Jump to content

Jörg Sprave

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Jörg Sprave last won the day on June 1

Jörg Sprave had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

46 Excellent

1 Follower

About Jörg Sprave

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Jörg Sprave

    Jörg Sprave's "YouTubers Union": A kneejerk idea.

    This is going very deep into detail. At this stage all I am saying is that there will be a solution if we can make YouTube giving in to our demands. That is: Don't cut out the small channels from monetization and access to "trending/recommended". Because otherwise YouTube will be so much more boring and static.
  2. Jörg Sprave

    Jörg Sprave's "YouTubers Union": A kneejerk idea.

    We don't spend much time on the demands list. And of course the demands are unrealistic. That is how these negotiations work. Every year, when the unions start to talk to the employers, the union come to the table with huge demands. Like, 15% more because the year was so profitable. Then the employers start the whining. The economy has just turned, China is destroying us, blah blah blah. They say they can't offer ANYTHING. In fact they have to REDUCE the salaries. In the end they settle for 7% and everybody is happy. Of course it makes sense to treat the full time channels differently. YouTube always did that. They school those channels that are just about big enough to go full time very intensively, which is a good thing. They give them partner managers and access to studios. They establish colabs. All very good and much appreciated. But why not monetizing a cat video if it is very successful?
  3. Jörg Sprave

    Jörg Sprave's "YouTubers Union": A kneejerk idea.

    That is why I want a stop to the whole demonetization thing. It is unfair, poorly implemented and not necessary. The biggest problem is the "hidden demonetization", the one where YouTube's bots put your video into "exluded ads" folders so advertizers can avoid it. When that happens your video looks "green", but it doesn't make much money anymore and you can not appeal. This means the bots won't ever learn from human reviewers as there are none. Plus the "folders" are very unfairly put together. My videos about cookie shooting rubber band guns are in the same one as abortion videos. Advertizers that avoid abortion videos automatically avoid my videos too. YouTube's Global Head of Monetization confirmed that openly in our recent meeting. This isn't a rumor. It is reality. By "small workforce members", I am talking about individual persons that work for someone else, either as employee or as a hired freelancer. As individuals they are small, but united they are powerful.
  4. Jörg Sprave

    Jörg Sprave's "YouTubers Union": A kneejerk idea.

    Rules that are more clear and bidirectional communication between the censors and the creators are two of our demands. Right now there are still so many "soft factors", and it is a very bad thing that a creator has to make a full video, upload it and then wait for a month or so to see if it pleases the censors or not. I suggested to the YT Global Head of Monetization in the meeting on Tuesday to open up email exchange between the censor ("human reviewer") and the creator so instead of just demonetizing or deleting the video, the creator can get some input what he could do to fix the video. This would allow some active learning. He said great feedback. But who knows what will come out of that. I don't know why some people always believe that unions are for salaried workers only. The National Writers Union for example represents both freelance AND contracted writers, and quite successfully so. A union tries to unite the otherwise insignificantly small workforce members so they have a common voice. They stand united, and then things may change. This is exactly what the YouTubers Union is committed to. Monetization for everyone can be done, of course. YouTube did it for a long time and it worked. The only difference is that the monetization bots have to scan more content. But hey, guess what, the content is already being scanned, simply because of the Content ID system. So even if YouTube wants to uphold demonetization (we don't want them to), this isn't a problem. Human reviews are prioritized based on the click rates of a video instead of the click rates of a channel (I have some very old videos that are lona and haven't been reviewed for months), so that isn't a problem either.
  5. Jörg Sprave

    Jörg Sprave's "YouTubers Union": A kneejerk idea.

    True. And that is EXACTLY what the YouTubers Union is aimed at. Give the partners decision making powers. We want to have a say whenever YouTube changes the rules. This worked well for trade unions during the industrial revolution, even though THEIR chances looked bleak in the beginnings too.
  6. Jörg Sprave

    Jörg Sprave's "YouTubers Union": A kneejerk idea.

    Nonsense. It is true that most YouTube users aren't partners, especially since all of the smaller channels lost monetization. But "partner" is my official status @YouTube. Been that way fdor many years. They awarded me with the silver and gold play awards and congratulated me specifically for my contribution as a partner, in writing, and in front of a large audience at the Videodays. I have been a speaker and expert at many of their events, all over the world, consulting with smaller partners that they wanted to promote. I toured media agencies with them, educating these guys how to set up successful ad campaigns on YouTube. I did much, much more than just uploading a few cat videos to the platform.
  7. Jörg Sprave

    Jörg Sprave's "YouTubers Union": A kneejerk idea.

    I asked my partner manager about this option. She says this is only for monetized videos (see German quote below). YouTube confirmed that even though a video is demonetized, it is forbidden to place your own pre-rolls in front of the video. This kind of destroys their argument that they just want to protect the advertisers interests. Clearly they don't want these videos to make ANY money. I suspect they don't want them on the platform, and taking away all kinds of funding is effectively censorship. "Dieser Teil bezieht sich auf Situationen, in denen der Inhalt generell "monetarisierbar" ist. Dann haben Brands auch die Möglichkeit über AdWords beziehungsweise ihre Sales Ansprechpartner entsprechend gezielt Werbung zu schalten. "
  8. Jörg Sprave

    Jörg Sprave's "YouTubers Union": A kneejerk idea.

    So far most alternative platforms could not get the funding as the affected YouTubers weren't ready to leave the platform. They were hoping for the bots getting smarter and things swinging back a bit more to normal. Now YouTube is starting to clarify the rules. The new firearms related guidelines clearly show that YouTube wants firearms channels out. YouTubers that deal with firearms will now HAVE to switch platforms. Alternative platforms like Full30 will benefit from this and they will be able to get better funding. The same thing will happen with other affected channels. YouTube seems ready to give up their part monopoly in order to focus on the "ad friendly" part of the market. While I don't like that one bit and also I think this policy is not wise, at least they are now starting to be clear about this, which is one of the Union's demands. Clear guidelines. What I HATE is that once again, they issue a new rule that affects the existences of many partners. They did not announce this to those poor guys. There is no transitional period, at least not officially. Theoretically channels like Hickock45 and the Demolition Ranch can now get three strikes within seconds and then it is Thanks and bye bye time for them. You don't do that to partners, not in my book. Partners need time to rearrange and comply to new rules. Being kicked out for videos that used to be fine and that made plenty of money for YouTube isn't fair at all. The Union will fight for this of course. The appeal process is useless. A video won't be reviewed as long as it isn't public. Once it is public, it will get 90% of the views within the first 24 hours. A successful appeal does not bring back the money lost by the demonetized period. That is why the Union wants much better bots OR the removal of this process.
  9. Jörg Sprave

    Jörg Sprave's "YouTubers Union": A kneejerk idea.

    I think you are bragging and I don't believe this is true. Let us assume "millions" means 2 million dollars, the lowest amount possible. The most direct way you could make THAT much money would mean that you are a creator, independent and on your own, so you don't have to share with anyone. This would mean that you are currently making 20 million € per year on adsense. Who are you, PewDiePie? Give me a break. So you would have to be the head of a huge MCN, and an independent one with a sole owner (or at least one major shareholder). MCNs give the majority of their adsense income to the YouTubers they represent. So your adsense income must be 200 million bucks a year. 90 % goes to the creators and you keep 20 million. Yeah right. You have time to run this tiny forum and write such long posts on topics irrelevant for your business? I have been a CEO myself and employed 150 people at one time. I have worked for larger corporations and usually the schedule of the head honchos is super tight. So many things to do. Unrealistic. But for the sake of the argument, let us assume you are THAT guy. Then you would have benefited HUGELY from the adpocalypse, as you obviously only represent channels unaffected by the demonetization. Those channels now make much, much more money than before as they get all the ads the demonetized channels lost. My proposal would mean that you would have to give a small part of that increase back. Also you have to think strategically. YouTube is opening the doors to competition. All of the "controversial" content creators are already looking for alternatives. They will find one, eventually. Just like the porn guys - YouTube never wanted them, so PornHub and YouPorn rose and are now fairly big. That will happen with all of the other stuff too. YouTube will remain a place for cosmetics, lame gaming, music and maybe comedy (the harmless type). Essentially YouTube would lose the monopoly they hold for a huge part of the FreeVoD market. Not smart. But again, I think you now have to reveal your identity to us or shut up stop the bragging. You chose to reveal much of yourself already. Now tell us who you are as this is ridiculous otherwise. EDIT: Just read that your statement was hypothetical and you are "just a student". Well, please make this things more clear in the future, would have saved me some time typing.
  10. Jörg Sprave

    Jörg Sprave's "YouTubers Union": A kneejerk idea.

    Why would it be important where I am from? The Union represents Youtubers from all over the world, and most of them are in the US probably. But we don't have to continue this discussion, I think we now all know what the YouTubers Union is.
  11. Jörg Sprave

    Jörg Sprave's "YouTubers Union": A kneejerk idea.

    I use the term "Union". According to wikipedia, a Union is "the state of being united or joined.". Maybe you are confusing this with the term "trade union". I never used that. Some of the German interviewers used the term "Gewerkschaft" (I don't recall I used it myself), and even that isn't totally wrong. Wikipedia: "Eine Gewerkschaft ist eine Vereinigung von in der Regel abhängig Beschäftigten zur Vertretung ihrer wirtschaftlichen, sozialen und kulturellen Interessen." Now "in der Regel" (= as per usual) does not EXCLUDE our movement, we are just a bit unusual. But we are a union that wants to represent its members economically, socially and culturally. Therefore I see the definition criteria fulfilled. But I still won't use the term.
  12. Jörg Sprave

    Jörg Sprave's "YouTubers Union": A kneejerk idea.

    I think that videos that break the rules (that need to be more clear that now) need to be removed. The "third piece" of the ad money cake should be divided, based on views, through all remaining videos regardless of the content. Then I could accept that the "second piece" would go to the ad carrying videos. No need for even more "types" of videos. An ad carrying video would get money from both the second AND the third piece. A demonetized video, just from the third piece. Every video gets embedded eventually. Therefore no need to differentiate. The effect can simply be compensated by reducing the "third piece" a bit. I am sure YouTube has exact figures about such embedded views vs. views on the platform.
  13. Jörg Sprave

    Jörg Sprave's "YouTubers Union": A kneejerk idea.

    My idea is simple. Split the ad money three ways. One part for YouTube. One part for the videos that carry the ads. One part for all videos that get views, no matter if monetized or not. Of course the size of the parts is open for discussions. This means that the videos that carry ads AND get a lot of views would get more money than the videos without ads, which seems fair to me. But it is unfair that the videos that generate traffic may get zilch.
  14. Jörg Sprave

    Jörg Sprave's "YouTubers Union": A kneejerk idea.

    A petition does not threaten to take action. We do. That is what sets goals instated by a Union apart from a petition. We don't ask. We demand. If YouTube won't negotiate we will ask our members to follow certain measures, such as uploading full videos onto other platforms for a while and only putting teasers onto YouTube. Of course we realize that negotiations means both sides have to give and take. We are open for compromises and new suggestions and our demands are not set into stone. But we won't go away. No need to confirm that demonetized videos are used as bait. It is an automatic process. Subscribers will watch demonetized videos just as normal. They will even enjoy them more as there are no ads. Those people spend time on the platform because of the demonetized video. YouTube advertises other videos next to that one. It is questionable if that selection ONLY contains monetized videos, but it is clear that at least some of them ARE monetized. Insofar it is absolutely true that demonetized videos have a value for the ad business and should be getting paid in due course.
  15. Jörg Sprave

    Jörg Sprave's "YouTubers Union": A kneejerk idea.

    Well, he degrades our union as a "knee jerk reaction". Was it clickbait? Well, it certainly caused ME to click on the link I found when I googled "Youtubers Union", which I do once a day. He further degrades us by calling our ideas "terrible" (twice) and "flawed". He even implies that we want ISIS videos to be monetized, which is clearly not the case. He then came to the conclusion (even if he withdrew that part later) that we are "just a glorified petition". Provocative enough for me. Oh, and BTW he didn't even bother to write my name correctly. No big deal but it didn't help letting his post look respectful to me. You think we are in the same boat? I disagree. YouTube turned against the creators, at least against those with content YouTube sees as "critical" and "controversial". We represent those creators and users that disagree with these policies. You guys here clearly love everything YouTube does, at least that is what I take when I read the things you say. Yes, I have extensive experience in leadership. I learned the hard way that you have to be ferocious against your enemies. Softness leads to failure. I have tried to be constructive before going aggressive. Here is my letter to YouTube. No reaction. Sent it before christmas. Just a week after I started the union, they contacted me and asked for a VC. Go figure. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CMdjTi1_umQUq5ZJ4OXHtdgsH4ucl-34 The "Internet Creators Guild" is not aggressive enough in my opinion. They ask the members for money, saying they "need" it, without explaining why. To me it seems just like a commercial business. Not what I want. Yes, they got an interview with that low level guy who does the videos for them. I will talk to the Global Head of Monetization @ YouTube today, based on YouTube's invitation. So to me our approach CLEARLY works better.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. You can find our privacy policy here Privacy Policy and our terms of service available here Terms of Use