Support NeoGAF

[razgriz417]

Look I get it, Youtube has become a wasteland of corporate panic after ads were found attached to videos that people claimed were supporting questionable ethics and ideals, but I really can't get over how convenient this seems for certain elements who want to minimize criticism of their products. If someone already has a positive pre-disposition towards CoD, they will make a video saying so regardless of whether it's monetized. I could be wrong but I think you're far less likely to see the opposite.

The majority aren't like the likes of Angryjoe or Jim Sterling, who would spit in Activision's eye regardless of whether they're making money or not if the game deserved it, but I guess would could apply that logic to anything.

In the same vein, now there will be less positive CoD videos as well, if the people who make their living on CoD videos are not getting their $, isn't that a strong incentive to move onto a game that can? Seeing as how poorly Infinite Warfare was received by the community, wouldn't now be the time to try to garner as much support as you can and win back lost fans?

 

[Inviusx]

Boo hoo.

 

[Smooth Operator]

You don't gave a shit, but you made a paragraph telling you don't give a shit. sounds weird.

Seeing people losing income is also a "great thing for him" but i guess he doesn't really care.

 

[Shai-Tan]

seems like a double standard considering what ads appear next to on television. and Google IS sharing the blame for creating loose criteria

 

[Mr. Poolman]

As a web marketeer; I don't want my programatic ads targeting a poor conversion rate target.

So I'm fine with this.

Most Youtubers abuse Google ads platform but provide awful conversion rate with their audiences.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

What makes YouTube as a job any less legitimate than a musician or an actor. They serve no purpose to the world besides entertainment.

Agreed. And generally, people understand that attempting to make a career out of being a musician or an actor is very difficult, and a large percentage of those that try, fail and/or must work another job to get by.

YouTubers are just the latest in a long line of people who will mostly fail to "make it" in the creative field of their choice, and that's not really anything new.

 

[True Fire]

Good story.

Do the advertisers not want to advertise on COD channels or are they just auto-filtered?

I can't see PC related adverts being pulled if they thought about it rather than being filtered automatically.

It's auto filtered. Advertisers can choose to not advertise on videos that are marked sexual or violent.

It's been that way with TV shows for decades. Honestly, Youtubers were making bank off of the fact that marketing departments didn't understand how YouTube worked. Ads slipped through the cracks and ended up plastered on videos with violent, racist, and sexist content. There was always going to be a "correction" once advertisers got smarter.

The problem is that YouTube fans love provocative content, but advertisers hate it. So where does that leave Youtubers? Making PG-13 videos to appease advertisers and losing all of their fans? Or making R videos and making no money?

I think it's why Patreon is gaining momentum.

 

[Warablo]

Can't even play a M rated game anymore on Youtube because advertisers won't allow their ad on your video.

 

[Adam_Vania]

...

This has nothing to do with silencing critics.

This is about advertiser not wanting their ads next to violence and vulgarity.

yes this is not that different from an advertiser pulling a celebrity endorsement due to controversy. youtube has a duty to these advertisers and that's it. they don't have the time or resources to babysit youtubers. if you build your entire business on a platform that you don't control, don't be surprised when they change things up.

 

[Froyo Love]

Good story.

Do the advertisers not want to advertise on COD channels or are they just auto-filtered?

I can't see PC related adverts being pulled if they thought about it rather than being filtered automatically.

YouTube is doing the filtering, but the advertisers have no compelling reason to complain about this. If their ads are getting their contractual views without any possible risk of controversy, that's fine by them.

 

[atomsk]

seems like a double standard considering what ads appear next to on television. and Google IS on the blame for creating loose criteria

Considering how sought after ad spots on The Walking Dead and South Park are... but if you're playing M rated games based on those properties...

I've got friends who've talked to YT reps who keep saying "the machine" is still "learning" and to give it a few more weeks for things to even out.

I have my doubts

Can't even play a M rated game anymore on Youtube because advertisers won't allow their ad on your video.

You still get ads, it's just you get like 15-25% of what you'd normally earn, at least in my experience.

 

[nel e nel]

It's auto filtered. Advertisers can choose to not advertise on videos that are marked sexual or violent.

It's been that way with TV shows for decades. Honestly, Youtubers were making bank off of the fact that marketing departments didn't understand how YouTube worked. Ads slipped through the cracks and ended up plastered on videos with violent, racist, and sexist content. There was always going to be a "correction" once advertisers got smarter.

The problem is that YouTube fans love provocative content, but advertisers hate it. So where does that leave Youtubers? Making PG-13 videos to appease advertisers and losing all of their fans? Or making R videos and making no money?

I think it's why Patreon is gaining momentum.

I know I might be overly optimistic, but I'd like to think that YouTube will tweak its filtering to be more nuanced as time goes by, and that these instances are just the medium working the kinks out.

 

[Stop It]

Just another example of corporate overreach on the internet. This is really not much different to what the end of Net Neutrality would deliver. Activision get to control every aspect of what people say about their product.

In short, silencing critics outside of the official reviewer sphere.

Er, no.

It's advertisers waking up to the fact that they didn't know or care where their advertising went. Now they do. You wouldn't expect a family friendly brand advertising after Game of Thrones yet YouTube has been full of adverts that did not suit the material.

Maybe Google actually take the hint, well they are but it's having the inevitable effect of cutting advertising revenue. It'll be tweaked for sure and advertisers will gain the ability to choose better targets for their advertising.

 

[always crazy bacon]

What makes YouTube as a job any less legitimate than a musician or an actor. They serve no purpose to the world besides entertainment.

Youtube is basically busking or street perfomance. You get paid if your good and in the right location but nobody employed you.

 

[gafneo]

They can make money. They made money off of explaining they can't make money in a video to trick people into viewing click bate to make even more money.

 

[Yukinari]

With their new policies, unless you want to make a Disney style afternoon sitcom, I think you should reconsider making a living off YouTube.

Im seeing it a lot more where youtubers with very healthy views and sub counts have to rely on their sponsors more often.

Not to mention the new discovery system trying to stamp out specific kinds of content that may be vulgar.

 

[Pegasus Actual]

On the one hand monetization has in my opinion made YouTube worse content-wise (though admittedly has made for better production values). On the other this is basically ceding control to Corporate America on what content should and shouldn't exist. I think the best advertising model for everyone is Google delivers the demographics, and the advertiser doesn't have say or any in-depth knowledge on what specific videos are delivering said demographics. I assume the main reason for wanting control over content is to avoid boycotts and angry consumers so just give them the best plausible deniability you can. Sure some deplorables* might make a few bucks but it beats not having people be able to monetize COD video games because a frag grenade makes some pixels hilariously rag-doll across the screen.

*your deplorables may vary

 

[oti]

You'd actually think that these big companies wouldn't care, because these YouTuber's give them a pretty big audience. Not sure why YouTube has changed their policies about it, but they are pretty laughable.

You don't understand why companies don't want their products associated with violence/controversial topics? Really?

 

[Owensboro]

Across YouTube, ads have stopped appearing on some videos with ”vulgar language," ”disasters and tragedies," sexually suggestive content or ”subjects related to war."

This isn't an issue of Youtube being Youtube, it's an issue of an advertising company doing their job correctly. I would assume a few of the companies sold a bulk time of adds objected to any depiction of glorification of war and/or violence/tragedy (in this case, WW II) and wanted any of their adds pulled from those videos. Since Google didn't have anything ready, the only thing to do is mass-cancel until they have a solution.

Pretty much all traditional 'old' media have entire departments solely devoted to sourcing advertiser funding, and building relationships with advertisers that are a good fit for their brand and content, or having to modify their content to attract advertisers.

I don't see this as a problem, just because youtubers up until now have benefitted from youtube and google to the extent that this is a thing they have never had to think about before didn't mean that that was going to last forever.

Basically. I'd assume Youtube/Google to fix this in the future by creating some sort of filter/checklist to weed out things advertisers don't want to be associated with. However, when anyone can put up whatever video they want at any time it's a hard problem to police with an algorithm alone.

 

[Mandoric]

Er, no.

It's advertisers waking up to the fact that they didn't know or care where their advertising went. Now they do. You wouldn't expect a family friendly brand advertising after Game of Thrones yet YouTube has been full of adverts that did not suit the material.

Maybe Google actually take the hint, well they are but it's having the inevitable effect of cutting advertising revenue. It'll be tweaked for sure and advertisers will gain the ability to choose better targets for their advertising.

The problem is the path-of-least-resistance step from "no restrictions" to "do not display my advertisements alongside: [ ] randomly-chosen ISIS beheadings/Hogan's Heroes clips/virulent racism/dude saying 'fuck'/hardcore porn/yoga pants/documentary on Bhopal/documentary on Pompeii"

While a problem definitely existed, Youtube's response is zero-effort, uneven, and presented in a way which promotes the most conservative possible reaction from advertisers while enforcing the most conservative advertiser's preferences across all media.

Basically. I'd assume Youtube/Google to fix this in the future by creating some sort of filter/checklist to weed out things advertisers don't want to be associated with. However, when anyone can put up whatever video they want at any time it's a hard problem to police with an algorithm alone.

For monetized videos, surely you can enforce a self-rating policy with a strike system driven by spot checks? And of course for non-monetized videos it doesn't matter to the user if their video can't carry ads.

 

[soundscream]

What makes YouTube as a job any less legitimate than a musician or an actor. They serve no purpose to the world besides entertainment.

If a musician or an actor was trying to pay the bills on YouTube I would also question their decision making. Its a great platform for getting your stuff out, but you have so littile control of the platform its a huge risk to make a job of it.

 

[Archanfel]

It's time to start a home/gardening channel.

 

[Vanillalite]

Google's initial intent was for YT to be basically Google Photos but for video.

Problem is it's morphed into something entirely different, and Google's never gotten a firm grasp on what it's ultimately become.

 

[True Fire]

On the one hand monetization has in my opinion made YouTube worse content-wise (though admittedly has made for better production values). On the other this is basically ceding control to Corporate America on what content should and shouldn't exist. I think the best advertising model for everyone is Google delivers the demographics, and the advertiser doesn't have say or any in-depth knowledge on what specific videos are delivering said demographics. I assume the main reason for wanting control over content is to avoid boycotts and angry consumers so just give them the best plausible deniability you can. Sure some deplorables* might make a few bucks but it beats not having people be able to monetize COD video games because a frag grenade makes some pixels hilariously rag-doll across the screen.

*your deplorables may vary

I work for a high profile tech company. Our company would rather leave YouTube completely than be associated with deplorables.

All it takes is one viral tweet screenshotting our brand over a video of a swastika or something to create a marketing nightmare.

And marketing nightmares mean employee overtime, investor chaos, business relationships in jeopardy, bad press, and sponsorship chaos. It hurts every department in a business. There's a lot of pressure from CEOs to avoid anything that could lead to a PR disaster.

 

[Akai__]

You don't understand why companies don't want their products associated with violence/controversial topics? Really?

But I DON'T associate CoD with Coca Cola, just because I saw a Coca Cola ad before a CoD video. Just and example and same goes for anything else. I see it just as an ad that plays before the video. Pretty much the same on TV.

Now, if it was an ad that specifically says something like "This video is sponsored by Coca Cola", then it would be a different story.

 

[Stop It]

The problem is the path-of-least-resistance step from "no restrictions" to "do not display my advertisements alongside: [ ] randomly-chosen ISIS beheadings/Hogan's Heroes clips/virulent racism/dude saying 'fuck'/hardcore porn/yoga pants/documentary on Bhopal/documentary on Pompeii"

While a problem definitely existed, Youtube's response is zero-effort, uneven, and presented in a way which promotes the most conservative possible reaction from advertisers while enforcing the most conservative advertiser's preferences across all media.

I don't disagree with that. There's a big gap between a free for all and an ultra conservative approach. Like all tech companies Google have tried to do this with tech but they'll need people to make this work.

 

[Some Nobody]

As a web marketeer; I don't want my programatic ads targeting a poor conversion rate target.

So I'm fine with this.

Most Youtubers abuse Google ads platform but provide awful conversion rate with their audiences.

Lol, television has done this for years, what's the issue? I'm not sure I get it.

 

[LordRaptor]

Problem is it's morphed into something entirely different, and Google's never gotten a firm grasp on what it's ultimately become.

What its become is a huge monetary blackhole that is being run effectively as a charity as everyone agrees its a thing the internet should have, but in the absence of any form of regulatory oversight stopping things like libel, hatemongering, copyright infringement and propaganda those things have sprung up en masse, so you have the double whammy of overall costs being really high, and it being filled with content that nobody would want their brand associated with.

 

[NeonBlack]

But I DON'T associate CoD with Coca Cola, just because I saw a Coca Cola ad before a CoD video. Just and example and same goes for anything else. I see it just as an ad that plays before the video. Pretty much the same on TV.

Now, if it was an ad that specifically says something like "This video is sponsored by Coca Cola", then it would be a different story.

There are also people who see Coca Cola ads on a violent, sexual, or mean spirited video and relate it to them as funding what they deem unacceptable. Now you've lost a customer.

 

[oti]

What makes YouTube as a job any less legitimate than a musician or an actor. They serve no purpose to the world besides entertainment.

Other than the age thing (younger people who grew up with it will most likely agree with you I guess) to me the thing about YouTube compared to other forms of entertainment is the creation of the entertainment "good". For others, just talking while playing a game makes the YouTube video its own good. It transforms the video game into a new good so to speak. To me this feels kinda silly. I'm not saying a silent Let's Play is the same as a non-silent Let's Play. I'm saying that to me it still is the original good (the video game) with some "performance" on top.

I bet many younger people don't care about this distinction at all but to me it's always there and apparent. Maybe I'm just thinking about this because I studied Business Management and had some lectures about Media Management. And to be honest, if someone likes YouTube and Youtubers this distinction is irrelevant anyway. And that's totally alright.

Anyway, this is a hurtful but needed process YouTube has to go through in order to establish itself even further. I'm sure many people believe that everything was fine before that adpocalypse but that just wasn't the case.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Accurate. Even the unfortunate part about Google.



Translation: Why aren't you kids working a job where you're miserable?!

You don't earn the right to make a living off whatever you want, even if you work really hard at it. Trying to make your living off Youtube is an objectively terrible idea, because the sands can shift at any point, undermine your living, and you have no recourse (like... this present situation.)

Youtube will probably add finer controls because it's what advertisers will want, not because Youtubers complain. Because there's no one else out there who can replace Youtube, those content producers are basically stuck where they are and have no leverage. Even pewdiepie can't just secede and start his own video site.

 

[Breakfast at Noon]

Some seriously jealous peeps in here.

I feel bad for the people who will get affected by this, Hope Neebs Gaming will be OK.

"you can not monetize this video because reasons"

"we will put ads on it anyway and we will reap 100%"

 

[Messofanego]

So many Youtubers have Patreons now, so that's where they're going to look for their source of income. It sucks, but Youtube has always been an unstable business. You have to be ready for when your Youtube income goes out the door.

 

[TannerDemoz]

Which is a great thing to me, this kind of shit is not a long term job and people need to think more about their future.

I really agree with this and I'm glad others on Gaf share the same sentiment

 

[MUnited83]

Huh? Why is it Activision's fault that companies don't want to be associated with (fictional) violence?

I don't think many advertisers have any issue with fictional violence at all, it's just the YouTube settings being overzealous to the extreme and demonitasing anything that could be even slightly related to something advertisers don't want to be associated with. You can bet your ass there is a shitload of advertiser that would like to put ads on videos of one of the most popular video games in existence, but since YouTube apparently can't tell between a WWII documentary and a WWII game...

 

[Blueblur1]

Fellow GAFer and YouTuber Maximillian has been hit by this too. He's had videos demonetized and deleted due to profanity. YouTube is seriously being a major asshole.

 

[Some Nobody]

I really agree with this and I'm glad others on Gaf share the same sentiment

...Is this serious? Do you people just walk around disliking people who are doing what they enjoy for a living?

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Boo hoo.

This is precisely how I feel about streaming as well as YouTube. Good for them that they figured out how to monetize playing video games all day for a living, but don't come crying to me when the gravy train ends. They can get a day job while critiquing video games as a side Hustle just like the rest of us.

As a web marketeer; I don't want my programatic ads targeting a poor conversion rate target.

So I'm fine with this.

Most Youtubers abuse Google ads platform but provide awful conversion rate with their audiences.

I don't quite understand business because. Does this mean you would rather have control of where your ads appear? For example, if we trace this back to the Pew pie die controversy, you would like to have control over if your ad is associated with anti-semitic comments?

Google's initial intent was for YT to be basically Google Photos but for video.

Problem is it's morphed into something entirely different, and Google's never gotten a firm grasp on what it's ultimately become.

Google didn't create YouTube but purchased it from a couple of guys who created it so that there would be a reliable place to see the Janet Jackson nipple exposure during the Super Bowl.

With that in mind, definitely can't exonerate Google for not understanding its direction.

 

[Slayven]

This is not a CoD WWII problem imo, it's a Youtube problem. They don't want to regulate and take responsibility for the content they host, but they still want to attract easy advetising dollars, so the pass the burden on to content creators on their platform.

Youtubers should not lament that CoD is a WWII game or that they are considered high risk content as game streamers. They should protest to Youtube for being a garbage company run by Google, a hypocritical shitheel of a corporation.

This is true, no one wants to be associated with a platform that allows you to monetize child abuse

Wouldn't this create opportunities for a YT competitor?

No one wants to put the work in

I don't think many advertisers have any issue with fictional violence at all, it's just the YouTube settings being overzealous to the extreme and demonitasing anything that could be even slightly related to something advertisers don't want to be associated with. You can bet your ass there is a shitload of advertiser that would like to put ads on videos of one of the most popular video games in existence, but since YouTube apparently can't tell between a WWII documentary and a WWII game...

Some youtubers share some of the blame, when you have the biggest faces going full nazi. You going to have to have problems

 

[Tecnniqe]

Time to enter live streaming because YouTube don't give a fuck.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

I really hope that none of them banked on YouTube as their only source of money. They should have been investing, using patreon, or getting sponsors.

 

[Kthulhu]

More like the opposite, The day YouTube screw all those "content creator" which are usually people like me and you, they'll be unqualified to find a real job and they will struggle for the rest of their lives, seriously, I don't give a shit about people having big money for playing video games or making "critic" videos, that's good for them but the platform and the media itself is unstable, it could crumble anytime and only the biggest will be safe, you can already see Angry Joe crying everytime one of his videos get demonetized so imagine if he don't get enough money because YouTube or advertiser decides to stop there...

Well I don't give a shit at the end, just my 2 cents, secure your future dudes.

If you think your future is much more secure then these YouTubers then you're in for a rude awakening.

 

[Breakfast at Noon]

Time to enter live streaming because YouTube don't give a fuck.

Nothing better than looking up a new game and every 3 seconds you get fanfare as someone new subscribes.

 

[always crazy bacon]

Fellow GAFer and YouTuber Maximillian has been hit by this too. He's had videos demonetized and deleted due to profanity. YouTube is seriously being a major asshole.

Tough love, but it's their house and their rules. Their in it to make money for themselves not to be there to make money for Youtubers.

 

[Tecnniqe]

Nothing better than looking up a new game and every 3 seconds you get fanfare as someone new subscribes.

That's a problem with the streamer not the site

 

[faridmon]

Just another example of corporate overreach on the internet. This is really not much different to what the end of Net Neutrality would deliver. Activision get to control every aspect of what people say about their product.

In short, silencing critics outside of the official reviewer sphere.

In every thread we have people like this who never reads anything and just spot nonsense

 

[The Flash]

Would be nice if Twitch made a YouTube spin-off

 

[Fuchsdh]

This is true, no one wants to be associated with a platform that allows you to monetize child abuse


No one wants to put the work in



Some youtubers share some of the blame, when you have the biggest faces going full nazi. You going to have to have problems

At this point, can anyone save Microsoft or Apple even try? Building the kind of infrastructure that Youtube runs on is a massively expensive undertaking, and since Youtube exists there's no venture capital to blow without turning a profit in the process of making it. The chance of building a Youtube competitor was a decade ago. Now, who can compete with a service that has thousands of hours of new footage being uploaded every day?

 

[Kthulhu]

Tough love, but it's their house and their rules. Their in it to make money for themselves not to be there to make money for Youtubers.

If the YouTubers don't make money, then YouTube won't have anyone to consistently make content, meaning YouTube won't have anything to watch, meaning no one will see ads, which means YouTube makes no money.

 

[……forgetit]

Just another example of corporate overreach on the internet. This is really not much different to what the end of Net Neutrality would deliver. Activision get to control every aspect of what people say about their product.

In short, silencing critics outside of the official reviewer sphere.

Reading is hard