poemdexter posted:

As long as you stream every day for 12 hours, after a year you'll be eligible!

Mercury Ballistic posted:

I think the time is aggretate from your viewers. Not you as the producer. I am probably wrong though.

Baronash posted:

Seems like a content producer would have to be very tiny not to be hitting those figures, and if someone is that tiny, I can't see Youtube ad revenue being a significant income source for that person anyway.

Let's say that your videos average 3 minutes, which is probably pretty short for content creators. In that scenario, 4000 hours of view time is equivalent to 80,000 views total across all videos you have on your channel. Assuming you're making around $8 per thousand views (which seems to be the high end these days) that's a maximum of $640 per year.

So really, this is only affecting folks who are drawing a few hundred bucks out of Youtube each year, which makes all of the "well now it's not worth my time" responses kind of strange.

Baronash posted:

Seems like a content producer would have to be very tiny not to be hitting those figures, and if someone is that tiny, I can't see Youtube ad revenue being a significant income source for that person anyway.

Let's say that your videos average 3 minutes, which is probably pretty short for content creators. In that scenario, 4000 hours of view time is equivalent to 80,000 views total across all videos you have on your channel. Assuming you're making around $8 per thousand views (which seems to be the high end these days) that's a maximum of $640 per year.

So really, this is only affecting folks who are drawing a few hundred bucks out of Youtube each year, which makes all of the "well now it's not worth my time" responses kind of strange.

Rime posted:

This basically just rolls back their policy to how it was six or seven years ago, when the startup I had co-founded became what is now the largest monetization network around. Machinima, Maker, etc would later copy the model but I created it. Ahh, those heady days of cold-calling 13 year olds and telling them we can get them monetized if they just give us 40% of their revenue.

YouTube is a worthless garbage fire so who gives a gently caress.

This is good news for me, since the free for all partnership model was eating my former employers lunch. Hopefully I can finally cash out for enough to not eat catfood in my old age now.

Rime posted:

BrandorKP posted:

They look like that because of the maritime industry and the challenge of insuring ships. That's my context and I'm looking at what you're talking about like this

Seriously in maritime our poo poo is voodoo black magic and tradition, but this stuff is wow.

ryonguy posted:

Small content producer? YouScrewed.

TACD posted:

I have a had time feeling sympathy for anybody expecting to make money from advertising. If you run a channel as a hobby this won't affect you, and if you're serious enough to hope to earn income from it then start a Patreon.

TACD posted:

I have a had time feeling sympathy for anybody expecting to make money from advertising. If you run a channel as a hobby this won't affect you, and if you're serious enough to hope to earn income from it then start a Patreon.

LeJackal posted:

Non-monetized videos are given lower priority in search engines and other algorithms, so it isn't just about the money.

Tuxedo Gin posted:

I wonder what percentage of users need to be using adblock before YT dies.

ryonguy posted:

YouTube actively works to prevent people from monetizing their videos through Patreon.

ryonguy posted:

YouTube actively works to prevent people from monetizing their videos through Patreon.

It's getting to be pretty clear we're going to go back to the standard of people running their own websites to serve their content any day now, at least for real revenue-driven media. The content distributors give no shits about anybody except whales. The hell is the point of all this hassle with monetizing when you can toss up a website template and add a video by pasting

code:

<video width="320" height="240" controls>
  <source src="2girls1cup.mp4" type="video/mp4">
  Your browser sucks.
</video>

in html. Sure you gotta do the web dev yourself, and pay for the hosting and bandwidth, but after a certain point the loving without lube by distribution channels becomes less of a value comparatively. The whole system of online ad serving and monetizing is broken anyways. How it works now is designed to be revenue generation for the ad provider, not the person actually selling the ad space. It's as if a magazine sold ad space by getting a third party to provide them with ads and only got a small percentage of what the third party received instead of selling directly. It's stupid as hell. Not to mention the problems of people serving malware over them.

TACD posted:

I didn't know this! How do they do that, is it more than the lower prioritisation LeJackal mentioned?

a foolish pianist posted:

There's no way people are going back to self-hosting. Large services like youtube have distributed stores, guaranteed uptimes, fast loading, good backups, that sort of thing. You can't just host a video on some random hosting service and get anything like what youtube provides, and that's not even mentioning the effort of getting people to come to your specific website instead of the huge place that aggregates all the videos.

Basically, that model is done, and it's never coming back.

LeJackal posted:

Non-monetized videos are given lower priority in search engines and other algorithms, so it isn't just about the money.

Neon Noodle posted:

I'm not sure about that. If internet video becomes as corporatized and top-down as television (if it becomes a new form of "cable," essentially), then the forces that produced the first wave of Internet creativity will probably re-manifest. If anything, the costs of hosting and overhead are cheaper now than they were in the web 1.0 days of putting a .mov file on your personal server. People did personal stuff on the web the first time around because the platform was free and open. Net neutrality puts a big damper on that, obviously, and hopefully there will be some pushback against that. But life, uh, finds a way...

Jose posted:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-18/the-fall-of-travis-kalanick-was-a-lot-weirder-and-darker-than-you-thought

aware of dog posted:

I think it's that they don't allow you to have in-video links to Patreon pages

Discendo Vox posted:

Crossposting from C-SPAM's doomsday economics thread:

Commissar Kayla posted:

I want to hear more about the voodoo black magic and tradition of maritime insurance.

Baby Babbeh posted:

It's actually a lot easier and cheaper to self host video now than its ever been. Cloud storage is very cheap and highly reliable, and most browsers can display video with a few lines of native HTML. You might need to pay a little bit for a CDN, but even that has come down a lot in cost, and there are services like Cloudinary that provide a lot of that functionality out of the box that have a free tier, so it'd be easy to set up to start. You could use Stripe and Stripe Subscriptions to monetize through donations and member content, no Patreon required. It's a bit more work than just uploading to youtube, but it's mostly upfront work and you could probably hire somebody cheap from Upwork to do it for you if you really don't want to gently caress around with that.

The problem would be growing your reach, since you wouldn't have YouTube's built-in network effects, but that's a marketing problem and it's not necessarily harder without YouTube, just different.

Jose Valasquez posted:

Some quick back of the envelope calculations based on AWS S3 egress prices comes out to about $0.77 per hour of 1080p video streamed. Better hope your 10 minute video doesn't go viral and get a million views or you're looking at a $130,000 bill for the month

Jose Valasquez posted:

Some quick back of the envelope calculations based on AWS S3 egress prices comes out to about $0.77 per hour of 1080p video streamed. Better hope your 10 minute video doesn't go viral and get a million views or you're looking at a $130,000 bill for the month

FamDav posted:

even then, cloudflare has flat rate plans for CDNs*. stick all your media behind that and let them handle making it economical.

Jose Valasquez posted:

Cloudflare doesn't recommend streaming video through their CDN because it has performance problems. That probably isn't going to work with any kind of volume.

They have a streaming solution in beta but I'm betting it's gonna cost more than their flat rate CDN.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/954218348107137024

Did it blow up yet?

(Screenshot:)

Baby Babbeh posted:

It's actually a lot easier and cheaper to self host video now than its ever been. Cloud storage is very cheap and highly reliable, and most browsers can display video with a few lines of native HTML. You might need to pay a little bit for a CDN, but even that has come down a lot in cost, and there are services like Cloudinary that provide a lot of that functionality out of the box that have a free tier, so it'd be easy to set up to start. You could use Stripe and Stripe Subscriptions to monetize through donations and member content, no Patreon required. It's a bit more work than just uploading to youtube, but it's mostly upfront work and you could probably hire somebody cheap from Upwork to do it for you if you really don't want to gently caress around with that.

The problem would be growing your reach, since you wouldn't have YouTube's built-in network effects, but that's a marketing problem and it's not necessarily harder without YouTube, just different.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/954218348107137024

Did it blow up yet?

(Screenshot:)

Konstantin posted:

A similar thing is happening now with Wikia. Whenever a Wiki is big enough to get significant ad revenue, the top contributors usually fork it from Wikia to a self-hosted site and keep the money, while the Wikia site dies due to not having many editors. I can see a similar thing happening with YouTube channels that have a small but dedicated fanbase