Among the more infuriating that have been demonetized on our educational channel include "What Does Rx Mean and Where Did it Come From?", "How Does a Heart Attack Work?", and "The Mock Execution of Fyodor Dostoyevsky" which talks about that time when he was a young man he was subjected to such and how it influenced his life- essentially just a mini-bio on one of the great authors in human history... All demonetized and then confirmed by manual review somehow. (I can only assume by individuals at UA-cam who didn't actually bother to watch the videos.) There are a bunch of others, and of course many more where the request for manual review was put in months ago and still pending like "Why Do a Donkey and an Elephant Represent Democrats and Republicans?" or "Why Do Men Have Nipples?" (on the latter super interesting and perfectly family friendly, but at least I can understand why the algorithm dinged it), but those that have been confirmed by manual review that are purely educational and family friendly (which is all we do on our channel) are amazingly infuriating. -Daven
TIFO, I used to love your videos but you have become the opposite of what Hank it taking about. Let's take your recent Pixar video for example, ua-cam.com/video/YOpoRaoG8gs/v-deo.html not including any UA-cam ads, you start off with thanking the sponsor, then half way through, you do an approximately 2 minute ad for your sponsor, then at the end, ask people to support you via Patreon, then show the sponsor again. It is for this reason I have unsubscribed from your channel. If you are doing this because of the demonetization, and other creators start following suit, then YT/Google has a much larger problem on their hands.
+Buddha Dude: We have in-video ads approximately 3-4 videos out of 30/31 videos per month, and only about 6 total out of around 839 videos have mid-content ads (unless you count a one sentence blurb in the intro to be mid-content), with no plans to up that mid-content ratio much. We hate ads as much as the next person (probably more than most, because we have to deal with them on both ends), but they are required to run a channel like ours, even if youtube didn't demonetize anything and ad rates were as good as they've ever been on UA-cam. We have over a dozen people working hard to put these heavily researched videos out every day with the level of accuracy and detail we're known for. We also have loads of improvements we'd like to make on top of that, but there simply isn't money/time for it at present. It's a very unfortunate fact that youtube's built in ads pay only a fraction of the production cost of each of our videos, which are super basic on the video production side because of it (only money really to pay for the research/writing side with the other side needing to go bargain basement at present, even with Patreon and the occasional in-content ads added in.) Not complaining, it's amazing that we all get to do this for a living. Just explaining why we sometimes have in-content ads. We're on the same page as you that they suck and the videos would be better without them, which is also why at the least we only take advertisers we either like/use ourselves (in fact, we approach a lot of the companies we use products from to see if they want to advertise with us, which is where a bunch of our advertisers come from) or think our subscribers would like and are good products. We could do in-content ads for a whole lot more of our videos if we weren't so discerning, which would give us the money to significantly upgrade our video production side, but not really worth the trade-off in our opinion. And for your reference, here's a comprehensive behind the scenes on how we make our videos and all the steps/people/time involved. A lot of people seem to think it's just me and Simon doing this, but there's actually a big team behind the whole thing. If it were just Simon and I, we'd only be able to do a few videos a month, max. :-) ua-cam.com/video/ok-ZX-FQeQA/v-deo.html
+Today I Found Out, don't get me wrong, I am on your side here. In no way am I attacking your channel or being negative towards anyone that is using sponsors. Besides Hank's video here, I have seen a few more on how content creators are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to compensation; I fully blame Google/YT for the current situation. I have made a few videos myself and I will admit I am the worst presenter ever, but being in IT and having Aspergers, well... that about as lively and animated as I will ever be. Point being, in the beginning, I was making a few pennies here and there, but with the new rules, I can no longer be monitorized; my views are under the new threshold. If I could make a few bucks off of the videos, it would probably encourage me to get better, write better and do higher quality. Even my short, not well planned or rehearsed videos, take a good chunk of time and without incentive, they are just not worth my time doing. I watched your video on behind the scenes when it first came out, I really enjoyed it, it gave a good look at the hard work that goes behind each episode. I guess what I am trying to say is, I understand YT revenue has flatlined, and due to demonitorization, gone away for some. I understand that someone needs to pay the bills, and that full time content creators need to be paid some how, but we also need to address, over monetization; again, a situation that YT has created. In your video that I linked to in my original post, not only is there your ads, but TY ads as well, you must admit, from a viewer perspective, it really is excessive. Again, I know you have to make money, and you are doing what you have to do to keep the lights on, but unless this is somehow addressed so that all are happy, I really do not think it will end well for anyone. First off, in the comments section of your videos, you will see YourTube Red subscribers complaining that they are paying money every month to see videos with out ads, how long until they start complaining to YT and/or cancel YT Red because they are forced to watch ads in the video placed by the creator; I really do not think YT will want to lose revenue and sooner or later, YT will address this. The funny thing is, in Hanks video, he states that YT is trying to get rid of "the middle man" the ad agencies, and deal directly with the companies themselves, yet YT is forcing creators to do the exact same thing; YT being the middle man. How long can this go on before YT cracks down on it? They do pay for the bandwidth for uploading content, streaming it, the data centers and employees. I seriously hope YT does not start charging fees to creators that have sponsors, but I can see it coming. Bonus Question: In your behind the scenes video, you state that the YT videos are made from articles that are posted on your website, usually a few months after the original publication. Considering your website has been around for quite a while now and has a ton of ads on it, plus you have really only been doing videos on a consistent basis for about 2 years now, wasn't the majority of the costs for the video material already payed for? Not a criticism, just a question. Bonus Question 2: A lot of creators have sponsorship, they usually do it at the end, I like to fully watch all videos right through to the end, when they get to the sponsorship part, I start reading comments, I am not watching, but listening to the ad. For your ads that are in the middle of video, I pause and move right past them as I know they are a few minutes long (if they were shorter, I probably would watch them), reading in your comment section, many others do the same thing, some even listing when the ads start and finish so you know where to skip to; would it not be better to put the ad at the end? To sum up, I did not unsubscribe because I do not like the content, I unsubscribed because, as a viewer, 3 minutes of ads (YT and your own) and 10 minutes of content (high quality as it is) is just not worth it to me; not complaining, just being honest. Once again for the zillionth time, not blaming you, this is 100% a TY generated problem that they need to fix before viewers and creators jump ship and move somewhere else.
Today I Found Out I have this idea that there should be a review process for entire channels to be green lit for use of non advertiser friendly words in title and hashtags trusting them entirely to be used within appropriate non offensive context. Review of a video may only occur if a significant number of viewers flag it as inappropriate. Finally if a green lit channel repeatedly breaks said rule they lose the privilege. A rule like this would help channels like yours.
Watched the whole thing before commenting, been trying to hear as much as i can about this issue since it affects me as a creator (and im from south america, haha). Nice job talking about it, specially tackling both sides - creator and advertisers - and mentioning the advertising history. Frankly, i thought Google/UA-cam wouldn't back off and adapt itself over that WSJ thing this much. They are big, they are important and they are probably, together with Facebook, the biggest and most relevant place to put advertising on the internet. I mean, without Google/UA-cam or Facebook, where can advertisers go to reach their audience, specially when aiming for 18~30 demography? Also, where would they find advertising prices as "cheap" and with so many options to target a specific audience other than internet? TV? Tv has been slowly losing relevance through years all around the world. They charge super high prices, don't have the specific seletivity that YT/FB offer them to reach specific people. The only thing TV has as advantage, in my point of view, is the fact that they are here for a longer time and made themselves relevant/part of people's lives for decades before internet. UA-cam is 10 years old and i believe that, within 20 years or less, people will look at UA-cam the way people look at TV nowadays. (Probably, if YT's creators do the right thing and stop making this platform relevant for drama and wrong stuff). Hence i was kinda surprised to see Google/YT shaping themselves to please the advertisers in detriment of it's creators. I understand that when there's a crucial percentage of money in the game it could happen, but like you, i don't believe this system will ever get better at all. Also, it's about time that advertisers should start look further. In the past, you would link an advertiser to a show and it's content. So, maybe advertising in a "bad" show would be terrible to the advertisers. While i still think this could be seen as a problem, specially on a generation that worries about the environment and brands that do nice works, worry about the same stuff, try to find ways to keep up the production without being an environment hazard, i don't see people linking a brand to a content when it comes to streaming ads like they used to. This generation is perfectly capable of knowing that, if Coca-Cola runs an ad on an UA-cam video, it's not Coca-Cola embracing that video, it's a result of a system. It's Coca-Cola targeting you, the viewer (ofc talking about YT ad here, not direct brand/sponsored videos), through the youtube system. In the other hand, i think this is still complicated because people would point out and complain when a problem appears. When an ad is being run on a terrorist video, wich should not be ok, but in a complex system such as YT, that might happen. I honest though YT take on this situation would be more educational towards the advertisers and general users, saying more clear that "it was a mistake, one that might happen when you have all that complexity, and they were doing something to end that or make sure it wouldn't happen again". But instead, the "doing something" became these strict rules that direct affect lots of it's creators. And gets worse when you see YT embracing all these celebrities, promoting them, running ads on their tragedy videos when demonetizing tragedy videos of everyone else and stating that their rules are to demonetize all those videos regardless. We, creators that are not from TV, begin to question what is YT take right now and what would be the direction the site will follow. The feeling is that the website is shitting at the creators right now, as if they couldn't care less, forgetting the fact that thousands of creators depend on their UA-cam related structure to run businesses, pay the bills and make a living. It's like "heeeeey, let's do this, screw the creators, this graphic here says it should be good so we test that and see what happens". I joke around saying that YT would be better if every people that works for YT were forced to create a channel and make at least 1 video per week for a month trying to create an audience before being employed, so they would feel the struggle as a creator and think about that too. And to make things worse, the way YT deals with stuff, by not being clear or stating changes to the creators, letting us all try to figure out what was changed, how things works atm, doesn't help at all. We feel abandoned, crushed, left aside with a terrible future ahead, where YT will try to become some kind of television and shit on the creators that made the site a thing. Sorry for the HUGE comment, just wanted to add my take on this, it's a super complex problem that needs to be talked about and needs a solution, wich would be super hard, because like you said well, involves two groups with different needs, but oh well. Thanks for the video, let's hope for the best.
I love the break down of it all... I've been an ICG member since it's inception and I'm glad you started it, but I'm also glad you acknowledge that it's still trying to find it's meaning. I just wanted to point out that the demonetization issue that occured a year ago, where everyone got an email, was NOT the moment when everyone realized they had been demonetized. It wasn't that hard to find out in your video manager, you'd get a $ with a slash through it. Only the big channels who don't seem to check this regularly didn't notice... but there are videos about what to do if you've been demonetized that showed this from YEARS before the big email push. And it always kind of annoys me when the big channels fail to recognize this... like they live in a gated community and only realize that crime exists once it crosses over into their little bubble...
UA-cam, your creators have made you what you are. I subscribe to the creators that I do because they add something to my life, and I believe they should be treated better than this - better than your greed. Shame on you. DO BETTER.
I've been creating on UA-cam for several years and I've worked extremely hard and been extremely lucky here. Over the years I've felt more and more that YT has become less and less focused on the creator. This seems like just another turn of focus. As a gaming creator I was able to thankfully immediately begin streaming on Twitch after the ad revenue drop. I've seen a lot of YT issues come and go but this is the first time I really feel like I can't trust YT to have my best interests at heart.
Sl1pg8r - Daily Stuff and Things! I think your utilization of twitch is smart. UA-cam is just one platform on the market. Smart investors diversify to maximize profits and security of investments. It's going to me interesting to see if UA-cam can break out of it's recession.
Well... they don't. They have to have their own interests first, and in this case there is an existential threat they have to deal with. I don't fault them for dealing with the problem. I think they just went about it in the wrong way. They forgot that their customers *include* their content creators, as well as viewers and advertisers. The decision they made to use AI to filter video content for monetization - an AI they knew at the time was likely to be overreact and cause videos to be demonetize that should not have been - was purely for the benefit of advertisers and at the expense of creators and viewers. They should have remembered that without content creators and viewers, the advertisers have nothing to sell.
While I'm not a content creator I have felt the pinch of the ad crisis as a viewer. Several of my favorite creators have had to majorly cutback on their upload schedule due to not making enough in ad revenue and having to go back to the 9-5. I sincerely wish I could be a patron to every channel I love my financial situation makes this impossible. I hope UA-cam figures out a better solution because as it stands now its not sustainable because eventually another platform will come along that will figure it out (RIP blip).
Thank you for the level, unbiased explanation of this topic, Hank. It's something that I've seen swirling around the community for awhile but I've never fully understood what was going on or even what was true or not. I always know I can count on you guys to present the facts. 🙌🏻
I don’t think Hank can be unbiased when discussing this topic since he’s directly affected by demonetization. I’d like to hear UA-cam’s side of the story.
Paul, Hank actually said in this video that "advertiser-friendly" content, such as much of his educational channels, have actually seen an increase in income since the change because they're getting more of the pie. Honestly he also does a pretty fair job of representing UA-cam's side of the story. Others' quips about this have made UA-cam seem discriminatory, whereas Hank makes them out to be overly cautious when threatened.
Naiadryade No matter how compassionate Hank is about UA-cam’s motives, he’s very clear about being in disagreement with UA-cam’s culture toward advertising. This does not allow him to be unbiased, consciously or not, about speaking on this subject. And unless you’ve spoken to someone at UA-cam with autonomy regarding its advertising practices, you can’t claim that he’s being fair in representing their intentions.
The one thing I cannot wrap my head around is this pervasive "we only want our content next to happy things" thought that advertisers seem to have. I don't think any more or less of a brand based on the content they're with. I mute devices whenever adverts are on. I seriously couldn't care less what brand is advertising. To me the only purpose of an ad is to annoy me for a few seconds so that the content creator I like watching is able to continue providing their content for me to watch without paying them directly (ofc then theres also patreon and things but that is a whole separate thing)
I am also glad you are talking about this. I am a Peer Specialist and I make videos on Mental Health and a healthy discussion about Bipolar Disorder & PTSD and I had gotten demonetized. I also talk about Artist's Way based on book on Julia Cameron in my videos and that got demonetized also.
What is with the algorithms? I am not subscribed to Pewdiepie. So why is UA-cam sending me a notification on my phone of the latest Pewdiepie video? Yet I am not seeing my videos of people I do subscribe to on UA-cam newsfeed. Also I am upset that now people have to double subscribe by clicking on bell just to see their content. I should only have to subscribe once to see the creators I love.
look up black hat vs white hat SEO that is another thing that hasn't been touched on in any of the videos about this unfortunately because most creators don't know enough about SEO. The issue is that Google wants the most relevant content to show for advertiser and to you. The problem is that there are definitely those out there that are less friendly and whether they want to admit it they use techniques not approved by Google to get to the recommended pages or your sidebar. You see it a lot with anti-feminist channels they know how to game the system so if you watch a video dealing with anything to do with female creators you will see red pill stuff. That has to do with keywords and other things. This may not seem related but it is because as Google tries to fight violations of it's SEO algorithms it's also working with the demonetization bot and I have a feeling they deal with the same spiders.
Just Between Us made a video about how their content on mental health (their focus) has been demonetized. If UA-cam really is cutting off mental health content, it's not just a smack in the face to the creators--it's harmful to our society as a whole. We need to foster those discussions, not punish them.
Definitely a problem. I would say, though, that since UA-cam is UA-cam's platform, they have the right to do what they want with it and deal how they want with their partners, both creators and advertisers. Having a virtual monopoly on online video does saddle UA-cam with moral and social responsibilities, which they should fulfill, but I think the way to get them to fulfill those responsibilities is through better contracts with creators.
You hear a lot about demonetization and sometimes it's hard to know the facts about what is actually going on. Thanks for having an open honest conversation to explain what it really means.
Thanks for the video. As a content consumer, I have been disheartened lately by many of the smaller channels I follow seem to be struggling with this issue. I think UA-cam needs to think more about advertising on the channel level instead of the video level. To make a comparison to TV, I imagine that advertisers much more often decide "I am going to advertise on Wheel of Fortune" than "I am going to advertise on this particular episode of Wheel of Fortune". They already set a minimum level of views under which you you don't get advertised on. Once you get past that, you should go into the current restrictive system. There should also be another level of views that when you go over, you get put into a second advertising system, wherein the advertisers select to advertise on your specific channel and dedicate some fixed sum of money to those advertisements. Multiple advertisers can select to advertise on a given channel, but the more advertisers select that channel the greater the amount deducted from that fixed amount each time an advertisement is run. So it costs more per view to advertise on more popular channels, which at some point should incentivize advertisers to start supporting less popular channels as the advertising per view is cheaper. Whichever channel has the most money in that fixed account "wins" to be shown on a given view, but that balance is then immediately reduced which may lead to some other advertiser being on top for the next view. The thinking being that once a channel gets over whatever level this ends up being, they should have a pretty consistent content style. Hank is not going to start uploading ISIS propaganda out of the blue, especially when he has a check coming in that he knows he would be blacklisting himself from should he post undesirable content. Advertisers should be able to spend 10 minutes and get a pretty good handle on what a channel has to offer when being advertised against. It also opens up the opportunity for creators to be able to see who has chosen to advertise against their channel, and if they have some ideological conflict, they can choose to opt out of having that advertiser on their channel. It costs them money, so it probably won't be used a lot. However, it makes sense that an Organic Gardening channel might not want Monsanto to be able to advertise on their channel even if it does cost them money. This isn't perfect, it has a few perverse incentive problems, but even those are just tempered down versions of the current perverse incentives there are now. Like there has been discussion of how the "Advertiser Friendly" label has started to steer content creators to alter their content to fit in with that. This proposed solution does not eliminate this, it just gives a release valve. If you are a popular creator that isn't labeled as "Advertiser Friendly", this at least gives advertisers that might share your market the opportunity to focus in on you as a valid advertising outlet without also advertising on all non - "Advertiser Friendly" content. If no advertisers choose you though, you are back on the current model of wondering if you should change what you do in order to better be advertiser friendly. It also probably makes it a bit harder to break into the UA-cam space. Under this system I imagine a good portion of the money would filter up to that top tier, which means even the channels that are "Advertiser Friendly" would be bringing in a bit less than currently until they break into the view count that puts them into the top advertising tier. Making the advertiser interface easy enough to use would also be a bit of a challenge, as you would want the cut off for this top advertising tier to be low enough that its obtainable by most well established channels, but then there are lots of channels for the advertisers to wade through to find what they want. I think Algorithm actually has a lot more ability to help here though, as it would be a lot easier to produce some appropriate channel tags by analyzing dozens of videos than it is to analyze a single video and make appropriate tags for that one video. Its definitely work, but I think its much more obtainable than trying to rework the current "Advertiser Friendly" Algorithm. But I am just a random software analyst looking at the problem from the outside as a content consumer.
I would love for you and MatPat and Philipp Defranco etc., you know, the long time creators, along with some smaller ones, to get together in a conference and try as a community to figure something out. I don't think anything is going to change unless the creators unite and stand up to the platform (but for that you all would have to come up with a plan B first).
I would LOVE a conversation between MatPat and Hank, because of the yters I've seen, they are the most informed and smart ones when it comes to the complexity of the algorithm and the culture of youtube and how they interact.
I'm always surprised when I hear of the tremendous lengths advertisers go to, since I always feel like the ads I see are very, very poorly attuned to me. When I walk into a bookstore, there's almost always a display table full of books that I've either read, or want to read, so I know I'm not unreachable, but how on earth can a famously dying industry figure out my tastes so much better than google and whoever else?
The only ad I've ever seen that I felt was targeted at me was an ad for French cheese. I want an option to only see ads for French cheese from now on. If Saint Albray made a youtube channel, I would watch that. I'm so white.
Yeah, unfortunately it's hit the outdoor community hard. Video's where I go over gear, show off important outdoor skills that may save a person's life, even just show off a cool plant get hit with "limited to no ads". and it's annoying. there is nothing controversial in the videos. I could half understand if I was showing off a knife, where to some is a weapon, but to people who actually use it is an important tool that is used for many things (carving, food prep, ect). And if you want your channel to do well in that genre, you sort of have to talk about those topics, because they are popular. But people look at the outdoor groups and see crazy survivalists, when I'm just a guy... trying to get people outside and having fun. but even the most innocent video gets put on limited ads. at least until my views on the vids finish.
So correct. The biggest sign to me UA-cam didn't care about creators was starting the Partner For All idea in 2012. Todays trouble can be directly linked to that stupid decision. That triggered some of the worst content and creators to the site in a chase for really easy money. And sooner or later the advertisers saw how their cash was being spent. The site is in it's death throws, producers now looking for alternatives.
Hitting on a point that you talked about toward the end, I think that’s what kills me about this whole thing: advertisers need /US/, not the other way around, and yet UA-cam is giving advertisers the priority because UA-cam needs advertisers’ money. Viewers don’t need advertisements. Lord knows there’s too many out there anyway. We can find what we need or want when we need it. If UA-cam puts its foot down and forced advertisers to change to meet us rather than everyone suffering to meet advertisers... Ugh, this whole thing is dumb. I just want to support my favorite creators.
thewinterizzy i guess there's just so many ppl on youtube making content, and as hank says, where else are they going to go. But i agree, particularly in this new enviro where young ppl just arent watching tv or say, reading newspapers, the youtube platform is invaluable as a way to access that market, and the content creators are key to that
But, at the same time, UA-cam needs the money from advertising in order to pay content makers. And we want our content makers to be able to eat, pay rent, have medical care, etc. You really cant seperate it.
Sure, no content = no ads = no money. But the creators don't have anywhere else to go. UA-cam knows they have to suck it up or find a day job. It's always been this way for creatives, I'm afraid. Too many people want to be singers, actors and vloggers.
Except youtube doesn't really need creators if it has vevo, late shows and movie trailers. Creators are almost something wonderful that has happened by accident.
Thank you for making this video, Hank. Both of the videos I posted this week were demonetized (an embroidery tutorial and an unboxing featuring women artists) and it's taking a while to get them back while I wait for them to be reviewed. I know there are issues with their algorithm and I'm honestly surprised it took this long for my videos to mistakenly lose ads given how many of my friends keep losing monetization. But now I'm in a place where I have to decide if I want to keep investing time in something that may get revenue removed for no reason or even change my content to try and avoid anything that could potentially have that double meaning you talked about. Apparently using needles in sewing projects is one of those things. I agree with you that if their machine hasn't learned by now, it may not ever get it right. Most of my videos only get views for the first two days... whenever it takes 3 or more to get ads back, that's pretty much all of it gone.
It seems like the advertisers made a power play with UA-cam to say "Hey, without us, your website would fail, so take care of us or we'll take our business elsewhere". Meanwhile, creators don't have that same power, because while we do bring the money in, without creators there's no platform, but we don't seem to have the same influence with the people at UA-cam to enact meaningful change that makes everyone happy. Because these ad-agencies are these monolithic powerful forces with legal teams and everything else that we as creators don't have. Not to mention that not everyone is getting hit by it, so some people are less invested in making changes that help everyone. Pre-ad days on UA-cam were very different, as soon as money started rolling in for creators, the platform as a whole was raised up. The content got better, the community got better, and I think UA-cam needs to realize that it can function without these big advertising companies, but they can't function without the creators. And if they keep screwing with creators, especially small up and coming channels, they're going to start taking their content somewhere else. Right now, the biggest thing scaring me personally is the whole ad-limbo that every video is thrown into until you appeal. But you can't appeal until the video crosses 1,000 views, and you have to wait up to 48 hours for anything to be done, but the vast majority of a video's views pour in within that 48 hour window, hobbling any chance of that video making substantial income, which it absolutely should be. We're already so undervalued and underpaid in terms of ad revenue as it is, which is why so many people resort to sponsorship deals or Patreon or merchandising, just to pay the bills and keep food on the table, if eventually creators are earning 80%-90% of their revenue through alternate channels than revenue, why would we even need UA-cam anymore? This is ripe for some other start up to change the model to really favor creators, and if we start seeing a lot of this big channels leave for another platform, I think it's only a matter of time before we would see this massive exodus to another platform. I obviously don't have a solution, but I think that UA-cam should start playing its part in helping the creator first, we're the backbone of the entire platform, and if you keep discouraging people from even making content in the first place, the long term future of the platform is at serious risk.
I'm doing my senior research paper for my bachelors degree on UA-cam and the adpocalypse and how changes in the industry are affecting the way creators can make money online. Hank, you've been a wealth of information from the personal experiences you talk about and the resources you link to. Thanks for everything you do!
Thank you so much for making this. I myself make videos related to mental illness awareness, activism, and other similar things pretty often and every single one of them has gotten demonetized. I saw Phil and your fireside chat at VidCon Anaheim and really appreciated your discussion on monetization and making money as a creator. But yeah, I think that everything is pretty confusing and frustrating but the more that creators (like you and so many other amazing people) discuss these issues, the closer we'll get to a solution. ps. I also really, really love ICG so thank you for that as well!
You're a vanguard in this area. I'm so glad you're organizing, analyzing, and observing -- benefiting all creators. Thank you so much for all your work. It makes everything just better for all-- even those of us (like me!) who don't make videos for a living, but enjoy watching content that never would have been possible on network television or corporate movie businesses. Have a great time on the tour! I can't wait to get the book, I pre-ordered, but we're in Germany so it'll be a bit before I get it.
I feel like the Internet Creator's Guild could fairly easily be turned into a Union-like organization, and can group together to fight false copyright strikes, bad demonotization practices, and otherwise be a union.
I seriously can listen to you and your brother for hours on end. Both of you are insightful, intelligent, and entertaining. Thank you for your hard work.
Hank: "Who watches a show for 10 years?!" Me: *raises hand* Hank: "Good people!" Lol I've honestly watched Jenna Marbles' videos every week for 9 or 10 years. It's nice to have a constant that makes me happy. And I've watched vlogbrothers for 2 years now. :)
I am glad someone high status is talking about this. I make content asking questions to Israelis and Palestinians. Like in all conflicts, content sometimes includes people saying not nice things about other people but overall, the videos are very tame. At one point, all my videos were demonitized. Now I have to ask for manual reviews for each. The reviewers personal political opinions obviously impact their decision since videos asking the same questions to both groups were treated very differently by reviewers. How can a content maker make enough money to create videos if people are hyper sensitive to hearing views in conflict? How can a creator ask for a second review for a demonitized video or a justification why it can't be monitized? I have videos that can't be monetized which has nothing controversial or negative in it. And there is no one to talk to at UA-cam.
It feels like it's currently impossible to be a small UA-cam channel in this current climate. Like the big UA-camrs will be fine, but us little guys are dead in the water.
The issue is its affecting everyone. Including educational channels like History Buffs, The Great War, Cynical Historian, Numberphile, just to name a few. Channels that don't have any real controversy are getting demonetized for no reason. I hope they take the time to fix this.
I have watched your videos since March 2007, so there are some of us that stick around. I found you guys as I was getting ready to graduate high school. You and John have been a major voice in shaping me as a person, and I don't care if y'all make vlogbrothers videos until 2100, I am a nerdfighter for life. I love you guys.
I finally caved and got UA-cam Red and I’m never going back if I can afford it. I didn’t realize how much the ads ruined my experience until they were gone-good riddance!
I want UA-cam red also but I'm just so sick of places wanting my money and making the experience steadily crapier unless you pay for their upgrade. The less places taking my money I better I think
I don’t regularly make videos myself, but I have been a viewer for 10 years. The first people I ever started watching were Mitchell Davis and WheezyWaiter, and I still watch/support them today. UA-cam has gone through plenty of changes in that time, some good, some bad, but this advertising problem... I get it, advertisers want to make money. UA-cam wants to survive. But they’re not earning my loyalty by screwing over creators I love. If anything, it just makes me more weary of companies. Honestly, I much prefer when creators take on brand deals - I’m more likely to take a recommendation from someone I respect. It’s a mess and I don’t have a solution... I wish UA-cam would just take a stand with their creators.
Obviously haven't watched the video yet but I love when it you share your thoughts on UA-cam stuff (or other things really) in longer videos like these.
Hey Hank I appreciate the thoughtful and balanced description of this problem. Please make a condensed 4 minuteish info video on this topic. You have a unique position to discuss this and I think it would be beneficial especially right now. Thanks again :)
Ha! I'm definitely one of the people who's been watching for 10 years. You and John have been an awesome adventure to follow over the years! I've been able to support lots of cool organizations over the years that I would've never heard of if it wasn't for Project for Awesome :)
I'm really worried about all of my favorite trans UA-camrs who have had everything demonetized for months. It seems like anything with trans people in it is just done. Is that something that's changing too? Edit: just saw the end of the video - thank you for specifically addressing it.
Dear Hank. through the last 10 years. I've been regularly watching your content.. I've enjoyed everything you have made. especially your sci-show and crash course with John.. I sincerely hope you keep doing what you are doing and. Don't forget to be awesome! :)
Some of the vids I can understand why an algorithm might flag them. I have an academic analysis of Marx's quote "religion is the opiate of the people." Apparently the metadata "Marx" is not advertiser friendly? But there are other vids where I am just baffled why they were flagged. I'm assuming it is because the notion that "religion" is too controversial.
What was the tipping point for YT to e-mail people and tell them videos were demonized instead of just doing it without notifying people? Is UA-cam afraid that people are going to get more brand deals instead of ads and they will lose money? What do you think about the new rules for external links? Do you think they will ever try to shut down external links so people don't make money outside of their platform that they don't get a cut from? I feel like they were trying to be more like Patreon with fan funding and super chats.
SciJoy Superchat was more likely based on Twitch’s Bits donation system, and Sponsorships were based on Twitch’s subscriptions system (their equivalent of UA-cam subscriptions is “following”)
Rule #1 in business: You don't let other people see your cards. Their algorithm is their advantage, and other companies are CLAMORING to figure out how UA-cam does it in order to create their own algorithms and compete. UA-cam doesn't want ANY of this.
My purely speculative hunch, based on my experience in software and working with Google and being a little bit familiar with their organizational structure, is that the ways those emails went out was an accident. We found out after the emails started that some videos had been getting demonetized for a while and no one had really been noticing it. My bet is that a notification tool was written as part of the recent program of making UA-cam more 'advertiser friendly' (since Google is largely structured around 'programs' internally) that, when it was turned on, went back in time and sent the emails for all of the demonetized videos at once, even though those videos had been in the 'demonetized condition' for a while. I think the intent was to communicate with creators about demonetization, but the notification tool 'catching up' with old videos was something that the engineers who wrote that piece of software did not anticipate before it was enabled. Again, just a very uniformed hunch.
Thank you for this video. I rarely have the time to watch anything not edited and boiled down. While I'm vaguely aware of the issues facing youtube and avertisement, giving me the context of the rise of video advertising really helped - I appreciated it immensly. And, as I have in the past, I really wish UA-cam Red were available in more countries... I think that would be a large first step in alleviating the problems you describe, and keeping the viewer more directly involved in determining what gets made rather than the advertiser.
This is an amazing video, and thank you for breaking it down. But I have a question: Does UA-cam really need independent creators? While I generally see music artists represented by large record labels in "Trending," I hardly see any of the rising independent creators on that list. I see Jimmy Kimmel's video on gun control or the healthcare debate being pushed, but I don't see smart independent commentators that may be equally as good. And that's because independent creators are a risk, while things that are made for TV or made by large record labels aren't. And So many people I know (and I think you've mentioned this, too) now view UA-cam as an aggregator of popular content, just like Facebook and Twitter, rather than an incubator for independent creators. While there are far more independent creators than "mainstream" content, the reliable and advertiser-friendly views go to the mainstream content. With UA-cam TV, it seems like they're moving more in that direction. I'd love to know your thoughts.
I know its been 5 years but youtube trendings algorithm is created by youtube; in the past when it favored non-independant creators it was more a result of youtube pushing that
finally gave this a listen cause it shows up in my recommends a lot, this is a very interesting look into how this stuff works, and is all very very well said, i'd love to see an update video about how youtube's addressed (or not) the concerns from 2017
As someone who's on the other side of advertising (I'm a designer), it's sickening to know how quick companies are to manipulate for a bottom line. I think you're onto something here though. Advertisers are used to ruling the market with television, and it's going to take a lot of very clever innovation to change that.
This was a fantastic video. Around the 30 minute mark you point to the fact that the yt spac should be more about a creative community and that they should focus on that. It's important to remember that Amazon does have sponsored products, and Google is the best at targeted advertisements, and they use the data we provide them with for free and monetize that information. They are still a company, that has shareholders and a fiduciary responsibility first and that goes against the idea of a supportive creator driven site that allows creators to dictate advertisers placements. You make very good points that communication and other academics have been pointing out for years about advertisers and the content that gets created. Those in marginalized communities (both geographically and virtual) don't get content created for them, by them and if it is, it's usually never paid for by ads. I would be fascinated to see creators, to revenue as it pertains to country, location, and demographic information that Google and YT. I will look into yt red and see how that is distributed to creators, because if that actually goes to creators that would be a viable solution to many. (including myself)
Is there anything that people who watch UA-cam (as opposed to creators) can do to let UA-cam know that we're not okay with the way they've been demonetizing videos? I assume there's some kind of form to send feedback, but are there any petitions or organized efforts in existence that we can help with? I'm totally happy to support individual creators via UA-cam Red/Patreon/merch, but if there's a way to work toward changing the flaws in the system on top of that I'm also very in.
I dont know if it will be the same for people without a channel but scroll right to the bottom of your page as you watch youtube there might be a option that says( send feedback ) like I say I dont know if it will work for everyone + youtube will never answer you back or seem to ever change anything but you can only tell them what you think
THANK YOU! I've had such a hard time finding decent information on what's going on, and I've felt like, over time, advertisers have been gaining power and it's frustrating when it feels like nobody's reigning them in. Since I don't have money right now, I never use adblockers (except way may be built-in to Firefox or Chrome), even when doing so slows down my browser. Also, I try to remember to wait about five seconds before skipping skippable ads. A couple of things, related-but-sort-of-off-topic: 1) I keep hearing how, for skippable ads, advertisers pay NOTHING if that ad is skipped immediately. If true, then HOW THE ACTUAL HECK DID THEY GET AWAY WITH THAT ONE?! Time is money, and the advertiser already burned away five seconds of the viewer's time and took valuable ad space. Similarly, I've heard that for other kinds of web media, if an ad they host isn't clicked on, the advertiser doesn't pay money. That is NOT how that should work. The ADVERTISER took up took up resources. The viewer saw the ad. Whether or not the viewer chooses to ACT on the ad, the advertiser still made their existence known. Also, if the advertiser is making ads that are so awful that people use adblocker, it's time to reel in your advertisers, not your viewers. I firmly believe that the way it should work is: If the viewer sees your ad, you pay up. It's YOUR responsibility to make a quality advertisement. While it is the medium's responsibility to show your ad to the people you want it shown to, you still occupied their resources. So maybe you don't pay a lot per ad if they ad is skipped quickly, but you still occupied their time and resources. If the ad is clicked on/NOT skipped, then you pay EXTRA. I don't know HOW we ended up in the scenario we ended up in, but that angers me. 2) On UA-cam Red, I would actually be *more* willing to pay for it if UA-cam Red DIDN'T bundle it with exclusive content, because that's just the old 'paid videos' crap. This is just another kind of paywall that decreases the accessibility of the site, which is the exact opposite direction I want this kind of service to go. The lack of paywall is what I love about UA-cam, and adding in a paywall to certain kinds of content is . . . what's the word . . . *bad*.
Creators are the only reason anyone is even on this site. It's bull that they aren't the first people being listened to on this platform. Their answer to Casey's tweet was unacceptable and we have to hold them accountable for that. It's censorship and it doesn't belong on this platform after a manual review or not.
While I agree that the creators are the most important people in the ecosystem, without advertisers the site wouldn't exist at all. Someone has to pay the electricity bills and the salaries, and I've learned from my exposure to the business world that the person writing the checks holds a lot of power
I must admit that most of this stuff went right over my head. Economics might be a voodoo magic for me. But it was interesting and I feel like I've gained just a smallest insight into the inner workings of youtube and internet economics in general. Just enough to realize it is much more complicated than I could previously imagined. On a tangential note - it was nice to see you, Hank, unedited, "au naturel" so to speak. It feels like I got to know you a little better. And you have a gigantic map of the Narnia and Surrounding Countries on your wall!! It is epic!!
Is there a reason why creators (especially LGBT+) can't just be marked as safe and porn free from a channel standpoint so their videos don't get filtered through to unsafe? I feel like the response is generally large enough if a good creator does something really dumb that the video either comes down or people really stop watching so it doesn't really seem like individual videos on a channel that you know has a following is a big risk to ads...
This sounds really good in theory (and might even be a good part of the solution), but I see a few big problems. The first is that this will only benefit the larger channels. The many channels that are already struggling to make this a fulltime thing, or who just want to use the income to for instance buy a better camera likely won't have the opportunity to be marked as safe. Secondly, if you allow a lot of people to use this, this system will be manipulates by creators. Finally and maybe most importantly: this seems like it would really restrict what creators can make. For their entire channel to be marked as safe they can never cross the line. They can never make videos about taboo topics. What if someone for instance wants to make a video about sexual assault? I understand that UA-cam might not consider that advertisingfriendly, but I wouldn't want a channel to avoid important topics like that out of fear their channel loses their status. (sorry for the ramble, I'm writing this from my phone without proofreading ;) )
Maybe it should also be talked about, what "safe" actually means for a video/advertiser? If it's true, that some mere history factoids get demonized just for mentioning war and weapons (like Brent elias said) - that's ridiculous. Have advertisers ever seen TV, there's weapons and war and blood all the time and nobody cares. So that should not be "unsafe" for advertisers - or they need to pull their ads on TV as well. I personally think, advertising is something we should rethink as a whole. Especially on the internet. Ads are not terribly effective in making you buy stuff and the internet just works very different from TV or newspapers or a billboard.
I appreciate the comparatively level-headed response. Although this video was pretty long, it really made me think of how Alphabet, UA-cam, advertisers, and creators play a role in the current situation, and what could be done to remedy it. Keep it up Hank!
Great video, Hank. About UA-cam Red, are there any news about it spreading to other countries? Because it really does sound like a great service but... still waiting
I feel like UA-cam could have an "easy" small fix (before they fix this majorly) by just telling creators WHY they are being demonetized. There are a lot of gaming channels that are demonetized for seemingly no reason.
For those in the comments who want a quick primer on how UA-cam bots and ad auctions work, CGP Grey made a video about that a few months ago: ua-cam.com/video/KW0eUrUiyxo/v-deo.html
+ (Editing to add, thank you for not making this a Rickroll, because like, I would not even have considered it. I'd've just clicked blindly. But instead there was actual information and that is awesome!)
I appreciate you being honest with this, Hank. I like that you gave a pretty good background of the history of monetization on UA-cam + advertising since the 60's since it's relevant knowledge that can leave people feeling left behind when talking about this. I also appreciate that you can voice your displeasure and criticize UA-cam, but still have this optimism that it is the platform to improve this situation on. Thank you for making this video in the face of having no time. And I have to mention "We're Google. Let's have a lot of meetings." made me laugh.
Drawing on parallels in regular industries, a step between "do nothing" and "quit UA-cam" is an organised strike. As far as I can tell the Internet Creator's Guild is essentially a UA-cam videomaker union, so why not strike? No videos for a week from the big channels will get their attention as it hits their bottom line, in the exact same way that large advertisers can hit their bottom line by pulling their ads. It would help even out the power dynamic. I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to say whether you should or shouldn't strike but it's a powerful tool.
That is a thought. Though my feeling is that it would hardly cause more than a blip in the scheme of things due to the thousands of YTubers making content. It is unlikely that so many people will get on board the 'strike'. This said, I am also thinking along this line of thought. My opinion is that YT is having a huge problem to actually review content due to the sheer output of material. To somewhat help this, YT had to use automated systems/bots that review content. Sadly, unlike people that can appreciate nuance and sift out non-desirables (porn, rape, terrorism, racism, etc..), On top of all this teh Advertisers are now jumpy due to the outrage by the consumers (whether or not the outrage is feigned). Its like trying to hack a mountain away that is growing faster than it can be broken down.
If your not striking in front of a factory where your boss can see you out of his exaggerated and luxurious office windows, it might not change much. Creators would be striking at algorithms. Most channels change their upload schedules from time to time, and people just watch other stuff, because there is practically infinite content. The only thing hurt by striking would be the creators and channels themselves, punished by the cold machine hand of the algorithm. Dystopian novel idea: e- and gig-economy. No worker even knows their employer because everyone is assigned by an almighty algorithm. Most people live relatively happy and normal lives, but some fall through the cracks. They are known as glitches. Some of them are officially dead and some have never existed. They populate the underworld. They do the jobs no one else can, they are invisible to the all-seeing eye. As Mohammed loses his job and his home to an error in the system, he gets sucked into a maelstrom of crime, intrigue and revolution. He and a group of hardy rebels make their way to the centre of power, only to find out that nobody knows what they're doing, everything's out of control and there really is no easy catch-all solution to fix everything, which is super frustrating but also realistic.
I know that UA-cam comments are not a place for a dialogue, but I float this thought: In a system like UA-cam where the advertiser doesn't select the specific content their advertisements are shown on, why would any rational person get mad at a company (Coca-Cola, in your example) if their ad was algorithinically displayed alongside questionable content (terrorism video, in your example)? Advertisement in a system like this is not endorsement by the advertiser. I realize that this has been the mindset to this point (or at least, the media and politicians fan this flame) but I propose we have to decouple these two things in order to reach the promised land of truly democratized content creation environments.
Well, you convinced me. I've been going back and forth for months about getting UA-cam Red. One of the most frustrating things was that functionality I used to have was taken away and put behind a paywall (e.g. playing the audio from a video on my phone while on a different tab or with the screen off). But taking it from a reputable source that it really does help the creators that I love has put me over the edge. And hey, the free trial period right now is three months, so wahoo!
What is unfortunate about the review process is you can only it do it on videos that got 1000 views which my videos have not had. So basically I can't get my videos reviewed.
I JUST broke $100 and started making a profit NOW, within the last 24 hours, youtube has gone through all of my videos and demonetized 20 of them. WTF?!? When I clicked on the link to have the demonetization reviewed I get a message that says that I can't have it reviewed until I have over 1000 views in a week. WTF?!? They brought the axe down in my videos that only had 20-100 views but were somewhat controversial.
FINALLY someone who answered my burning question about whether demonitized videos get revenue when I watch them with my YT Red subscription. I have been getting close to canceling it outright, especially if demonitized vids don't get revenue from it. At the end of the day it's more important to me that the creators I care about get money through my views than it is for me to never see ads, since I never used adblock on YT before I got Red just for that reason, anyway. Thanks for the info Hank, and I appreciate your creator and consumer-oriented discussion. Your ending statements are especially true to my feelings--I'm tired of being fed what someone else thinks someone of my demographic would like to be fed. Furthermore, the absolute last thing that informs my view on what a company supports or does not support is whether their ad gets shown on any particular YT video. I've grown up on the internet; I know how disconnected advertising and content is here--I've seen it at its worst. It's not the TV and I hope it never is because I stopped watching that noise ages ago anyway. Advertisers are going to have to figure out how to reach me on my terms; I'm not looking back any time soon.
I've gone through phases where I don't keep up to date with your shows, like I watch sci show very sporadically, but I've always watched something from you and your brother since I started watching about 8 years ago (I wasn't using UA-cam before then). Y'all are one if the first creators I discovered, and one of a couple from that time I still watch regularly. That list is you guys, Charlie, and Liam (when he posts lol).
I am having a hard time deciding on what subjects to do my next videos. Is there a published list out there of approved topics list you can monetize videos on in advance. I recently made a video about the Artist's Way book by Julia Cameron and I was upset to discover it was demonetized. I would have liked to know that in advance before I waste my time on making a video.
Ryan Ruark They already have the list that they are using to demonetize the videos now. It currently exists. My question is there a public list available so we creators know what they are looking for.
Thanks Hank, I'm not a content creator but I am very interested in UA-cam and the industry so I appreciate your effort of putting this information out there because a lot of people don't understand, and while it might not interest most, I'm sure this will help some understand better the situation. The audience should understand to some degree the relationship it has with content creators in order to make good decisions for the future of the platform.
Not that this is useful criticism per se, but it's important to have clarity about the exploitative system you're in when making decisions about how to prevent exploitations.
I love that you talked about the "churn" of old viewers dropping out and new viewers dropping in. I used to love vlogbrothers and scishow etc. then i went away, i fell out of love with the content now i'm back for hank's rambing which is exactly the content i like now.
I can feel how bad you feel about this! Big names in youtube are highly affected by this f****ng change but moreover the msall creators like me are affected too! We are earning small like close to none but now we feel so left out. I love UA-cam and I praise UA-cam for how wonderful it was but righ now I'm so, so disappointed and I feel like they put less value to their creators. I just can't help it! I s***ks and I hope they 'll take positive action for the equal benefit of the creators and the advertisers.
Yes!!! You took the words out of my mouth. Though sadly, youtube's algorithm would then make any further videos they made more difficult to access, even for subscribers (MatPat did a video on it)
Creators already own a significant amount of the means of production and they attract the viewers. UA-cam does own the servers and control the algorithm but I think the creators still have a significant bargaining position if they organize, make demands, and strike. Hopefully, most viewers will not cross the virtual picket line and watch videos if they do strike which will cause UA-cam to cave quickly.
Among the more infuriating that have been demonetized on our educational channel include "What Does Rx Mean and Where Did it Come From?", "How Does a Heart Attack Work?", and "The Mock Execution of Fyodor Dostoyevsky" which talks about that time when he was a young man he was subjected to such and how it influenced his life- essentially just a mini-bio on one of the great authors in human history... All demonetized and then confirmed by manual review somehow. (I can only assume by individuals at UA-cam who didn't actually bother to watch the videos.)
There are a bunch of others, and of course many more where the request for manual review was put in months ago and still pending like "Why Do a Donkey and an Elephant Represent Democrats and Republicans?" or "Why Do Men Have Nipples?" (on the latter super interesting and perfectly family friendly, but at least I can understand why the algorithm dinged it), but those that have been confirmed by manual review that are purely educational and family friendly (which is all we do on our channel) are amazingly infuriating. -Daven
TIFO, I used to love your videos but you have become the opposite of what Hank it taking about. Let's take your recent Pixar video for example, ua-cam.com/video/YOpoRaoG8gs/v-deo.html not including any UA-cam ads, you start off with thanking the sponsor, then half way through, you do an approximately 2 minute ad for your sponsor, then at the end, ask people to support you via Patreon, then show the sponsor again. It is for this reason I have unsubscribed from your channel. If you are doing this because of the demonetization, and other creators start following suit, then YT/Google has a much larger problem on their hands.
+Buddha Dude: We have in-video ads approximately 3-4 videos out of 30/31 videos per month, and only about 6 total out of around 839 videos have mid-content ads (unless you count a one sentence blurb in the intro to be mid-content), with no plans to up that mid-content ratio much.
We hate ads as much as the next person (probably more than most, because we have to deal with them on both ends), but they are required to run a channel like ours, even if youtube didn't demonetize anything and ad rates were as good as they've ever been on UA-cam. We have over a dozen people working hard to put these heavily researched videos out every day with the level of accuracy and detail we're known for. We also have loads of improvements we'd like to make on top of that, but there simply isn't money/time for it at present.
It's a very unfortunate fact that youtube's built in ads pay only a fraction of the production cost of each of our videos, which are super basic on the video production side because of it (only money really to pay for the research/writing side with the other side needing to go bargain basement at present, even with Patreon and the occasional in-content ads added in.)
Not complaining, it's amazing that we all get to do this for a living. Just explaining why we sometimes have in-content ads. We're on the same page as you that they suck and the videos would be better without them, which is also why at the least we only take advertisers we either like/use ourselves (in fact, we approach a lot of the companies we use products from to see if they want to advertise with us, which is where a bunch of our advertisers come from) or think our subscribers would like and are good products.
We could do in-content ads for a whole lot more of our videos if we weren't so discerning, which would give us the money to significantly upgrade our video production side, but not really worth the trade-off in our opinion.
And for your reference, here's a comprehensive behind the scenes on how we make our videos and all the steps/people/time involved. A lot of people seem to think it's just me and Simon doing this, but there's actually a big team behind the whole thing. If it were just Simon and I, we'd only be able to do a few videos a month, max. :-) ua-cam.com/video/ok-ZX-FQeQA/v-deo.html
Today I Found Out +
+Today I Found Out, don't get me wrong, I am on your side here. In no way am I attacking your channel or being negative towards anyone that is using sponsors. Besides Hank's video here, I have seen a few more on how content creators are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to compensation; I fully blame Google/YT for the current situation.
I have made a few videos myself and I will admit I am the worst presenter ever, but being in IT and having Aspergers, well... that about as lively and animated as I will ever be. Point being, in the beginning, I was making a few pennies here and there, but with the new rules, I can no longer be monitorized; my views are under the new threshold. If I could make a few bucks off of the videos, it would probably encourage me to get better, write better and do higher quality. Even my short, not well planned or rehearsed videos, take a good chunk of time and without incentive, they are just not worth my time doing.
I watched your video on behind the scenes when it first came out, I really enjoyed it, it gave a good look at the hard work that goes behind each episode.
I guess what I am trying to say is, I understand YT revenue has flatlined, and due to demonitorization, gone away for some. I understand that someone needs to pay the bills, and that full time content creators need to be paid some how, but we also need to address, over monetization; again, a situation that YT has created.
In your video that I linked to in my original post, not only is there your ads, but TY ads as well, you must admit, from a viewer perspective, it really is excessive.
Again, I know you have to make money, and you are doing what you have to do to keep the lights on, but unless this is somehow addressed so that all are happy, I really do not think it will end well for anyone.
First off, in the comments section of your videos, you will see YourTube Red subscribers complaining that they are paying money every month to see videos with out ads, how long until they start complaining to YT and/or cancel YT Red because they are forced to watch ads in the video placed by the creator; I really do not think YT will want to lose revenue and sooner or later, YT will address this.
The funny thing is, in Hanks video, he states that YT is trying to get rid of "the middle man" the ad agencies, and deal directly with the companies themselves, yet YT is forcing creators to do the exact same thing; YT being the middle man. How long can this go on before YT cracks down on it? They do pay for the bandwidth for uploading content, streaming it, the data centers and employees. I seriously hope YT does not start charging fees to creators that have sponsors, but I can see it coming.
Bonus Question:
In your behind the scenes video, you state that the YT videos are made from articles that are posted on your website, usually a few months after the original publication. Considering your website has been around for quite a while now and has a ton of ads on it, plus you have really only been doing videos on a consistent basis for about 2 years now, wasn't the majority of the costs for the video material already payed for? Not a criticism, just a question.
Bonus Question 2:
A lot of creators have sponsorship, they usually do it at the end, I like to fully watch all videos right through to the end, when they get to the sponsorship part, I start reading comments, I am not watching, but listening to the ad. For your ads that are in the middle of video, I pause and move right past them as I know they are a few minutes long (if they were shorter, I probably would watch them), reading in your comment section, many others do the same thing, some even listing when the ads start and finish so you know where to skip to; would it not be better to put the ad at the end?
To sum up, I did not unsubscribe because I do not like the content, I unsubscribed because, as a viewer, 3 minutes of ads (YT and your own) and 10 minutes of content (high quality as it is) is just not worth it to me; not complaining, just being honest. Once again for the zillionth time, not blaming you, this is 100% a TY generated problem that they need to fix before viewers and creators jump ship and move somewhere else.
Today I Found Out I have this idea that there should be a review process for entire channels to be green lit for use of non advertiser friendly words in title and hashtags trusting them entirely to be used within appropriate non offensive context. Review of a video may only occur if a significant number of viewers flag it as inappropriate. Finally if a green lit channel repeatedly breaks said rule they lose the privilege. A rule like this would help channels like yours.
"Who has been watching this show for ten years?!" *raises hand* I've been watching you since I was 15, now turning 26 next month
I sincerely hope you don't forget to be awesome.
yep stated watch in ~July of the first year. The instant I heard him say that I was like I need to go find the other people like me! Go us.
+
Me as well! (16 to 27) -- wooo, OG crew!
Been watching a little over 9 years (Since Deathly Hallows)! I was 17 then, now I'm 26. : J
Watched the whole thing before commenting, been trying to hear as much as i can about this issue since it affects me as a creator (and im from south america, haha). Nice job talking about it, specially tackling both sides - creator and advertisers - and mentioning the advertising history.
Frankly, i thought Google/UA-cam wouldn't back off and adapt itself over that WSJ thing this much. They are big, they are important and they are probably, together with Facebook, the biggest and most relevant place to put advertising on the internet. I mean, without Google/UA-cam or Facebook, where can advertisers go to reach their audience, specially when aiming for 18~30 demography? Also, where would they find advertising prices as "cheap" and with so many options to target a specific audience other than internet? TV? Tv has been slowly losing relevance through years all around the world. They charge super high prices, don't have the specific seletivity that YT/FB offer them to reach specific people. The only thing TV has as advantage, in my point of view, is the fact that they are here for a longer time and made themselves relevant/part of people's lives for decades before internet. UA-cam is 10 years old and i believe that, within 20 years or less, people will look at UA-cam the way people look at TV nowadays. (Probably, if YT's creators do the right thing and stop making this platform relevant for drama and wrong stuff).
Hence i was kinda surprised to see Google/YT shaping themselves to please the advertisers in detriment of it's creators. I understand that when there's a crucial percentage of money in the game it could happen, but like you, i don't believe this system will ever get better at all.
Also, it's about time that advertisers should start look further. In the past, you would link an advertiser to a show and it's content. So, maybe advertising in a "bad" show would be terrible to the advertisers. While i still think this could be seen as a problem, specially on a generation that worries about the environment and brands that do nice works, worry about the same stuff, try to find ways to keep up the production without being an environment hazard, i don't see people linking a brand to a content when it comes to streaming ads like they used to.
This generation is perfectly capable of knowing that, if Coca-Cola runs an ad on an UA-cam video, it's not Coca-Cola embracing that video, it's a result of a system. It's Coca-Cola targeting you, the viewer (ofc talking about YT ad here, not direct brand/sponsored videos), through the youtube system.
In the other hand, i think this is still complicated because people would point out and complain when a problem appears. When an ad is being run on a terrorist video, wich should not be ok, but in a complex system such as YT, that might happen. I honest though YT take on this situation would be more educational towards the advertisers and general users, saying more clear that "it was a mistake, one that might happen when you have all that complexity, and they were doing something to end that or make sure it wouldn't happen again". But instead, the "doing something" became these strict rules that direct affect lots of it's creators.
And gets worse when you see YT embracing all these celebrities, promoting them, running ads on their tragedy videos when demonetizing tragedy videos of everyone else and stating that their rules are to demonetize all those videos regardless. We, creators that are not from TV, begin to question what is YT take right now and what would be the direction the site will follow. The feeling is that the website is shitting at the creators right now, as if they couldn't care less, forgetting the fact that thousands of creators depend on their UA-cam related structure to run businesses, pay the bills and make a living.
It's like "heeeeey, let's do this, screw the creators, this graphic here says it should be good so we test that and see what happens".
I joke around saying that YT would be better if every people that works for YT were forced to create a channel and make at least 1 video per week for a month trying to create an audience before being employed, so they would feel the struggle as a creator and think about that too.
And to make things worse, the way YT deals with stuff, by not being clear or stating changes to the creators, letting us all try to figure out what was changed, how things works atm, doesn't help at all. We feel abandoned, crushed, left aside with a terrible future ahead, where YT will try to become some kind of television and shit on the creators that made the site a thing.
Sorry for the HUGE comment, just wanted to add my take on this, it's a super complex problem that needs to be talked about and needs a solution, wich would be super hard, because like you said well, involves two groups with different needs, but oh well. Thanks for the video, let's hope for the best.
+ Well said.
As a person alive I today, I 100% agree that I don't associate ads with video content at all.
Well said, well said 👊
I love the break down of it all... I've been an ICG member since it's inception and I'm glad you started it, but I'm also glad you acknowledge that it's still trying to find it's meaning.
I just wanted to point out that the demonetization issue that occured a year ago, where everyone got an email, was NOT the moment when everyone realized they had been demonetized. It wasn't that hard to find out in your video manager, you'd get a $ with a slash through it. Only the big channels who don't seem to check this regularly didn't notice... but there are videos about what to do if you've been demonetized that showed this from YEARS before the big email push. And it always kind of annoys me when the big channels fail to recognize this... like they live in a gated community and only realize that crime exists once it crosses over into their little bubble...
UA-cam, your creators have made you what you are. I subscribe to the creators that I do because they add something to my life, and I believe they should be treated better than this - better than your greed. Shame on you. DO BETTER.
I'm glad some people are talking about this.
I fight for human rights & promote science, & I got demonetized. :'(
Holy Koolaid hey, I know you. :)
oh, your content looks interesting. I'll look into it ^^
Oh neat. Thanks guys. The nice thing about my channel right now for you guys is there aren't that many ads currently. 🤣
Holy Koolaid You talk avout more than just science on your channel. Also, you use keywords that would discourage many advertisers
I'm honestly not surprised your channel got demonetized, and I'm an atheist.
this video was really helpful
I've been creating on UA-cam for several years and I've worked extremely hard and been extremely lucky here. Over the years I've felt more and more that YT has become less and less focused on the creator. This seems like just another turn of focus. As a gaming creator I was able to thankfully immediately begin streaming on Twitch after the ad revenue drop. I've seen a lot of YT issues come and go but this is the first time I really feel like I can't trust YT to have my best interests at heart.
Sl1pg8r - Daily Stuff and Things! I think your utilization of twitch is smart. UA-cam is just one platform on the market. Smart investors diversify to maximize profits and security of investments. It's going to me interesting to see if UA-cam can break out of it's recession.
I've been seeing that a lot with many gaming content creators starting to shift over to Twitch, heck even old man Xisuma has been streaming.
Sl1p funny how the world gets small sometimes, I used to watch your Hermitcraft vids. (glad you have kept finding ways to remain doing what you love)
Well... they don't. They have to have their own interests first, and in this case there is an existential threat they have to deal with. I don't fault them for dealing with the problem. I think they just went about it in the wrong way. They forgot that their customers *include* their content creators, as well as viewers and advertisers. The decision they made to use AI to filter video content for monetization - an AI they knew at the time was likely to be overreact and cause videos to be demonetize that should not have been - was purely for the benefit of advertisers and at the expense of creators and viewers. They should have remembered that without content creators and viewers, the advertisers have nothing to sell.
youtube is now focused t prevent feminists ...gays...muslims and etc from getting triggerd
While I'm not a content creator I have felt the pinch of the ad crisis as a viewer. Several of my favorite creators have had to majorly cutback on their upload schedule due to not making enough in ad revenue and having to go back to the 9-5. I sincerely wish I could be a patron to every channel I love my financial situation makes this impossible. I hope UA-cam figures out a better solution because as it stands now its not sustainable because eventually another platform will come along that will figure it out (RIP blip).
Thank you for the level, unbiased explanation of this topic, Hank. It's something that I've seen swirling around the community for awhile but I've never fully understood what was going on or even what was true or not. I always know I can count on you guys to present the facts. 🙌🏻
+
I don’t think Hank can be unbiased when discussing this topic since he’s directly affected by demonetization. I’d like to hear UA-cam’s side of the story.
Paul, Hank actually said in this video that "advertiser-friendly" content, such as much of his educational channels, have actually seen an increase in income since the change because they're getting more of the pie. Honestly he also does a pretty fair job of representing UA-cam's side of the story. Others' quips about this have made UA-cam seem discriminatory, whereas Hank makes them out to be overly cautious when threatened.
Naiadryade No matter how compassionate Hank is about UA-cam’s motives, he’s very clear about being in disagreement with UA-cam’s culture toward advertising. This does not allow him to be unbiased, consciously or not, about speaking on this subject. And unless you’ve spoken to someone at UA-cam with autonomy regarding its advertising practices, you can’t claim that he’s being fair in representing their intentions.
Talia Føre
The one thing I cannot wrap my head around is this pervasive "we only want our content next to happy things" thought that advertisers seem to have. I don't think any more or less of a brand based on the content they're with.
I mute devices whenever adverts are on. I seriously couldn't care less what brand is advertising. To me the only purpose of an ad is to annoy me for a few seconds so that the content creator I like watching is able to continue providing their content for me to watch without paying them directly (ofc then theres also patreon and things but that is a whole separate thing)
I am also glad you are talking about this. I am a Peer Specialist and I make videos on Mental Health and a healthy discussion about Bipolar Disorder & PTSD and I had gotten demonetized. I also talk about Artist's Way based on book on Julia Cameron in my videos and that got demonetized also.
Wise words, which of course will be completely and deliberately ignored by UA-cam until they are replaced by a better platform.
What is with the algorithms? I am not subscribed to Pewdiepie. So why is UA-cam sending me a notification on my phone of the latest Pewdiepie video? Yet I am not seeing my videos of people I do subscribe to on UA-cam newsfeed. Also I am upset that now people have to double subscribe by clicking on bell just to see their content. I should only have to subscribe once to see the creators I love.
Wenona Gardner If you go into your settings and go to your notification preferences, there is option to disable notifications for recommended content.
look up black hat vs white hat SEO that is another thing that hasn't been touched on in any of the videos about this unfortunately because most creators don't know enough about SEO. The issue is that Google wants the most relevant content to show for advertiser and to you. The problem is that there are definitely those out there that are less friendly and whether they want to admit it they use techniques not approved by Google to get to the recommended pages or your sidebar.
You see it a lot with anti-feminist channels they know how to game the system so if you watch a video dealing with anything to do with female creators you will see red pill stuff. That has to do with keywords and other things. This may not seem related but it is because as Google tries to fight violations of it's SEO algorithms it's also working with the demonetization bot and I have a feeling they deal with the same spiders.
Just Between Us made a video about how their content on mental health (their focus) has been demonetized. If UA-cam really is cutting off mental health content, it's not just a smack in the face to the creators--it's harmful to our society as a whole. We need to foster those discussions, not punish them.
Definitely a problem. I would say, though, that since UA-cam is UA-cam's platform, they have the right to do what they want with it and deal how they want with their partners, both creators and advertisers. Having a virtual monopoly on online video does saddle UA-cam with moral and social responsibilities, which they should fulfill, but I think the way to get them to fulfill those responsibilities is through better contracts with creators.
You hear a lot about demonetization and sometimes it's hard to know the facts about what is actually going on. Thanks for having an open honest conversation to explain what it really means.
Thanks for the video. As a content consumer, I have been disheartened lately by many of the smaller channels I follow seem to be struggling with this issue.
I think UA-cam needs to think more about advertising on the channel level instead of the video level. To make a comparison to TV, I imagine that advertisers much more often decide "I am going to advertise on Wheel of Fortune" than "I am going to advertise on this particular episode of Wheel of Fortune".
They already set a minimum level of views under which you you don't get advertised on. Once you get past that, you should go into the current restrictive system.
There should also be another level of views that when you go over, you get put into a second advertising system, wherein the advertisers select to advertise on your specific channel and dedicate some fixed sum of money to those advertisements. Multiple advertisers can select to advertise on a given channel, but the more advertisers select that channel the greater the amount deducted from that fixed amount each time an advertisement is run. So it costs more per view to advertise on more popular channels, which at some point should incentivize advertisers to start supporting less popular channels as the advertising per view is cheaper. Whichever channel has the most money in that fixed account "wins" to be shown on a given view, but that balance is then immediately reduced which may lead to some other advertiser being on top for the next view.
The thinking being that once a channel gets over whatever level this ends up being, they should have a pretty consistent content style. Hank is not going to start uploading ISIS propaganda out of the blue, especially when he has a check coming in that he knows he would be blacklisting himself from should he post undesirable content. Advertisers should be able to spend 10 minutes and get a pretty good handle on what a channel has to offer when being advertised against.
It also opens up the opportunity for creators to be able to see who has chosen to advertise against their channel, and if they have some ideological conflict, they can choose to opt out of having that advertiser on their channel. It costs them money, so it probably won't be used a lot. However, it makes sense that an Organic Gardening channel might not want Monsanto to be able to advertise on their channel even if it does cost them money.
This isn't perfect, it has a few perverse incentive problems, but even those are just tempered down versions of the current perverse incentives there are now.
Like there has been discussion of how the "Advertiser Friendly" label has started to steer content creators to alter their content to fit in with that. This proposed solution does not eliminate this, it just gives a release valve. If you are a popular creator that isn't labeled as "Advertiser Friendly", this at least gives advertisers that might share your market the opportunity to focus in on you as a valid advertising outlet without also advertising on all non - "Advertiser Friendly" content. If no advertisers choose you though, you are back on the current model of wondering if you should change what you do in order to better be advertiser friendly.
It also probably makes it a bit harder to break into the UA-cam space. Under this system I imagine a good portion of the money would filter up to that top tier, which means even the channels that are "Advertiser Friendly" would be bringing in a bit less than currently until they break into the view count that puts them into the top advertising tier.
Making the advertiser interface easy enough to use would also be a bit of a challenge, as you would want the cut off for this top advertising tier to be low enough that its obtainable by most well established channels, but then there are lots of channels for the advertisers to wade through to find what they want. I think Algorithm actually has a lot more ability to help here though, as it would be a lot easier to produce some appropriate channel tags by analyzing dozens of videos than it is to analyze a single video and make appropriate tags for that one video. Its definitely work, but I think its much more obtainable than trying to rework the current "Advertiser Friendly" Algorithm.
But I am just a random software analyst looking at the problem from the outside as a content consumer.
I finally caved and got a youtube red subscription and i am LIVING
Good for you. Making or watching
I reaaaaally hope there is a way to fix it. I’ve actually taken out “lgbt” and “gay” out of my channel tags so my videos would be flagged less.
Wow you were ahead of the curve.
I would love for you and MatPat and Philipp Defranco etc., you know, the long time creators, along with some smaller ones, to get together in a conference and try as a community to figure something out. I don't think anything is going to change unless the creators unite and stand up to the platform (but for that you all would have to come up with a plan B first).
I would LOVE a conversation between MatPat and Hank, because of the yters I've seen, they are the most informed and smart ones when it comes to the complexity of the algorithm and the culture of youtube and how they interact.
I'm always surprised when I hear of the tremendous lengths advertisers go to, since I always feel like the ads I see are very, very poorly attuned to me. When I walk into a bookstore, there's almost always a display table full of books that I've either read, or want to read, so I know I'm not unreachable, but how on earth can a famously dying industry figure out my tastes so much better than google and whoever else?
Oh I agree so much. Like 90% percent of ads I feel like are products I'd never buy and never talk about.
The bookstores haven't figured you out, you are just attuned to pop culture.
google is comprised of very talented coders and no one who ever received a degree in marketing.
Robert Baillargeon I keep getting ads for pregnancy tests. I don't want to have children.
The only ad I've ever seen that I felt was targeted at me was an ad for French cheese. I want an option to only see ads for French cheese from now on. If Saint Albray made a youtube channel, I would watch that.
I'm so white.
Yeah, unfortunately it's hit the outdoor community hard. Video's where I go over gear, show off important outdoor skills that may save a person's life, even just show off a cool plant get hit with "limited to no ads". and it's annoying. there is nothing controversial in the videos. I could half understand if I was showing off a knife, where to some is a weapon, but to people who actually use it is an important tool that is used for many things (carving, food prep, ect). And if you want your channel to do well in that genre, you sort of have to talk about those topics, because they are popular. But people look at the outdoor groups and see crazy survivalists, when I'm just a guy... trying to get people outside and having fun. but even the most innocent video gets put on limited ads. at least until my views on the vids finish.
It seems like almost every community I enjoy is getting hit hard by this... :(
So correct. The biggest sign to me UA-cam didn't care about creators was starting the Partner For All idea in 2012. Todays trouble can be directly linked to that stupid decision. That triggered some of the worst content and creators to the site in a chase for really easy money. And sooner or later the advertisers saw how their cash was being spent. The site is in it's death throws, producers now looking for alternatives.
You are a lighthouse over the "ocean of noise" -- I'm subscribing now. Thank you for your passion and intelligence on this issue.
Hitting on a point that you talked about toward the end, I think that’s what kills me about this whole thing: advertisers need /US/, not the other way around, and yet UA-cam is giving advertisers the priority because UA-cam needs advertisers’ money. Viewers don’t need advertisements. Lord knows there’s too many out there anyway. We can find what we need or want when we need it. If UA-cam puts its foot down and forced advertisers to change to meet us rather than everyone suffering to meet advertisers... Ugh, this whole thing is dumb. I just want to support my favorite creators.
thewinterizzy i guess there's just so many ppl on youtube making content, and as hank says, where else are they going to go. But i agree, particularly in this new enviro where young ppl just arent watching tv or say, reading newspapers, the youtube platform is invaluable as a way to access that market, and the content creators are key to that
But, at the same time, UA-cam needs the money from advertising in order to pay content makers. And we want our content makers to be able to eat, pay rent, have medical care, etc. You really cant seperate it.
I agree. Well said!
Sure, no content = no ads = no money. But the creators don't have anywhere else to go. UA-cam knows they have to suck it up or find a day job. It's always been this way for creatives, I'm afraid. Too many people want to be singers, actors and vloggers.
Except youtube doesn't really need creators if it has vevo, late shows and movie trailers. Creators are almost something wonderful that has happened by accident.
Thank you for making this video, Hank. Both of the videos I posted this week were demonetized (an embroidery tutorial and an unboxing featuring women artists) and it's taking a while to get them back while I wait for them to be reviewed. I know there are issues with their algorithm and I'm honestly surprised it took this long for my videos to mistakenly lose ads given how many of my friends keep losing monetization. But now I'm in a place where I have to decide if I want to keep investing time in something that may get revenue removed for no reason or even change my content to try and avoid anything that could potentially have that double meaning you talked about. Apparently using needles in sewing projects is one of those things. I agree with you that if their machine hasn't learned by now, it may not ever get it right. Most of my videos only get views for the first two days... whenever it takes 3 or more to get ads back, that's pretty much all of it gone.
It seems like the advertisers made a power play with UA-cam to say "Hey, without us, your website would fail, so take care of us or we'll take our business elsewhere". Meanwhile, creators don't have that same power, because while we do bring the money in, without creators there's no platform, but we don't seem to have the same influence with the people at UA-cam to enact meaningful change that makes everyone happy. Because these ad-agencies are these monolithic powerful forces with legal teams and everything else that we as creators don't have. Not to mention that not everyone is getting hit by it, so some people are less invested in making changes that help everyone.
Pre-ad days on UA-cam were very different, as soon as money started rolling in for creators, the platform as a whole was raised up. The content got better, the community got better, and I think UA-cam needs to realize that it can function without these big advertising companies, but they can't function without the creators. And if they keep screwing with creators, especially small up and coming channels, they're going to start taking their content somewhere else. Right now, the biggest thing scaring me personally is the whole ad-limbo that every video is thrown into until you appeal. But you can't appeal until the video crosses 1,000 views, and you have to wait up to 48 hours for anything to be done, but the vast majority of a video's views pour in within that 48 hour window, hobbling any chance of that video making substantial income, which it absolutely should be.
We're already so undervalued and underpaid in terms of ad revenue as it is, which is why so many people resort to sponsorship deals or Patreon or merchandising, just to pay the bills and keep food on the table, if eventually creators are earning 80%-90% of their revenue through alternate channels than revenue, why would we even need UA-cam anymore? This is ripe for some other start up to change the model to really favor creators, and if we start seeing a lot of this big channels leave for another platform, I think it's only a matter of time before we would see this massive exodus to another platform.
I obviously don't have a solution, but I think that UA-cam should start playing its part in helping the creator first, we're the backbone of the entire platform, and if you keep discouraging people from even making content in the first place, the long term future of the platform is at serious risk.
I'm doing my senior research paper for my bachelors degree on UA-cam and the adpocalypse and how changes in the industry are affecting the way creators can make money online. Hank, you've been a wealth of information from the personal experiences you talk about and the resources you link to. Thanks for everything you do!
UA-cam's been drinking the advertiser's Koolaid.
Holy Koolaid ain't nothing wrong with that. It's how business works.
I agree that it involves youtube's mouth and swallowing, but I think the action is *slightly* different...
its not advertiers doing this. they sold out.
thats the koolaid of reality. stop pointing fingers and denegrating and offer an alternative solution.
The benefits of capitalism is lost on some people. Free stuff pls.
Thank you so much for making this.
I myself make videos related to mental illness awareness, activism, and other similar things pretty often and every single one of them has gotten demonetized.
I saw Phil and your fireside chat at VidCon Anaheim and really appreciated your discussion on monetization and making money as a creator.
But yeah, I think that everything is pretty confusing and frustrating but the more that creators (like you and so many other amazing people) discuss these issues, the closer we'll get to a solution.
ps. I also really, really love ICG so thank you for that as well!
I love these long rambling videos
Me too!
Me too, it feels like a hangout with a smart friend
Who doesn't. We need more rants in 4 minutes though
You're a vanguard in this area. I'm so glad you're organizing, analyzing, and observing -- benefiting all creators. Thank you so much for all your work. It makes everything just better for all-- even those of us (like me!) who don't make videos for a living, but enjoy watching content that never would have been possible on network television or corporate movie businesses. Have a great time on the tour! I can't wait to get the book, I pre-ordered, but we're in Germany so it'll be a bit before I get it.
I feel like the Internet Creator's Guild could fairly easily be turned into a Union-like organization, and can group together to fight false copyright strikes, bad demonotization practices, and otherwise be a union.
I seriously can listen to you and your brother for hours on end. Both of you are insightful, intelligent, and entertaining. Thank you for your hard work.
Hank: "Who watches a show for 10 years?!"
Me: *raises hand*
Hank: "Good people!"
Lol
I've honestly watched Jenna Marbles' videos every week for 9 or 10 years.
It's nice to have a constant that makes me happy.
And I've watched vlogbrothers for 2 years now. :)
I am glad someone high status is talking about this. I make content asking questions to Israelis and Palestinians. Like in all conflicts, content sometimes includes people saying not nice things about other people but overall, the videos are very tame. At one point, all my videos were demonitized. Now I have to ask for manual reviews for each. The reviewers personal political opinions obviously impact their decision since videos asking the same questions to both groups were treated very differently by reviewers. How can a content maker make enough money to create videos if people are hyper sensitive to hearing views in conflict? How can a creator ask for a second review for a demonitized video or a justification why it can't be monitized? I have videos that can't be monetized which has nothing controversial or negative in it. And there is no one to talk to at UA-cam.
For example, this video is not monetizable and I can't figure out why: ua-cam.com/video/r5168ysQ2rU/v-deo.html
It feels like it's currently impossible to be a small UA-cam channel in this current climate. Like the big UA-camrs will be fine, but us little guys are dead in the water.
well said buddy
Hi Michael Jr., Vsause Jr. Here
Did you survive?
I've been watching for almost 10 years and I am seeing you live tomorrow in NYC! So pumped! DFTBA!
The issue is its affecting everyone. Including educational channels like History Buffs, The Great War, Cynical Historian, Numberphile, just to name a few. Channels that don't have any real controversy are getting demonetized for no reason. I hope they take the time to fix this.
I have watched your videos since March 2007, so there are some of us that stick around. I found you guys as I was getting ready to graduate high school. You and John have been a major voice in shaping me as a person, and I don't care if y'all make vlogbrothers videos until 2100, I am a nerdfighter for life. I love you guys.
I finally caved and got UA-cam Red and I’m never going back if I can afford it. I didn’t realize how much the ads ruined my experience until they were gone-good riddance!
DarkBlue Matter use Google play they come with each other and it's just as good as spotify.
@Scooters Videos adblock doesnt just fck youtube, it fcks up the creators aswell.... its a good way of being an asshole tho
I want UA-cam red also but I'm just so sick of places wanting my money and making the experience steadily crapier unless you pay for their upgrade. The less places taking my money I better I think
i just got a free ad blocker, why tf would anyone pay for yt red, its a ripoff
@@lemoncola1164 adblocking hurts the creator..
So well done, Hank; thoughtful and thorough, no knee-jerk reactions. Thanks for this.
I don’t regularly make videos myself, but I have been a viewer for 10 years. The first people I ever started watching were Mitchell Davis and WheezyWaiter, and I still watch/support them today. UA-cam has gone through plenty of changes in that time, some good, some bad, but this advertising problem... I get it, advertisers want to make money. UA-cam wants to survive. But they’re not earning my loyalty by screwing over creators I love. If anything, it just makes me more weary of companies. Honestly, I much prefer when creators take on brand deals - I’m more likely to take a recommendation from someone I respect. It’s a mess and I don’t have a solution... I wish UA-cam would just take a stand with their creators.
+
For a video with (almost) no cuts, it is incredibly coherent. Thank you for the explanation!
Obviously haven't watched the video yet but I love when it you share your thoughts on UA-cam stuff (or other things really) in longer videos like these.
Hey Hank I appreciate the thoughtful and balanced description of this problem. Please make a condensed 4 minuteish info video on this topic. You have a unique position to discuss this and I think it would be beneficial especially right now. Thanks again :)
0/10 not giant fruit/vegetables
Ironic that this video would have far greater reach but is hindered by the format on that channel.
I wish they would post more stuff like this there.
Chickenman161 agreed.
Cypher Caliban +
Chickenman161 they do often post educational videos which can be over 4 minutes sans 'punishment'
Ha! I'm definitely one of the people who's been watching for 10 years. You and John have been an awesome adventure to follow over the years! I've been able to support lots of cool organizations over the years that I would've never heard of if it wasn't for Project for Awesome :)
I'm really worried about all of my favorite trans UA-camrs who have had everything demonetized for months. It seems like anything with trans people in it is just done. Is that something that's changing too?
Edit: just saw the end of the video - thank you for specifically addressing it.
Dear Hank. through the last 10 years. I've been regularly watching your content.. I've enjoyed everything you have made. especially your sci-show and crash course with John.. I sincerely hope you keep doing what you are doing and. Don't forget to be awesome! :)
My channel covers the academic study of religion, and as you can imagine, a lot of my videos have been demonetized too.
ReligionForBreakfast my interest is piqued. I'm heading your way after this video is over.
In all honesty, why is the academic study of religion demonitized? Is it one of those "it has the word 'religion' in it so it's restricted" things?
Some of the vids I can understand why an algorithm might flag them. I have an academic analysis of Marx's quote "religion is the opiate of the people." Apparently the metadata "Marx" is not advertiser friendly? But there are other vids where I am just baffled why they were flagged. I'm assuming it is because the notion that "religion" is too controversial.
Seriously Marx? Are advertisers afraid people will seize the means of production?
ReligionForBreakfast was the term "Opiate" in the title?
Very interesting analysis. I'd love to see an update of how things have changed in the last 3 years and how those changes effect all stakeholders.
What was the tipping point for YT to e-mail people and tell them videos were demonized instead of just doing it without notifying people? Is UA-cam afraid that people are going to get more brand deals instead of ads and they will lose money? What do you think about the new rules for external links? Do you think they will ever try to shut down external links so people don't make money outside of their platform that they don't get a cut from? I feel like they were trying to be more like Patreon with fan funding and super chats.
SciJoy Superchat was more likely based on Twitch’s Bits donation system, and Sponsorships were based on Twitch’s subscriptions system (their equivalent of UA-cam subscriptions is “following”)
Rule #1 in business: You don't let other people see your cards. Their algorithm is their advantage, and other companies are CLAMORING to figure out how UA-cam does it in order to create their own algorithms and compete. UA-cam doesn't want ANY of this.
My purely speculative hunch, based on my experience in software and working with Google and being a little bit familiar with their organizational structure, is that the ways those emails went out was an accident. We found out after the emails started that some videos had been getting demonetized for a while and no one had really been noticing it. My bet is that a notification tool was written as part of the recent program of making UA-cam more 'advertiser friendly' (since Google is largely structured around 'programs' internally) that, when it was turned on, went back in time and sent the emails for all of the demonetized videos at once, even though those videos had been in the 'demonetized condition' for a while. I think the intent was to communicate with creators about demonetization, but the notification tool 'catching up' with old videos was something that the engineers who wrote that piece of software did not anticipate before it was enabled. Again, just a very uniformed hunch.
UA-cam si concerned about their creators, and tried to be more open about their methods, to foster the community and attract new creators.
Thank you for this video. I rarely have the time to watch anything not edited and boiled down. While I'm vaguely aware of the issues facing youtube and avertisement, giving me the context of the rise of video advertising really helped - I appreciated it immensly. And, as I have in the past, I really wish UA-cam Red were available in more countries... I think that would be a large first step in alleviating the problems you describe, and keeping the viewer more directly involved in determining what gets made rather than the advertiser.
This is an amazing video, and thank you for breaking it down. But I have a question: Does UA-cam really need independent creators? While I generally see music artists represented by large record labels in "Trending," I hardly see any of the rising independent creators on that list. I see Jimmy Kimmel's video on gun control or the healthcare debate being pushed, but I don't see smart independent commentators that may be equally as good. And that's because independent creators are a risk, while things that are made for TV or made by large record labels aren't. And So many people I know (and I think you've mentioned this, too) now view UA-cam as an aggregator of popular content, just like Facebook and Twitter, rather than an incubator for independent creators. While there are far more independent creators than "mainstream" content, the reliable and advertiser-friendly views go to the mainstream content. With UA-cam TV, it seems like they're moving more in that direction. I'd love to know your thoughts.
I know its been 5 years but youtube trendings algorithm is created by youtube; in the past when it favored non-independant creators it was more a result of youtube pushing that
finally gave this a listen cause it shows up in my recommends a lot, this is a very interesting look into how this stuff works, and is all very very well said, i'd love to see an update video about how youtube's addressed (or not) the concerns from 2017
As someone who's on the other side of advertising (I'm a designer), it's sickening to know how quick companies are to manipulate for a bottom line. I think you're onto something here though. Advertisers are used to ruling the market with television, and it's going to take a lot of very clever innovation to change that.
This was a fantastic video. Around the 30 minute mark you point to the fact that the yt spac should be more about a creative community and that they should focus on that. It's important to remember that Amazon does have sponsored products, and Google is the best at targeted advertisements, and they use the data we provide them with for free and monetize that information. They are still a company, that has shareholders and a fiduciary responsibility first and that goes against the idea of a supportive creator driven site that allows creators to dictate advertisers placements. You make very good points that communication and other academics have been pointing out for years about advertisers and the content that gets created. Those in marginalized communities (both geographically and virtual) don't get content created for them, by them and if it is, it's usually never paid for by ads. I would be fascinated to see creators, to revenue as it pertains to country, location, and demographic information that Google and YT. I will look into yt red and see how that is distributed to creators, because if that actually goes to creators that would be a viable solution to many. (including myself)
Is there anything that people who watch UA-cam (as opposed to creators) can do to let UA-cam know that we're not okay with the way they've been demonetizing videos? I assume there's some kind of form to send feedback, but are there any petitions or organized efforts in existence that we can help with? I'm totally happy to support individual creators via UA-cam Red/Patreon/merch, but if there's a way to work toward changing the flaws in the system on top of that I'm also very in.
I dont know if it will be the same for people without a channel but scroll right to the bottom of your page as you watch youtube there might be a option that says( send feedback ) like I say I dont know if it will work for everyone + youtube will never answer you back or seem to ever change anything but you can only tell them what you think
THANK YOU! I've had such a hard time finding decent information on what's going on, and I've felt like, over time, advertisers have been gaining power and it's frustrating when it feels like nobody's reigning them in.
Since I don't have money right now, I never use adblockers (except way may be built-in to Firefox or Chrome), even when doing so slows down my browser. Also, I try to remember to wait about five seconds before skipping skippable ads.
A couple of things, related-but-sort-of-off-topic:
1) I keep hearing how, for skippable ads, advertisers pay NOTHING if that ad is skipped immediately. If true, then HOW THE ACTUAL HECK DID THEY GET AWAY WITH THAT ONE?! Time is money, and the advertiser already burned away five seconds of the viewer's time and took valuable ad space. Similarly, I've heard that for other kinds of web media, if an ad they host isn't clicked on, the advertiser doesn't pay money. That is NOT how that should work. The ADVERTISER took up took up resources. The viewer saw the ad. Whether or not the viewer chooses to ACT on the ad, the advertiser still made their existence known. Also, if the advertiser is making ads that are so awful that people use adblocker, it's time to reel in your advertisers, not your viewers.
I firmly believe that the way it should work is: If the viewer sees your ad, you pay up. It's YOUR responsibility to make a quality advertisement. While it is the medium's responsibility to show your ad to the people you want it shown to, you still occupied their resources. So maybe you don't pay a lot per ad if they ad is skipped quickly, but you still occupied their time and resources. If the ad is clicked on/NOT skipped, then you pay EXTRA. I don't know HOW we ended up in the scenario we ended up in, but that angers me.
2) On UA-cam Red, I would actually be *more* willing to pay for it if UA-cam Red DIDN'T bundle it with exclusive content, because that's just the old 'paid videos' crap. This is just another kind of paywall that decreases the accessibility of the site, which is the exact opposite direction I want this kind of service to go. The lack of paywall is what I love about UA-cam, and adding in a paywall to certain kinds of content is . . . what's the word . . . *bad*.
"Who watches a show for ten years??"
* me munching on popcorn still watching The Walking Dead *
well 7 but close!
Meanwhile, Dr Who ..
still watching greys anatomy
+Sophie Odair lol
+Natasha Taylor Doctor Who is the shit. * awkard high five *
thank you for your insights Hank! It helps so much to see the problem(s) in their wider context
Creators are the only reason anyone is even on this site. It's bull that they aren't the first people being listened to on this platform. Their answer to Casey's tweet was unacceptable and we have to hold them accountable for that. It's censorship and it doesn't belong on this platform after a manual review or not.
While I agree that the creators are the most important people in the ecosystem, without advertisers the site wouldn't exist at all. Someone has to pay the electricity bills and the salaries, and I've learned from my exposure to the business world that the person writing the checks holds a lot of power
I must admit that most of this stuff went right over my head. Economics might be a voodoo magic for me. But it was interesting and I feel like I've gained just a smallest insight into the inner workings of youtube and internet economics in general. Just enough to realize it is much more complicated than I could previously imagined.
On a tangential note - it was nice to see you, Hank, unedited, "au naturel" so to speak. It feels like I got to know you a little better. And you have a gigantic map of the Narnia and Surrounding Countries on your wall!! It is epic!!
Is there a reason why creators (especially LGBT+) can't just be marked as safe and porn free from a channel standpoint so their videos don't get filtered through to unsafe? I feel like the response is generally large enough if a good creator does something really dumb that the video either comes down or people really stop watching so it doesn't really seem like individual videos on a channel that you know has a following is a big risk to ads...
yeah there could be some sort of doc creators can sign to agree to only post appropriate content. And then anything they post is automatically 'safe'.
This sounds really good in theory (and might even be a good part of the solution), but I see a few big problems. The first is that this will only benefit the larger channels. The many channels that are already struggling to make this a fulltime thing, or who just want to use the income to for instance buy a better camera likely won't have the opportunity to be marked as safe. Secondly, if you allow a lot of people to use this, this system will be manipulates by creators. Finally and maybe most importantly: this seems like it would really restrict what creators can make. For their entire channel to be marked as safe they can never cross the line. They can never make videos about taboo topics. What if someone for instance wants to make a video about sexual assault? I understand that UA-cam might not consider that advertisingfriendly, but I wouldn't want a channel to avoid important topics like that out of fear their channel loses their status.
(sorry for the ramble, I'm writing this from my phone without proofreading ;) )
Totally agree. I'm in the true crime genre ( not gore ) and everything gets demonetized
truecrime news im into to history and they get demonitized for metionaning wars and weapons
Maybe it should also be talked about, what "safe" actually means for a video/advertiser?
If it's true, that some mere history factoids get demonized just for mentioning war and weapons (like Brent elias said) - that's ridiculous. Have advertisers ever seen TV, there's weapons and war and blood all the time and nobody cares. So that should not be "unsafe" for advertisers - or they need to pull their ads on TV as well.
I personally think, advertising is something we should rethink as a whole. Especially on the internet. Ads are not terribly effective in making you buy stuff and the internet just works very different from TV or newspapers or a billboard.
I appreciate the comparatively level-headed response. Although this video was pretty long, it really made me think of how Alphabet, UA-cam, advertisers, and creators play a role in the current situation, and what could be done to remedy it. Keep it up Hank!
Great video, Hank. About UA-cam Red, are there any news about it spreading to other countries? Because it really does sound like a great service but... still waiting
I appreciate you taking the time to make this video. I love learning about this behind the scenes technical stuff.
I feel like UA-cam could have an "easy" small fix (before they fix this majorly) by just telling creators WHY they are being demonetized. There are a lot of gaming channels that are demonetized for seemingly no reason.
Yes! Ive been waiting for a video like this as I am not a creator but want to know what is happening-- Thank you so much Hank!
For those in the comments who want a quick primer on how UA-cam bots and ad auctions work, CGP Grey made a video about that a few months ago: ua-cam.com/video/KW0eUrUiyxo/v-deo.html
+
+
+
(Editing to add, thank you for not making this a Rickroll, because like, I would not even have considered it. I'd've just clicked blindly. But instead there was actual information and that is awesome!)
Thanks for sharing the link Ryan will jump right in and watch
thanks!!!
I appreciate you being honest with this, Hank. I like that you gave a pretty good background of the history of monetization on UA-cam + advertising since the 60's since it's relevant knowledge that can leave people feeling left behind when talking about this. I also appreciate that you can voice your displeasure and criticize UA-cam, but still have this optimism that it is the platform to improve this situation on. Thank you for making this video in the face of having no time.
And I have to mention "We're Google. Let's have a lot of meetings." made me laugh.
Drawing on parallels in regular industries, a step between "do nothing" and "quit UA-cam" is an organised strike. As far as I can tell the Internet Creator's Guild is essentially a UA-cam videomaker union, so why not strike? No videos for a week from the big channels will get their attention as it hits their bottom line, in the exact same way that large advertisers can hit their bottom line by pulling their ads. It would help even out the power dynamic.
I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to say whether you should or shouldn't strike but it's a powerful tool.
Luke Shirley +
That is a thought. Though my feeling is that it would hardly cause more than a blip in the scheme of things due to the thousands of YTubers making content. It is unlikely that so many people will get on board the 'strike'.
This said, I am also thinking along this line of thought.
My opinion is that YT is having a huge problem to actually review content due to the sheer output of material. To somewhat help this, YT had to use automated systems/bots that review content. Sadly, unlike people that can appreciate nuance and sift out non-desirables (porn, rape, terrorism, racism, etc..), On top of all this teh Advertisers are now jumpy due to the outrage by the consumers (whether or not the outrage is feigned). Its like trying to hack a mountain away that is growing faster than it can be broken down.
If your not striking in front of a factory where your boss can see you out of his exaggerated and luxurious office windows, it might not change much. Creators would be striking at algorithms. Most channels change their upload schedules from time to time, and people just watch other stuff, because there is practically infinite content. The only thing hurt by striking would be the creators and channels themselves, punished by the cold machine hand of the algorithm.
Dystopian novel idea: e- and gig-economy. No worker even knows their employer because everyone is assigned by an almighty algorithm. Most people live relatively happy and normal lives, but some fall through the cracks. They are known as glitches. Some of them are officially dead and some have never existed. They populate the underworld. They do the jobs no one else can, they are invisible to the all-seeing eye. As Mohammed loses his job and his home to an error in the system, he gets sucked into a maelstrom of crime, intrigue and revolution. He and a group of hardy rebels make their way to the centre of power, only to find out that nobody knows what they're doing, everything's out of control and there really is no easy catch-all solution to fix everything, which is super frustrating but also realistic.
Thanks for posting this, Hank - I find this sort of 'inside baseball' of UA-cam fascinating!
Hey bud, "Friends" was on for like 10 years, I think, so yeah people do that probably maybe
I know that UA-cam comments are not a place for a dialogue, but I float this thought: In a system like UA-cam where the advertiser doesn't select the specific content their advertisements are shown on, why would any rational person get mad at a company (Coca-Cola, in your example) if their ad was algorithinically displayed alongside questionable content (terrorism video, in your example)? Advertisement in a system like this is not endorsement by the advertiser.
I realize that this has been the mindset to this point (or at least, the media and politicians fan this flame) but I propose we have to decouple these two things in order to reach the promised land of truly democratized content creation environments.
Well, you convinced me. I've been going back and forth for months about getting UA-cam Red. One of the most frustrating things was that functionality I used to have was taken away and put behind a paywall (e.g. playing the audio from a video on my phone while on a different tab or with the screen off). But taking it from a reputable source that it really does help the creators that I love has put me over the edge. And hey, the free trial period right now is three months, so wahoo!
Wow half an hour of hank. Awesome. :-)
Collin Norwood sweet, could you give me the Name of that podcast?
Henning Plogmacher Dear Hank and John
I always have so much respect for the way you manage to explain things and your own opinion about them.
What is unfortunate about the review process is you can only it do it on videos that got 1000 views which my videos have not had. So basically I can't get my videos reviewed.
Nope
this has been really interesting even though i am not a content creator on youtube. thank you for talking about it, hank
I JUST broke $100 and started making a profit NOW, within the last 24 hours, youtube has gone through all of my videos and demonetized 20 of them. WTF?!? When I clicked on the link to have the demonetization reviewed I get a message that says that I can't have it reviewed until I have over 1000 views in a week. WTF?!? They brought the axe down in my videos that only had 20-100 views but were somewhat controversial.
PTPOP kind of in the same boat
Hail Wojcicki ua-cam.com/video/_ec-LPBAWyI/v-deo.html
@Steven Horton, While I do agree, you should see what Logan Paul got busted for and how many views he got.
FINALLY someone who answered my burning question about whether demonitized videos get revenue when I watch them with my YT Red subscription. I have been getting close to canceling it outright, especially if demonitized vids don't get revenue from it. At the end of the day it's more important to me that the creators I care about get money through my views than it is for me to never see ads, since I never used adblock on YT before I got Red just for that reason, anyway. Thanks for the info Hank, and I appreciate your creator and consumer-oriented discussion. Your ending statements are especially true to my feelings--I'm tired of being fed what someone else thinks someone of my demographic would like to be fed.
Furthermore, the absolute last thing that informs my view on what a company supports or does not support is whether their ad gets shown on any particular YT video. I've grown up on the internet; I know how disconnected advertising and content is here--I've seen it at its worst. It's not the TV and I hope it never is because I stopped watching that noise ages ago anyway. Advertisers are going to have to figure out how to reach me on my terms; I'm not looking back any time soon.
I'm on year 8
I've gone through phases where I don't keep up to date with your shows, like I watch sci show very sporadically, but I've always watched something from you and your brother since I started watching about 8 years ago (I wasn't using UA-cam before then). Y'all are one if the first creators I discovered, and one of a couple from that time I still watch regularly. That list is you guys, Charlie, and Liam (when he posts lol).
I am having a hard time deciding on what subjects to do my next videos. Is there a published list out there of approved topics list you can monetize videos on in advance. I recently made a video about the Artist's Way book by Julia Cameron and I was upset to discover it was demonetized. I would have liked to know that in advance before I waste my time on making a video.
The idea of an 'approved topics' list really frightens me because it begs the question "Who gets to decide what's on the list?"
Ryan Ruark They already have the list that they are using to demonetize the videos now. It currently exists. My question is there a public list available so we creators know what they are looking for.
Thanks Hank, I'm not a content creator but I am very interested in UA-cam and the industry so I appreciate your effort of putting this information out there because a lot of people don't understand, and while it might not interest most, I'm sure this will help some understand better the situation. The audience should understand to some degree the relationship it has with content creators in order to make good decisions for the future of the platform.
Wait, wait. If I go Red each video I view gets more money for its creator than if I watch ads?
Michael Rasmussen yes.
I really appreciate these long form videos, I think this is one of those subjects that needs a long form, instead of a >10minute video
Everyone knows you are John Green!
Post more videos like this! I LOVE the long format and the flow of consciousness.
It's almost like capitalism is a system where people with the most money have the most say over what gets to exist and what doesn't.
Not that this is useful criticism per se, but it's important to have clarity about the exploitative system you're in when making decisions about how to prevent exploitations.
I love that you talked about the "churn" of old viewers dropping out and new viewers dropping in.
I used to love vlogbrothers and scishow etc.
then i went away, i fell out of love with the content
now i'm back for hank's rambing which is exactly the content i like now.
UA-cam Red? All this time I thought people were saying "U2 Bread"
I can feel how bad you feel about this! Big names in youtube are highly affected by this f****ng change but moreover the msall creators like me are affected too! We are earning small like close to none but now we feel so left out. I love UA-cam and I praise UA-cam for how wonderful it was but righ now I'm so, so disappointed and I feel like they put less value to their creators. I just can't help it! I s***ks and I hope they 'll take positive action for the equal benefit of the creators and the advertisers.
The last time I was this early I was early.
So, it took 30 minutes, but I am really glad to hear that my Red subscription is helping creators! Thank you for answering that question!
Well, my whole channel is demonetized indefinitely since 2013 - and I still don't have the slightest idea why...
Don't panic
Wild guess, but maybe because you comment on a lot of videos and you draw a lot of thumbs down and flags for that reason.
culwin / What does actions outside of your channel have to do with your videos?
Writing a paper over the recent demonetization issue. This video really helped give a lot of background for it. Thanks a lot!
Why don't you call your union a union? Why don't you get political? Why don't you go on strike like the Writer's Guild?
+
+
+
Yes!!! You took the words out of my mouth. Though sadly, youtube's algorithm would then make any further videos they made more difficult to access, even for subscribers (MatPat did a video on it)
Creators already own a significant amount of the means of production and they attract the viewers. UA-cam does own the servers and control the algorithm but I think the creators still have a significant bargaining position if they organize, make demands, and strike. Hopefully, most viewers will not cross the virtual picket line and watch videos if they do strike which will cause UA-cam to cave quickly.