Jump to content
Leo Wattenberg

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

Recommended Posts

Moin. Jörg Sprave recently launched the YouTubers Union. And while I admire the idea, the entire thing is large parts are flawed, from concept to demands. 

Now updated as further explanations came in. Left retracted wordings visible in strikethrough to preserve transparency. 

So let's start with the demands.

Zitat

Monetize everyone - bring back monetization for smaller channels

Terrible idea. Elsagate content should not be monetized. Channels that just scrape content off other channels should not be monetized. ISIS shouldn't get monetized.

Even if you take the sentence following that - "bring back monetization for smaller channels", this only gets marginally better:

In the old days, YouTube basically just approved anyone. This lack of review caused the Adpocalypse (Nivea ads on ISIS content). YouTube now has to review channels that go in much more thoroughly. Which - even with the new requirements - has lead to queues several months long. And the union demand bring small channels in. So the queues get even larger.

Even disregarding that hiring reviewers costs money, and that small channels may never bring in the money that's spent on reviewing them, just the prospect of having even longer queues is terrible. If you have to wait for a year after applying, this will make a fast-growing channel lose more money than the channel having to wait a bit before being able to monetize and then having to wait only a couple months.

Further: AdSense requires you to report any invalid click activity to them. The only way you can know whether or not you did receive invalid click activity is to check your Analytics for bad traffic sources, suspicious spikes in activity coming from single countries and such. For small channels, the time one would have to spend checking Analytics is worth more than the money they actually get out of it. Mowing the neighbor's lawn for 20€ probably would yield a better time:money ratio. 

I know that most channel owners probably aren't checking their stats that thoroughly. Sometimes this works. But with low traffic volume, a single fan click-bombing you thinking you'll get rich through it can destroy this revenue stream for you forever, and over the years I've seen this happen to dozens if not hundreds of small channels. Plus, AdSense can choose to stop hiring you to sell ad space if you consistently are attracting invalid click activity, even if you report it. 

In the old days (ie: from 2012 onwards), the best practice for monetization was to only monetize once you get around 1000 views per day, because at roughly that volume it's unlikely that a single person clickbombing you will be enough to take you down, and you also are likely going to collect enough money to meet the payment threshold every month or two. The new requirements do mean that that help content that drives tons of views but few subscribers is going to lose out on monetization for a somewhat significant amount of time, but even here, speaking as individual that's YouTube Certified in channel growth, I'd say that if these channels were more forward with "subscribe" CTAs in their videos, they would be able to close the gap much more quickly. 

Zitat

Disable the bots - At least verified partners have the right to speak to a real person if you plan to remove their channel.

"Verified" means either "you have your phone number connected to the channel", or "you have 100k+ subscribers".

If it's the latter, you already should have a partner manager you can talk to even after termination.

If it's the former, it means "all partners". If we go by the standards set forth with the new restrictions (1000 subs, 4000 watch hours), I actually would be in favor of this point - a fully reviewed partner shouldn't get caught and instantly terminated by anti-abuse filters.

However, combined with the "everyone should be a partner" from above, this is, again, a terrible idea: Getting a phone verified account costs roughly 25 cents, less if you buy them in huge quantities. Getting these channels partnered in the old system was essentially free as well. Uploading absolute heaps of spam and then getting the ability to effectively set up a bot similar to rescam.org that just DoSes YouTube's reviewers whenever these channels get terminated, that's something that really shouldn't happen ever. 

Zitat

Transparent content decisions - Open up direct communication between the censors ("content department") and the Creators.

AFAIK: The content department is about making and organizing YouTube Red Originals and such. The censors are at Trust and Safety. So I don't know what this really is about, and am going to treat it as "we want to discuss policy with YouTube". So I'm bundling it with another point further down

Zitat

Clarify the rules - Bring out clear rules with clear examples about what is OK and what is a No-No.

I do admit: Clearer guidelines are, for most intents and purposes a good thing. However, there are downsides to this, too: Logan Paul, LeafyIsHere and others for a long time have played intentionally right at the edge of the community guidelines, rarely overstepping them. If YouTube was to have very clear guidelines on what is and isn't okay and how it's getting punished, it it would probably include the term: "You can only receive strikes for videos that haven't been deleted". This is why it took so long to give Logan Paul a strike: He deleted the video. YouTube had to break with a principle that I haven't seen broken ever before - and I've been actively been watching YouTube as a company for over half a decade now - to give him one. 

If YouTube had clear guidelines, Logan Paul would not have faced any repercussions for what he did. 

Or in other words: I believe that there are situations in which case-by-case judgement is preferable to detailed guidelines. Famously, fair use operates on this principle: It wasn't written down anywhere for centuries as a law, but judges were applying it to cases where they felt that it would be unfair to punish someone who was merely quoting something in order to criticize it. And even modern US copyright law has a very vague definition of fair use. 

As for the direct line of communication between censors and creators - this technically already exists in form of Appeals. Having a platform to discuss policy openly I don't think is going to be productive: Having large back-and-forths with reviewers on whether or not a strike is valid or not may take longer than the 90 days the strike actually lasts, especially if the strike is an edge case which would need to get dealt with by the reviewers' bosses. A more detailed explanation may be nice for some, but speaking from experience (I've been able to pinpoint obvious community guidelines violations thanks to caches of deleted videos), the reaction to this most commonly is "but x is doing it, too!" instead of "I see, will avoid it in the future". Again, not very productive for anyone involved. For the most part, it's people at the extremes who are ever touching or crossing the line. It's going to be vocal minorities shouting and demanding for the other side to get banned. 

Zitat

Pay for the views - Stop using demonetized channels as "bait" to advertise monetized videos.

So, this doesn't mean "Stop featuring channels and videos that don't show ads" as I initially thought, but "it's unfair for content creators that aren't suitable for ads to not get money even if they provide value" (sidenote, you may want to update your demands list so it's clear what the demand is without the context of a video that isn't featured anywhere on youtubersunion.org) 

Two thoughts on that:

  1. YouTube's free hosting provides value, too. If you look at vimeo, which offers a similar package (1080p Livestreams + 7TB storage for videos, plus some more privacy and cosmetical features) for 70€ per month, or any decent CDN solution if you want to host your stuff yourself reliably, YouTube (and Facebook, Twitch and Twitter, for that matter) offering very similar services for free is quite a good deal if you want to reach the world. 
  2. I'm not sure it would go down too well with the vast majority of creators if YouTube reduced their cut from 55 to 45% to give the remaining 10% to channels that aren't eligible for ad-based monetization. 

Overall, paying for views quite simply isn't really feasible with an ad-supported model as it currently is. With YouTube Red, sure, but not if money is generated by getting advertisers bid in order to get their ad next to (or in front of) videos they want their ads in front of. 

. If the YouTubers Union wants to represent all YouTubers, this really has to go. Not all channels want to monetize, and even monetizing channels don't want to monetize some videos. Punishing them to make videos for the sake of being creative, rather than for the sake of making money is definitely not in the best interest of the creator. 

Zitat

Stop demonetization as a whole - If a video is in line with your rules, allow ads on an even scale.

and 

Zitat

Equal treatment for all partners - Stop preferring some creators over others. No more “YouTube Preferred”.

Google Preferred allows advertisers to advertise on content that have ultra-safe programming. Without Google Preferred, MCNs could (and generally already do) fill this slot for their partners, and any ad agency worth their money would quickly grab a list of the top whatever YouTube channels off of Socialblade or Wikipedia and then weed out the Logan Pauls - again, resulting in something very similar to Google Preferred.

It's not up to the creators to decide where the advertisers have to spend their money. 

Zitat

Pay according to delivered value - Spread out the ad money over all YouTubers based on audience retention, not on ads next to the content.

Audience retention isn't the metric you're looking for here. A single video with a single view that watched 100% of the video should not get more money than a channel that produced dozens of videos with thousands of views, that all only get 50%. You're looking for watch time, which basically is audience retention times views. If you're talking watch time:

Doable (and already being done) with YouTube Red. Again, not with the traditional ad revenue model, because it simply doesn't make sense.

Zitat

You don't have to pay any money and you have zero obligations. You can join us simply be becoming a member of our Facebook group and/or by joining our forum.

9_9 Jörg fundamentally did not understand what the point of a union is. Just to reiterate: The point of a union is to allow workers (in this case: YouTubers) to stop working to get a point across (ie strike), and protect them from starving in case they're being locked out from their work. They can do this by giving their members money during a strike or lockout. And that money is usually 1% of the union member's income.

Having a 0% "union" does not only not allow their members to effectively strike without financially shooting themselves in the foot, it also means that the union cannot have someone working full time on eg. putting up a list of demands that would be tough for YouTube to take, but not anywhere near as ridiculous as this. As-is, this "union" is really just a glorified petition. And with this petition showing that it fundamentally does not understand how YouTube works, how unions work or how creators other than the close circle around the founder work, it's very unlikely to be taken seriously. 

Retracting the claim as I'm here to discuss the merits of the demands rather than what a union is and isn't. 

I'd say that the Internet Creators Guild is overall more effective approach if you want to influence YouTube as a creator - they have had an interview with YouTube, after all. 

 

Edited by Leo Wattenberg
updated with better interpretation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Wattenberg I think this is a knee jerk reaction to not understanding reality nor having any type of discussion with folks within the organization at Youtube/Google. It's not understanding the problem correctly nor understanding the challenges. It is, as you say, a petition based on a lack of understanding of the "real world."

The big issue nobody has solved yet is the growth of online media vs. traditional media. In the world of traditional media you had a bunch of suits that made decisions based on a series of laws, regulations and common sense understanding. There were problems with this as well, ready Norman Lear's Even This I Get To Experience in which he talks about the TV censor system and how a group of out of touch people make choices on what can and cannot be "said" on TV. It was (and still is) a bit of a mess. 

Enter Netflix & Streaming TV

Watch any non-broadcast media and you've got a nice blend of rules and common sense. You can watch a sitcom like The Ranch on Netflix which has all the makings of the TV sitcom All In The Family (Norman Lears show) and a blend of HBO series with swearing and such. Netflix makes common sense rules on what it will showcase and produce without allowing the "floodgates of humanity" to do whatever they want.

Enter Online Streaming Video

Online video produced by anyone is very hard to vet because it is done live and without regard for rules and regulations (because there are few) and common sense. This is hard to monitor at scale so people can get away with pretty much anything (at least once).

Enter Online Video

Anyone can create content and, at scale, it's nearly impossible to monitor. And, anyone around the world can pull it off, making rules and regulations hard to follow. If I produce a video showcasing a product I received for free, I'm obligated by the government to disclose this....but what if I don't? It only matters if I get caught and I'll probably not be caught for a long time (even with a relatively large audience). So, even rules can be worked around and probably taken advantage of and nobody will know the difference.

Larger Channels are easier to Monitor

Monetizing only larger channels makes it easier to be notified when something stupid is occurring. If PewDiePie does something stupid that is against the law or bordering ethical the world finds out because a massive amount of people are watching. So, these channels can get slapped with penalties faster because they're easier to monitor (large audiences with large word-of-mouth for both good and bad). However, we currently "react" when someone does something stupid because we don't know what else to do and nobody knows how to handle it.

The Real Problem

The real issue here is that we've got no past history to understand how to react to this type of medium. Traditional TV had 50+ years to adapt to changes yet Youtube has been around for 13 years, 5 of those it was so young it didn't matter. We have no successes or failures to draw from so we're basically "making it up as we go along." Consumers don't know how to react, advertisers don't know how to manage unmitigated (sometimes unethical) content and creators don't have a guideline/ruleset to follow (or don't know they should be.) If a new creator gets a free product and tells their audience how are they supposed to know there are regulations around it...? They are just making stuff up as they go, they didn't have to agree to any ethical policies and sign something with a pen stating their intentions (e.g. nobody reads a 20 page ToS).

The Root of the Problem: the viewer.

Bottom line, the root of the problem is the viewer. Viewers do not yet know how to react to specific pieces of content. They don't know how to handle it and they don't know when to be smart about what they're doing. Watching a product review, a viewer should know if the product was purchased, given for free and if the video was paid product placement (or they should at least know to be aware/ask about it). Viewers need to learn to report content that has ethical issues faster and have a quick avenue to get it resolves. They also have to understand that this type of thing is going to happen and over-reacting isn't going to help. Parents need to understand what they're kids are viewing closer and the impact of it. Overall, everyone has to learn that some content creators are going to be the next generation of "shock jock" that will do anything to get a rise out of people.

Advertisers have to learn a lot too. They're going to pay more for less impressions in a competitive market based on bots choosing their ads. They're going to need to understand how to interact and talk with influencers and influencers are going to need to understand what it means to be an influencer.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Wattenberg

Hi. Just dropped by after I saw you show up in the discord earlier. 

I have read your post and @Derrick Schommer post and although you say you admire the "knee jerk reaction", I do not believe you grasp what's going on here. This has been brewing for awhile and many of us have expressed our desire to not only leave YouTube but also start investing in other platforms such as Minds, Bitchute, etc.

@Derrick Schommer Your response was well written but doesn't really cover what our problems are with YT.

Although the "they're a private company, they can do what they want" argument will be made, it's not a great business practice to sell your platform as a way to express yourself only to be made painfully obvious that expression needs to fit your world view. For most of us, YouTube not paying the content creators is only part of it. 

Silencing/suppressing free speech is the biggest issue. 

I'm not a content creator. Just a consumer. I have not planned on having debate here because I said my bit and now I move on.

One last thing;

Your hangup on the use of "Union" in the name is petty and cheapens your argument above. 

You can do better.

Have an excellent day. Cheers.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@OriginalShinken1 but you can leave out "youtube" as the platform and you basically have defined pretty much every social media platform on the planet...so why are we talking about youtube specifically as the problem case? Probably because you're using it.

Yes, I'd say "free speech" is defined by public spaces and Youtube isn't a public space, they can silence anything they want and the fallout of that is public opinion of them. I'm of the opinion that it's not nearly as big a deal as some folks make it out to be but that really depends on perspective. In my perspective, you should be getting information from many sources/feeds, not just one. 

Name a single publication that has completely unbiased results? Not even AI is truly unbiased as it has bias built in by its developers as part of their own way of thinking. I think, as a consumer, people have to realize "Free Speech" isn't something you're going to get on anyone's specific platform even if they say it there will always be something that won't fit an internal policy (or will just look bad). Someone can get on Youtube and start dropping N-bombs and hate speech and I bet Youtube's going to put a kill switch on it--are you telling me you wouldn't? I don't believe that for a second, it's a business killer...but it goes against free speech.

Twitter isn't different. Hell, Facebook has its own issues with Russia, advertising and persuasive (or just fake) articles. So why don't we unionize against them? I understand you're not here for a debate ...but what you said and what you're saying are two different things. The best way to avoid a debate is to not get in one ;-) 

The fact is you can leave youtube anytime you want, but you don't. I'm a big fan of "if you don't like it, move on" but people love to complain and complaining is a waste of time if you don't put words to action. But, youtube like all other platforms are just like 'renting an apartment', you don't own the space, you follow the rules and you do what you want within reason. But, at the end of the day, if they sell the place or close it down, you're out. If they sell to another person you could be out. 

The only way to make something your own with your own rules is to build it yourself. Your own website, your own domain name, your own server. But, alas, you won't get nearly the traffic and eyeballs you get from these "rented" spaces. So... people will continue to complain but they'll keep using these services because that's where the eyeballs are at right now. When that shifts, so will we.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the TS didn't understand what the YouTubers Union is all about. But that is no surprise to me. Last time we met he was all for giving rewards to mass flaggers. Now he believes demonetizing half of YouTube is a good move. Seems like many people disagree, myself (and more than 10,000 members of the Union) included. 

YouTube caved in to the pressure from the advertisers. Now YouTube controls the content and prefers certain content ("friendly", "non controversial" videos) over other content that deals with more critical aspects. 

YouTube used to be a place where you could do things you could not do on TV. Now this has turned around. No Mythbusters episode would have a chance to make money on YouTube. Baaad explosions, guns, how shocking!

I think the relation between advertisers, YouTube and the creators is out of balance. The union (which really is more like a community based movement) wants to correct that. 

And YouTube has noticed us. A guy named Brady Clegg, "Global Head of Monetization" @YouTube wants to talk to me this coming Tuesday. Here is my list of questions. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JGY5m6hBynWdcHRyrj5R6SKtXbZVqxXq/view

We shall see how he responds. But wait, I am sure Leo can answer them all probably better than the YouTube chap, and right soon too. 

And Leo, if you believe an online Union needs money to put pressure on the employers, you are mistaken. We aren't "just a glorified petition". If YouTube won't negotiate, we will take action. We already have an estimated 100 million subscribers between the members. We could simply upload our full videos to other platforms for a while, posting teasers with the link on YouTube. That would drive people away from the platform, which is what YouTube hates the most. An online union does not need picket fences. 

Edited by Jörg Sprave
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zitat

Seems like many people disagree, myself (and more than 10,000 members of the Union) included. 

You are an influencer, getting lots of people to agree with you shows that you're good at your job, but not that your demands factually make sense. 

Zitat

But wait, I am sure Leo can answer them all probably better than the YouTube chap, and right soon too. 

Some of your questions have been answered publicly by YouTube already – You may want to check out Creator Insider or the S+D playlist

Also, I can play passive-aggressive, too, if you want: Since the only criticism I get from @Jörg Sprave and @OriginalShinken1 is about that I misunderstand how online unions work, I'm going to assume that I'm right in that the demands list is poorly thought through. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those brainwashing all-smiles nonsense clips YouTube made? Come on, you can't be serious. I believe that none, I repeat none, of my questions are answered in those goofy pieces. But I admit I could not make myself watching them all. Please be so kind and identify those videos to me that clearly answer my questions. Then I will stand corrected. 
My demands are just a start, we have an own forum and will change/update those demands as we go along. You did not really watch my video, or you simply chose to interpret them wrongly. When I say all channels should be monetized, of course I am ONLY speaking about the channels that WANT to monetize the content. 
And I clearly stated that I don't want to see ISIS beheading videos either. Same goes for stolen videos. I want clear rules, easy to understand and with plenty of examples. If a video does not comply to these rules, then it must be deleted. But right now, the rules are deliberately soft and YouTube can hide between them. How else is it possible that a friend of mine got a strike and  a take down because he interviewed the manufacturer of airguns for Olympic tournaments at a trade show? His entire channel is gone because he received three strikes in a very short time. Those videos were years old, by the way.
Videos that contain critical elements may not be ideal for some advertisers. That is OK. But they still have value as they bring people to the platform. Eventually those people will watch videos with ads too. I simply want that the "cake" is split three ways, not two ways. 
As for the "influencer" part, I have a total of eight channels that I know of that have more than 1 million subs and are now members. I have a nice collection of press coverage already, including web and radio interviews. Today, a piece will be aired on rbb24, and also the BR in Germany. I admit my fans gave the thing a good push, but now I am getting new members from many other sources as well. 

As for the communication, appeals aren't falling in that category. They are one sided. You file an appeal and then you get the result back in automatized form. Yes or no. No explanations, just the typical standard messages. You can NOT talk to the decision maker. And yes, of course I have a partner manager. She is a good person and really tries to help. But she is very low on the YT hierarchy ladder and basically powerless. She is clearly told what she can say and what not. She can deliver messages from "content", but nothing is ever firm or in written form. She can be helpful, but that is NOT the transparency I want.

@Derrick Schommer: YouTube is NOT a "renting an apartment" platform, at least not if you are a creator. It is a house I helped building, with my own hands and years of work. I am officially a "partner", not a "user" or "tenant". Google built the YouTube platform together with the creators. That is what partners do. I won't give up the platform I helped building, not without a fight. 

Edited by Jörg Sprave
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zitat

Please be so kind and identify those videos to me that clearly answer my questions. 

"Is the fact that a video is not fully monetized (because the video belongs to a small YouTuber, is “lona” or put in the “excluded ads” categories) relevant for the “trending” and “recommended” selections?" is answered in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxRIUFyv_Rk&list=PLpjK416fmKwQK6_REczCaBQ1x1jyHvZAF&index=10&t=9m55s

Zitat

You did not really watch my video,

I did not see any video initially on https://youtubersunion.org/, so no. Found it now on your channel. 

Zitat

Videos that contain critical elements may not be ideal for some advertisers. That is OK. But they still have value as they bring people to the platform. Eventually those people will watch videos with ads too. I simply want that the "cake" is split three ways, not two ways. 

I am not fully comfortable with this idea. Sure, there are channels and videos that get demonetized for strange reasons and they really could use it, but YouTube has quite lax community guidelines that allow things that are eg. illegal in Germany. If those are flagged, they quite often only get blocked in Germany, but not taken down. The knowledge that some percentage of the money I generate with family friendly content and strategically placed mid-rolls goes towards actual Nazis is unsettling -  even if those Nazis generate views for YouTube, even if the money comes from YouTube's part of the cut. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I think the guy in the video is lying. So many reports from colleagues that say no more monetization, no more trending, no more viral hits. It is not a random thing that this started at the same time as the lona policy started. 

Ah, now we are getting closer to the core. You want to censor even harder than YouTube does. YOU want to decide what is proper and what isn't. But rules are for everyone. If those "Nazis" are OK for YouTube, then they generate views for YOUR videos as well. So you are in fact making money from the Nazis. You just don't want to share it with them.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2018 at 8:38 PM, Leo Wattenberg said:

 

9_9 Jörg fundamentally did not understand what the point of a union is. Just to reiterate: The point of a union is to allow workers (in this case: YouTubers) to stop working to get a point across (ie strike), and protect them from starving in case they're being locked out from their work. They can do this by giving their members money during a strike or lockout. And that money is usually 1% of the union member's income.

 

Strange, I've worked closely with unions in my life and I can tell you that conducting a strike is not the be all and end all of a union at all. If you are going to say someone doesn't know something about unions, make sure you know what unions are about yourself. As unions grow, so too do their goals, where and what they're active on and who they aim to help and represent. You'll find that the very basic function of a union is to REPRESENT the members, in this case they are creators and users of youtube, and your idea of 'oh you can't strike, I win' is a complete strawman argument. The actions a union can take are limited only to what they can come up with. There's a lot you can do with a large community of people who believe in a cause, right?

You are missing the networking, collaboration and momentum that comes from an organized union with a goal. You really think the proposals and demands are the only thing the union will do? You seem to have simply brushed over what the union has been up to and then you've had to go back and actually look at what's been done. 

If you don't recognise that a growing 10,000+ strong community who are actively working on voicing discontent among youtube users could potentially have sway or an impact then I would say it's you who 'fundamentally did not understand' the point. 

After all, youtube are responding to the Union directly already.

Edited by Tales From Thailand
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no idea what this union (and unions in general) are standing for. Go look into history.

The people don't want to watch the stupid all-smiles superficial so called "advertiser friendly" nonsense!

 

Here are a few citations that express my feelings well:

 

"Censorship is telling a man, he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."

-Mark Twain

 

"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win."

 

"What is freedom of expression? Whithout the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

Free societies...are societies in motion, and with motion comes tension, dissent, friction.

Free people strike sparks, and those sparks are the best evidence of freedom's existence.”
― Salman Rushdie

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets go through this point by point.
1. Monetieze everyone: Youre right that Elsagate content should not be monetized. Channels that just scrape content off other channels should not be monetized (but right now they do and the bots often don`t get them). ISIS shouldn't get monetized. No questions about that. But this really is more of an issue of what is ok and what is not ok. So you missed the point here it`s about monetizing everyone that followes the rules (and maybe enogh views i personally don`t think you should be able to monetize your channel under 1000 subs). And yes this can be difficult to review but maybe there have to be new and better ways to do this. Maybe something like community based review for small channels.
2. Disable the bots- At least verified partners have the right to speak to a real person if you plan to remove their channel.: Yes and a channel should not be removed without a human overlooking it. Maybe bots can priorites channels to review again or something like that but don`t delet channels that exsist longer than a few days without someone checking that it is necesarry.
3. Transparent content decisions - Open up direct communication between the censors ("content department") and the Creators.: Seems you didn`t understand this point. Its about not getting any information when a problem comes up about why and how to solve it. Starting with open Guidlines for Videos and Monetization. Ending with open communication between the creators and youtube when problems occur.
4. Clarify the rules - Bring out clear rules with clear examples about what is OK and what is a No-No.: And again yes clarify the rules maybe even make them a little bit harsher. And it`s always much easier to dance around some lose rules that really strict rules as long as they are clear.
5. Pay for the views - Stop using demonetized channels as "bait" to advertise monetized videos.: Really how can you turn this in your head to "Stop featuring channels and videos that don't show ads"??? It`s about using channels with controversial context that dosen`t get monetized or did get demonetized to promote other channels that get monetized. Meaning youtube gets a lot of its traffic through channels that are not monetized but only features channels that are so they get a lot of views from people brought in through channels that are not monetized. What you could solve by "monetizing everyone" or at least make it way easier again.
6. Stop demonetization as a whole - If a video is in line with your rules, allow ads on an even scale./ Equal treatment for all partners - Stop preferring some creators over others. No more “YouTube Preferred”.: You say "It's not up to the creators to decide where the advertisers have to spend their money." Youre right to some degree but looking back to other forms of media advertisers could only choose where (tv station xy or newspaper xy) and when (day or time) they advertise not really what content exactly gets shown before and after it. So why not let them choose categorys to advertise in and spreed the adss from them equal between the content in that category or something like that.
7. You don't have to pay any money and you have zero obligations. You can join us simply be becoming a member of our Facebook group and/or by joining our forum.: Look up Unions and then think about this bullshit you wrote again. A union is an association of workers to represent their economic, social and cultural interests. And usually grounded within the laws of a country wich in this case is not really possible. What on it`s own is a good reason for this union because it`s another step in the right direction when it comes workers rights in regards to the internet.
My personal opinion is that the YouTubers Union of course has it`s flaws right now but they are new and still just getting started and it is overall a good thing that seems to be grwoing fast.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of paid reviews, are you being paid Leo to talk nonsense?! I imagine you are, otherwise you would understand that this "union" comes after thousands (if not more) of youtubers expressing them being unhappy with youtube's actions.

Now there are no voices scattered across youtube anymore because we united under one voice. This will allow youtube to talk easier with us and it will benefit to us and youtube as well. 

The cool thing is that there aren't just creators, but also viewers that love youtube, love the creators on this platform and they don't like seeing creators being discouraged just because a bot decided so.

The bad thing is that you are posting misleading information, although even viewers seem to understand easily what is about...do you think you're gonna be rewarded for this? :)))  

"Trusted Flagger"??? That's really low dude! Get to 1k subs like everyone else....work hard instead of playing like a puppy! 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Having a 0% "union" does not only not allow their members to effectively strike without financially shooting themselves in the foot, it also means that the union cannot have someone working full time on eg. putting up a list of demands that would be tough for YouTube to take, but not anywhere near as ridiculous as this. As-is, this "union" is really just a glorified petition. And with this petition showing that it fundamentally does not understand how YouTube works, how unions work or how creators other than the close circle around the founder work, it's very unlikely to be taken seriously. 

It's too early to evaluate this movement. It could dissolve or it could be a black swan event. Let's see where it goes.

I think there is consensus on the idea that youtube is having problems to reconcile the demands of advertisers and the demands of creators and viewers. This union project seems more constructive than denying the problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sick and tired of private corporations deciding what is appropriate content for me to consume. Any system that favors one group of producers over another is oppressive, anybody who cares about freedom of choice should be getting behind Jörg Sprave and his movement for a union. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing our You Tube accounts to renting an apartment is ludicrous.  You Tube is asking for creators to come to their platform and fill it with content, essentially making it a work environment. Workers form Unions to protect themselves from company abuses. You Tube holds a lot of power in the platform / creator relationship, and consequently, they have pretty much set unfair rules on our work environment. They have made unrealistic quotas, promote channels based on "safe" personalities, delete channels based on bots, and so on. Jorg Sprave, by himself, has very little bargaining power. However, our group of abused creators have banded together to prevent You Tube from carrying out such abuses. Content creators formed our You Tuber's Union to make a stable, long-term employment relationship between ourselves and them, which is good for both. We are asking for rules that are clearly defined, and a work environment for smaller channels that is stable and secure, giving all of us more incentive to stay, to develop solid relationships with co-creators, and to do our best to make sure the You Tube platform thrives. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion it is sign of bad business practice to ignore in such a way the total half of partnership.

Creators are more than the backbone of that media plattform. They are the salt and the soup. There is a lack of respect and appreciation in various ways which has led to false decisions YT made. Dont underestimate that union, and the legacy of root grown, organized movements. Willing people, walking and working in the same direction and for each other.

YT contacted Jorg even before we made our point offical. I think they are starting to get an idea of the wave which is just rollin.

United we stand!

Edited by Tsunimaro
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17.3.2018 at 12:47 PM, Jörg Sprave said:

YouTube used to be a place where you could do things you could not do on TV. Now this has turned around. No Mythbusters episode would have a chance to make money on YouTube. Baaad explosions, guns, how shocking!

I am not sure this is a good example. MythBusters sold their ads spots themself, advertisers knew where they where shown. And MythBusters was a high quality show.

If you sell the pre-roll space yourself you don't need to care for the youtube advertising guidelines. X-Sell sold ads are not affected by the monetization status of a video. So a show like MythBusters with the same amount of viewership could very well sell their own pre-rolls and could get flagged from the monetization bot all day long with no effect at all compared to the TV aired show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then let me tell you that the Mythbusters show was aired in Germany too, and German TV placed their commercials next to it like normal. Also I thought it was illegal to sell my own pre-rolls. image.thumb.png.8732eb7f57a753a218afb9c33a7817ac.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jörg Sprave said:

Then let me tell you that the Mythbusters show was aired in Germany too, and German TV placed their commercials next to it like normal. Also I thought it was illegal to sell my own pre-rolls. image.thumb.png.8732eb7f57a753a218afb9c33a7817ac.png

In those cases the advertisers still knew what they where running against. And I am not talking about putting ads into the video. X-Sell (Cross Sell) = selling the actual pre rolls in front of your video. Talk to your PM about it or contact some advertising agency focusing on youtube advertising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Paco

The point Jörg is making is that youtube demonizes video's that have guns and explosions. He is not referring to the businessmodel of MythBusters but to the fact that if you start a new channel today with this amount of explosions and guns you would be demonetized or even removed.

 

@Leo Wattenberg

I think it is bad that posts -with so little knowledge as your post shows- are posted on the internet. I propose to take away your income and internet access.

Off course this has to be seen as a positive action. This to allow you learn and become smarter.

Just think about it ....

how would you feel if I actually had the power to do so and actually did it?

This is how creators feel about You tubes demonetization policy

Jantje

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to sell my own ads. I want YouTube to stick to the original deal. I produce videos. They get the ads. We share the income. Now they want to tell me what kind of content I need to produce so they will give me ads. I don't like that one bit.

My content (home made muscle powered weapons) is put into the same "drawer" as, for example, abortion videos. So if an advertiser decides to avoid abortion videos, bam, he has just also decided to avoid my Oreo shooting rubber powered pump gun. Does that sound fair to you?

Edited by Jörg Sprave
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jantje said:

@Paco

The point Jörg is making is that youtube demonizes video's that have guns and explosions. He is not referring to the businessmodel of MythBusters but to the fact that if you start a new channel today with this amount of explosions and guns you would be demonetized or even removed.

Sure, thats why I said that MythBusters might not be a good example since it does not really fit this complaint.

 

6 minutes ago, Jörg Sprave said:

I don't want to sell my own ads. I want YouTube to stick to the original deal. I produce videos. They get the ads. We share the income. Now they want to tell me what kind of content I need to produce so they will give me ads. I don't like that one bit.

My content (home made muscle powered weapons) is put into the same "drawer" as, for example, abortion videos. So if an advertiser decides to avoid abortion videos, bam, he has just also decided to avoid my Oreo shooting rubber powered pump gun. Does that sound fair to you?

Sure, that was just as reply to the show, they did sell their own ads. Thats why is was no problem to show exploding fake zombies.

I disagree with your Idea or a deal, I will elaborate on that tomorrow when i find some time to put my thought down in a post.

But is it YouTube dictating you what to produce in order to earn your monthly income or is it not ultimately the advertising industry dictating the rules? Maybe thats where more education needs to be done, to get them to spend more money on a wider channel selection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 2 Minuten schrieb Paco:

But is it YouTube dictating you what to produce in order to earn your monthly income or is it not ultimately the advertising industry dictating the rules? Maybe thats where more education needs to be done, to get them to spend more money on a wider channel selection.

Yes, I am all for "educating" advertisers to spend more money on my channel. But that is YouTube's job, not mine. My job is to make videos that PEOPLE (consumers) watch and like. I am doing that job every day. Now I want YouTube to do their job as well.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Member Statistics

    318
    Total Members
    3319
    Most Online
    LIF DPC MAJA
    Newest Member
    LIF DPC MAJA
    Joined
×

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