New rules on YouTube?

74 replies
I just read an article (not in English) stating that YouTube is changing the rules for monetization. Now your channel needs at least 1000 subscribers and your videos must have been viewed at least 4000 times in the past year. Did anybody read the same somewhere?
#rules #youtube
Avatar of Unregistered
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    Originally Posted by affiliated survivor View Post

    I just read an article (not in English) stating that YouTube is changing the rules for monetization. Now your channel needs at least 1000 subscribers and your videos must have been viewed at least 4000 times in the past year. Did anybody read the same somewhere?
    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
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293255].message }}
    • That's even worse. Much worse.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293262].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Zoe_21
      Originally Posted by Kurt;

      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 forgot this bit Kurt: "...watchtime within the past 12 months"

      It's a TRIPLE ouch for YT channel owners!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293325].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DigisoftSol
      Its Very Too much to reach that time.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11294646].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293308].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by superowid View Post

      So, it's time to focus on external monetization.
      It's a Catch-22. To make money you really need to send people off Youtube. However, to rank videos on YT you need to have good retention, watch time and session watch time, which means keeping people on YT.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293309].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author superowid
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        It's a Catch-22. To make money you really need to send people off Youtube. However, to rank videos on YT you need to have good retention, watch time and session watch time, which means keeping people on YT.
        Yeah, right, Kurt! And thanks for your email update!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11295166].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author anayb
          Google's whereabouts aren't fully transparent like most. I prefer to use attacking marketing strageties against them to garner maximum income within a very shorter period of time.

          Last time, I created some 3000 gmail/youtube accounts, and posted more than 12 millions ***high quality*** comments in just two months; each comment resulted in at least 5 real visitors and 5 shares. My channel had 300 high quality, long videos, and I sold my own products. Google closed my channel after 6 months because they think I manipulated their system and bypassed their most algorithms. I have no regrets because I used OPT (other people's traffic) and expended zero in ads; in fact, I laughed when they did it because I have already amassed a fortune (in just six months!!) out of their platform.

          Disclaimer: Now, how I made some 12,000,000 YouTube comments is something very black-hat. I don't want any of you follow my footprint. It will jeopardise your account. I am just sharing my experiences.
          Signature
          Do you need an exclusive video product?
          Graphics Design - Motion Graphics - 2D & 3D Animation - Video Editing - Color Grading - Logo Animation - etc
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11295928].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Aliflow
            Is there a source for high quality feeds and did most of the comments go on your own videos or others
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11311933].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author GlobalTrader
          I read a very interesting Bloomberg article about this subject just the other day:

          Success On YouTube Sill Means A Life Of Poverty
          Signature

          GlobalTrader

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11321678].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Asghar rizvi
      kindly tell what is external monetization?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11304824].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author discrat
    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
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293310].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexandar33
      More people in the game, large amount of money, huge players all over. I am surprised that until now they did not change it already.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293663].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jason Kanigan
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293314].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by Jason Kanigan View Post

      It's a real smack in the face for those of us who built our channels up throw 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.
      Yep...and in my case I have a number of smaller channels instead of one big channel, and most of the smaller channels I have won't qualify, but combined provided decent revenue.

      I think this decision really hurts a number of smaller creators. To make such an extreme move I'm guessing YT/Google is really feeling some heat from major advertisers.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293318].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Zoe_21
    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.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293343].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Meaney
    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.
    Signature

    --> 100% FREE: Get a "$3,000 Marketing Education" (NO OPT-IN)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293351].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tom Addams
    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
    Signature

    This: Learn how I earn money by giving away free stuff. [Read Month One, the 799 Page Book.]
    Or this: I coach members of Warrior Forum [Warrior Discounts available. PM for details.]

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293357].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by Tom Addams View Post

      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
      It isn't simply views, it's accumulated watch time. I see one side effect being that short, concise videos won't be as valuable as longer "wordy" videos. 4000 hours of accumulated watch time is pretty substantial and will discourage people from starting new channels.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293369].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tom Addams
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        It isn't simply views, it's accumulated watch time. I see one side effect being that short, concise videos won't be as valuable as longer "wordy" videos. 4000 hours of accumulated watch time is pretty substantial and will discourage people from starting new channels.
        I understand it's watch time, matey. I addressed that above. I mention views because views aid watch time.

        Short videos have been getting pushed out for a long time now. All in response to watch time and how it impacts revenue and exposure.

        I agree with you, though, this is the final nail in the short video coffin. They won't die out (and some marketers may even see this as an opportunity to do them) but they're now effectively getting pushed out.

        It all makes sense. And, you're right, it'll certainly impact newbies considering setting up new channel (well, at least those who want to earn as partners).

        I think the media will get as much (wait for it) play out of this as possible (and as they should) but it's really the first step (IMO) to correct issues. I'm just pleased YT are getting behind the creator community and doing something about the "ecosystem."

        I'm sure we won't all agree on each issue. I'm just pleased YT are taking action (instead of promising us they will be).

        - Tom
        Signature

        This: Learn how I earn money by giving away free stuff. [Read Month One, the 799 Page Book.]
        Or this: I coach members of Warrior Forum [Warrior Discounts available. PM for details.]

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293381].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by Tom Addams View Post

          I understand it's watch time, matey. I addressed that above. I mention views because views aid watch time.

          Short videos have been getting pushed out for a long time now. All in response to watch time and how it impacts revenue and exposure.

          I agree with you, though, this is the final nail in the short video coffin. They won't die out (and some marketers may even see this as an opportunity to do them) but they're now effectively getting pushed out.

          It all makes sense. And, you're right, it'll certainly impact newbies considering setting up new channel (well, at least those who want to earn as partners).

          I think the media will get as much (wait for it) play out of this as possible (and as they should) but it's really the first step (IMO) to correct issues. I'm just pleased YT are getting behind the creator community and doing something about the "ecosystem."

          I'm sure we won't all agree on each issue. I'm just pleased YT are taking action (instead of promising us they will be).

          - Tom
          As I said earlier, I have a number of smaller channels. Individually they don't generate a lot of revenue. But all together they are a decent source of revenue.

          When I created the content for those channels it was with the understanding that I could monetize them. When YT announced fairly recently that a new channel needed at least 10,000 views before you could monetize it, I didn't have a problem with that because they told people before they created a channel.

          However, this new announcement is retroactive and many, many people have made decisions based on being able to monetize the content they created. Now they can't.

          Yes, YT probably has in their TOS that they can change their terms. But once they do, like they did this time, they may well change them again. I would be very careful doing business with anyone or any company that changes their terms after I made an effort to help us both.

          This also brings up YT advertising...what if advertisers want to advertise on these videos?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293399].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tom Addams
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            As I said earlier, I have a number of smaller channels. Individually they don't generate a lot of revenue. But all together they are a decent source of revenue.

            When I created the content for those channels it was with the understanding that I could monetize them. When YT announced fairly recently that a new channel needed at least 10,000 views before you could monetize it, I didn't have a problem with that because they told people before they created a channel.

            However, this new announcement is retroactive and many, many people have made decisions based on being able to monetize the content they created. Now they can't.

            Yes, YT probably has in their TOS that they can change their terms. But once they do, like they did this time, they may well change them again. I would be very careful doing business with anyone or any company that changes their terms after I made an effort to help us both.

            This also brings up YT advertising...what if advertisers want to advertise on these videos?
            That's just YouTube for you, mate. lol If they gave us a heads-up, I think we'd be more shocked. Look at the policy changes over content. Not only was it retroactive, it killed off businesses. As I say, it's just YouTube being YouTube. We can consider creating elsewhere (and we should) but, as of right now, the real game is on YouTube. Maybe that will change if Amazon grow a pair (they have the infrastructure) or if IG or Twitter, likewise, step in, and it remains to be seen what FB have planned, because they surely have their sights set on taking a chunk of the YouTube pie. The safe money is on YouTube. You're going to have thousands of people across IM Land giving negative opinion on the recent policy changes at YouTube, and many of those opinions will be justified, but I think the majority will miss the big picture: YouTube are protecting their business, and they're smart enough to know that their business is in the hands of its creators. I do see what you're saying. I've been on YT since the start. The latest situation is just not a shocker. It's mostly good, IMO, and certainly good for serious creators.

            - Tom
            Signature

            This: Learn how I earn money by giving away free stuff. [Read Month One, the 799 Page Book.]
            Or this: I coach members of Warrior Forum [Warrior Discounts available. PM for details.]

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293420].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tom Addams
            I didn't address a couple of points. (Bit whacked after a jog.)

            Originally Posted by Kurt

            As I said earlier, I have a number of smaller channels. Individually they don't generate a lot of revenue. But all together they are a decent source of revenue.

            When I created the content for those channels it was with the understanding that I could monetize them. When YT announced fairly recently that a new channel needed at least 10,000 views before you could monetize it, I didn't have a problem with that because they told people before they created a channel.
            I do see your gripe; and you sure as hell won't be alone. But it's easily fixed. You don't even need to change your approach to creating unduly. Keep doing what you're doing and put together one or more playlists, where the videos are designed to get mass watch times. You can use a funnel system, too, where you're basically encouraging viewers to consume entire playlists to get (in sum) what they want. It's easily done, especially for a chap like you. Having said that, yes, you're stance is totally understandable, valid.

            Originally Posted by Kurt

            This also brings up YT advertising...what if advertisers want to advertise on these videos?
            Well, they'll have no shortage of other videos to choose from. Thing is, this is literally all about improving advertising, and it's mostly in response to Adpocalypse Two. Pepsi don't want their ads showing up on videos that associate bad elements with their brand. So you have them and others pull out, mass exodus, and of course YT have to figure a way to earn their trust. Solution? Creators. The problem isn't the YouTube system of ads (etc); it's creators who bugger up the system (ala Logan Paul) and hurt every other creator (including advertisers and YouTube) in the process. The new policy is aimed at making creators earn trust. That's good. You want to work with us? Cool. Well, you can bloody well earn it, can't you? Haha That's the nuts and bolts. For a creator to accumulate 4K hours of watch time and 1K subs, they need to spend longer, work harder, and avoid strikes (etc) in the journey to acceptance by YT Partners. It's a filtering mechanism to (over time) improve the quality of creators and monetized media. It's all good in my book. My only issue is with how it's going to impact overall video quality. The current policy is too easy to game (in a white hat way). I was only half joking about the dog making sweet love to a chicken.

            - Tom
            Signature

            This: Learn how I earn money by giving away free stuff. [Read Month One, the 799 Page Book.]
            Or this: I coach members of Warrior Forum [Warrior Discounts available. PM for details.]

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293460].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by Tom Addams View Post

              I didn't address a couple of points. (Bit whacked after a jog.)



              I do see your gripe; and you sure as hell won't be alone. But it's easily fixed. You don't even need to change your approach to creating unduly. Keep doing what you're doing and put together one or more playlists, where the videos are designed to get mass watch times. You can use a funnel system, too, where you're basically encouraging viewers to consume entire playlists to get (in sum) what they want. It's easily done, especially for a chap like you. Having said that, yes, you're stance is totally understandable, valid.



              Well, they'll have no shortage of other videos to choose from. Thing is, this is literally all about improving advertising, and it's mostly in response to Adpocalypse Two. Pepsi don't want their ads showing up on videos that associate bad elements with their brand. So you have them and others pull out, mass exodus, and of course YT have to figure a way to earn their trust. Solution? Creators. The problem isn't the YouTube system of ads (etc); it's creators who bugger up the system (ala Logan Paul) and hurt every other creator (including advertisers and YouTube) in the process. The new policy is aimed at making creators earn trust. That's good. You want to work with us? Cool. Well, you can bloody well earn it, can't you? Haha That's the nuts and bolts. For a creator to accumulate 4K hours of watch time and 1K subs, they need to spend longer, work harder, and avoid strikes (etc) in the journey to acceptance by YT Partners. It's a filtering mechanism to (over time) improve the quality of creators and monetized media. It's all good in my book. My only issue is with how it's going to impact overall video quality. The current policy is too easy to game (in a white hat way). I was only half joking about the dog making sweet love to a chicken.

              - Tom

              Just so you know, I posted my suggested solutions in the High Voltage, on FB and emailed my list before making any posts here other than my very first comment on this thread. It's a matter of sending people off YT to your own assets while increasing retention, watch time and session watch time.


              BTW...I "wonder" if Logan Paul had 1000 subs and 4000 hours of watch time? How'd that work out? I don't think it's so much about improving quality exactly as it is being able to filter bad things out and including a minimum standard that's "worth their time" to check out.


              For me a big part of the appeal of YT was contributions by the "little guys". Now it will all be talking heads looking to become "celebrities". There's a number of niches and topics that now won't have content created because there won't be enough demand to get decent numbers to impress YT.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293606].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author discrat
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                For me a big part of the appeal of YT was contributions by the "little guys". Now it will all be talking heads looking to become "celebrities". There's a number of niches and topics that now won't have content created because there won't be enough demand to get decent numbers to impress YT.
                Yes, that is unbelievably sad Takes away part of the Spirit of Entrepreneurship and letting the small voices have a chance at part of the pie.
                Just doesn't make sense.
                I guess more videos like this, huh...just insanity
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293618].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Tom Addams
                Originally Posted by Kurt

                Just so you know, I posted my suggested solutions in the High Voltage, on FB and emailed my list before making any posts here other than my very first comment on this thread. It's a matter of sending people off YT to your own assets while increasing retention, watch time and session watch time.
                No. It would be very dangerous to follow that advice to the letter. Furthermore, it contradicts itself. If you focus on sending viewers to your external (off-YouTube) assets, then you're focusing on crippling session time.

                YouTube wants viewers on YouTube for as long as possible.

                The most recent report I read suggests the average mobile session time is 60 minutes. YouTube is intent on growing watch time, audience retention, and session time across devices.

                When you send your viewers off YouTube, you impact all three of those elements; session time, directly, retention and watch time, indirectly.

                A better approach, IMO, especially given the most recent changes, is to focus more on keeping your audience on YouTube (as well as the other obvious elements of video and channel SEO).

                This, of course, does not suggest you should not grow outbound traffic to your external assets. You absolutely should. But you should obviously focus on keeping viewers on the YouTube platform.

                Originally Posted by Kurt

                BTW...I "wonder" if Logan Paul had 1000 subs and 4000 hours of watch time? How'd that work out? I don't think it's so much about improving quality exactly as it is being able to filter bad things out and including a minimum standard that's "worth their time" to check out.
                It's entirely about improving quality; YouTube may just have a different view of quality from yourself.

                To yourself, perhaps, a well-made video about a face-rigged orange (through Adobe After Effects), that says funny things to an apple, may not suggest a quality video.

                But it has an audience.

                Quality, to YouTube, is represented by videos that are in line with community guidelines and embrace all elements of the YouTube ranking algorithm.

                They understand that Jack Somebody may find no worth (quality) whatsoever in a talking orange, but they also understand that Joe Somebody will.

                The new 4,000/ 1000 policy is intended to give YouTube (and the community at large) more time to evaluate potential members of their monetization program.

                They tried the 10,000 plan. It was insufficient.

                You mention Logan Paul. Were Logan to be obliterated from history and start publishing this week, the new 4,000/ 1000 policy would have a greater chance of either excluding him from the Partner Program or automatically moderating his publishing behaviour (should he be motivated to get into the program).

                Nutshell: the 4,000/ 1,000 policy is a tool to improve quality.

                It attempts to moderate existing and future publishing behaviour, give YouTube and the community a longer assessment time for potential partners, and, in the long-run, create a more reliable legion of partners.

                The exodus of advertisers and the bad press in response to certain creators has left YouTube no choice but to take a sensible action to strengthen their ad infrastructure.

                The fact that they have responded is good.

                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.

                Adpocalypse One and Two hurt YouTube and advertisers and creators.

                The new policy is the start of plugging up holes in their ad and publishing systems.

                Originally Posted by Kurt

                For me a big part of the appeal of YT was contributions by the "little guys". Now it will all be talking heads looking to become "celebrities". There's a number of niches and topics that now won't have content created because there won't be enough demand to get decent numbers to impress YT.
                The influx of celebrity-seeking "talking heads" began long before the 4,000/ 1,000 policy. It was motivated by the invisible hand.

                In other words, creators chase views. Small or large, you wake up each morning, you publish, and the word on your mind is - views.

                Across the board, monetized and non-monetized creators, the average creator is focused, primarily, on views.

                The new policy will certainly enhance that focus, and it will also certainly impact quality (as creators chase quick views to the detriment of spending more time on quality), but each year this focus has grown, regardless of policy.

                Point is, the rise in popularity of certain formats on YouTube influence which formats creators more readily embrace.

                When Jake and Logan have an explosive rise, it encourages others to follow suit, adopting similar elements in their own videos.

                Likewise, when someone opening Kinder Eggs gets several hundred million views, people follow suit there, too.

                The floor is lava? People jump in. Fidget spinners? Jump, jump.

                With or without the 4,000/ 1000 policy, creators have focused on views, and will continue to do so regardless of the policy. It is natural human behaviour, and no more is it on display than within the YouTube community.

                Creators attempt to give the consumer what they want. And they do so based on what they, personally, can give the consumer.

                A typical creator on YouTube does not need to be motivated by a 4,000/ 1,000 policy. He or she already wants views. He wants other things, too, but views are top of the charts.

                The new policy is simply a vetting procedure. Where I believe it breaks down (which is why I mentioned yesterday that it needs the odd tweak) is it will encourage the fast attainment of views, and that can impact quality.

                People are already (and have always been) chasing views and, most recently, watch time, retention, and session time. The new policy doesn't change that. What it will impact is the speed with which creators attempt to gain their 4,000 and 1,000, and the lengths they go to in order to do so.

                You'll have creators more focused than ever on delivering content designed to get views. This is where you and I somewhat agree. Where we disagree is the level of impact that the 4,000/ 1,000 policy has on the situation.

                Creators were already chasing high-view videos.

                No matter what, irrespective of the new policy, creators will follow the views.

                They will follow demand.

                Always have, always will.

                That's the main point.

                - Tom
                Signature

                This: Learn how I earn money by giving away free stuff. [Read Month One, the 799 Page Book.]
                Or this: I coach members of Warrior Forum [Warrior Discounts available. PM for details.]

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293873].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                  Originally Posted by Tom Addams View Post

                  No. It would be very dangerous to follow that advice to the letter. Furthermore, it contradicts itself. If you focus on sending viewers to your external (off-YouTube) assets, then you're focusing on crippling session time.
                  And that's EXACTLY why I called it a catch-22 in my advice and also why I advised working on viewer retention, accumulated watch time and session watch time.


                  You left out the part about making money. With YT's new monetization rules many people can't make money if they keep people on YT, another issue with the new rules. So unless they want to donate their time and efforts to the wealthiest company on the Net, they have to get people off YT.


                  YouTube wants viewers on YouTube for as long as possible.

                  The most recent report I read suggests the average mobile session time is 60 minutes. YouTube is intent on growing watch time, audience retention, and session time across devices.

                  When you send your viewers off YouTube, you impact all three of those elements; session time, directly, retention and watch time, indirectly.

                  A better approach, IMO, especially given the most recent changes, is to focus more on keeping your audience on YouTube (as well as the other obvious elements of video and channel SEO).
                  You have to focus on BOTH, getting people to watch more video AND getting them to your own assets.



                  This, of course, does not suggest you should not grow outbound traffic to your external assets. You absolutely should. But you should obviously focus on keeping viewers on the YouTube platform.
                  Now you're contradicting yourself and agreeing with my suggestions after disagreeing above.

                  It's entirely about improving quality; YouTube may just have a different view of quality from yourself.
                  No it's not. It's about getting lots of views while not offending YT's major sponsors.
                  To yourself, perhaps, a well-made video about a face-rigged orange (through Adobe After Effects), that says funny things to an apple, may not suggest a quality video.

                  But it has an audience.

                  Quality, to YouTube, is represented by videos that are in line with community guidelines and embrace all elements of the YouTube ranking algorithm.

                  They understand that Jack Somebody may find no worth (quality) whatsoever in a talking orange, but they also understand that Joe Somebody will.
                  At the expense of less popular topics. Before it was both, now it's only what's popular.

                  The new 4,000/ 1000 policy is intended to give YouTube (and the community at large) more time to evaluate potential members of their monetization program.

                  They tried the 10,000 plan. It was insufficient.
                  And they changed the rules after me and many others made honest efforts to give them content.


                  Plus, why 4000 hours? Why not 1000 hours? And you don't think subs and view services won't become more popular?

                  You mention Logan Paul. Were Logan to be obliterated from history and start publishing this week, the new 4,000/ 1000 policy would have a greater chance of either excluding him from the Partner Program or automatically moderating his publishing behaviour (should he be motivated to get into the program).
                  As well as excluding many other content providers of less popular topics.



                  Nutshell: the 4,000/ 1,000 policy is a tool to improve quality.

                  It attempts to moderate existing and future publishing behaviour, give YouTube and the community a longer assessment time for potential partners, and, in the long-run, create a more reliable legion of partners.
                  I'm guessing it has more to do with it being worth YT's time from a profit point of view. They don't want to spend resources on channels that don't make them enough money.

                  The exodus of advertisers and the bad press in response to certain creators has left YouTube no choice but to take a sensible action to strengthen their ad infrastructure.
                  We don't know they had no other choices. And they could have lowered the criteria, grandfathered in older channels with 4000 hours of view time over their entire history instead of the past year, etc.

                  The fact that they have responded is good.
                  It's not good for me with multiple channels.

                  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 think you need to repeat this point 5-6 more times.



                  The influx of celebrity-seeking "talking heads" began long before the 4,000/ 1,000 policy. It was motivated by the invisible hand.
                  And this will be all that's left.

                  In other words, creators chase views. Small or large, you wake up each morning, you publish, and the word on your mind is - views.

                  Across the board, monetized and non-monetized creators, the average creator is focused, primarily, on views.

                  The new policy will certainly enhance that focus, and it will also certainly impact quality (as creators chase quick views to the detriment of spending more time on quality), but each year this focus has grown, regardless of policy.

                  Point is, the rise in popularity of certain formats on YouTube influence which formats creators more readily embrace.

                  When Jake and Logan have an explosive rise, it encourages others to follow suit, adopting similar elements in their own videos.
                  Because something happens doesn't mean it's the best or that I have to agree with it.
                  Likewise, when someone opening Kinder Eggs gets several hundred million views, people follow suit there, too.

                  The floor is lava? People jump in. Fidget spinners? Jump, jump.

                  With or without the 4,000/ 1000 policy, creators have focused on views, and will continue to do so regardless of the policy. It is natural human behaviour, and no more is it on display than within the YouTube community.

                  Creators attempt to give the consumer what they want. And they do so based on what they, personally, can give the consumer.

                  A typical creator on YouTube does not need to be motivated by a 4,000/ 1,000 policy. He or she already wants views. He wants other things, too, but views are top of the charts.

                  The new policy is simply a vetting procedure. Where I believe it breaks down (which is why I mentioned yesterday that it needs the odd tweak) is it will encourage the fast attainment of views, and that can impact quality.

                  People are already (and have always been) chasing views and, most recently, watch time, retention, and session time. The new policy doesn't change that. What it will impact is the speed with which creators attempt to gain their 4,000 and 1,000, and the lengths they go to in order to do so.

                  You'll have creators more focused than ever on delivering content designed to get views. This is where you and I somewhat agree. Where we disagree is the level of impact that the 4,000/ 1,000 policy has on the situation.

                  Creators were already chasing high-view videos.

                  No matter what, irrespective of the new policy, creators will follow the views.

                  They will follow demand.

                  Always have, always will.

                  That's the main point.

                  - Tom
                  Redundant.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11294058].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Aaron Aguilar
    Banned
    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
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293423].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Brent Stangel
    Banned
    after I made an effort to help us both.
    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
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293493].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ivan2b
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293644].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Brindamour
    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
    Signature

    Subscribe to our Free Home Business Tips Newsletter and get insider tips on how to create wealth in an online business.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293652].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Randall Magwood
    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.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293653].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author writeaway
    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.
    Signature
    Need Passive Income?
    Publish Books online for long term passive income
    CLICK HERE to get help
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293671].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DINS
    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
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293684].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author vinodroy
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293695].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author krss2006
    Not sure. But my channel has been approved for monetization two days back. It has less than 100 views and zero subscribers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293778].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author vinodroy
      My 1 youtube Video got 12,000 views, but I want to create campaign of this video.
      It is going to live in SERP..
      campaign status is approved
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11294052].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author anayb
    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.
    Signature
    Do you need an exclusive video product?
    Graphics Design - Motion Graphics - 2D & 3D Animation - Video Editing - Color Grading - Logo Animation - etc
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293813].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author spearce000
    This is typical of G. They'll probably start charging you for uploading and keeping videos on their system next.
    Signature

    Got more than one WP blog or website? My new WSO is going to make your life much easier!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293947].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pammy mandal
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11293963].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11294079].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JohnVianny
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11294120].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BrunoBruno
    Great! First FB then IG now this. Time to change marketing strategies and do influencer marketing instead.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11294145].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jamel Hassell
    It is time to up our Games . We must learn to adapt and use the rules to our advantage .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11294201].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author EdwardRohr
    It will be good for real youtubers.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11294225].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ctpalmer2
    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....
    Signature

    The cost to send 50K Emails with Constant Contact: $335.00 a month
    The cost to send 50K Emails with CreateTheAD.com: $39.95 a month

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11294240].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DINS
      Are you serious? If you work for months (just for some YT-adsense clicks) and don't get 1000 followers and 4000 hours you do something wrong and should consider another job.
      If you make vids with value, -not just showing some screenrecording when you play a game, hoping someone makes a wrong click on your add- you should have no problem with that numbers.
      Everybody who takes to IM a semi-professional approach will have no issues with that number.
      Bad for all that YT spammers, good for all consumers/viewers looking for value and all who really "work for months"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11294251].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author femalewrestling
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11294423].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tom Addams
    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.

    Originally Posted by Kurt

    And that's EXACTLY why I called it a catch-22 in my advice and also why I advised working on viewer retention, accumulated watch time and session watch time.
    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.

    Originally Posted by Kurt

    You left out the part about making money. With YT's new monetization rules many people can't make money if they keep people on YT, another issue with the new rules. So unless they want to donate their time and efforts to the wealthiest company on the Net, they have to get people off YT.
    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.

    Originally Posted by Kurt

    You have to focus on BOTH, getting people to watch more video AND getting them to your own assets.
    I agree. I covered this in one of my previous posts in the thread.

    Originally Posted by Tom

    This, of course, does not suggest you should not grow outbound traffic to your external assets. You absolutely should. But you should obviously focus on keeping viewers on the YouTube platform.
    Originally Posted by Kurt

    Now you're contradicting yourself and agreeing with my suggestions after disagreeing above.
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tom

    It's entirely about improving quality; YouTube may just have a different view of quality from yourself.
    Originally Posted by Kurt

    No it's not. It's about getting lots of views while not offending YT's major sponsors.
    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.

    Originally Posted by Kurt

    At the expense of less popular topics. Before it was both, now it's only what's popular.
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tom

    The new 4,000/ 1000 policy is intended to give YouTube (and the community at large) more time to evaluate potential members of their monetization program.

    They tried the 10,000 plan. It was insufficient.
    Originally Posted by Kurt

    And they changed the rules after me and many others made honest efforts to give them content.
    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.

    Originally Posted by Kurt

    Plus, why 4000 hours? Why not 1000 hours? And you don't think subs and view services won't become more popular?
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tom

    You mention Logan Paul. Were Logan to be obliterated from history and start publishing this week, the new 4,000/ 1000 policy would have a greater chance of either excluding him from the Partner Program or automatically moderating his publishing behaviour (should he be motivated to get into the program).
    Originally Posted by Kurt

    As well as excluding many other content providers of less popular topics.
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tom

    Nutshell: the 4,000/ 1,000 policy is a tool to improve quality.

    It attempts to moderate existing and future publishing behaviour, give YouTube and the community a longer assessment time for potential partners, and, in the long-run, create a more reliable legion of partners.
    Originally Posted by Kurt

    I'm guessing it has more to do with it being worth YT's time from a profit point of view. They don't want to spend resources on channels that don't make them enough money.
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tom

    The exodus of advertisers and the bad press in response to certain creators has left YouTube no choice but to take a sensible action to strengthen their ad infrastructure.
    Originally Posted by Kurt

    We don't know they had no other choices. And they could have lowered the criteria, grandfathered in older channels with 4000 hours of view time over their entire history instead of the past year, etc.
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tom

    The fact that they have responded is good.
    Originally Posted by Kurt

    It's not good for me with multiple channels.
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tom

    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.
    Originally Posted by Kurt

    I think you need to repeat this point 5-6 more times.
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tom

    The influx of celebrity-seeking "talking heads" began long before the 4,000/ 1,000 policy. It was motivated by the invisible hand.
    Originally Posted by Kurt

    And this will be all that's left.
    I disagree, but we'll see.

    Originally Posted by Tom

    In other words, creators chase views. Small or large, you wake up each morning, you publish, and the word on your mind is - views.

    Across the board, monetized and non-monetized creators, the average creator is focused, primarily, on views.

    The new policy will certainly enhance that focus, and it will also certainly impact quality (as creators chase quick views to the detriment of spending more time on quality), but each year this focus has grown, regardless of policy.

    Point is, the rise in popularity of certain formats on YouTube influence which formats creators more readily embrace.

    When Jake and Logan have an explosive rise, it encourages others to follow suit, adopting similar elements in their own videos.
    Originally Posted by Kurt

    Because something happens doesn't mean it's the best or that I have to agree with it.
    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.

    Originally Posted by Kurt

    Redundant.
    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

    Signature

    This: Learn how I earn money by giving away free stuff. [Read Month One, the 799 Page Book.]
    Or this: I coach members of Warrior Forum [Warrior Discounts available. PM for details.]

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11294549].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author anayb
      Originally Posted by Tom Addams View Post

      Kurt,

      We can't grow them to 4K-1K in a weekend.

      A Bit of Eric
      True, but do you know the tradeoff for business success goes something like this: The easier it is to get started, the harder it is to be successful, and vice versa.

      4K-1k requirement isn't too hard; it's doable within a very shorter period of time IF you got what it takes to be successful in YouTube, including education, experience, competency, network, passion, perseverance and smarts. It's a long list but they all contribute to your competitive position in the market (i.e. YouTube). I welcome the change.
      Signature
      Do you need an exclusive video product?
      Graphics Design - Motion Graphics - 2D & 3D Animation - Video Editing - Color Grading - Logo Animation - etc
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11294716].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tom Addams
        Originally Posted by anayb View Post

        True, but do you know the tradeoff for business success goes something like this: The easier it is to get started, the harder it is to be successful, and vice versa.

        4K-1k requirement isn't too hard; it's doable within a very shorter period of time IF you got what it takes to be successful in YouTube, including education, experience, competency, network, passion, perseverance and smarts. It's a long list but they all contribute to your competitive position in the market (i.e. YouTube). I welcome the change.
        I don't fully understand the first paragraph, mate, but I understand the second and I think you're spot on.

        Cheers,

        Tom
        Signature

        This: Learn how I earn money by giving away free stuff. [Read Month One, the 799 Page Book.]
        Or this: I coach members of Warrior Forum [Warrior Discounts available. PM for details.]

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11294794].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author wileyindia
    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
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11294582].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bella Lopez
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11295170].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author superowid
      Originally Posted by Bella Lopez View Post

      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.
      The simple math....

      1,000 / 365 = 2 or 3 subscribers per day.

      4,000 / 365 = 11 hours per day.

      The question is...

      How many videos must be created per day and is ideal to start a new channel?

      How long is each video duration should be in average?

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11295194].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author firasabb
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11295238].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pingmycareer
    4000 hours of watch time & minimum 1000 subs for monetizing is the new rule
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11295372].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author alambd1963
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11295451].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author xeniux
    Nice information, YT surely got want to make sure the videos on their site is legit before offering monetization.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11295760].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Notright
    Youtube's monetization model sucked *ss anyway. The real money was in affiliate offers anyway.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11295792].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tom Addams
    Notright,

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

    Originally Posted by Notright View Post

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

    This: Learn how I earn money by giving away free stuff. [Read Month One, the 799 Page Book.]
    Or this: I coach members of Warrior Forum [Warrior Discounts available. PM for details.]

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11295800].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author navneet96
    Now, its not easy to become a youtuber.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11296227].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author aesthetiqclinic
    yea I read about these terms . For monotization 1000 view are compulsory.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11297155].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jamell
    This represents opportunity if you ask me. There is a big lesson in all of this in that we should continuously evolve ,adapt .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11297458].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author zxcvbnm
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11297780].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author technikola
    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 ?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11297943].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author zxcvbnm
      Originally Posted by technikola View Post

      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 ?
      no because they will just fake your views and block your videos on false copyright claims, they will make sure you get nothing.

      only people who will earn are people who get millions of views per month and who promote liberalism and disgusting lifestyles.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11298971].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author skylikemake
    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. "
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11301980].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author zxcvbnm
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11303100].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DIABL0
    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?
    Signature
    How to Build LARGE EMAIL LISTS on a Budget and MONETIZE Like a PRO
    17+ Years Exp . . . . . .. . . . . . Email - CPA - PPL
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11303152].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author edmondpogi
    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 :-)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11310765].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author smm station
    yes YouTube have been changed and if you want to monetize your videos you need 1000 subs and 4000 hours in one year .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11321586].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hometutor
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11321742].message }}
Avatar of Unregistered

Trending Topics