Youtube dropping monetization for storm videos (not April Fool's)

[Paul Knightley]

Whilst I'm in no way as qualified as you guys on this subject, one thing sticks in my mind: Advertisers put there material on all commercial TV channels, where programming can be almost anything (e.g. disaster documentaries, movies - which can be violent, the news, etc etc) - so what's different about YT? Is it because advertisers don't know which videos they will be 'added' to on YT, but they determine which TV channels and timeslots they want to be in?

 

[Andy Wehrle]

Andy...link your channel?

Train channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDecs5z6lNBWEk9tH4G9z6A

Everything else (including weather/chasing):

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz4gPB8eZjuV8DAb5dxXQRw

 

[Douglas Kiesling]

Like I have said before, Youtube as a revenue source is dead. We only use it for CMS to catch copyright pirates but beyond that it is over for any serious revenue.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I'm assuming YouTube's long term plan is to become a clearing (stock) house / agent for profitable videos under more restrictive contracts (like stock imaging) as opposed to a massive, uncontrolled depository. It would certainly generate more income and I'm sure they will eventually require an agreement allowing them to distribute and market the clips. A brilliant commercial move. This is happening all over the Internet, the concept of offering free, very non-restrictive services then slowly altering the format and rules for profit, just like Facebook did.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Well, here you go.... I seriously doubt YouTube is hiring 10k people to simply remove "offensive" material. It's all about the new marketing plan I noted in my last post.

It's also somewhat scary that their own sensors are going to decide what is offensive and what is not. You can expect a Supreme Court 1st Amendment battle about this down the line.

http://fox5sandiego.com/2017/12/10/google-is-hiring-10000-people-to-clean-up-youtube/

 

[Douglas Kiesling]

I'm assuming YouTube's long term plan is to become a clearing (stock) house / agent for profitable videos under more restrictive contracts (like stock imaging) as opposed to a massive, uncontrolled depository. It would certainly generate more income and I'm sure they will eventually require an agreement allowing them to distribute and market the clips. A brilliant commercial move. This is happening all over the Internet, the concept of offering free, very non-restrictive services then slowly altering the format and rules for profit, just like Facebook did.

Their real long term plan is to replace Disney, Viacom, Comcast, Sinclair and the rest of the major media companies as the source for content. Within 15 years, Cable TV will be like a land line. Only needed by those in rural areas.

 

[Dan Robinson]

There's unfortunately a new chapter breaking in the Youtube demonetization saga, and it's the biggest one yet. Today, scores of channels were completely removed from the Partner program (all videos demonetized) under a new policy that sets a minimum requirement of 1,000 subscribers and an ongoing 4,000 watch hours per year to maintain advertising eligibility. The move is apparently at least partially in response to the Logan Paul incident, yet another in a long series of bad press from popular channel owners' questionable shenanigans.

Many chasers are getting the notification that their channel is no longer eligible for monetization.

Youtube's blog post on the new policy:
https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2018/01/additional-changes-to-youtube-partner.html

 

[Kevin R Burgess]

Wow !
Sounds political

 

[Kevin R Burgess]

What I mean by 'political' is they,"Google" are being pressed by out-side groups,that have lobbyist in DC that are Evangelical,that want "Only" their agenda tought, while the Republicans are in power !.
So, 'WATCH OUT' anyone that pushes their non-issues

 

[Dan Robinson]

While there is clear evidence of a political bias with Google as a whole, this latest change is affecting everyone across the spectrum. This could very well be another play in the old media vs new media chess game, but without any evidence to clearly point to that I can't say whether this latest change is related.

 

[Warren Faidley]

YouTube is yet another social media giant trying to survive a viciously competitive market. They removed my channel, but I would care less. The amount they paid for monetization was basically a scam. I can always post videos on Facebook. This is the same for Google and their Ad Sense program -- another system for ripping people off. This all reminds me of royalty free photography where photographers were totally abused. I am SO glad the bulk of my professional career occurred before this abusive marketing took over. I eventually plan to destroy all my original transparencies and digital files to avoid any form of abuse when I am gone.

 

[Marc R. O'Leary]

YouTube is yet another social media giant trying to survive a viciously competitive market. They removed my channel, but I would care less. The amount they paid for monetization was basically a scam. I can always post videos on Facebook. This is the same for Google and their Ad Sense program -- another system for ripping people off. This all reminds me of royalty free photography where photographers were totally abused. I am SO glad the bulk of my professional career occurred before this abusive marketing took over. I eventually plan to destroy all my original transparencies and digital files to avoid any form of abuse when I am gone.

It would be a shame if all your work was destroyed. You should donate it to an archive, or find a trustee to care for it.

Or have a Burn Warren's Stuff Party somewhere in the plains where we can all meet up and make a day of it.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I like this idea!

 

[Marc R. O'Leary]

I'm in. I'll bring s'mores fixin's.

 

[B. Dean Berry]

It would be criminal if Warren's work went up in flames or was otherwise destroyed. There are ways to archive securely. I can still remember watching feature sections on storm chasing way back, when I was about 11 or 12, that featured his work. That black Landcruiser you used to have? I tried to replicate it when I was 16. My version was a complete and total S-box, but still. The work and the images and video is still powerful, even 20+ years later, and I am sincere in that.

Back in 2015, I tried to launch a youtube channel for a little side-scratch, and quickly discovered how toxic and outrageous that Youtube and Social Media had made storm chasing. Youtube's repeated crackdowns have only hurt independent content creators. Much like the job ads in a down economy stating "at least 5 years experience required" for entry-level positions, or bank loans for credit improvement state "minimum 700 FICO score required", what good does any of it do for someone trying to get a foothold that isn't already a known name? It doesn't. Streaming services that remind you constantly that you aren't owed anything, and you are a contractor, but then continually treat you like a sales employee - "Anyone in XX area that can get footage?" "Reminder - You must send us XX amount of video to stay active" "Don't sell to anyone else, or you're fired.". Please. If I wanted to pay someone for continuous abuse, I'd hire a dominatrix.

Loosely-related, but I am appalled at the behavior of storm chasers on Facebook. I've seen cafeterias at all-girls' high schools with less sniping and backstabbing.

As of this week, I have closed all of my social media accounts. I no longer maintain my youtube channel. The only places I speak online are at this board and one other board. To Hell with the rest of it.