Support NeoGAF

[atomsk]

Is there an option to label something as "video game" or "video game content" or "video game gameplay"?

EDIT: "sensitive content" is a pretty general toggle

For the end user, yes.

You can even specify the exact game you are playing.

The current workaround if you've got a huge daily subscriber base watching your videos is to NOT tell YouTube what you're playing in the tag/title/description, and it should make the regular money.

The problem with that is it limits you from gaining new audience, which is essential.

 

[SUPGUYZ]

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.

To be fair, lots of these YouTubers will be just fine if they have to move to a new platform.

 

[True Fire]

Honestly, YouTube as it exists today is unsustainable, and there's going to be a market correction. I feel bad for YouTubers, but it's going to happen.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Got it. Ya, not that familiar with how YT works. Regarding self governance .. yes, it would be difficult but YT has the governor is more of a mess. If you don't check of 'sensitive content' or label it something that it is not .. maybe you don't deserve the advertising dollars.

Is there an option to label something as "video game" or "video game content" or "video game gameplay"?

EDIT: "sensitive content" is a pretty general toggle

I don't actually know the exact labels they use. I think you can filter on a few, like politics, religion, sensitive, etc.

But this stuff has been the norm forever in other media. The same reason you don't see certain programs before 8PM or something, or why tv won't show sex and cursing. It's all so that advertisers can't get upset about it. And we will see the same rules apply to the internet over time. Nothing really wrong with it, but the wild west is a bit over.

At the moment here in Holland we see the same thing, with advertisers pulling their campaigns from some blogs due to sexist content for example. Advertisers are getting aware where their ads are actually shown and are not happy about it.

 

[FinalAres]

This has never been a thing. Michael Bay still makes bank off the Transformer movies, while there are great films that barely profit.

Nooo....

Michael Bay films aren't critically lauded by any stretch, but there's no denying they're a good product. A ton of effort, money, design, management and risk goes in to them.

Youtubing isn't easy, but its biggest investment is usually one guy's time. If someone was doing something particularly inventive, or hard-hitting then they'd be much more deserving of that amount of money.

I'll just say this again because I imagine people won't go back to my previous comments. I'm not against Youtubing, and I do value it as a proper career. But the quality is generally really quite low. There seems to be more interest in complaining about pay going down, than actually trying to improve the product to make people want to watch.

 

[Plum]

You would think that Youtube would realize that there are audiences of all ages and how much like channels on a TV, there are some that aren't exactly aimed at children. It would be like saying that History channel can't air any content from WW2 because it can be too graphic for kids. A ridiculous example of course, but that is how some are viewing this whole mess right now.

Except the way Youtube doles out advertisements and the way TV does so is so inherently different that any comparisons are moot. In TV the network has a certain number of ad-slots for every show it airs, and then, because of the decreased amount of content, it sells those slots off to advertisers on a case-by-case basis. So, to use your WW2 example, a mature documentary for WW2 might air adverts for more adult-orientated products such as cars or insurance (to put it simply); whereas if the history channel were airing a light-hearted show aimed at kids it would sell its slots to toy companies and the like. Another example on the other side might be Nintendo who, during the Superbowl, aired an advert for Zelda whereas if they were to buy a slot on Cartoon Network it would be for Splatoon 2 or Mario Kart instead.

However, with Youtube, advertisers say what demographics they want to market to alongside some other basic and easy-to-avoid descriptors and then that's it, what videos their adverts fall on are left in the digital hands of Youtube's algorithms. The sheer level of content, even monetized, is so large that it's financially impossible for either Google or advertisers to do things like they do with TV, Cinema, etc. So, potentially, someone who wants to market to Males Aged 20-30 with an interest in video-games may end up with their videos on a racist tirade about how Mafia 3 had a black protagonist. Or, as the lines blur between what demographics watch, an alcohol company could end up with their adverts being shown to minors which would a PR nightmare if found out. Only now they're starting to add in what they don't want to have their videos put on, so to re-use the Nintendo example above, if they're looking to put Splatoon 2 adverts on Youtube they might not want those be seen on videos which feature violence of profanity so they blacklist them.

 

[tokkun]

Gee, who could have predicted this?

Be prepared for this to have an effect similar to the DMCA takedowns.

People are mad about how Nintendo can make a DMCA claim on anyone who does a Let's Play video of one of their games or features some clip of it in a review. You already have a chilling effect where people don't want to cover Nintendo games because they cannot monetize those videos. The same thing will happen with any video that covers issues of racism, sexism, or gender identity, from a perspective you agree with. They will run the risk of getting falsely labeled as hate speech, either due to misdetection by some automated algorithm or because malicious users who disagree with the message report them. Pretty soon we will have topics here about how every Feminist Frequency video is getting de-monetized because GamerGaters are coordinating to report them as hate speech. Some people will simply choose to stop talking about any controversial topic to avoid the headaches.

The companies will be happy. Bad users will suffer, but some good users will suffer as well. Maybe you still think this is a worthwhile tradeoff to reduce real hate speech (much as DMCA takedowns reduce real copyright infringement) - I won't judge that. But I hope people realize what it is they are asking for here. If you think this is as simple as only hurting the actual hate speech videos, you are being incredibly naive.

Of course GAFfers in that thread were falling all over themselves to support the idea of advertisers getting the ability to pull ads when it would hurt YouTubers they didn't like. Now they are mad that they got what they asked for.

 

[Joni]

It makes sense to me that advertisers can decide at which type of users and video they want to aim their ads. Yes, that has negative consequences for some YouTubers but it is their company money to spend and they want a specific audience.

 

[KDC720]

I imagine this is going to be super troubling for a lot of content creators on Youtube sooner rather than later.

I can't say I blame the advertisers though, if they don't want their brands associated with some of these creators then they absolutely have the right to pull out. It is incredibly unfortunate for content creators though, and admittedly I am worried about what will happen to some of my favorite channels. I expect a lot of Patreons to start popping up.

Hopefully most channels had the foresight to actually see that the bubble would eventually burst, but I sadly doubt a lot of them will survive it.

 

[RadMcCool]

I don't get this... Why can't youtube just keep the old system of random adds based on viewers location etc.?

I get its better for the advertiser to avoid controversy but what user of youtube can't tell the connections are arbitrary? This all reads like a controlling device to force content creators to be as passive as possible.
Advertisers aren't going to abandon the largest media platform on the planet because they might have their ad shown before some right wing nut job. They can make demands for how much they'll pay but really it's google with all the power and data.
Also advertising isn't just letting people know a product/service exists, more often than not ads are designed to manipulate the viewer. Allowing advertisers to pick and choose where and when their ads are shown only empowers them to control people better.

The whole thing is a bit of a clusterfuck. It's insane how much storage google gives everyone with a youtube account. That shit is expensive. But shouldn't we be looking at this from the perspective of whats good for the most people rather than the minority?

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

Allow me to play the world's smallest violin for the utub'ers. Who gives a shit?

 

[The Lamonster]

Allow me to play the world's smallest violin for the utub'ers. Who gives a shit?

Just because you don't agree with a profession doesn't mean people deserve to lose their jobs. Have some compassion, man. These people have families to support.

Also if you step back and look at the big picture, you'll see a very troubling trend of increased censorship on the internet.

 

[tokkun]

Advertisers aren't going to abandon the largest media platform on the planet because they might have their ad shown before some right wing nut job.

They already did. See this thread of GAFfers mostly cheering them on:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1354954

 

[Gator86]

Just because you don't agree with a profession doesn't mean people deserve to lose their jobs. Have some compassion, man. These people have families to support.

Also if you step back and look at the big picture, you'll see a very troubling trend of increased censorship on the internet.

None of this is censorship in literally any way. They're just receiving less advertising-based revenue. Is the right to subsist on making YouTube videos becoming a 1st amendment freedom of speech issue now?

 

[KingGreasy]

Has YouTube ever had a profitable year? If advertisers were pulling out, their already unprofitable business was becoming even more of a revenue drain. Sucks for content creators but relying on YouTube as the unchecked middle-man to advertisers really puts them at risk. On Twitch what I see is that people build their audience taking in small ad revenue and then start making money from subs, donation, patreon, and from working out direct sponsorships and pretty much stop running ads. There are still ads from the start of the video that go to Twitch unless a user has Twitch Prime, but the streamers that build a regular large audience eventually stop initiating ads from their end and rely on revenue they have more direction on.

YouTuber's will have to adapt. Build audience, personally seek out sponsors and plant them directly in the video. While they won't get YouTube advertising dollars and their overall pay would probably go down, they at least now have more say in the sourcing of their income. Advertisers were going to want more control over branding eventually. With TV in decline, they can pay more attention to where their online ads are showing up. Internet advertising will be interesting to see how it gets handled over the years. So many websites ads are sourced from ad networks but now advertisers may start looking at websites the ad networks are placing their ads at

 

[mr teaspoon]

Like saying all entertainers need to get a real job..

Not at all. That's like lumping a bored child flicking his boogers against the wall and Stephen Colbert, because they're both "performers."

Ah yes, the rallying cry of everyone who is stuck working in a cubicle.

Oh god, fuckin' irony alert. It's such sad, stale bullshit to really and seriously bank your entire argument on, "You're just jealous!"

 

[The Lamonster]

None of this is censorship in literally any way. They're just receiving less advertising-based revenue. Is the right to subsist on making YouTube videos becoming a 1st amendment freedom of speech issue now?

I'm not talking about legal rights and freedoms. I'm talking about a shift to the right (wing) as advertisers become more conservative, which limits the entertainment we'll be able to consume going forward and limits artists' expressions.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I'm not talking about legal rights and freedoms. I'm talking about a shift to the right (wing) as advertisers become more conservative, which limits the entertainment we'll be able to consume going forward and limits artists' expressions.

The shift to the right wing? Advertisers being concerned they are placing their products next to possibly offensive, violent, sexist or racist content is right wing and conservative?

Advertisers pulling their budgets and demanding Youtube give them more options was because they didn't want their products next to those far right videos.

 

[LordRaptor]

I'm not talking about legal rights and freedoms. I'm talking about a shift to the right (wing) as advertisers become more conservative, which limits the entertainment we'll be able to consume going forward and limits artists' expressions.

If you consider yourself 'an artist' and your income was entirely from the advertising industry, you already sold out, don't try and play the 'artistic freedom' card

 

[SuperRaddy]

Boohoo ?

 

[Karppuuna]

OMG those youtubers are going to die starvation now, help those poor bastards and give them money.

 

[gamerMan]

This happens all the time in business. If you are building a business on somebody else's business you are going to have to play by their rules. You can't bitch and moan about it. You have to adapt. It comes with the territory.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Allow me to play the world's smallest violin for the utub'ers. Who gives a shit?

I wonder how you'd feel if you suddenly lost your income

 

[SimpleCRIPPLE]

There's a surprising amount of animosity in this thread towards career YouTubers.

Just because you don't agree with their job, doesn't mean they deserve to have their livelihood taken away because of a poorly implemented rule change.

Just because you don't think creating content is a "real job", doesn't change the fact that what many of us did in our 20's, isn't what we settled on doing in our 30's and 40's. How's that band of yours going?

Just because you are not interested in the content, doesn't mean that there isn't a sizable viewership that is, which is how so many have managed to earn a living as a content creators.

 

[FinalAres]

I wonder how you'd feel if you suddenly lost your income

This is a silly argument, sorry.

These people should be under no illusions. They are working for their advertisers. If I didn't do what my bosses were telling me to do at work, I should absolutely expect to lose my income. No one is entitled to free advertiser money, advertisers should get to choose what they advertise on.

If they want to work for their viewers instead, do patreon.

 

[RichiRamjag]

This is a silly argument, sorry.

These people should be under no illusions. They are working for their advertisers. If I didn't do what my bosses were telling me to do at work, I should absolutely expect to lose my income. No one is entitled to free advertiser money, advertisers should get to choose what they advertise on.

If they want to work for their viewers instead, do patreon.

Agree with this 100 percent. I don't care how they make their money, but when your career is based on someone else's platform, then maybe you should have a backup plan. I'll gladly support a patreon.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I wonder how you'd feel if you suddenly lost your income

It would suck. But I made a choice to start my own business, just like these Youtubers have. Greater rewards, also greater risks. Otherwise I'd just work somewhere and if I got fired get unemployment benefits until I can find something new.

This is also the reason the first thing you do when starting a business is making sure you are not getting all your money from 1 source, because it can be cut of tomorrow when a dude there decides he doesn't like you anymore.

 

[mr teaspoon]

Just because you don't agree with their job, doesn't mean they deserve to have their livelihood taken away because of a poorly implemented rule change.

Just because you don't think creating content is a "real job", doesn't change the fact that what many of us did in our 20's, isn't what we settled on doing in our 30's and 40's. How's that band of yours going?

I don't get it. My fictitious band failed, and everyone who cautioned me not to count a music career as my main income was right.

 

[Dynasty]

Dont feel sorry for any COD YouTuber in this posistion because this situation was a long time coming, they should prepare for the day COD dies(even if it never happens) Diversify your income, diversify your content. A lot of the smarter YouTubers realised this and started streaming on Twitch as a second source of income, started doing in-built adds, made the content less reliant on a singular game and more on the personality.

 

[Thursday War]

how fucking retarded can youtube be

they obviously don't care for their content creators if they keep on limiting their fucking content with dumbass "brand controls" like what kinda pussy shit is that

jesus christ

 

[killroy87]

This is a silly argument, sorry.

These people should be under no illusions. They are working for their advertisers. If I didn't do what my bosses were telling me to do at work, I should absolutely expect to lose my income. No one is entitled to free advertiser money, advertisers should get to choose what they advertise on.

If they want to work for their viewers instead, do patreon.

Agree with this 100 percent. I don't care how they make their money, but when your career is based on someone else's platform, then maybe you should have a backup plan. I'll gladly support a patreon.

Yup, agree on all of this. Even for people with Patreons, putting all of your eggs in YouTube's basket is risky. Sites like Giant Bomb might have massive overhead in regards to supplying their own infrastructure, but at least they have some element of control.

Video hosting is so expensive. SOOOOOO expensive. And for millions of people to be able to make an income without ever having to worry about that, both in terms of upkeep and as an expense (beyond giving YT their cut) it something that shouldn't be taken for granted.

 

[The Illiterati]

I would assume Activision is just as upset about this as the streamers. I can't see it remaining this way. You have Mountain Dew and fast food and violent video games associating together and these companies truly don't care, and they certainly don't lump COD WII in with real life terrorist videos. So I imagine the streamers don't have to worry too much as the developers themselves will be fighting to get this changed.

 

[Gator86]

I'm not talking about legal rights and freedoms. I'm talking about a shift to the right (wing) as advertisers become more conservative, which limits the entertainment we'll be able to consume going forward and limits artists' expressions.

People have already called you on this, but if you're doing art in a commercial venue, using someone else's commercial platform, dancing for ad dollars, you don't get to complain about censorship. It's called living in reality.

 

[MUnited83]

For the people defending YouTube, don't you think they are taking somewhat of a indiscriminate sledgehammer into the issue? One thing is advertisers not wanting to associate with offensive content, but I'm pretty sure that many advertisers are pretty darn fine with being associated with one of the most sucessful videogames in the entire market. YouTube is breaking the glass instead of cleaning the stains.

 

[Plum]

For the people defending YouTube, don't you think they are taking somewhat of a indiscriminate sledgehammer into the issue? One thing is advertisers not wanting to associate with offensive content, but I'm pretty sure that many advertisers are pretty darn fine with being associated with one of the most sucessful videogames in the entire market. YouTube is breaking the glass instead of cleaning the stains.

Of course, but as has been said that doesn't excuse not being prepared for such a scenario. The thing is, without advertisers, there is no Youtube; it's already a highly unprofitable business for Google (well, Alphabet) and after recent events (thanks, Pewdiepie!) and other information they had to do something fast. If they aren't working very, very hard on an improved automatic system then they're utter asses; this definitely needs fixing ASAP. I just don't think going straight to "what cunts they don't care about anything!" is a very wise position to take, especially if you're a Youtuber yourself.

 

[AlimNassor]

This sets a bad precedent and I'm not surprised people are defending. When push comes to shove, gaffers are generally pro-corporation.

 

[oti]

For the people defending YouTube, don't you think they are taking somewhat of a indiscriminate sledgehammer into the issue? One thing is advertisers not wanting to associate with offensive content, but I'm pretty sure that many advertisers are pretty darn fine with being associated with one of the most sucessful videogames in the entire market. YouTube is breaking the glass instead of cleaning the stains.

YouTube is a terrible system. TERRIBLE. It doesn't know what it wants to be and Google lacks commitment to make hurtful decision and follow them through. The way they're handling this is just another example of their incompetence.

That doesn't change the very basic advice to entrepreneurs, because that's what full-time Youtubers are, to not base their entire income on a terrible system.

This sets a bad precedent and I'm not surprised people are defending. When push comes to shove, gaffers are generally pro-corporation.

There's a difference between "pro-corporation" and pro-common sense. Companies don't want their products associated with violent content. YouTube as a system is not flexible enough to distinguish between real violence and fictional violence. That also is something one has to consider if that's their primary income.

 

[Gator86]

This sets a bad precedent and I'm not surprised people are defending. When push comes to shove, gaffers are generally pro-corporation.

Are there that many people vigorously defending this? It seems like most are just saying some variant of "saw this coming/it's not surprising/YouTube is a shaky foundation to base earnings off."

Oti's post right above mine nails it.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

I feel like most of the channels I watch (not just gaming) have had to make a statement that their content is inevitably going to slow down if this monetization issue goes on any longer because they obviously can't get by with a 90% revenue cut.

I'm always the first to say that YouTubers get too comfy when it comes to the sustainability of the career, but I usually mean it in regards to holding on to a strong viewership, not YouTube arbitrarily deciding that your content isnt going to get money anymore. I don't think it's right to shit on the YouTubers in this case.

 

[HotHamBoy]

It is very difficult for me to feel sorry for streamers.

If you can make money doing it, then great! More power to you.

If you can't, well, adapt or die. Find a new shtick. If you are truly talented and driven you'll find your future.

I'm not defending youtube, I'm just indifferent towards Youtube Culture.

 

[More_Badass]

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.

If people can have careers doing podcasts and creating podcasting networks, why should Youtube be different?

 

[zelas]

Gee, who could have predicted this?



Of course GAFfers in that thread were falling all over themselves to support the idea of advertisers getting the ability to pull ads when it would hurt YouTubers they didn't like. Now they are mad that they got what they asked for.

They asked for the general idea, not this specific execution. Stop acting like the current system can't be improved. And stop trying to make it seem all GAFers have some personal vendetta against specific youtubers instead of just wanting to see objectionable content limited.

 

[lowhighkang_LHK]

What the...

Activision has nothing to do with this, its a YouTube issue

Yeah. And in a lot of ways it's not so much a Youtube issue moreso than what the advertisers want. Advertisers are basically the god-figure in this three way relationship between them, youtube, and the content providers/channel holders.

Because the advertisers are supplying the money, it's their right to say we don't want our ads running with content that has X, Y and Z. And youtube is beholden to that. Granted, youtube can continually make improvements on auto-content detection, but such is the nature of any kind of business relationship in which one party holds all the power.

It's the shittiest thing about having youtube as a job. You get paid like shit, youtube and the advertisers can basically do whatever they want, and you really have no leverage on your end, unless you are like PewDiePie or something. It sucks all around.

 

[Plum]

I feel like most of the channels I watch (not just gaming) have had to make a statement that their content is inevitably going to slow down if this monetization issue goes on any longer because they obviously can't get by with a 90% revenue cut.

I'm always the first to say that YouTubers get too comfy when it comes to the sustainability of the career, but I usually mean it in regards to holding on to a strong viewership, not YouTube arbitrarily deciding that your content isnt going to get money anymore. I don't think it's right to shit on the YouTubers in this case.

When you place your content on a platform which is 1) entirely out of your control and 2) very expensive/not profitable for the owner themselves something like this should, at the very least, be seen as a potential emergency. I'd liken it to busking (though, of course, a lot larger in most cases); your day-to-day worry is how you're going to keep money coming in but you should always prepare for the day when your busking license is revoked or they just decide to kick you out.

Nobody's shitting on Youtubers, but cases like this just highlight how fragile their profession is and instead of going "it's Youtube's fault!!!" it should be a sign to set up a Patreon, find supporters, etc. It's just how the world works; stable employment is something very, very few have the privilege of enjoying, so if you have any way to create a safety net for if/when you lose your income (which is a privilege in and of itself) you should take it.

EDIT: Well, when I say "Nobody's shitting on Youtubers" I mean the posters who aren't just saying "not a real job!!!" Should really have said something along the lines of "People offering advice aren't shitting on Youtubers."

 

[blastprocessor]

I saw that PewDiePie was doing a live gaming stream and donations flowing in. Dunno felt like he was desperate for cash.

 

[lowhighkang_LHK]

Companies don't want their products associated with violent content. YouTube as a system is not flexible enough to distinguish between real violence and fictional violence. That also is something one has to consider if that's their primary income.

It's interesting to consider, if youtube has to step it's game up in order to better create content identification to properly respect the wishes of the advertisers while making sure content isn't improperly flagged, than whatever method they implement is going to cost money. If they hire an army of moderators or support staff, this cost money. If they initiate massive R and D to creating software that can help, that also cost money. And youtube will likely alter revenue sharing in order to recoup those costs.

The bottom line is that some of you aren't getting is that the advertisers have a right to say where, what, who and how their product is getting advertised. They are paying for it, so they get to dictate things. If I'm advertising my surgery center, and I say I don't want my ad playing on videos with violence, sexual themes or profanity, it's my right to dictate that since I'm paying for youtube sevices, and I expect youtube to play my ads on appropriate channels. In this scenario, neither the advertiser or youtube is the bad guy here. And this back and forth happens in a lot of things. Adjustments need to be made and if now content creators need to be more PG in their videos, then that's what they need to do. It's the same when a production studio has no choice to make their (should be R rated movie) PG-13. You have to adapt to the business environment or risk becoming obsolete.

I think the problem is that youtube doesn't know want to cough up the money and time required in order to implement better content identification.

 

[koss424]

It is Youtube's right to determine policy. That's the risk you take when you rely on a third party for your revenue. However, I can see Youtube backing down a bit on some of videos.

 

[koss424]

Being a youtuber is a real job.

Producing online video content is a real job. The problem arises when they have to rely on Youtube to deliver their content.

 

[oti]

.

Great post. People underestimate what of an undertaking this would be. They believe YouTube works just fine as is. That shows a severe lack of understanding of how the real world works.

It's funny, actually. Didn't YouTube try to implement community-driven moderation with the YouTube Heroes program? I don't remember how that went but I do remember the severe pushback of the community. They feared trolls would abuse the system to shut down specific YouTubers.

This whole platform has so many issues to overcome in order to become that marketplace some want. The YouTube of today can not survive.

 

[Lemondish]

Well there is Twitch.


Sad thing They most likely blame Wall Street Journal. While they should blame Youtube.

YouTube is responding to advertisers who are rightfully concerned that their advertisements will be seen as de facto support for inappropriate content.

Honestly, I blame all the people who don't realize that AT&T isn't going around selecting offensive videos to put ads on. It's automated advertising, you idiots lol