YesNoOk
avatar

So....Youtube did a thing today. (Read 25990 times)

Started by Bob8644, September 01, 2016, 04:14:40 am
Share this topic:
Re: So....Youtube did a thing today.
#41  September 04, 2016, 08:52:23 pm
  • avatar
  • ******
  • Palette God? Champion? AntiChrist? Something.
  • I AM THE KING OF PALETTES!!
    • USA
That's a good analogy, but the thing is that Youtube is part of the market of online video services, where different demographics need different kinds of entertainment and that means different content.  I think the solution is to have a ratings system with the higher ratings meaning less money because of a smaller viewer base and fewer advertisers willing to run their ads before higher rated videos.  Make false flagging and using unsuitable ratings a serious offense, and since the bot system would not work here you'd have to leave it up to users to flag videos just like when they violate the TOS already, although that may be a bit of a tall order.

Another real issue is just how vague it is.  What about trailers for movies or games?  What about music?  Do the companies uploading them lose their revenue if they violate these TOS, or do those fall under the "educational or entertainment" clause?  What about news channels or the official channels of politicians or journalists for the "controversial subjects" clause?  The vagueness is the real problem.  Many sites have a TOS similar to if not outright identical to Youtube's new one, but it's far less vague and their staff are able to communicate with their users to prevent confusion.  Youtube has a massive userbase so there's a lot of communication that needs to be done. 
Re: So....Youtube did a thing today.
#42  September 04, 2016, 10:23:28 pm
  • ******
  • 90's Kawaii
  • :thinking:
    • Guatemala
Youtube's TOS has to be vague. A rating system wouldn't work. Crass, violent and sexual =/= not advertising friendly.

Youtube makes most of its money selling normie ads. They care about big conglomerates, like P&G or Coca Cola.

I could make a video of myself rambling for half an hour about abortion and why I'm pro-choice without swearing,  insults or graphic imagery and it wouldn't be advertising friendly.

Why? even if everyone and their mother has an opinion on abortion, most companies would be adverse to endorse such video (and staunchly pro-life only fare a bit better).

Or do you think Coca Cola wants its brand associated with abortion and my ugly mug?
Re: So....Youtube did a thing today.
#43  September 04, 2016, 10:36:16 pm
  • ******
  • Loyal to the Game
    • USA
    • http://jesuszilla.trinitymugen.net/
I hardly doubt anybody is going to associate "Enjoy Coca-Cola" with PewDiePie screaming about raping a virtual pig.

And people will associate YouTube with what they already associate it with: wasting time and doing stupid shit. That's not going to change.
Re: So....Youtube did a thing today.
#44  September 04, 2016, 10:55:20 pm
  • ****
The 'controversial topics' line covers things that are routinely covered by any news source. What they're doing here is shitting on alternative media. It's goddamn terrifying.
Re: So....Youtube did a thing today.
#45  September 04, 2016, 11:15:51 pm
  • avatar
  • ******
  • Palette God? Champion? AntiChrist? Something.
  • I AM THE KING OF PALETTES!!
    • USA
Youtube's TOS has to be vague. A rating system wouldn't work. Crass, violent and sexual =/= not advertising friendly.

Youtube makes most of its money selling normie ads. They care about big conglomerates, like P&G or Coca Cola.

I could make a video of myself rambling for half an hour about abortion and why I'm pro-choice without swearing,  insults or graphic imagery and it wouldn't be advertising friendly.

Why? even if everyone and their mother has an opinion on abortion, most companies would be adverse to endorse such video (and staunchly pro-life only fare a bit better).

Or do you think Coca Cola wants its brand associated with abortion and my ugly mug?

If what you were saying were true, absolutely no news station or radio talk show would have advertizers at all.   

Your example is not a good one.  Your opinion on abortion is unlikely to find an audience.  News and entertainment would not have this problem.  Audiences is what advertizers want.

I hardly doubt anybody is going to associate "Enjoy Coca-Cola" with PewDiePie screaming about raping a virtual pig.

And people will associate YouTube with what they already associate it with: wasting time and doing stupid shit. That's not going to change.

This is 100% true.  Can you name off the top of your head what ads were run during the last episode of The Walking Dead you watched? 
Re: So....Youtube did a thing today.
#46  September 04, 2016, 11:30:31 pm
  • ******
  • Double-Crosser
  • I'm not standing out. This isn't weird at all.
    • USA
I hardly doubt anybody is going to associate "Enjoy Coca-Cola" with PewDiePie screaming about raping a virtual pig.

And people will associate YouTube with what they already associate it with: wasting time and doing stupid shit. That's not going to change.
The problem is your associations as a consumer are different from your associations as a business/worker. For example, I associate Food Network with Alton Brown making delicious-as-fuck food, shitty reality shows about food, and Guy Fieri eating comfort food in a most sensual way. If I was working at Food Network, I'd be trying to focus on getting as many people to watch my food shows as possible, hence the shitty reality shows, and dropping Paula Deen for her associations with being racist against black people.

PewDiePie will continue to thrive because Youtube knows that literally millions of people like his brand of "entertainment," and because even PewDiePie adapted his humor to appeal to a more general audience (he actually did a public apology for joking about rape), and you will see this trend reflected in the most successful Youtube LPers. Meanwhile, you have people like Asalieri who always has problems with monetizing his vids because a lot of them end up subtley encouraging his fans to attack other Youtubers or taking strong stances against SJWs and Bill Cosby's detractors, because people have strong stances on both sides of the issues, which advertising would strongly give off the wrong impression. In short, the successful Youtubers will be the ones that can appeal to the most people.

Is there a market for stuff that goes against this trend? Yes, there are plenty of independent producers who are funded by other like-minded individuals ready to support their cause. These people will never be the mainstream, however, because, again, most people won't be into it. For example, I'm a fan of Wes Anderson's works and am always on the lookout for new projects by him, but his movies are not very marketable to the mainstream audiences because to the average movie-goer, they're boring artsy movies with deadpan acting and stories with with plots that don't resolve conventionally.

So the short of it is, if you want to be profitable as a content-creator, you have to be able to appeal to everyone. You're free to do/believe whatever you want, but don't expect to make money if it's not popular.
Re: So....Youtube did a thing today.
#47  September 04, 2016, 11:49:19 pm
  • ******
  • Loyal to the Game
    • USA
    • http://jesuszilla.trinitymugen.net/
That makes sense, but wouldn't that be best implemented through a ratings system like Duos was talking about? Keep in mind he wasn't talking about star ratings, he was talking about ratings like TV show ratings, as in, how many people tune in to watch a particular program. This would encourage people to keep their audiences coming and appeal to as many as possible. Those that don't keep their ratings up get their shit demonetized. That simple.
Re: So....Youtube did a thing today.
New #48  September 04, 2016, 11:53:18 pm
  • ******
  • 90's Kawaii
  • :thinking:
    • Guatemala
Quote
If what you were saying were true, absolutely no news station or radio talk show would have advertizers at all.
Go watch the video I posted again, it explains the difference between youtube's everything goes model vs the more specific model mainstream media uses, and why even popular content like the Howard Stern Show can be considered non-advertising friendly depending on the platform it's on.

Edit:
Quote
This would encourage people to keep their audiences coming and appeal to as many as possible. Those that don't keep their ratings up get their shit demonetized. That simple.
That's pretty much how it's going to work, except it'll be a lot more opaque. YT is unlikely to demonetize any wildly successful channel *permanently* unless its content really crosses the line. The bots will fuck from time to time, but then again some popular channels get deleted and then restored, so this isn't really all too different. At the end of the day the only people who will really suffer from this are some midsized fringe channels.
Last Edit: September 05, 2016, 12:05:28 am by Brave li'l Fubs