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

[Guest]

that would reduce the income to just the people who have ad block turned off, knowing the income rate for each advertorial form youtube($0,01-$0,20) i doubt it will be alot.

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.

[marldorthegreat]

*hands google a shovel*

Nvidia has it at the moment

[WanderingFool]

They already make money off the video being played. They now can make more. Because it's their service hosting it, they can get away with it, but it's an enormous phallic move.

They should have NOTHING to do with content in the video (hard encoded data that is in the video whether or not that video is on YouTube), which is the creator's work.

 

I disagree, they do not make money off the video being played.  They make money off the ad being played, and that creates a problem when channels start disabling ads while doing their own sponsor spots.

 

Remember even though youtube still had ads when google bought it, the ad revenue wasn't enough to make it profitable.

 

All of that said, I am not sure how I feel about this.  What should google do then?

[Misanthrope]

Hey to clarify some things

 

1) Yes, Google it's within it's rights to restrict this and keep their own ads and revenue only, they usually don't but can create walled gardens 

 

2) No, it' is most certainly not a fucking good idea to do so seeing how you are producing 0 fucking content yourselves and you depend on the good will of your partners which are youtubers and your audience to keep it going. Yes you're big, but nobody is ever "do whatever we fucking want" big.

[Dredgy]

I disagree, they do not make money off the video being played. They make money off the ad being played, and that creates a problem when channels start disabling ads while doing their own sponsor spots.

Remember even though youtube still had ads when google bought it, the ad revenue wasn't enough to make it profitable.

All of that said, I am not sure how I feel about this. What should google do then?

If people are disabling ads, then so be it. It's a similar concept to net neutrality (except owned by a corporation) - someone who has an integrated ad and someone who's uploading a picture of their dog running around should have the same rights to upload what they want. Else youtube becomes skewed.

Also worth noting, if a channel doesn't have ads enabled, they aren't signed up to the Youtube Partner Program and have no contract with Youtube for any video revenue sharing. (And as such, fairly sure this change doesn't effect them).

What Google could do instead, I'm not sure. Take a larger cut of pre-video ad revenues? Add a subscriber system? Stick more ads on the page? Up the "skip ad" to 10 seconds?

My problem with it is not YouTube making money, but Youtube having a way to influence content.

[GodSpoon]

Welp... has anyone else realized Google can pretty much pull any shit they want and get away with it anymore? 

Slow creeping monopoly is getting rather scary  

[Sauron]

"so that viewers don't feel bombarded by ads"?? I'm sorry google, but who's the one shoving unskippable ads that are completely unrelated to the video in my face? Last time I checked it was you.

[ItsAFeature]

Nvidia has it at the moment

 

I think I'm gonna start a shovel business. I'll even offer custom versions so that Google, Nvidia, Ubisoft, Comcast, etc can all have their own designs.

 

My EA shovel only comes with a handle. Everything else is sold separately. The Ubisoft one was great once but it's long since rusted and broken.

[Thony]

This could be devastating for LMG. Sponsors are their main part of income.

This will be a big topic on WAN show tomorrow.

But maybe there is a loophole They could just hold the product and zoom on logo. Thats not overlay

[Misanthrope]

This could be devastating for LMG. Sponsors are their main part of income.

This will be a big topic on WAN show tomorrow.

But maybe there is a loophole They could just hold the product and zoom on logo. Thats not overlay

I thought this means overlays, as in the stupid annotations, not adds that are part of the video itself.

[Thony]

I thought this means overlays, as in the stupid annotations, not adds that are part of the video itself.

The lynda ad has overlay, the xplit has ovelay. Overlay is the image that appears on the bottom of the screen when linus does his promo segment at the end of each video or during WANshow.

Thats the graphical part of this whole issue. Linus talking about sponsors or promoting them verbaly is okay for now. But woth this approach from google they could easily ban that from any videos as well.

[Butterfish]

Nvidia has it at the moment

yea it should've have been *takes shovel from nvidia, gives it to google*

[Ethnod]

Wow,  Google is really trying to push Youtubers away. I don't get it, they have a good thing going, they make a fortune, why hamstring Tubers more? it wont take much more to start the decline of youtube. A lot of youtubers I watch have already started other sources of revenue as they are expecting the decline of youtube to start soon

[marldorthegreat]

I think I'm gonna start a shovel business. I'll even offer custom versions so that Google, Nvidia, Ubisoft, Comcast, etc can all have their own designs.

 

My EA shovel only comes with a handle. Everything else is sold separately. The Ubisoft one was great once but it's long since rusted and broken.

What has EA done wrong? All they want is money!

[Misanthrope]

The lynda ad has overlay, the xplit has ovelay. Overlay is the image that appears on the bottom of the screen when linus does his promo segment at the end of each video or during WANshow.

Thats the graphical part of this whole issue. Linus talking about sponsors or promoting them verbaly is okay for now. But woth this approach from google they could easily ban that from any videos as well.

I see....yeah Linus is fucked.

[Overl0rd]

Wow,  Google is really trying to push Youtubers away. I don't get it, they have a good thing going, they make a fortune, why hamstring Tubers more? it wont take much more to start the decline of youtube. A lot of youtubers I watch have already started other sources of revenue as they are expecting the decline of youtube to start soon

Yup, in this way it'll only be a matter of time for Youtubers to start using other video sharing sites...

[SSOB]

Super unpopular opinion. They are so right. The same way that you can't advertise other services on this forum. Isn't is a little hypocritical then?

[Skrizzles]

I think whats going on here is youtube wants to become their own network...which in a way, they already are. Look at all the major networks out there. Do the content creators get paid for ads? Does Bill O'Reilly get a kickback for the two seconds at the end of his show where it shows who makes his suits? I'm pretty sure FOX gets the money from that.

 

before anyone blows me up, or i get kick/banned from the forum...

 

I'M NOT SAYING THIS DOESN'T SUCK. I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS OKAY. I'm just trying to understand why they're being such A-holes.

 

I mean the downfalls are obvious. If content creators cant make money, they'll leave. If they leave, youtube will be  a wasteland of nothing but ads. Youtube will turn into the new version of the SpaceJam website, which I think has remained untouched since the year the movie was made. Then youtube make no money. Its just a shame that they can't understand the symbiotic relationship here - youtube and content creators need each other. Anything one does to hurt the other will only hurt themselves, too.

[Misanthrope]

Super unpopular opinion. They are so right. The same way that you can't advertise other services on this forum. Isn't is a little hypocritical then?

Not really, here's why: Linus creates his own content. Google and Youtube do not however. If you're creating something, people are generally more understanding and all. So even if we get that bandwidth and hosting isn't free, producing high quality content is way more valuable. Youtubers are really contributing a lot more to Google by driving traffic with their free content than Google contributing with add revenue which as we've seen recently with lots of additional advertising and patreon accounts, just isn't enough as it is.

So basically Google is not paying content creators enough money, and now they want to limit their other add revenues. This is quite an abusive situation on their part entirely because they're too confident in their position of having no competition.

[SSOB]

Not really, here's why: Linus creates his own content. Google and Youtube do not however. If you're creating something, people are generally more understanding and all. So even if we get that bandwidth and hosting isn't free, producing high quality content is way more valuable. Youtubers are really contributing a lot more to Google by driving traffic with their free content than Google contributing with add revenue which as we've seen recently with lots of additional advertising and patreon accounts, just isn't enough as it is.

So basically Google is not paying content creators enough money, and now they want to limit their other add revenues. This is quite an abusive situation on their part entirely because they're too confident in their position of having no competition.

Of course not.

 

Let's take it back to the last century.

 

Let's say i have a movie theater ( Google ) and some kid from Canada ( Linus ) wants to begin a new show called ''the imventions of technology'' . Alright all good. But all of a sudden he brings this camera, and he starts advertising it on stage. One time when I went to see the show, he began with a nice little talk about how amazing that camera is etc. When the show ended some people asked about it ( The reffferal link. ) some found it so be more expensive ( You ) and some wanted to buy one ( Also you.) Now the inventor of that camera ( let's say sony.) sells a lot more cameras because he uses my theater ( Google ). Isn't it fair that he has to pay me also for the use of my theater. The anwser is yes. This is basically a little Liberalism (Micro- Liberalism). Well not really liberalism but you get the point.

 

It's a fair thing to do and I agree with google.

[SIGSEGV]

Ok, how about if LMG started printing out the overlays and having someone hold them up near the bottom of the camera's FOV irl? That way there would be no overlay!

[PopReference]

Latest Techquickie sponsor spot is missing the Lynda.com logo.

http://youtu.be/JphpLkmimVo?t=4m10s

[razor767]

Wow, this sounds bad. This could have a big impact on a lot of youtubers.

[Kaneki]

I see all of you talking about an alternative. Keep an eye out for this https://bitvid.tv/

[Guest]

 Now the inventor of that camera ( let's say sony.) sells a lot more cameras because he uses my theater ( Google ).

 

That sounds like those convoluted anti-net neutrality arguments.

In that scenario, the theater owner is getting income from visitors (people who click on Youtube's ads) and the content maker is in fact providing a service to the theater owner by creating a reason for the visitors to come.

Now it is a mutually beneficial relationship and I wouldn't argue it's necessarily unfair to ask to be cut in if the creator of the show has income from a 3rd party, but it's unfair to establish a relationship where that's not the case and make the show creator dependent on the theater and then change the policy, when moving to a different theater would ruin the show creator's large, established business.

 

Another thing I just thought of is that now Youtube will be financially interested to recommend users channels that have these sponsor deals where part of the money goes to Google.