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

[sgloux3470]

A real alternative to YouTube just escalated from "needed" to "crisis".

 

No one wants to give up the adsense money.

 

 

Wow, this is gonna get real big on thw internet now.

If it gets to the point when nobody can mention sponsors or advertise a product in any way, then new service should rise to compete. Or the amount google will ask for such activity should be under 3%.

Francis will flip tables again 

 

People can still have sponsors.  They just can't do it without the advertisers paying google.  

[Scarymonkeys]

A real alternative to YouTube just escalated from "needed" to "crisis".

Vimeo is actually pretty nice.

[TetraSky]

R.I.P. LTT
Guess Linus will have to fire somebody if they are going to live off only google ads.

[bcredeur97]

R.I.P. LTT

Guess Linus will have to fire somebody if they are going to live off only google ads.

dont say that. the community is very strong. It can live on.

 

We just need to hear from @LinusTech . Im sure he has a plan!

[SLOWION]

If YouTube had better ad revenue splits the desire to seek other options would be lower.

 

They won't but they should look into that. I see no reason why a company this large needs to collect nearly half of the ad revenue from every single channel.

[obesecabbage]

Is there a video hosting service that protects content creators?

[sgloux3470]

If YouTube had better ad revenue splits the desire to seek other options would be lower.

 

They won't but they should look into that. I see no reason why a company this large needs to collect nearly half of the ad revenue from every single channel.

 

Quite frankly, they don't even need to give the channel any cut of ad revenue.  They're big enough that they'll always have content, they don't need to incentivize it.

[Z3RO]

How is this going to affect the new youtuber or even a well established one?:

 

It could be difficult to build relationships with potential sponsors of the channel as the money that could go to the content creator might now have to be split with Google.

Gain based on sponsor spots are less for youtuber and just that little bit harder to make an income from the content. The youtuber might have to have more sponsors now (WHICH ARE DIFFICULT TO COME BY) to make the same profit and potentially fill us with more sponsor spots...detracting from the actual content itself.

 

IMO - This all leads to a less viable model for the up and coming youtuber - the people who need to actually be given all the help they can get in order to succeed and at the same time make Google some more profit....but Google wants even more than that...

 

Making videos for the larger channels is not all that cheap and when your profits are just cut (not sure what % Google wants as yet) because Google want more control, it is a bit of a blow to the budget.

 

Just a thought, maybe I am off the mark...but there seems to be no limit to greed.

[Edzel Yago]

R.I.P. LTT

Guess Linus will have to fire somebody if they are going to live off only google ads.

 

Heh, he joked that we would have to fire people in reverse order of hiring... BYE, BERKEL!

[martinrox1568]

Vimeo has a per-user upload limit per week/month and it's laughably small, they are too small time to afford servers.

 

Dailymotion is stuck in the stone age of video compression and is an adware shithole.

 

The only hope is whatever Yahoo! said they were working on, which went all quiet-mode.

 

I hope something proper emerges from a country with sustainable copyright laws and won't be DMCA lapdogs like Google.

I feel there is room for bittorrent to create a solution. Have peers seed a video for a certain time each time they watch it. And I don't mean that it seeds the video you're watching but a random video in need of seeding. So if you watch a video, you upload another video.

[Mentalguy]

Heh, he joked that we would have to fire people in reverse order of hiring... BYE, BERKEL!

You guys should try to find a different way of posting videos if it comes to that.

 

 

Also, why the hell are you not a mod?

[Jord1990]

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.

[rentaspoon]

And damn... 3 years ago i would swear on my life google was above this kinds of shit, now, they do it all the time. We need competitive services taht are good enough to challenge google...

it's what happens when there is little or no real competition.

[DeViLzzz]

Tonight is The WAN Show.  It should be an interesting one.

[Tedster]

Tonight is The WAN Show.  It should be an interesting one.

Yup. Really hope that Linus and Luke talk about this in detail.

[DeViLzzz]

Now let me say I think the amount of advertising in the YouTube videos and on The WAN Show has at times gotten extremely long and wind bag like and so really I won't miss those long advertising spots but I get LMG has to get paid to create great content for YouTube so yeah Google what about that? Quite honestly I wish LMG had a place to go as in a competitor but from what others have said it sounded like at this point there was no good solution.  Again really interested in what Linus and Luke say on The WAN Show tonight.

[meltingtomato]

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.

 

Which would be fine if:

 

a) the quality of the lemonade (videos) was a constant 1 lemon, 5 cups water, 3 tablespoons sugar (360p video). While both the party organizer and the lemonade stands exist, people wanted higher quality lemonade and hell, even kale smoothies. So the stand owners did just that - make a better product. The stands could only afford to do so because the party holder offered a cut of ticket sales (traditional yt ads). In exchange, these stands were given space to hold their larger and better inventory. The problem arose when the costs of making better lemonade and smoothies became greater than the revenues the stands were getting for their goods, and to sustain themselves. Therefore, the stands turned to a new way to cover the costs of making organic lemonade and smoothies: ORGANIC COOKIES. Thing is, the party owner was upset that they were keeping the inventory on his property, and not giving him money. The stands reacted "we wouldn't be in this situation if you gave us more of the money you made off of us!"

 

b ) The actual base Youtube ads were targeted to the viewer, rather than just being who paid Google the most. The whole point of online advertising was for ads to be more targeted to what the viewer is interested in, say Corsair, instead of ads for things I don't care for, say Pantene Pro-V (good old P&G). As it is, let's assume Cooler Master does pay Google to sponsor Linus, NCIX, Jay, Paul and a bunch of others, something they do currently with the intro ads. Assuming the rate is identical to what would have to be paid to each individual channel, those channels just lost 45% of their revenue, while being asked to maintain the same quality of content.

TL'DR: I understand what you're trying to say, but the only options for creators to make money was to side-sponsor. If Google doesn't offer a more compelling way for content to be monetized for the capital heavy content creators, they shouldn't be touching the content creators money. 

[LAwLz]

Surely this counts as double dipping on the part of Google? They already have their advertisements presented on their site, now they're monetizing the content in videos as well? (edit: I know this is a double post but I'm separating it from the off topic BS)

It's not double dipping because Google don't get a cut from in-video ads to begin with. That's probably why they no longer allow it, because in video ads are a way to cut out Google as the middle man, which they don't like.

 

I wonder where all the "it's business move so it's okay" people are. I see that argument a lot when Microsoft and Apple do shitty things but I don't see it in this thread (not seeing it in this thread is good).

 

Shitty move from Google. It's really sad to see Google impose more and more restrictions and rules on their products. First Android and now YouTube. I can see why they do this (benefits them) but I think you should satisfy your users (in this case, specifically the content creators) first and put "make more money!" second.

[Kawaii Besu]

Well with all of that crap policies that diminish content creator opportunities, Google's fine inserting THEIR OWN UNSKIPPABLE, 30s-1 minute or even FREAKING 15 minute ads into everyone's videos...

[shujin]

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.

even with your analogy you still pay for the stand you pay for the cookie and you pay for the autorisation to sell food (yes that exist and apparently nobody know) so you have the right to sell what you want with the stand you want (you can put huge coke/pepsi ad on the banner) and it's legit and the guy that gave you the permit can't ask for a share of thise ad revenue. Google is not patching a hole (if it's even a hole) they are asking for a share of the hole ....

[Borjita3]

Google, I thought you were cool. 

Why you do this?

[Overl0rd]

Google, I thought you were cool. 

Why you do this?

Because they can, and will probably get away with it as well.

[RH00D]

A real alternative to YouTube just escalated from "needed" to "crisis".

 

There's Dailymotion, I was looking on there and as a partner you can get up to 70% of all ad revenue. I'm not sure how big of a channel you have to be to get that percentage but I'm sure LTT would qualify. The biggest problem with Dailymotion is that it doesn't have the audience that YouTube has...

[That Norwegian Guy]

There's Dailymotion, I was looking on there and as a partner you can get up to 70% of all ad revenue. I'm not sure how big of a channel you have to be to get that percentage but I'm sure LTT would qualify. The biggest problem with Dailymotion is that it doesn't have the audience that YouTube has...

 

Also Dailymotion, like I've mentioned in other threads, has awful video compression and is an adware shithole. They're the most likely to be able to challenge YouTube though, if just whoever owned it wasn't so tasteless.

[RH00D]

Also Dailymotion, like I've mentioned in other threads, has awful video compression and is an adware shithole. They're the most likely to be able to challenge YouTube though, if just whoever owned it wasn't so tasteless.

 

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.