New rules on YouTube?

Yes, Youtube announced big changes for monetizing videos. However, it's 4000 accumulated hours of watch time, not just 4000 views, in addition to 1000 subs.


You can read more about it here:
https://youtube-creators.googleblog....rtner.html?m=1

So, it's time to focus on external monetization.

Yeah, it really is becoming harder and harder for people and Marketers on YT. Of course the high quality Content producers will continue to thrive there. But I think they almost will certainly lose potential quality Marketers who just do not even begin to try producing Content there because of the strict rules

It's a real smack in the face for those of us who built our channels up through good old elbow grease instead of paying for subs who don't really care. It's changing my video strategy as I'm going more to FB Lives.

From the YT creators official blog, this ruling will start February 20th, 2018, allowing for a 30 day grace period.

Oh please!

Like that will help those who no longer meet the new criteria before or after that date.

Must say 240,000mins (4000hrs) + 1000 subscribers will be a challenging feat for some and doesn't mean it cant be achieved but even then the auto re-evaluation strict criteria still doesnt guarantee a channel will get monetization status from what I read on the blog.

At least YT has given a heads up that it's time to review, adjust and see how else one can still use (or not use) it for earnings purposes.

I think it's a good thing, for everybody, in the long run.

My channel has been hit by this.

My only concern about the change is how it impacts the algorithm - if Youtube gives preferential treatment to monetised videos then it's a real problem.

Look at it this way: less competition and better income.

YouTube literally have no choice but to tighten up their "creator ecosystem," as they call it, and one sure-fire way of doing that is to tighten up who they allow to earn with them.

4,000 hours of watch time and 1,000 subs within the last 12 months is really not as bad as it sounds.

I can see a downside from YouTube's POV. You're going to have more videos engineered to push views. Lots of views doesn't necessarily make a good video, as we know.

The workaround if you're new to YT, and not yet monetized, is to push out videos designed for views. From YT's POV, that's going to cause headaches, and they've already got enough from such videos.

I'm behind high-view videos myself but I like to combine quality into them, as well. Upshot: the situation isn't bad, it's necessary, but I can already see it not being a perfect solution.

They had to do something, but I think their criteria (or system) needs tweaking, or they'll have more problems. There's nothing wrong with chasing views - you should - but the problem will come from an influx of videos bereft of quality, designed only to get views. We have that already, it won't go away, these new regulations will probably only inflate the problem.

Now stop reading this - and post a video of your dog making sweet love to a chicken.

- Tom

I first heard that they were making it just 10K views but now 1k subs too? I'd say it's definitely going to be harder for new creators but it will help youtube cut down on all the "bad apples" who are on the platform

No offense to you, Kurt, but G has made it abundantly clear over the years that they don't care about anyone but G.

Which is why I quit using anything Google related connected with income some years ago. And it was one of the best moves of my online career.

As with all the other changes that have come over the years, some will adapt, others will die.

Brent

They did it already couple of times in the past and not only YouTube but many others as well. It is good to stay updated with the new terms and rules in order to follow them and keep your profit.

affiliated survivor,

Yes that is for monetized ads, but you can always promote your own product or service. Find keywords that people are searching for and try to rank those videos. You don't need YouTube's monetization.

Chris

I'm not surprised by the drastic change. The good news is that you can still pay for advertising elsewhere - whether in the form of time, or in the form of money. It's not a "closed door"... it still just boils down to good video marketing.

Besides... you can always still create videos for your site, and earn money from your blog/email subscribers when they view them. Become a "youtuber" in your own blog/email list.

One thing's for sure, companies that offer WATCH TIME and channel subscription services are going to rake in the dough.

These usually don't employ flesh and blood human beings but tons of proxies and AI-driven bots.

I do somehow appreciate the move of YT, even I can't monetize my channel anymore. However, our channel is about a small town and it helps to drive traffic to my website.
When I read through the thread, what some call Internet Marketing is more or less simple YT-Spamming and hoping someone clicks on the adds to make some bucks. That, my friends has nothing to do with IM. If you give value, you get even in a niche enough subs with 4000 hrs views a year.
Of course, some make a new channel for each 3-minute spam video and now cry out loud. Like recording themselves playing whatever game. You still can do that and use it as a tool to sell your product. Showing some google ads can't be the purpose of YT internet marketing.
Speaking for me, I am half way there and did not really invest much time and effort in promoting the channel. I am certain to reach that required numbers in half year. As of now I don't even know if I will use it. On most videos probably not. I rather have people going to my sites, there is more money for me in there.
Cheers
DINS

I just created a channel and I got 500 subscribers and 10,000 views. So I am interested in make paid campaign. But My campaign is not going to live on Youtube SERP.

What is this reasons behind it? Anyone know me.

Not sure. But my channel has been approved for monetization two days back. It has less than 100 views and zero subscribers

I personally don't care about their ever changing policies. They've got to protect their own biz. So, do I. Rules are rules. I'm more interested how to manipulate their system (and I don't care if it's a black-hat technique or not) and siphon off good amounts of traffic. I never tried to rank my videos because I got other methods that help me steal large amounts of active subscribers from top channels. In addition, I produce very quality content. YouTube has no option, but to recommend my content to a very large audience pool because I add tremendous value and enrich their user experience. Hope, it helps.

This is typical of G. They'll probably start charging you for uploading and keeping videos on their system next.

Yes, Youtube announced massive adjustments for monetizing videos. However, it is 4000 gathered hours of watch time, not simply 4000 views, further to one thousand subs.

YT could also have made changes using slightly different criteria. For example, they could have grouped channels on the same YT/AdSense account and combined their stats to meet their criteria. They already do this for payments so it shouldn't be too hard for them to do.

I have multiple channels and all have been copyright strike free as well as not having any community violations. Although I did have one community violation that was overturned on appeal and I would gladly post that video and challenge anyone to find a violation. Why not judge the person instead of the channel?

They could offer an option for paid reviews of channels where creators pay a fee of something like $20 to have their channel reviewed. Or have the 1st $20 earned through AdSense applied to a review. Yahoo used to charge $200(?) just to be reviewed to be included in their index, with no guarantee or refund of the $200 if your site wasn't accepted.

YT could allow channels with 4000 hours of view time total over their history instead of just the past 365 days. It will be interesting to see how they handle channels with seasonal content that may exceed the 4000 hour threshold in the past 365 days in some months but not others.

No, they have changed the rules for monetization as i know in this way: using google's algorihthm in youtube, so the fancy channes which previously make some decent money, publishing videos with nonsense stuff for advertisers will be penalized.

But if you're right, i wont be surprised.

WHY?

Cause it's not a proper method to earn money: you are totally dependent to google, which in fact turn un your new boss.

But, instead of being a normale boss with clear rules, he can change them whenever he wants and throw all your money away.

So think of a better sustainable way to earn an online income: email marketing.

You need an email list, with targeted subscribers, and you can make money sending emails, having a proper relationship with potential buyer, a business, not hoping that someone will finally click ads on your channe, where u have no control over it.

Great! First FB then IG now this. Time to change marketing strategies and do influencer marketing instead.

It is time to up our Games . We must learn to adapt and use the rules to our advantage .

It will be good for real youtubers.

I wonder how many people have lost their income because of this? I could only imagine having worked for months just to be told no that sucks but at the same time they keep saying dont put all you eggs in one basket....

Would love to monetize our videos on Youtube, but even though the women are wrestling non-nude, they consider it porn or a "humiliating fetish", lol.

Kurt,

You seem (to me) very upset. The majority of that upset seems directed at YouTube and a portion seems (from where I sit) directed at me. I could be wrong on both counts (which is why I use "seem" 3 or 4 times there) but, whatever the case, and whether or not the word "upset" is the appropriate one, I think we can both agree on one thing: you're mightily peed off with YouTube.

I understand. And that isn't a hollow understanding. I've felt that upset (or whatever) many times.

Since I began online marketing (mid '90s), I have had the rug pulled out from under me more times than I've had a breakfast of vodka and Masala with Dennis. (That probably means very little if you don't read my work. Translation: a lot of times.) You work hard and you spend hard and you give a business all that you can give it. And what happens? The buggers change the game.

I can honestly not think of a single platform (YouTube included) that has not, in recent memory, bent me over and invited me to experience something I've been begging Mrs. A to experience for 20 years. YouTube did it with their completely poor as pee handling of demonetization (though I don't know anyone who wasn't effected). Facebook did it with "reach." If I went back 23 years, I think I could spend around 8 or 9 hours adding to that list. Each and every time, I think I felt (in part or in whole) what you may be feeling now.

I hope I don't pee you off with what comes next. (Or continue to pee you off.) That, honestly, is never the intention - with yourself or with anyone - when I hang out on WF, or anywhere else in life, for that matter. So as not to be rude and ignore you, I'm going to respond to all of your remarks directed at me; only, as I say, not to be rude and ignore them. I'd rather not answer them - because I don't think you'll like my answers - but, what the heck . . .

Here they come.

A catch-22, by definition, is a situation wherein there is no escape "because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions."

This is not the case here.

To suggest a catch-22 situation is to suggest that we must only grow external assets or only grow internal assets.

The fact is, we can grow both. And we should.

It sucks.

It sucks that honest marketers must work for nothing, initially, and earn YouTube's trust.

I agree.

The way to rationalise it? First, the amount of money you would have earned for 4,000 hours of watch time is very little. About the amount of money Mrs. A spends in Starbucks on a Sunday.

Second, the work you do (publishing the videos and everything related to your efforts) can (and should) give you returns for many years after you enter the Partner Program.

You are, in effect, losing a small amount of money (which, yes, does suck) whilst investing in your future.

It is the price new channels must now pay. But, thankfully, a small price.

I agree. I covered this in one of my previous posts in the thread.

No, Kurt. I perhaps didn't make myself sufficiently clear. Perhaps reread my comment above.

To explain it: I suggest a creator can promote both external and internal assets. To those creators who wish to enter the Partner Program sooner than later, the focus should be on internal assets (growing watch time and subscribers), but this does not need to be done to the exclusion of external promotions (your list, say).

I just mean that the more keen you are to get on the problem, the more focus you should give to growing watch time and subscribers.

No contradiction.

I stick by what I said.

The 4K-1K policy is about quality.


I think that's a fair video to cite here.

Felix agrees with much of what you're saying, Kurt, as I also agree.

But he also sums up what I've been trying to say about 4K-1K and quality.

I disagree. To me, you suggest that 4K-1K has killed off less popular topics. I think this would definitely be the case if it was 400K-100K. The picture you seem to paint here is just not true. It suggests that all of the little niches will die off. They won't. You need only look at the video views of thousands of obscure topics. I doubt you'll agree with me here (or anywhere else lol) but, seriously, return to this thread in 12 months and tell me I'm wrong.

And that sucks. I agree.

On the one hand, you can say that YouTube just changed their rules so they can screw you over and take your money without paying you anything in return.

I get that. I disagree, but I see what you're saying.

On the other hand, you can look at the bigger picture, and you can say that YouTube is responding to a series of bad situations (bad videos, advertiser exodus, etc), and adopting an approach to improve YouTube for everyone.

If we don't look after the advertisers, we all lose.


It sucks that honest creators have been hit by 4K-1K.

You can suggest that creators pay a premium for a manual review of their channels, and thereby avoid 4K-1K, but that approach is too easy to game.

Bad creators hurt the platform with bad videos.

The only way to try and limit bad videos is to limit access to the Partner Program by bad creators.

They did, yes, change the rules on you. Whether we agree or not on their reasoning, I believe they did it in response to a series of bad situations.

I've been on YouTube since the start. I personally don't expect a business (like YouTube) not to change it's policies over the years; especially when such changes (IMO) are in response to situations that are not created by YouTube but happening to YouTube.

I think sub and view services will definitely become more popular. (And I'm happy that we can agree on something.)

I believe the 4,000 hours have been decided by YouTube and the community at large as a good benchmark to evaluate new channels wishing to enter YouTube Partners.

Should it be 1K and not 4K?

I believe so, yes, but I admit that it's just a personal opinion.

1K decent hours is easy to game. (So is 4K, but it's obviously harder than 1K).

There's no right or wrong answer to your question, mate. I say 4K; others will say 1K.

I give my thoughts on this above, mate.

Nutshell: I personally don't believe 4K-1K can exclude any channel.

Having lived on YT for a great chunk of my life, I just don't see it hurting any topics. Will we end up with a YouTube only populated by I Laugh, You Lose videos, talking oranges, and Vloggers talking about their bowel movements?

I really don't see it, no.

No right or wrong answer here on a forum.

Only YouTube could answer it.

Where I stand: the 4K-1K policy is actually encouraging creators to post in more volume and in more frequency. If anything, this will encourage more content from lesser known channels, of lesser known topics.

So is it about killing off the smaller channels?

Personally, no, I just don't think so.

YouTube have always used their algo to give more exposure to creators and topics that they deem more worthy of that exposure. And that does suck. But 4K-1K doesn't change that. Like I say, if anything? They're inviting more content from lesser knowns.

You can say, well, lesser knowns may be put off by 4K-1K and so we'll see less content.

Or you can say, well, lesser knowns have more reason to publish more now, so we'll see more of their content.

Only time can answer and be correct.

You misunderstand me again, Kurt.

To explain my comment above: I am not saying that they had no choice but to use the 4K-1K policy; I am saying that they had not choice but to "take a sensible action to strengthen their ad infrastructure."

What YouTube should have done, IMO, is included the community far more in the new policy decision. They say, I read or heard somewhere, that they included us in the decision-making process.

Well, they didn't include me. First I heard of it was January 16th.

Granted, I'm just me, but by that I mean this: they should have been obvious about inviting all creators to chime in and offer solutions (as you've just done in your comment above). YouTube are famous for not doing so.

Without notice (in my experience) they drop something on us. No warning. No participation invited.

This is probably the main area where you and I agree most strongly.

I get that it sucks for you, Kurt.

All I was saying is that it's good that YouTube are taking any kind of action (whether we agree with them or not) to address and correct various bad issues with their platform.

That's all I meant.

Furthermore, how they've responded is good. It will pee off a lot of people (as we can see in this thread alone) but YouTube is taking measures to safeguard itself and creators from negative monetization issues.

Furthermore, how they've responded is good. It will pee off a lot of people (as we can see in this thread alone) but YouTube is taking measures to safeguard itself and creators from negative monetization issues.

Furthermore, how they've responded is good. It will pee off a lot of people (as we can see in this thread alone) but YouTube is taking measures to safeguard itself and creators from negative monetization issues.

Furthermore, how they've responded is good. It will pee off a lot of people (as we can see in this thread alone) but YouTube is taking measures to safeguard itself and creators from negative monetization issues.

Furthermore, how they've responded is good. It will pee off a lot of people (as we can see in this thread alone) but YouTube is taking measures to safeguard itself and creators from negative monetization issues.

Furthermore, how they've responded is good. It will pee off a lot of people (as we can see in this thread alone) but YouTube is taking measures to safeguard itself and creators from negative monetization issues.

I disagree, but we'll see.

Of course, you're quite right, mate.

I was just describing what happens (on the whole) on YouTube.

It's human nature.

When certain videos rise in popularity, and when money is involved, creators are naturally going to jump on the band wagon.

That's all I was saying.

Fair enough.

Listen up, mate . . .

I think I may have peed you off (as I mention above). Truly, it wasn't my intention. I'm not wired that way.

I arrived in the thread. Gave my thoughts (not to you, but to everyone). It was not a post that quoted you. It was just a regular post.

In response, you quoted me and brought me into a discussion.

I've actually enjoyed the discussion (passion subject) but I'm also aware that (maybe) I've peed you off in the process.

Whether you believe it or not, that just isn't my way, mate.

Tell you what . . .

I had plans for the weekend. Mrs. A and I are heading to the city (we live, pretty much, in the sticks), and doing the usual: shopping and (me) eating cow.

I don't mind cancelling my plans and hanging out with you over the weekend.

If you want some friendly advice/ help to grow your channels? I really don't mind devoting some time to it this weekend.

We can't grow them to 4K-1K in a weekend. But I can certainly tell you how I'd do it, standing in your shoes, and perhaps you'll find it helpful.

If you fancy, shoot me an email, mate.

Cheers,

Tom

December 2016 Update:
Many of YouTube's biggest stars have been complaining that a recent change to YouTube's algorithm for trending content has left them with far fewer views on their videos than they have seen in the past. Heavy has a great write-up on these concerns, and the channels that have been affected the most (according to the people behind them).

YouTube has offered this clarification which does not explicitly state any changes to their algorithm, but does try to offer some loose guidelines on how the trending feature works.

As more YouTube personalities report issues, we may see a deeper response from the Google team, but at this time rumors of a change to YouTube's algorithm are unconfirmed.

CPA Course in India

Yes, YouTube has made the announcement and if you look at the stats, it doesn't make much difference.

How?

YouTube is asking for 4000 hours of views with at least 1000 subscribers over a time span of 12 months. If you post regular content, achieving a goal of 4000 hours is not difficult at all.

Youtube is excluding the small channels, they want to get 100% profits from them without sharing them any dime.
In my opinion, Youtube will be dead soon because of those new terms, people now are starting to find alternatives.

4000 hours of watch time & minimum 1000 subs for monetizing is the new rule

Very good. In this change the fake user will be decline. There are many people who increase his videos in illegal way. I think in this way the Spam will reduce. Thanks Youtube.

Nice information, YT surely got want to make sure the videos on their site is legit before offering monetization.

Youtube's monetization model sucked *ss anyway. The real money was in affiliate offers anyway.

Notright,

I'm officially dropping the not from your name and calling you Right.

Yep, you and I are on the same page.

I look at the YT Partner Program as a nice bonus. The real money comes from affiliate offers.

You'll probably remember when the sheet hit the fan first with Adpocalypse One and then with Adpocalypse Two.

The community was mixed between uproar, disgust, and all-out panic.

Quite rightly so, too.

Thing is, I understood the pain and outrage felt by the community. I've lost many income streams over the years, too.

But I wasn't hurting.

When we, as marketers (or creators, in the case of YouTube), use a platform like YouTube, we're operating a business on a property owned by someone else.

In a sense, we're just renting space.

The same can be said for Facebook, IG, Twitter, whatever you like. We're renting space and being given opportunities to earn money, in effect, on someone's premises.

If 23 years has taught me anything, it's that you need to remember who owns the platform and do everything to protect yourself from changes that can impact your business.

• Collect your audience, and
• Use diverse monetization strategies.

In the right hands, AdSense will never make as much as certain other forms of monetization.

Examples:

• Affiliate offers.
• Your own products.

The creator community was, by and large, hurting because they didn't adopt these strategies.

Things are slowly changing now, though.

If you hang out long enough on the community, you'll have perceived the difference yourself: many creators have since made concerted efforts to push audience collection and additional monetization.

Cheers,

Tom

Now, its not easy to become a youtuber.

yea I read about these terms . For monotization 1000 view are compulsory.

This represents opportunity if you ask me. There is a big lesson in all of this in that we should continuously evolve ,adapt .

yeah i deleted my youtube channel and i was a youtube partner.

new rules of youtube:

* only idiots allowed
* only liberals allowed
* only transgender activists allowed.
* only anti-white racists allowed. if you are not anti-white you will be banned.

* no conservatives allowed
* no christians allowed
* no one with common sense allowed

* must have 4,000 hours of video watched per month to stay in partner program. so in other words, everyone except the very top channels get de-monetized. They have done this to destroy the little man and because they want to hurt, harm, and damage all hard-working small people. They want to do the worst damage possible to the economy and to all the hard working people.

remember, not long ago google REMOVED "don't be evil" from their company slogan. Because now, google's new motto is "be as evil as possible".

i deleted my channel with millions of views, including deleting all of my videos. i am not the only one, many people did it.

youtube is dead.

If complete these things and after 4000 hours of view time you tube will start monetizing. Then will youtube will pay for 4000 hour view ?

Yes, that's true.

"On January 16, 2018, we announced new eligibility requirements for the YouTube Partner Program. Once a channel reaches 4,000 watch hours in the previous 12 months and 1,000 subscribers it will be reviewed to join the program. "

Youtube is making sure that only popular channels get paid.

But they control who becomes popular. If they don't like a channel, they just hide it from results so it gets no views.

In other words, this is a direct way for youtube to censor the internet and fundamentally damage its platform.

Youtube knew that most users have common sense and are not liberals. So youtube banned all conservatives, restricted all conservatives from uploading longer than 5 minute videos, and will hide results to ensure that conservatives can never organically become popular.

In other words, you will not be able to see any true or useful new content on youtube anymore.

By Youtube's own admission, over 99% of users in the partner program will be de-monetized.

This also gives youtube millions of dollars more per year in revenue by stealing it from content producers who can no longer be paid for their work.

Also, most channels which are de-monetized will have all their videos deleted because they are longer than 5 minutes - you must be a youtube partner to upload longer videos.

Time to abandon youtube. This is not just a policy change. This is a declaration of war on free speech and liberty.

You can watch older videos while they still exist, please search google for "Download youtube" to download all your favorite videos before they are removed.

I have heard the following...

The average CPM is $2 per 1000 views.

The average view is 3 minutes.

Obviously the above can be higher / lower.

Based on the above averages to get 4000 hours (240K minutes) works out to 80K views.

80K views then works out to $160.

If you worked part-time for $8 per hour for 20 hours equals $160 and completely replaces what you would have made while building your 4000 hours.

So does it really matter?

Yes i have read the additional requirements to have Adsense monetization enabled on your channel. Aside from the 10k lifetime views, an additional 4000 watch hours and 1k subscribers are needed to be qualified for a channel review. Good luck to the new youtubers :-)

yes YouTube have been changed and if you want to monetize your videos you need 1000 subs and 4000 hours in one year .

Goes along with what I always say about diversifying your income. No wonder a well-known computer tech started his own subscription website and got off of YouTube.