I still think it isn't consistent enough to convince some boomer investor versus income straight from other companies. Maybe if internet ads become completely unreliable YouTube will relax on all the rules they've been making up to appeal to the advertisers.
-
-
Replying to @atradaitoshi @Monkey_MarkP and
People are becoming more tech savvy, that only increases as the old die off. Most tech savvy users aggressively block ads. It is already unreliable, and will increasingly get worse. Once these companies realize no one is seeing their ads. What will they do? Oh, pull the money.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bill_Bickers @Monkey_MarkP and
Yup. Though I feel like things will somehow get worse when that happens rather than better. Just a hunch.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @atradaitoshi @Monkey_MarkP and
So, Let's circle back to the beginning. Is this about making money, or the narrative? A tech giant like alphabet, who makes their money with ads knows full well about what we're talking about. Ads are not the future, yet they alienate creators that pull money in their direction.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Bill_Bickers @Monkey_MarkP and
Well what do you believe? That companies will readily manipulate the public to get them to buy their shit, or the vague idea of a "narrative" that exists for no reason at all.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @atradaitoshi @Monkey_MarkP and
These companies have a duty to their share-holders, every small bit matters. Heading into the future, ad revenue will only decrease. By turning away anyone, they are cutting off potential revenue streams. For what purpose?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Bill_Bickers @Monkey_MarkP and
Bigger revenue streams that they are apparently willing to make the gamble on. And they'll either win or lose.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @atradaitoshi @Monkey_MarkP and
But why not both? Why turn away the revenue? There isn't enough ads to go around, I keep using
@MisterAntiBully 's good friend Metokur as an example. Ads weren't showing on his videos, but he was making ~4k a month. Why turn away the revenue, for what purpose?1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Bill_Bickers @Monkey_MarkP and
In his case it was just a technicality. He needs videos on the channel to stay partnered because YouTube is not primarily streaming site. I could see them fixing this in the future for people who only want to stream.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @atradaitoshi @Monkey_MarkP and
It's not just Metokur. He had videos, none of them monetized. You know why he deleted them. That also wasn't the original reason given. What about the saint jude thing, or all the other creators they've been screwing with? How does turning away any revenue streams make sense?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The original reason looked like the system just mis-categorizing why he wasn't eligible to be a partner. Saint Jude was avoiding negative press. "Saint Jude takes donations from nazis" is a nice clickbait headline.
-
-
Replying to @atradaitoshi @Bill_Bickers and
As for these restrictive policies, YouTube may trying to cut out channels that they can't sell to advertisers because their content may 1) Damage YouTube's brand and/or 2) Simply be a waste of bandwidth. This would be fine if the reviewers weren't all robots/idiots.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.