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

[Misanthrope]

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.

Your analogy is flawed: Google doesn't only owns the movie theater, he also owns the entire distribution network and marketing sides since just being on youtube can give you an audience. On your analogy you have a theater or venue, a production company and a content creator.

This is an entirely new paradigm since the job of the production company in the past which is was to basically pay for the costs of producing the content, distributing it and marketing it, it's split directly between the venue and the content creator basically doing away with the production company altogether.

Google as the venue company, also takes on major responsibilities which are distribution and marketing. Only if you think about it, they're really not nearly as costly for them as traditional media used to be: Digital distribution while implying some cost, is infinitely cheaper than physical distribution of movies on theaters or discs on retail stores. Marketing for them is also a lot easier since once they bought the already popular website (which was fairly expensive) they basically just let it grow on it's own as they don't need to advertise much themselves.

Which brings me to content creators: They also take care of some of the marketing like Linus does here by promoting traffic into youtube on it's forums, social media, with contests, etc. But that's not as significant. What is significant is that Linus basically takes care of THE most expensive part of this process which is creating and producing the content. I cannot stress this enough: go take a look at some of the videos where he talks about his cameras, his offices, the fact that he has a 7 man operation. Video editing is NOT easy and it's extremely time consuming and not something you can really automate much unless you're a let's player or some weird super efficient freak at editing like Jay.

Not only that but the most invaluable part of this entire equation is just good, fun, entertaining and creative content which Google fails to appreciate being complacent in seeing how many people they have on board. The old paradigm required a lot of marketing and distribution because of the MASSIVE costs of producing video content. Even for seemingly simple videos like the ones Linus does it's quite expensive and 99% of people with all the tech in the world would end up with a crappy xmas dinner handheld camera quality video if they tried.

[SSOB]

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.

The news article is ''YouTube will no longer allow sponsors without paying for it.'' Not ''YouTube wants users to have a more fair chance to make a bigger revenue.''

 

Your analogy is flawed: Google doesn't only owns the movie theater, he also owns the entire distribution network and marketing sides since just being on youtube can give you an audience. On your analogy you have a theater or venue, a production company and a content creator.

This is an entirely new paradigm since the job of the production company in the past which is was to basically pay for the costs of producing the content, distributing it and marketing it, it's split directly between the venue and the content creator basically doing away with the production company altogether.

Google as the venue company, also takes on major responsibilities which are distribution and marketing. Only if you think about it, they're really not nearly as costly for them as traditional media used to be: Digital distribution while implying some cost, is infinitely cheaper than physical distribution of movies on theaters or discs on retail stores. Marketing for them is also a lot easier since once they bought the already popular website (which was fairly expensive) they basically just let it grow on it's own as they don't need to advertise much themselves.

Which brings me to content creators: They also take care of some of the marketing like Linus does here by promoting traffic into youtube on it's forums, social media, with contests, etc. But that's not as significant. What is significant is that Linus basically takes care of THE most expensive part of this process which is creating and producing the content. I cannot stress this enough: go take a look at some of the videos where he talks about his cameras, his offices, the fact that he has a 7 man operation. Video editing is NOT easy and it's extremely time consuming and not something you can really automate much unless you're a let's player or some weird super efficient freak at editing like Jay.

Not only that but the most invaluable part of this entire equation is just good, fun, entertaining and creative content which Google fails to appreciate being complacent in seeing how many people they have on board. The old paradigm required a lot of marketing and distribution because of the MASSIVE costs of producing video content. Even for seemingly simple videos like the ones Linus does it's quite expensive and 99% of people with all the tech in the world would end up with a crappy xmas dinner handheld camera quality video if they tried.

Fact is that they are missing out on revenue that could be easily generated. The main goal of a commercial company is to make profit. They will do everything within reason to maximize profit.

 

Coming back to that theater example. Of course it's not how it works. But to understand the ''feeling'' that YouTube executives might have I used that as an example. You see better results result in a bigger check for them. Not mentioning that I used that example to get you to understand the position Google is in. Again taking it to the example: So you are telling me that the owner of that theater wouldn't want to maximize it's profit because it's more ''fair'' for the artist, BS of course. 

 

If I was an executive at YouTube I would have done the exact same thing. 

[shujin]

Never got a reply the first time, so I'll ask again. What is wrong with this exactly? Aren't they just adapting the old policies to cover ads inserted into videos? Why should those ads be treated any differently to normal ads? The reason that ads like the ones Linus has in his videos is because it's a counter to ad block. This really only fixed that issue for the content creators, but the service host is still getting shafted by adblock. This just makes things like they used to be if I understand it correctly?

not the same thing simply ads you have before the video is a ad that benefit google first (that's them that go search the sponsor and that's them that get the larger cut of the money) ads on video is a ads that is supposed to benefit the creator only (cause google did not do nothing to have that sponsor and that the sponsor is sponsoring the content not the site hosting the content) so that is a problem because small businesses will be more reluctant to sponsor a lot of channel cause each time they will pay a fee to google so either creator will receive less money (the rest going to google) or the sponsor will just stop sponsoring and that will be a huge loss for content creator. that is exactly like if cinema would request sponsor to pay them for ads(or product placement) that is on movie 

[shujin]

I would argue that YouTube has every right to claim some of the add revenue from the video considering the ads are still hosted on their service. It costs them money to support this content and if they don't make money off the video then they actually loose money on it. Not very much at all, but that's how it works.

they already make money from video (with the basic ads) at this point this is just them double dipping (you can refer to my comparison with cinema on the previous post to understand why they shouldn't have the right to do that)

[Guest]

Fact is that they are missing out on revenue that could be easily generated.

If I was an executive at YouTube I would have done the exact same thing. 

 

So your argument is basically 'Might is right'.

Nobody was arguing that this won't bring Youtube more money. They were arguing that this is a dick move towards the content creators and is made possible by Youtube abusing their position as a monopoly, so it shouldn't be tolerated.

[LePawel]

Easy solution (if it's allowed, at least) : Print the sponsor logos on paper and hang that on the wall.  Or similar (plotted logos on plastic would look more pofessional)

An underlay ? (since it's in the background ?)

[SSOB]

So your argument is basically 'Might is right'.

Nobody was arguing that this won't bring Youtube more money. They were arguing that this is a dick move towards the content creators and is made possible by Youtube abusing their position as a monopoly, so it shouldn't be tolerated.

Yep, is it a dick move? Yes. Is it unacceptable. Not at all. To be devils advocate. I always thought Google was being extremely nice with their YouTube policies. I mean you can even advertise your own camming (Pornography) service in the comments for gods sake.

[Camul]

...

 

...

 

I already spoke about this. I think that Google should only take a cut from any view that had ad-block enabled.

[Guest]

Yep, is it a dick move? Yes. Is it unacceptable. Not at all.

 

Well, you see, for those of us who don't own Google stock, a profitable dick move being 'not unacceptable' is not a reason to like it.

[shujin]

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.

the theater already get paid for the service they offer. They shouldn't get paid for the content of the show.

[Nup]

Oh crap! 0.o

 

I wonder what this means for folks like Linus

[Misanthrope]

The news article is ''YouTube will no longer allow sponsors without paying for it.'' Not ''YouTube wants users to have a more fair chance to make a bigger revenue.''

Fact is that they are missing out on revenue that could be easily generated. The main goal of a commercial company is to make profit. They will do everything within reason to maximize profit.

Coming back to that theater example. Of course it's not how it works. But to understand the ''feeling'' that YouTube executives might have I used that as an example. You see better results result in a bigger check for them. Not mentioning that I used that example to get you to understand the position Google is in. Again taking it to the example: So you are telling me that the owner of that theater wouldn't want to maximize it's profit because it's more ''fair'' for the artist, BS of course.

If I was an executive at YouTube I would have done the exact same thing.

The owner of the theater here was the one who decided to share a lesser part of the cut with the content creator first before he went out to look for advertisers elsewhere. This is key here: Google has been diminishing ads profit sharing with creators

The other notable point is that nobody is saying Google can't do this. They absolutely can, but it's a shit move that creates immediate profits destroying way more valuable relationships with content creators instead of saying "if you remove other advertising we will share more profit with you from now on" which is more reasonable vs "fuck off, settle for making little money with us or gtfo"

[SSOB]

Well, you see, for those of us who don't own Google stock, a profitable dick move being 'not unacceptable' is not a reason to like it.

I still find it acceptable. And I don't even own Google stocks anymore. Another reason why I find it actually pretty fair is the fact that the users already receive Ad Revenue. 

 

the theater already get paid for the service they offer. They shouldn't get paid for the content of the show.

Yes, since when is advertising part of the show?

[shujin]

I already spoke about this. I think that Google should only take a cut from any view that had ad-block enabled.

I'm in class on a laptop atm so I answer as I read sorry 

[LinusTech]

This was a hot topic in the office yesterday. Not sure how many of your noticed but the LTT video that went up last night, and the Tech Quickie video that went up this morning are both missing logos in their sponsor spots....

 

We're less worried about the inability to show logos, and more worried about what Google might do to enforce some of their other policies that have already existed for years, but many channels have basically ignored up until now.

 

The other thing that bothers us is that YouTube already takes a nice phat chunk of the ad sales that they actually generate (adsense), and now they want in on the ad sales that we 100% generate on our own just for the privilege of using their content delivery system - something I would feel far happier about if there was any sort of communication with me or transparency about how things work on their side. So I have issues with things like the games YT plays with ACTUALLY delivering our content to our subscribers and the way I'm finding out about things like this - I found out about this through a link to tubefilter.com sent to me by Lew from Unbox Therapy.

 

Anyway, we talked about this a lot yesterday, and the bottom line is that Linus Media Group will survive, and we'll still be on YouTube, but while nothing changes for now... as time goes on we're not only going to have to brainstorm some new ways to generate revenue from our content, but for the first time ever our new ideas are starting to look so radical that they might actually affect the style of our content in order to fall in line with the ever-changing rules.

 

Scary stuff.

[MrSuperb]

When youtube channels are starting to disable ads from google and replacing them by in-video ads, it is kinda obvious, that google wants a cut ...

[Misanthrope]

And again: let's drop the theatre analogy Google is more than a theater and content Creators are more than just that since both split the most costly part of that format which is production company duties

[MLG Doge]

This was a hot topic in the office yesterday. Not sure how many of your noticed but the LTT video that went up last night, and the Tech Quickie video that went up this morning are both missing logos in their sponsor spots....

 

We're less worried about the inability to show logos, and more worried about what Google might do to enforce some of their other policies that have already existed for years, but many channels have basically ignored up until now.

 

The other thing that bothers us is that YouTube already takes a nice phat chunk of the ad sales that they actually generate (adsense), and now they want in on the ad sales that we 100% generate on our own just for the privilege of using their content delivery system - something I would feel far happier about if there was any sort of communication with me or transparency about how things work on their side. So I have issues with things like the games YT plays with ACTUALLY delivering our content to our subscribers and the way I'm finding out about things like this - I found out about this through a link to tubefilter.com sent to me by Lew from Unbox Therapy.

 

Anyway, we talked about this a lot yesterday, and the bottom line is that Linus Media Group will survive, and we'll still be on YouTube, but while nothing changes for now... as time goes on we're not only going to have to brainstorm some new ways to generate revenue from our content, but our new ideas are starting to look so radical that they might actually affect the style of our content in order to fall in line with the ever-changing rules

 

Scary stuff.

WE WILL SUPPORT LMG!

 

LMG MASTERRACE!

[shujin]

Yes, since when is advertising part of the show?

well since 99% of the money from ticket sold goes to the theater

[Misanthrope]

When youtube channels are starting to disable ads from google and replacing them by in-video ads, it is kinda obvious, that google wants a cut ...

Here is another angle to consider btw: this means they do not monetize and henceforth circumvent a lot of DMCA stuff.

[SSOB]

The owner of the theater here was the one who decided to share a lesser part of the cut with the content creator first before he went out to look for advertisers elsewhere. This is key here: Google has been diminishing ads profit sharing with creators

The other notable point is that nobody is saying Google can't do this. They absolutely can, but it's a shit move that creates immediate profits destroying way more valuable relationships with content creators instead of saying "if you remove other advertising we will share more profit with you from now on" which is more reasonable" vs "fuck off, settle for making little money with us or gtfo"

I think you're missing the point here. YouTube isn't television nor has it anything to do with broadcasting on a big scale. YouTube is Social Media. 

 

You see Google has made a contract with content creators. To put it easy: You make videos, we'll advertise using those video's. When you're doing an advertisement/sponsor during the video, this is considered  breach of contract. The whole situation is getting out of control and this is Google basically saying, stop.

 

And guys, it's Google, they aren't the bad guys. What I would think would be the the solution they are going to use is that they will let people choose, either use the regular Google advertisements or get your own sponsors and advertisements and get paid a little less per view. Easy and fair IMO.

[IAMSWIFT1]

SNIP

Someone Needs To Make A Song Like,We Will Suuuurvie

[Nup]

This was a hot topic in the office yesterday. Not sure how many of your noticed but the LTT video that went up last night, and the Tech Quickie video that went up this morning are both missing logos in their sponsor spots....

 

We're less worried about the inability to show logos, and more worried about what Google might do to enforce some of their other policies that have already existed for years, but many channels have basically ignored up until now.

 

The other thing that bothers us is that YouTube already takes a nice phat chunk of the ad sales that they actually generate (adsense), and now they want in on the ad sales that we 100% generate on our own just for the privilege of using their content delivery system - something I would feel far happier about if there was any sort of communication with me or transparency about how things work on their side. So I have issues with things like the games YT plays with ACTUALLY delivering our content to our subscribers and the way I'm finding out about things like this - I found out about this through a link to tubefilter.com sent to me by Lew from Unbox Therapy.

 

Anyway, we talked about this a lot yesterday, and the bottom line is that Linus Media Group will survive, and we'll still be on YouTube, but while nothing changes for now... as time goes on we're not only going to have to brainstorm some new ways to generate revenue from our content, but for the first time ever our new ideas are starting to look so radical that they might actually affect the style of our content in order to fall in line with the ever-changing rules.

 

Scary stuff.

 

Scary stuff indeed. Thanks for the comment. All the best to you and the guys. 

 

It'll make for some interesting changes alright. 

[SSOB]

This was a hot topic in the office yesterday. Not sure how many of your noticed but the LTT video that went up last night, and the Tech Quickie video that went up this morning are both missing logos in their sponsor spots....

 

We're less worried about the inability to show logos, and more worried about what Google might do to enforce some of their other policies that have already existed for years, but many channels have basically ignored up until now.

 

The other thing that bothers us is that YouTube already takes a nice phat chunk of the ad sales that they actually generate (adsense), and now they want in on the ad sales that we 100% generate on our own just for the privilege of using their content delivery system - something I would feel far happier about if there was any sort of communication with me or transparency about how things work on their side. So I have issues with things like the games YT plays with ACTUALLY delivering our content to our subscribers and the way I'm finding out about things like this - I found out about this through a link to tubefilter.com sent to me by Lew from Unbox Therapy.

 

Anyway, we talked about this a lot yesterday, and the bottom line is that Linus Media Group will survive, and we'll still be on YouTube, but while nothing changes for now... as time goes on we're not only going to have to brainstorm some new ways to generate revenue from our content, but for the first time ever our new ideas are starting to look so radical that they might actually affect the style of our content in order to fall in line with the ever-changing rules.

 

Scary stuff.

Don't be scared. Everyhing is calculated using algorithms and calculations that scare the best math professors in the world. You're making more money for Google than Google is giving you so as long as that's the case, you're all good.

 

You might have to fire some people to survive though...

[EpicAdom]

That sucks