Youtube will no longer allow video overlays of sponsor logos and product branding, unless Google is paid by the sponsor

[Misanthrope]

I've seen a few people that agree with me but most people think that what Google did is unacceptable.

So let me put it another way. I host a party which is quite expensive, but it is okay because I agree with people to make lemonade stands all over the place and we share the profit.

What happens is that the party goers bring in their own lemonade (adblock) which reduces the amount of profit the lemonade seller and I make.

The lemonade seller then figured out a new way to make money. He would sell cookies which they could not resist and he wouldn't have to give any of the profit to me the actual host of the party.

I get what Google did they patched a hole in their system that was losing them money.

Again your analogy is flawed and inaccurate: If you host a party and allow people to show up, but now really talented people like actual musicians and good, even professional bands show up. Your house party turns into a highly profitable business thanks to those musicians that showed up and now you tell em "Ehm, I'm not gonna pay you as much as I promised in the first place" and then when they start selling tshirts you go "Oh no, you can't sell those here otherwise you have to leave my party"

Why is everyone so keen on ignoring this point I am making: Google has been reducing the add revenue shares consistently, that's why in video advertising became a thing.

[ChaseB]

I have a question. People Like NCIX are not allowed to promote themselves. That dumb, Somebody give me some damn petition to sign and stop this shit.

[That Norwegian Guy]

True, the site would need to be overhauled. I think it could become a real YouTube competitor if it were bought by Microsoft or Amazon, then they could really throw enough money at it to make it a lot better. I remember there were rumors a year or two ago that Microsoft was going to buy them but apparently that never materialized.

 

I would prefer a company from a country that isn't humping outdated tyrannical creativity-stifling copyright technicalities to buy it in that case.

[VirtualNinja]

We can thank Nintendo for this.

[jkraghify]

-Posted this on a repost of this topic-

Well, Google does own the the YouTube servers. It makes sense, really. If the advertisers make a deal directly with the video makers, Google gets no ad revenue even though Google facilitiates the medium the ad is played on. Google wants its ad revenue evenly distributed across all the advertising--nobody gets off complete free while others pay lots of money. This isn't a freedom of speech thing because Google is allowing users to post videos to YouTube, which is their private property--not our public playground.

"But Google already has enough money"

Google is a business, and businesses never have enough money. You might not like what Google is doing to the YouTube service, but what Google is doing isn't wrong. What I suggest is that if you do t like the policy, don't use YouTube. Similarly, if you don't like a specific brand of ice cream, don't eat it. Google is so big, it's scary...

[MrRavens]

GG YouTube. If the issue really was that they didn't want viewers to be bombarded by ads the viewers would stop watching on their own free will lol. Like if ads became a problem, I'd stop watching. Its not like I'm stuck, "noooo pleeeaassee I beg of yoooouu no moooree". Just watch someone else i find handles ads better haha.

If your someone that loves to watch videos with ads from the eye can see. All the power to ya lol. But if there is shady stuff going on with ad providers, then I get the more direct shake down, but cmon is there another way?

[ShadowCaptain]

This is horrible and stupid

 

if a an advertiser was paying me to promote something that agreement is between me and that company, google can still take their cut from the adverts they have agreed to roll on my videos

[IP man]

Cant blame Google. i would have done the same thing if it was my company. and you would do the same!

[Lewellyn]

This is horrible and stupid

 

if a an advertiser was paying me to promote something that agreement is between me and that company, google can still take their cut from the adverts they have agreed to roll on my videos

 

The companies were/are choosing to endorse certain channels as partners. Some people might think that this step will make ads go down, but I think it might actually cause ad spots from sponsors to go up in videos to cover the cost of a channel remaining endorse by a company. If ad spots don't go up and the rate that's being paid to the channel as whole doesn't change, then the content creator (like Linus) loses money which means there is a need for more sponsorships to make the same amount.

[Guest]

Actually makes a ton of sense, a channel could (theoretically) get sponsors on their own accord and not directly monetize their content via youtube. Youtube can't take a cut from that but they still have to deal with the traffic and the hosting of the actual video, so it's bad business for them. I doubt that they actually care about the viewers getting "bombarded" with ads when watching a youtube video, it's purely about their bottom line here.

[ShadowCaptain]

The companies were/are choosing to endorse certain channels as partners. Some people might think that this step will make ads go down, but I think it might actually cause ad spots from sponsors to go up in videos to cover the cost of a channel remaining endorse by a company. If ad spots don't go up and the rate that's being paid to the channel as whole doesn't change, then the content creator (like Linus) loses money which means there is a need for more sponsorships to make the same amount.

 

Maybe so, but it could also put sponsors off if they know half of their money is going to google meaning they have to spend more money endorsing the channel so they can earn the same amount

 

EG if a company was paying linus $100 per video,,  and now google take 50%, they will have to pay more money so linus could earn the same amount

 

Actually makes a ton of sense, a channel could (theoretically) get sponsors on their own accord and not directly monetize their content via youtube. Youtube can't take a cut from that but they still have to deal with the traffic and the hosting of the actual video, so it's bad business for them. I doubt that they actually care about the viewers getting "bombarded" with ads when watching a youtube video, it's purely about their bottom line here.

 

True but I also dont HAVE to monetize videos, putting up my videos for free and not earning money from adverts is my own choice

[Lewellyn]

Maybe so, but it could also put sponsors off if they know half of their money is going to google meaning they have to spend more money endorsing the channel so they can earn the same amount

 

EG if a company was paying linus $100 per video,,  and now google take 50%, they will have to pay more money so linus could earn the same amount

 

Boils down to what a company thinks it is worth to remain partners with channels. I think it might additionally cause a weeding out of lower sub count channels getting a sponsorship entirely.

[ShadowCaptain]

Boils down to what a company thinks it is worth to remain partners with channels. I think it might additionally cause a weeding out of lower sub count channels getting a sponsorship entirely.

 

Yeah thats not a great thing

[Guest]

True but I also dont HAVE to monetize videos, putting up my videos for free and not earning money from adverts is my own choice

 

Yes of course, I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate here, but youtube is a business in the end and it simply exists to make money. If your business partners (the content providers in this case) figure out a way to make the same (or more) money without giving you a cut then you'll try to change that, especially if you still have costs to deal with. True, everybody can put their video on youtube and take up space if they like, but if Johnny wants to share his birthday party and uploads one 10-minute video every year then that doesn't really bother anyone. There's a difference between Johnny and a professional youtuber who puts up hours and hours of content in 1080p or greater quality every single week while making money from it.

[BrianPena]

Cant blame Google. i would have done the same thing if it was my company. and you would do the same!

Hell no I wouldn't, you could argue that this is their way of making a profit but Google is already extremely profitable. This is just being really greedy.

 

This is horrible and stupid

 

if a an advertiser was paying me to promote something that agreement is between me and that company, google can still take their cut from the adverts they have agreed to roll on my videos

This sums it up perfectly.

[IP man]

Hell no I wouldn't, you could argue that this is their way of making a profit but Google is already extremely profitable. This is just being really greedy.

 

 

Just because their rich doesnt mean they shouldnt get more

[BrianPena]

Just because their rich doesnt mean they shouldnt get more

I'm not saying that they shouldn't get more. All I am saying is that they should learn to cut people some slack. I mean, they are hurting the very content creators who are even making Youtube so popular in the first place. If they go with that approach they might as well slap each video with a 2 minute unskippable ad, since you know it's all about the money. It's just unethical to a point that it makes me worry about content creators.

[Lewellyn]

Just because their rich doesnt mean they shouldnt get more

 

Of course, they are a business. Businesses seek to maximize profit. However, in a business sense this might make your service less favorable overall. Content creators might move to twitch (where I think you can run sponsor ads just fine). This "greediness" might end up biting them in the butt.

[lovingGamer]

They're not banning the overlays.

They're demanding a cut from the sponsorship money to allow overlay ads.

So, it makes the process of placing overlay ads more complicated and reduces the part that the creator gets, but even without that, LMG would get something from all the ways Linus always lists at the end of each video.

yes and that cut it 45%

Screw Google

That is like robbing creators

[lovingGamer]

Of course, they are a business. Businesses seek to maximize profit. However, in a business sense this might make your service less favorable overall. Content creators might move to twitch (where I think you can run sponsor ads just fine). This "greediness" might end up biting them in the butt.

yeah, probably..

[Lewellyn]

yes and that cut it 45%

Google, go and kill yourselves..

That is like robbing creators

 

Careful, corporations are people now. /s

[lovingGamer]

Careful, corporations are people now. /s

Is it better now?

I really hate Google now.

 

45% is not little, this might be END! for Linus

[SImoHayha]

Dear Google stop being greedy money whores.....

[meltingtomato]

Is it better now?

I really hate Google now.

 

45% is not little, this might be END! for Linus

 

It's not the end for Linus, that's way too preemptive, and he has said there are other ways himself on - I think - page 6 of this thread? Look, should Youtube's rules for partners become more draconian than they are now (and they do sound quite messed up as they are), many content creators will simply leave. For some it will make much less of a difference, as Youtube is just a side-gig in addition to their normal full-time job (example, Jay of JayzTwoCents); for others, it IS their job (Paul of Paul's Hardware, Jerry of BarnaclesNerdgasm, Kyle of AwesomeSauce, Austin Evans, and of course, Linus).

Let's be realistic here though: If, and that's IF, Youtube becomes unsustainable as a medium for sustaining one's self/company, most of content creators could simply slim down the frequency of content outputed to either Youtube or whatever comes in vogue (Twitch, Yahoo video), and replace the shortfall with revenue made with paid short film and tv ad contracts. Last I checked, ALL of the Youtubers we'd be watching know how to use Adobe Photoshop, Premiere, and Aftereffects. They also own the camera equipment to shoot at a minimum of 1080p, with Linus and Dmitry of HardwareCanucks being able to shoot in 4K.

 

I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it did, that would be one way to cover the funding gap. Just don't expect daily videos, besides blogs. Or a return to "more unboxings, reviews, and other computer videos".

 

And although it's a bit old, it's really worth a rewatch in the current context:

 

https://www.youtube.com/embed/XJbLHLnTrd4?t=5m52s

[Kamil]

I can certainly understand why Google would do this: they're providing a service in return for a portion of the profits, why is it fair that you get to make extra profit on the same content but they don't? Except that, for channels that use the built-in ads in addition to in-video sponsors, Google is spending the same amount on infrastructure between two videos with the same length and views etc., and is also getting the same amount of profit between two videos regardless of sponsorship... in other words, the same return-on-investment. They just want more money, and "caring about reducing the number of ads the consumer sees" is a completely transparent excuse to screw over content producers (fun fact: if you cause said producers to make less money using the same amount of ads, they'll put in MORE ads not less).

I do wonder if there's a loophole where video sponsor-spots get through as long as they're worked into the video instead of a separate video inserted into it, i.e. the ad right after Linus' intro needs changing but if he just did that live like the spot at the end of videos then it would be fine.