long. And with all the data Google and UA-cam has on me, their algorithm should be able to figure out that I won't like that shit, even without the manual disliking of them.
To me, it's sounding like Google think we enjoy advertisments, rather than endure them.
I think the reason they're fighting over scraps is they've finally realized the platform is unsustainable and they're trying to stop it from sinking. Profit is basically logarithmic while costs are linear. Long ago, they passed the crossover, and only now have they realized there is one.
Good news is, with how shorts work, it’s nearly impossible for an ad to play before a short
Essentially, this means that creators will get less than 1/4 of the add revenue if they use anything copyrighted, even though the short isn't long enough for the song used to even matter than much half the time. Huh... good luck with that...
But if it goes viral because, between other things, of the music and makes 10x more money.
Though, it's impressive you have to get 4x more views to earn the same of short without music.
“Isn’t long enough for the song used to even matter”. I’m guessing you’re not a copyright lawyer. Avoid spreading misinformation
there are more than a few songs i can name within the first 2 seconds off the top of my head, and there a plenty of people like me, that means a lot with copyrights. sorry but it would actually matter, though i wont say they have the right solution.
thats not how copyright law works
@@TheFreeBro A copyright lawyer can't give you a confident answer either unless there's been clear case law for exactly this sort of thing, but you could certainly argue it's fair use. In which case they aren't entitled to any compensation. (It also depends on country, etc.)
Another stupid thing with shorts is that if you're connected through Comcast and you want to watch a short on your phone or on the TV, you have to disconnect from Chromecast and kill your queue
Yeah I'm with Luke. This smells 100% like "we need to make 6% more in revenue for next quater" and then 200 people are scrounging for scraps and this one of of those. As in "what if we'll just stop paying every first ad that the users see while taking a bathroom break and watching 10 minutes of content. That's like... 30% of their ad viewtime right there. I've done my part now, so I've definitely earned my 20K quaterly bonus."
Modern Capitalism; Why have some of the money when you can have all the money?
So, realistically UA-cam get ~80% Creators get 10% and Disney get 10%?
UA-cam doesn’t want the first ad to count since they keep forcing the app to open on the shorts page and then people change back to their regular “home” screen
Although I agree with Linus in that clarifying something like that seems like splitting hairs, with how much UA-cam has been pushing Shorts recently it wouldn't be unheard of for them to make the Shorts tab open automatically when you first open the app. That is the one reason I could see this "first ad" policy being implemented.
From now on I am playing every short as a video. You can change the URL to v instead of shorts and get the full UI. F U UA-cam
Changes users too. On desktop I installed an extension to remove all shorts from my subscriptions page/youtube. Better filtering would be nice.
Never base your business model solely in the hands of another business. Any gig work like UA-cam, Uber, Amazon etc are all subjected to change and the business model you built on THEIR platform could be destroyed in a second.
This assumes people have a choice.
That's why you diversify between platforms. Almost every tiktok star has an instagram, potentially youtube, etc.
@@eainen LOLOL you're saying people are forced to be UA-cam creators? 🤡🤡🤡
@@xxstealerxx ..and when all the platforms kill your revenue?
Good idea, but not even possible for _many_ *traditional* industries.
UA-cam shorts revenue sucks , to be honest. And, I suspect it canibalizes ad revenue for long for content.
Google also announced the layoff right before Lunar New Year. Imagine the amount of enemies in Asia generated by doing it on that day.
lmao the engineering team probably did something goofy
They probably engineered it so it loads the shorts queue after you click on the shorts tab, but if there's an ad it defers loading the queue until after the ad has loaded. The ad is probably in charge of checking/reporting the videos before and after it and when it tries to access the queue, it errors out because there isn't a queue when the ad loads or potentially it was getting a stale queue and it was accidentally attributing the wrong videos.
It probably cost to much for them to fix the bug, so they just decided that they wouldn't deal with it. It could also be that ads aren't supposed to play before the first short, but it happens sometimes and they haven't figured out a way to reproduce it in such a way that they can remove the bug. They can probably see when it happens because it leaves a trace in the logs/data, but they haven't been able to intentionally cause it to happen.
Shorts Feed has some Shorts that are labeled ads, and you can click on them. So I guess, if you click on them, you want to see them. Also, small, screen, button to add short, short add and another short. So in reality sometimes you have 1 short and 1 add, and the add is easier to click. And that is on my screen, I think that the small phones get like the add and half a short at most. So yeah, that is the youtube add, and technically you clicked on it, but again, if you made a section about adds we will ignore it, we do not go to shorts to see ads :D. We see ads to be able to watch shorts
And the shorts algorithm is sooo badd. It keeps putting the same shorts in there I already watched, and none from creators I actually follow.
UA-cam has done some dumb things recently especially in the gun community. Videos that were fine are getting deleted so creators are losing there catalog. You can’t insert a magazine on video etc bunch of dumb rules. I would pay for Floatplane if some of my favorite gun UA-camrs came over.
Well I can see YT's point in the first ad being on them, the only reason I would see an ad from the shorts tab because I missclick, then click on the start pages before anything loads, only for the audio of the first short to start playing in the background.
Know what I want more than revenue?
The option to not have ads.
Pay premium
@@kendarr I meant as a creator. Smaller creators, like myself, cannot choose which of our videos to prevent ads from being shown on.
@@CoolJosh3k Ah right, never thought of that.
@@kendarr Would rather use adblockers than paying the hijackers.
there are ads on shorts? dam I feel kinda bad for advertisement consumers
I don't watch Shorts in the shorts feed .... I like to choose what I watch . sometimes I watch a short , based on the creator, title, and, picture
I specifically hide the shorts shelf. It's all garbage and I always spend more time than intended there. I'm glad I have the option to hide it.
Its interesting how relatively mild topic (people scroll like 200 shorts, what does 0.5% do?) became such a heated discussion
About 0.045 RPM on one of my older shorts over a three day period. Much lower then on regular videos and you're still reliant on the algorithm to be in the shorts feeds.
I'm convinced, at this point, that the size of a corporation, and the brain cells shared between those at the wheel, are inverse exponentially correlated.
And you know what the funny thing is?
There's precedent to actually make a research paper on that hypothesis. _In that there aren't enough exceptions to that rule to counter the hypothesis._
we've come to the point where your job gets taken by automation and even that is automated to the point that you get fired by email. this is why i'm guessing the HR department will get automated next.
the problem is everyone is greedy af. from the creators to the license holders.
In 2001, the first rule in the Google employee handbook was "Don't be evil!" That was removed one month after Sundar Pichai became CEO.
They thrive because there's little to NO real option out there. YT/Google gets away with their BS b/c they KNOW there's little to no recourse- where can creators go?! What alternative do you have?! We NEED another option- something other than JUST UA-cam- something that actually matters.
Maybe next time they reach out you can ask why a play next option isn’t available on iOS
I mean, it makes sense for them to keep the money of the first ad, but why make the pool then?
Also what if you click on a short from the normal feed. Where you can see the shorts you are selecting and then you scroll ?
3:43 I asked mom for a candy bar on the way to the grocery store. She said no, so now I will throw my tantrum in the store in front of everyone. And from now on I will only throw my tantrums in public.
And here I am still trying to figure out why anyone would want to watch Shorts (or TikTok) in the first place.
I am super happy that there are people like you that can somehow influence UA-cam. Hopefully that continues forwards
They can slightly annoy them
The way Google works so hard to milk every penny out of it’s creators, it almost feels like they’re at the verge of going under. And I know exactly why. They overpay all of their engineers to do as little as possible. I have a friend who’s a software engineer at Google, they just eat, nap and eat some more (food is free). And gets paid $200k, starting. The reason they need to milk every penny is to afford staying afloat after being irresponsible with their spending.
Your friend is gonna get fired soon.
I don't think engineers eating food is the problem. C-Suite is getting paid 100x more for doing even less than you think the engineers are.
I’ll accept that some of their workers may be skating and management isn’t holding them accountable, but they can’t be who they are now if that’s the norm.
as someone who was gifted a subscription to youtube premium i now have learned how youtube premium works for regular videos but i wonder how my youtube shorts viewing with a premium account works. i am trying to limit my shorts watching anyways though but i still want to make sure everyone is getting paid properly
Well that's quite a bummer 😕, thanks for informing the masses though.
my guess is that then they can charge extra for that first add and get more money for them without having to share revenue.
Thank you internet lads for Adblocker code to block shorts and "Trending" off of my YT entirely LOL Shorts just spammed my Subs list until i had enough....Spotify is the same.... "HERES ONLY PODCASTS ON YOUR HOME SCREEN HAHAHAHAHAHAHA"..... But i just want music? "Please write a request on our forum......" .... Oh look years of requests to change this aspect lol
Google also paid zero tax last year (at least in Australia)
is there any info on how they want to split the premium members money?
“You rent our building for your store, so people stepping through the door means your first sale from each customer goes directly to us.”
- Google Landlord
"Dont Be Evil" ...That aged well...
As for the the 'Why' - I strongly suspect that it comes down to a mix between hollowing everything out to:
a - Serve the purely financial needs of shareholders, and
b - Serve to justify padding the bonuses of financially-motivated executives.
I'd like to hear a rational alternative explanation.
The revenue from shorts is truly miserable for creators like me. Very disappointing.
It(the pre-short ad BS) getting slid in, relies on our propensity to allocate to identity. It's logically easier to hear 'can't tell who it goes to' and assume allocation is infeasible. Compared to the one-layer of obfuscation of an institution is collecting it, not an identity.
It's harder to explain, and less accessible of an assumption, and you can guarantee it was presented with that intention.
Why don't they get the full revenue of shorts, take the copyright cut, take their cut, and divide the rest by the creator's percentage of the total shorts views?
When you think about it, the insane thing, is that taking out the first pre-shorts ad roll from the pool could remove up to 50% of ad revenue from the pool….
so in pathfinder I had every (upto CL 6)creat pit and stuff to get people into pits or stop them from leaving them what would that look like?
Luke browses Blind confirmed (regarding that story of an ex-Google employee fired while abroad, and having his/her friend selling their belongings)
UA-cam doesn't make money when you don't see an advertisement so why should you?
People might get around the system by posting a link to their short on other social media and get direct views and potentially a larger piece of the pool. They would need to show an advertisement every time someone views the short via direct link not just in between scrolls.
One thing that seems to be a big problem is that companies like UA-cam (and their shareholders) have a growth mentality, where if they aren't growing they're not succeeding. This appears to be common in the U.S.A. and honestly seems to just be an inherent flaw in free market capitalism.
Growth at the cost of everything.
I suspect carving that first ad out is because it's almost a garunteed piece of revenue for 50% of clicks on the shorts feed. Where as ads on the shorts feed are going to be space more irregular a potentially not have as many impressions in general unless a user is doom scrolling so that first ad probably would contribute more to the Poole than the other ads that play maybe every 10 shorts let's say.
If UA-cam ups the amount of ads to every two videos for example drop offs and initial clicks are probably going to fall off. So they can garuntee themselves a consistent cut and then keep retention on watches while watering down the pool itself
That's my thoughts on why it's like that. It makes sense to me but I could be wrong 🤣
the problem is that the floor is too low (tiktok doesnt share in any significant way with creators and is the hugest by a lot for shortform) so that's what's going on here. plain and simple. the other stuff (eg vis a vis layoffs) at yt or google, it's difficult to say whether it's related or not.
the depressing fact. I don't click on the shorts feed. I CHOOSE what Short i want to watch. so does that mean my premium paid account wont go to those creators?
I have never used the shorts feed specifically because it's like tiktok
tbh youtube taking ad revenue from the first time someone specifically taps the shorts tab sounds like the smallest issue out what was mentioned...a much much bigger issue is the not paying up when shorts are viewed from the creator's channel
Actually if a short is selected from someones channel their ad revenue for those interactions are just not split with the pool, they make more ad profits. I thought the same thing when I first heard that though
The only time I see the shorts whatever is when I missclick subscriptions link.
To me shorts and tiktaks have the same problem of causing my brain to leak out of my ears, I'd like to keep what little I have left please.
Google essentially looks at Apple and go, 'yeah; we can copy them for being total aholes with people'
I say this with no inside knowledge or extra understanding other than what you said in this video, but the way you said the statement to me is what it sounded like means this. When you click on the first video it uses that video to then build the list of videos that become the cue. Cue. They're not including the first video in the list because the way they wrote the code is to average out the cost over the generated playlist and I think the argument is they don't want to go back and try and find a way to include that first video in the generated playlist cuz they don't store them together. Not that the output is any different or that changes anything for the creators, but at least it would be a logical argument.
Although the revenue is going to be small for UA-cam, my guess is UA-cam is trying to increase its profits. Even if this added 1% to UA-cam's revenue, that's a lot of money to leave behind. It's like free features being put behind the paywall.
the spliffing brit will fix it for us🤣💀
I don't see why they are shifting to a "pool" of money. Could they not split the money with percentages while using a traditional ad model like on UA-cam proper?
I really don't buy that the algorithm king can't figure out how to spread out the money. They're only using the crappy pool model because TikTok got away with it
Content creators need to join together to force platforms to change. Otherwise, companies like Google and Meta have no incentive to improve.
ngl ive never seen an ad in shorts feed ever
I've been thinking lately the mic audio quality on WAN show is terrible compared to everything else..I get post, but I don't think that's it here, sounds like I'm listening on the radio or the phone. Maybe intentional, but bad)
Also, closing the shorts shelf and seeing the "ok, we'll show you back the shelf in 30 days" is SOOO passive aggresive it pisses me off so hard, I'll never watch a short.
Shorts are awful for users anyway. I'm glad that I can use AdBlock programs to hide them. I just wish that you tube would let me adjust my settings so I'd never see one again or be suggested one again.
I'm amazed shorts even exist still, I literally don't even have a tab for them with my modded Revanced APK. Don't miss em at all.
Well this won't mater that much since 99% of content creators don't have enough views to see any revenue from Shorts anyway... But I'll keep reposting my Instagram reels as shorts to see what it does.
I pretty much ignore shorts. I am better than shorts, or shorts creators even. I never want to be the person who cannot remain focused on something more than 1 minute in duration.
why isnt this in 4k?
This is way out of control. 😱
youtube doesn't care about creators. To even monetize shorts you must get the same 1k subscribers and 10m views over 3 months which is not possible for small creators. Before they claimed that shorts funds would be distributed to creators with 1k+ views a month as long as the video is original but now shorts funds has the same requirements as UA-cam partnership program.
For Luke, that's not how work visas work.