So YouTube just changed their monetization policy for creators…
And obviously this threw the entire community into disarray.
You had people who were arguing that this change was good, and others who were arguing
this change was bad.
Hint: I'm not a fan of the change, and there's a deeper reason why.
But before diving into that reasoning, let's explain the side of the argument that people
use who are for the change.
Keep in mind the things in this video are based on my own experiences on the platform.
For new viewers to the channel, I'm SwankyBox - I cover gaming mysteries, lore, and nostalgia.
However, I'm super passionate about YouTube as a platform and have studied it extensively.
I hardcore nerd out when people start talking about YouTube because I'm fascinated by
its inner workings and how it all ticks.
Besides creating on YouTube, I speak around the country about YouTube, pursuing your creative
passions, and storytelling in games.
I've consulted for both creators and businesses small and large, and overall YouTube has been
quite the amazing journey.
That's partially why I decided to write a book about being a YouTuber.
I digress though.
So when a dramatic change like this occurs, of course I wanted to sink my teeth into it.
I couldn't resist.
So let's rewind back to the initial dilemma.
YouTube changed its policy for monetization from 10,000 total channel views to now 4,000
hours of watch time and 1,000 subscribers.
The reason they did this was because they were looking for a way to fix illegitimate
monetization on the platform through stolen videos.
There are other reasons as well, but a big factor was that you could steal videos, monetize
them, and then make off with the goods before your account got closed.
This change affects tons of creators who were playing by the rules.
Lots of people will lose their monetization perks come February 20th and this caused an
uproar in the community.
However, people were divided.
In terms of people being for the change, people would argue the following points.
Majority of these people had stood the test of time on YouTube and were established, larger
creators.
The first rebuttal was that people shouldn't be focusing on the money when creating.
If you're worried about losing out on potentially $100, or the amount you'd probably earn
on your way to monetization, then you're creating for the wrong reasons.
And they're right.
I absolutely agree with that because that shouldn't be your immediate goal and why
you started.
However, there's a stipulation with this which I'll get to later.
Majority of these creators explained that they created for years before YouTube actually
rolled out monetization, or before they were partnered and began running ads.
From their own experiences, they were able to achieve where they are despite not having
monetization rolled out.
Many larger creators offered sincere advice to creators who were starting out or struggling
with the new changes, and this was of course very helpful to hear.
However, this is only the surface level of the issue.
The problem with this approach is that it does not address the actual issues it potentially
causes.
In terms of eliminating problem channels though, it does solve that pain point for YouTube.
A lot of people were angry, myself included, because of the Logan Paul incident as well.
These monetization changes were in the works before Logan Paul face planted, but they were
certainly held off on because of it.
This is why creators who had reached the 10,000 view goal, myself included on my second channel,
were sitting in limbo for about a month waiting for their review - only to come back and see
that their 10,000 goal had now been multiplied by ten.
Okay, now let's explain why this is a huge issue for small creators.
Certainly do not throw in the towel if you are creating, but hopefully this will shed
some light on the problem.
Let's present the other side of the argument.
Withdrawing smaller channels from monetization, in theory, axes a large percent of their growth
potential.
So the immediate issue is that 4,000 hours of watch time is 240,000 minutes, which is
a huge barrier to overcome as a small creator.
Again, large creators cited their watch time saying that they easily pass this in a month,
but getting over that hump is painfully difficult when you have a limited audience.
Beyond that, growing in a vacuum -without a shoutout boosting you - has become even
more difficult.
If the 10,000 views from the original rules was in play, and you received on average 5
minutes of viewership per view (which is extremely high by the way), that's only 833 hours.
You aren't even 1/4th of the way there.
Beyond that, your audience retention will probably be much less than that.
Some views may be 20 seconds, some a minute.
That means that 833 hours is an overestimate by a long shot.
So now you probably need around 75,000 views or so to hit that watch time threshold.
And you have to achieve that in 12 months or you'll begin losing progress…
You may be thinking, "But why focus on the monetization so intently Swanky?
You just said that shouldn't be the goal."
It's not.
But monetization opens you up to your content being further recommended to people.
Most YouTubers gain their bulk of their viewership by their videos being recommended to others.
YouTube predicts videos to suggest based off their interests, demographics, and previous
watch history.
Now YouTube has come out and said that these monetization changes won't change video
discovery.
That monetization doesn't affect discovery in general.
And I think that's untrue.
I know it probably seems weird to challenge the voice of god, but we have to consider
how all of this works.
Starting off, YouTube has been wrong about their own platform many times.
If they weren't wrong, they wouldn't need to consult some of their biggest creators
for advice on how their own platform actually works.
And that's something that certainly happens.
Also, one person posting something on Twitter is not the voice of god.
When I was writing my book on being a YouTuber, I was directed back and forth between different
departments because the teams within YouTube don't actually talk to one another.
This is normal because this is a huge company we're talking about - but that means miscommunication
happens all the time.
The customer support on Twitter aren't the people who are tweaking the algorithm and
writing the code.
They don't fully know how it works just like we don't.
To some degree, they can't fully know how it works because it would be a gold mine if
someone did.
So they just follow a script and what they are told through the grapevine.
That's why you sometimes get automated and canned responses.
An automated algorithm is a crazy beast.
This is why I challenged their reasoning that monetization doesn't affect discovery.
It has to in some way.
Recommendations takes place when you start accruing a certain amount of watch time on
a video.
They then suggest another video to watch.
Your content can surely be recommended to others unmonetized, but I believe it is at
a lower rate.
I've been studying my small gameplay channel and pet channel to compare results.
But let me explain why I challenge this reasoning.
It all starts with the purchasing of ads.
Ads are bought through Google Adwords for the most part, unless companies are directly
working with YouTube's premium services.
One of the types of ads that can be bought, and one of the more expensive types of ads,
are the pre-roll ads.
These are ads that play immediately when you start a video.
Sometimes you can skip them, and more expensive variants can't be skipped.
This whole process is called PPC in the marketing world.
It stands for pay per click, because your marketing budget gets spent as user activity
takes place.
You get your ad watched or interacted with, you get charged.
Obviously the benefits of the ad outweigh the expenses, but this is where the money
comes from on YouTube.
But a lot of ad campaigns have daily budgets.
They choose to spend x amount of dollars a day, and the more demanding their search category
is, the more expensive it can be to compete for ad space.
But this is why I believe video recommendations on YouTube do rely on ad input.
If there are unspent ad dollars at the end of a day-to-day budgeted campaign, that money
is lost for Google.
Say you were spending 10 dollars total per day and that was your max limit.
If YouTube only fulfills 5 of those 10 dollars, 5 dollars are lost to YouTube when they could
have made that 5 dollars if they simply were able to serve up the ads on appropriate videos.
But YouTube only has a set amount of time to do this in a day…
So which makes more sense from a business perspective: Recommend videos with monetization
off where there is no business gain for YouTube, or recommend monetized content that is their
only way of spending pre-roll ad slots?
YouTube wants to make money…
And supporting the video platform as a whole is expensive.
I think the choice is obvious.
If you had two successful videos that are killing it in watch time and retention rates,
but one can be used to run premium ads and one does nothing, I'd imagine YouTube is
going to put the monetized in favor.
It'd be a weird business decision otherwise.
So that means if you don't have monetization enabled, in theory, you're not operating
on the same system as a monetized channel.
This is why it is a huge problem for small creators.
The barrier to entry just became a mile high wall, and no one is actually talking about
the deep problem it causes.
I understand why YouTube wants to screen creators to make sure they are ad friendly, but I just
feel this goal is brutal.
While writing my book I spent around 6 months studying a brand new channel I created with
my significant other that had no outside boost from others.
It was grown in a bubble and didn't have access to my larger audience on this channel
at all.
No one SwankyBox-related even knew about it.
And I used that to really assess the struggle that new channels have.
The struggle that large creators simply don't understand anymore because everything has
changed about the platform since they were small.
Their advice is genuine and from the heart, but it is sort of blind advice because they
aren't actually considering what it is like to be a small channel in this moment.
A channel that has no outlets for help, no chance of getting shouted out, and has to
forge their own path the hard way.
And to clear something else up: Demonetization is not the same as having monetization off.
If your YouTube channel had stats for exposure like in a RPG, monetization would give you
a +1 modifier, no monetization would have you at 0, and demonetization would be -1.
You can still function without monetization, but if you're demonetized your videos are
avoided like the plague.
You can still get your videos recommended on your own channel from existing videos,
but it is going to severely limit your chances - if not completely - of popping up elsewhere.
You can still be discovered in search in terms of being demonetized, but kiss everything
else goodbye.
I'm hoping I didn't miss anything in this video.
If I did, you'll see it in a pinned comment below.
Things like this are why I decided I needed to write a book for the next generation of
content creators.
Sorta like passing off the torch in some regards.
I remember stumbling through YouTube trying to figure out how to grow when all of it seemed
hopeless.
There was hope, but with no sense of direction, I didn't know how to reach it.
And I had no one I could ask for help.
It can be super scary because of that.
This book is the book I wish I had when I started.
It's literally everything I learned about YouTube, being a YouTuber, and using YouTube
as a platform for pursuing a creative career.
If you thought what was discussed in this video was insightful, I recommend checking
out the book.
I have a few sample chapters on my website too that you can dive into.
It's designed to give you insight into every aspect of being a YouTuber, and provide you
the answers to the questions you've been wanting to ask but have never had the chance
to.
Plus, you'll get to hear from a bunch of other awesome creators.
YouTube is a hell of a journey, and I strongly hope you'll consider giving it a whirl.
I hope this book can help you get there too, because that would mean the world to me.
It comes out February 12th of 2018, and you can find more information in the description
below.
And with that…
Thanks for tuning in to this YouTube breakdown!
Please share your thoughts in the comments below, because this is certainly a topic open
for discussion.
All sides of the argument are important, so let's have an open conversation about it!
Anyways, thanks for watching guys and gals, and until my next video - cheers!
For more infomation >> Hive View: The Best Smart Home Camera for 2018? - Duration: 5:02. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét