If you’re just starting out and don’t qualify to become a “partner”, you can’t monetize your videos until you reach X amount of subscribers and Y amount of watch hours.
This doesn’t mean your videos won’t have ads on them. They most assuredly will have ads on them.
It just means that YouTube doesn’t consider you good enough to share the revenue with you.
Load of BS of course.
Either content is good enough to place ads on, revenue of which is shared, or your content isn’t good enough to place ads on.
Making profit over someone else’s content (however abhorrent the person might be) is just dirty imho.
A reasonable point, but the lack of transparency from YouTube's end means their pitch to content creators is basically 'trust us.' There's no way for new entrants to the market to predict how much they can make in proportion to views, so they're incentivized to just chase the lowest common denominator all the time.
Given the scale and metrics involved, seems pretty nominal. Maybe not free, but for the context might as well be. Something that could be highly automated if it were transparent and fair.
I work in the space... that level of visibility is a trade secret because it exposes contracts like isp hosting costs... it's also hard to calculate... and it's definitely non-trivial.
it's not going to be exposed because why show your cards, you're not a CDN. And there's a reason people use YouTube not CDNs and it's not just the complexity and discovery, it's still not super cheap.
To be honest, YouTube should be charging hosting fees to people who don't qualify for the partner program. The fact that they try to make up the shortfall through ads is a huge favor
Youtube is a free platform to host video content, they themselves need to pay the bills. At a particular point that your videos become "valuable" they offer to provide you with a cut.
The grey area is potentially how they determine the value
Right, but there's a difference between "we don't think this person should be profiting from our platform because they are causing harm" and "we think this person causes harm so we're going to let them use the platform but take the money we would have paid them".
You need to read my comment in response to the person I commented on, not the whole post itself. Their comment was in relation to how Youtube monetizes videos in general, not in relation to Russell and my comment was in relation to monetisation in general, not in relation to Russell.
However, I do agree with your comment. If the videos cause harm them nobody should be profiting from them and realistically they should be taken offline as well.
If you’re just starting out and don’t qualify to become a “partner”, you can’t monetize your videos until you reach X amount of subscribers and Y amount of watch hours.
This doesn’t mean your videos won’t have ads on them. They most assuredly will have ads on them. It just means that YouTube doesn’t consider you good enough to share the revenue with you.
Load of BS of course.
Either content is good enough to place ads on, revenue of which is shared, or your content isn’t good enough to place ads on. Making profit over someone else’s content (however abhorrent the person might be) is just dirty imho.