YouTube Demonetization

[Hez]

I agree with @punch and have been saying something similar for a while now.  

 

Whether watching these YouTubers are "your thing" or not...they are rejuvenating the fishing industry and bringing new life to it.  The fishing industry needed this kind of help...bad...BUT...not as bad as our younger generation coming up NEEDS the fishing industry.  It's such a healthy innocent way for kids to be entertained and have fun...plus...if kids know the BAIT MONKEY...they won't have $$ for drugs!!

[Lures'n'Liberty]

10 minutes ago, punch said:

If they have to make their income by forming partnerships with companies to sell their product, so be it. Their hustle isn't much different than the life of the tournament pro's. 

Agreed, it takes a lot of work to build a channel. My friend devotes quite a bit of time to his channel and hes got his cameras on the water no less than 3 days a week, followed by hours of editing at home. If someone appreciates what he's doing and wants to give him stuff to help him do more and benefit from it, so be it.

[Choporoz]

24 minutes ago, punch said:

I think it sucks that YouTube isn't paying content creators like they should in the fishing/hunting space. It's really not easy to put out as much content as these guys do.. grab a camera every day and see if you can fill up a channel and build a following. It's harder than it looks!

 

I fully respect that you respect them.  But, I don't think that YT has ANY responsibility to pay somebody because they did something hard.  Even if they bring eyeballs to their channels, few advertisers are going to pony up if its kids watching. 

    I do some stuff that is hard sometimes.  But, if I filmed myself doing it  and put a video up, I wouldn't be angry if YT didn't want to pay me.

   You don't have to like the (somewhat) free market, but it helps to understand where the available dollars come from and why they get distributed like they do.

[punch]

8 minutes ago, Choporoz said:

I fully respect that you respect them.  But, I don't think that YT has ANY responsibility to pay somebody because they did something hard.  Even if they bring eyeballs to their channels, few advertisers are going to pony up if its kids watching. 

    I do some stuff that is hard sometimes.  But, if I filmed myself doing it  and put a video up, I wouldn't be angry if YT didn't want to pay me.

   You don't have to like the (somewhat) free market, but it helps to understand where the available dollars come from and why they get distributed like they do.

 

I guess I feel YT has some responsibility to help monetize medium-to-large sized channels and content creators that generate hundreds of thousands of views every month. Without supporting these content creators there is no YouTube. They should get paid for the audiences they organically generate, IMHO. 

[Tyler21]

YT is making money off of the Creators so in my mind they should be paying the creators instead of taking money from something they didn't earn. It also gives a bad vibe that fishing and hunting are bad things because YT is placing them under the controversial content label. 

[Deleted account]

3 hours ago, punch said:

 

I guess I feel YT has some responsibility to help monetize medium-to-large sized channels and content creators that generate hundreds of thousands of views every month. Without supporting these content creators there is no YouTube. They should get paid for the audiences they organically generate, IMHO. 

 

No, They are providing a medium and exposure for no or low cost, how much is that worth?

[.ghoti.]

Youtube is going to do whatever it takes to generate revenue for Youtube. Cant put it any more simply than that.

 

Dont like Youtube's policies and procedures? Get some expensive gear. Get some expensive software. Hire some expensive programmers. Create your own knock-off of Youtube. Prepare to get butt-hurt. 

[TOXIC]

For the "Young Guns" making these vids, I have one problem (and it's the same problem with the pro's).  Once you introduce "Sponsors" you loose your objectivity.  You then become just another talking head for your sponsor(s) for all intents and purposes.  True or not, that will be the perception, you can't avoid it.  

[Deleted account]

1 hour ago, TOXIC said:

For the "Young Guns" making these vids, I have one problem (and it's the same problem with the pro's).  Once you introduce "Sponsors" you loose your objectivity.  You then become just another talking head for your sponsor(s) for all intents and purposes.  True or not, that will be the perception, you can't avoid it.  

 

Yeah, but that is everywhere in all mediums, from the early "soap" operas to NASCAR, and everything in between. The $ has to come from somewhere.

[J Francho]

2 hours ago, TOXIC said:

Once you introduce "Sponsors" you loose your objectivity.

 

This probably has nothing to do with this thread, but as our cast sponsors here at Bass Resource rotates, and I review more gear - some I would not even consider using - I feel I've gained some objectivity.  Example, I'm well known to use CXX.  Seaguar has some lines they've recently brought to mark that are as good, if not better in some cases.  I probably would not have veered to far off my line choice path to try them.  Now that I have used them, I can offer my perspective.  Maybe it's not the same, and maybe I'm just more mature than the average tuber getting discounted tackle.

[TOXIC]

Let me refine my statement.  A sponsor of a website that has a selection of the same product from different manufacturers is sponsoring for views and click throughs.  If a youtuber relies on his sponsors to fund his/her channel, how long do you think the sponsor will stick around if the youtuber starts using/reviewing competitors products favorably over theirs?  And I'm not saying that just because you are sponsored you are a talking head for that company in all cases but if you rely on the sponsors money or product to survive then you have lost your objectivity.  

[mllrtm79]

Maybe in the case of some of the channels it is different, I have only watched a few here and there because of searches for certain techniques. But if I was Disney (for one) I would not want my advertisement on a channel that on one particular episode the "characters" trespass on Disney property to fish. Just my .02

I'm all for watching/learning about fishing, but when illegal/unethical activity is shown, they should lose all revenue from it. If the goal/justification of the shenanigans is youth interest in the sport, these kids don't need any more "role model" encouragement to do illegal activities than they already have. 

[NYWayfarer]

32 minutes ago, mllrtm79 said:

I would not want my advertisement on a channel that on one particular episode the "characters" trespass on Disney property to fish. Just my .02

 

Same crew was jumping off the boat house roof at Gary Yamamoto's ranch while they were guests there.

 

Haven't seen them there since...

[J Francho]

1 hour ago, TOXIC said:

Let me refine my statement.  A sponsor of a website that has a selection of the same product from different manufacturers is sponsoring for views and click throughs.  If a youtuber relies on his sponsors to fund his/her channel, how long do you think the sponsor will stick around if the youtuber starts using/reviewing competitors products favorably over theirs?  And I'm not saying that just because you are sponsored you are a talking head for that company in all cases but if you rely on the sponsors money or product to survive then you have lost your objectivity.  

 

I can see that.  If you are using one brand exclusively, it can appear so on the surface.  I was sponsored by Wilderness Systems kayaks.  My take was the product sells itself, I'm just there to point out new features, or announce new releases.  In fact we were encouraged NOT to pimp the gear, or sound like a salesperson.  We were also a main point of contact when people had issues with products.  Often, people turn to social media when something goes wrong, or breaks instead of just calling the company's support line.  For the most part I viewed my relationship to the company as an "endorsement" of sorts.  As in, I really like this product, here's why.  Try this, try others.  I in fact encouraged many to try other boats.  That way they can see the difference.  I guess it's important to note, that my livelihood was not contingent on that business relationship. 

 

Good points, @TOXIC

[NYWayfarer]

3 hours ago, TOXIC said:

Let me refine my statement.  A sponsor of a website that has a selection of the same product from different manufacturers is sponsoring for views and click throughs.  If a youtuber relies on his sponsors to fund his/her channel, how long do you think the sponsor will stick around if the youtuber starts using/reviewing competitors products favorably over theirs?  And I'm not saying that just because you are sponsored you are a talking head for that company in all cases but if you rely on the sponsors money or product to survive then you have lost your objectivity.  

 

Interesting. I will keep an eye on the Youtubers I watch to see if it proves this point.

 

So far, I noticed, since the Googan Squad has switched over to Favorite they still use a variety of Shimano reels over the Favorite brand.

 

If you watch Extreme Philly Fishing, you will see he is sponsored by Kastking but uses Shimano and Daiwa reels as well. If anything Daiwa should sponsor him as he has used a 2 piece UL Daiwa Spinmatic rod for years and caught thousands of fish on it. The thing is still going strong!

 

 

[DroneFisher]

On 5/30/2017 at 0:47 AM, Bluebasser86 said:

And??

As long as you're not promoting your channel or a product with your videos, nothing wrong with it. Lots of members post their Youtube videos from their fishing trips. I enjoy watching most of them. Now the shaky chest or head cams, obnoxious music, screaming about every dink they catch, filming themselves eating breakfast and getting gas, I could do without all that. Neat thing is, it's really easy to just not watch those videos and go back to watching the ones I like. 

 

As for the OP's question, I have no idea how all that stuff works but I'd guess maybe the folks who run YT aren't big fans of the sport. I'm sure you could shoot the folks over at YT a query about why it's in that category. 

Interesting, I was always scared to post YouTube videos thinking they would be taken down. Just to be clear, If I documeted my fishing trip, uploaded it to YouTube, and shared it here....that would be OK? Thanks for clarifying.

[J Francho]

38 minutes ago, DroneFisher said:

Interesting, I was always scared to post YouTube videos thinking they would be taken down. Just to be clear, If I documeted my fishing trip, uploaded it to YouTube, and shared it here....that would be OK? Thanks for clarifying.

 

As long as you aren't promoting a product, yourself, or asking for subs, it's fine.

 

Here's an example:

 

 

[hoosierbass07]

I don't see you-tube fishing videos going away and the you-tube bubble busting. any time soon.  The internet is crushing brick and mortar big time.   Gander Mountain closing, Cabelas filing for bankruptcy or whatever they are doing, etc...  I've noticed the movie industry is tanking, the parking lot at the theaters I go to are not anywhere packed on weekends during a new 'blockbuster' movie.  Shopping malls are closing and not near 100% occupancy.  The internet and video game consoles are crushing brick and mortar everywhere.  

 

 Plus, people are dropping cable TV  because the bills are too high.  That means no more Bill Dance or MLF or Strike King Fish Hard.  But most of those people still have the internet and are streaming.  They have to learn how to fish somewhere and that means youtube.  

 

 

[MasterBasser]

On 5/30/2017 at 8:50 AM, Tyler21 said:

YT stopped paying because they were on the border of a lawsuit for showing ads on controversial content. Now, every channel with guns is being paid very little and it has now spread into others like fishing. That's why you see sponsors for every video on the bigger channels.

so I don't understand how this works.  Many of the fishing channels I watch have 4 ads or more in a 15 mintue video.  Are you saying we watch the ads but then the producer doesn't get paid, or are there simply no ads?  

 

I assumed Youtube was pushing more ads in an attmept to get us all on paid Youtube, but I think that is going to backfire. 

[CybrSlydr]

On 5/30/2017 at 8:58 AM, Finesse Wayfarer said:

 

The issue stems from advertisers bailing on Youtube as there was no way of knowing what videos their ads would show in.

 

For example a Disney ad could pop up during a Lunkers TV video where he is night hunting hogs in Texas or him hanging out with Outlaw chewing tobacco. Not exactly the videos Disney would endorse.

 

The Googan Squad seems to have countered this by partnering with Dollar Shave Club. They endorse DSC products during their videos and the ads that pop up are from DSC.

Googs are also doing MTB - though JonB is the only one of them I watch.  Love me some JonB!  

41 minutes ago, MasterBasser said:

so I don't understand how this works.  Many of the fishing channels I watch have 4 ads or more in a 15 mintue video.  Are you saying we watch the ads but then the producer doesn't get paid, or are there simply no ads?  

 

I assumed Youtube was pushing more ads in an attmept to get us all on paid Youtube, but I think that is going to backfire. 

 

Yeah, all these ads are ******* annoying as ****.

[MasterBasser]

I watched a Yankee Marshall video and he talked about this.  Apparently YouTube still plays the ads on his channel, he just doesn't get paid.  That seems really wrong.  If they still run the ads and they still get paid by the advertiser, then the video producer should get paid.  It would be different if they pulled ads all together because advertisers were opposed to the content.  

 

The whole being a professional youtuber seems like it won't last.  

[Choporoz]

8 hours ago, MasterBasser said:

If they still run the ads and they still get paid by the advertiser, then the video producer should get paid.

I must be getting old....or I simply don't understand.  What does the contract between said producer and Youtube specify?  Is the content producer helping youtube with its overhead, server costs, coding, transmission, organization, etc?  Is Youtube charging the content provider to upload videos?  If it is, I wasn't aware. 

    I guess I'm living in the past....I wouldn't mind returning to the days of producing something of value and exchanging it for like value on a more or less open market.  I miss the times when people didn't expect someone else to provide a free market place, platform, advertising, searchability, etc....and then complain that they weren't compensated for .....for ....um....what? 

..get off my lawn.  

 

    

[Scarborough817]

14 minutes ago, Choporoz said:

I must be getting old....or I simply don't understand.  What does the contract between said producer and Youtube specify?  Is the content producer helping youtube with its overhead, server costs, coding, transmission, organization, etc?  Is Youtube charging the content provider to upload videos?  If it is, I wasn't aware. 

    I guess I'm living in the past....I wouldn't mind returning to the days of producing something of value and exchanging it for like value on a more or less open market.  I miss the times when people didn't expect someone else to provide a free market place, platform, advertising, searchability, etc....and then complain that they weren't compensated for .....for ....um....what? 

..get off my lawn.  

 

    

the contract likely doesn't specify anything. Thought it is fair to say that these producers are likely bringing traffic to the site which does in turn increase the volume of traffic to the site which can raise youtube's profit by getting more companies to buy ads. but i suppose there is no way to say this is exactly what this person came to watch unless the go directly to the channel or link. now i do feel it is unfair in the sense that youtube pays people with larger channels like jake paul who just acts like a complete idiot, yet is making millions off of his channel for pulling stunts like burning a couch in his pool. yet the people who are just fishing now make nothing. i understand how it can be seen as unfair in that sense but you are right in the fact that they don't have to pay a fee to upload videos or directly contribute to youtubes overhead

[MasterBasser]

15 hours ago, Choporoz said:

I must be getting old....or I simply don't understand.  What does the contract between said producer and Youtube specify?  Is the content producer helping youtube with its overhead, server costs, coding, transmission, organization, etc?  Is Youtube charging the content provider to upload videos?  If it is, I wasn't aware. 

    I guess I'm living in the past....I wouldn't mind returning to the days of producing something of value and exchanging it for like value on a more or less open market.  I miss the times when people didn't expect someone else to provide a free market place, platform, advertising, searchability, etc....and then complain that they weren't compensated for .....for ....um....what? 

..get off my lawn.  

 

    

I'm sure that YouTube has made agreements that favor them as they are currently the only game in town for video content.  It used to be that you could choose to monetize your content or not, if not there was no ads, if so then they assign ads and you get a very small portion of the money from the ad.  YouTube gets paid the larger portion, your content is what makes them money.  Now it seems they are trying to say content is controversial and advertisers don't want to be associated with it.  So they now do not pay the content producers, however the ads are still running and YouTube is still getting paid.   This is wrong.  It might not be illegal but it is wrong.  

 

You are getting compensated for producing a video that people want to watch and which advertisers run ads on, it is ad revenue.  Since you're old, if you produced a magazine and sold advertising for it. Then print the magazine and sell.  Afterward the ad company says it's to controversial and they won't pay.  It is wrong.   

[Chance_Taker4]

On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 9:04 PM, LxVE Bassin said:

I noticed a lot of fishing Youtuber's are complaining about not getting paid anymore off of ad revenue. I did some reading and it looks like channels have to meet a certain criteria to be monetized. Why are fishing channels deemed controversial? 

YouTube and Google AdSense change their payment algorithm. Back in the day you got paid from adding ads and a ratio of views to subscribers. There has been such an influx of people wanting to be YouTube "Stars" YT changed how they pay their uploaders. Now if an ad can be skipped in 10 seconds and the viewer watches past the "Skip" the uploader gets paid around $.03 is the viewer watches that ad in its entirety then the uploader gets $.05. If the ad is one that cannot be skipped than the viewer must click on the ad and get redirected to the advertisers webpage for it to count towards the uploader. I used to make roughly $2.5k a year on YT now I barely make $500.