Does it seem as though your favorite music videos on YouTube suddenly have a much lower viewcount than before? You're not imagining things: several major record labels have seen a significant drop in overall viewcount as their music videos have moved underneath the Vevo umbrella and away from the main YouTube portal. Universal instantly "lost" over one billion views. Sony's overall count plunged from 850 million all the way down to 2.3 million. RCA saw a less drastic fall from 159 million views to 120 million. Earlier reports claimed that the lower numbers were the result of YouTube punishing record companies for artificially inflating views, though that's proven not to be the case.
Update: Billboard reports that the reasons for the slashed views could be much less controversial, theorizing that many of the cuts are a result of videos being moved to Vevo. We'll update this story further if Google provides a statement on the matter.
Update: We originally reported on the purported "stripping" of viewcounts from labels for violating YouTube's terms of service. Further research has dismissed that possibility and confirms that the viewcounts were expectedly lowered as a result of content moving to Vevo.
Comments
But since they make Google/ YouTube good money, all they did is get some views cut.
By challengeaccepted on 12.28.12 10:41am
yep. an individual? banned.
companies that pay google? slapped on the wrist.
By designerfx on 12.28.12 10:59am
would you handle it differently?
By TerionLanister on 12.28.12 12:22pm
Actually, I would. If I’m own a platform designed for, amongst others, “free speech” (YouTube – Broadcast Yourself) then I should give my paying customers as much as my non-paying users. And if that means not banning paying customers then I’ll give the same treatment to non-paying users. If they don’t get banned for this, then neither should individuals.
Besides, we’re talking about inflating viewcount, which is probably not what most individual users are accused of when being banned… But then, I don’t like users getting banned for anything that doesn’t interfere with the service running properly, including copyright or anti-institutional material – which is probably what most individuals get banned for…
Also, if Google would actually ban a record label from youtube, that’ll probably give them a little hint as to who needs to brown-nose who ;)
Disclaimer: Google fanboy here.
By Ariel Horwitz on 12.28.12 4:39pm
I’m all for keeping Google to their “Don’t do evil” motto, but to think these channels should be banned it crazy.
Think of it this way, these channels consist of (behide the scenes) people that make the music, maintain the channel, sponsor the channel, promote the channel, create the videos, etc. Then consider all the people that enjoy watching said channel. You’re saying that all those people behind the scenes should lose all future profit and anyone that watches should have to find them elsewhere all because a PR guy somewhere at the top of the chain made a poor move?
The fact that they did slap them on the wrist publicly is good punishment as it is. It’s negative PR for them. Google could have just let it all slide . Now that would have been evil.
By corylulu on 12.28.12 12:58pm
Oh give me a break… The reason all the people behind the scenes are losing all future profit is because they’re using an old model. The one that was invented long before the internet.
And the rest of the profit isn’t trickling down is because the CEO likes his cigars cuban.
By Ariel Horwitz on 12.28.12 4:42pm
Nothing wrong with that. YouTube is an expensive website. Google naturally wants to get rich.
By Antrikshy on 12.28.12 1:04pm
Yea.. and?
By Michael Evans on 12.28.12 11:03am
Do no evil that’s why. Like I always say follow the money, google like all the rest are a for profit company for those who think otherwise are simply blinded.
By toukale on 12.28.12 11:10am
You keep saying that motto. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
For profit != Evil
By silellak on 12.28.12 12:00pm
Does anybody think otherwise?
By CtrlAltDel121 on 12.28.12 12:42pm
I know they are a for profit company. But I also think it’s being run by 2 people who have a genuine passion for what they are doing, a long term vision, and a desire to avoid evil practices where they can while staying competitive. Larry Page and Surgery Brin still have majority voting power in the company and ever have I felt they are just in it for the payout like most CEO’s. They truly love what they do.
Sure they will be evil when they have to be in order to reach their long term goals, that’s a fact of life with companies. If one company adopts evil business practices, all of them have to in order to compete.
I hate to get political here, but that’s where government regulation comes in and hopefully prevents very bad business practices from happening. Companies have little power to stop them. It’s actually easier for companies to keep them going.
By corylulu on 12.28.12 1:04pm
I hate to sound overly fanboy-ish, but I don’t think that Apple or Google are companies that are motivated by profit (at least before Steve Jobs died). They’re run by people with a vision for the future and a desire to get there. They are the best types of CEO’s you can wish for. I don’t expect them to play fair all the way to achieving their goals, but most big decisions aren’t motivated by money as much as a means to get to their goals. I don’t always agree with their path to success (especially in Apples closed-system approach), but I admire the companies as companies motivated by passion.
By corylulu on 12.28.12 1:10pm
Heads of both companies have said before that money isn’t what’s scarce, it’s talented people to run the company. So in that sense you are right. Though both companies are commercial and also have to satisfy their shareholders by being financially viable and interesting. They will always remain motivated by profit because of that.
By BrightSilence on 12.28.12 1:26pm
What’s wrong with being motivated by profit? It’s how you profit that’s “good v evil”.
Making a good product that everyone wants? That’s a good way to make profits.
Cutting costs which results in cutting quality, acting against your user’s best interests, leveraging profits from one place to undercut another market with the goal of muscling the other players out to produce a monopoly or oligopoly. These are examples of evil things.
I don’t see much evil at play here. If the facts in the article are true, Google handed down a punishment that smacks the perpetrators but doesn’t punish the rest of the users by removing content that’s otherwise in demand and legally presented by its owners. Seems like a decent Solomon’s choice to me.
By Chris Subagio on 12.28.12 1:54pm
Motivation by profit isn’t really a good trait in a company. It’s what leaves your products to be designed to break in a year so you have to buy a new one or think about users/customers last when making business decisions.
People that want to make a great device (truly) design it to out-perform, last forever, update it frequently, and pay attention to the little details that don’t have any real monitor repercussions.
People that want to make a profit by making a great device make it out-perform on paper, but not in real world, lasts about 2 years so they will buy your next one, never update it because theirs no monetary benefit, and say “good enough” far too often.
By corylulu on 12.28.12 7:10pm
Actually, that’s the only trait that matters. Profit is the entire point of making a company and the only way they continue to exist.
By CtrlAltDel121 on 12.29.12 6:07pm
Who says they are thinking about their profit or the companies? Users would suffer as well if the labels were banned from YouTube. It’d basically suck for everyone, so why not give them a slap on the wrist?
By JensAstrup on 12.28.12 12:50pm
And yet they contribute so much to open source.
By Zc456 on 12.28.12 1:36pm
What if gangnam style had fake views?
By TheSebianoti on 12.28.12 10:45am
how do they count views? just click and open the video or watch n% of it? i bet that from the 1 billion views of gangnam style many many millions are open and watch first 10 seconds then enough
By tech_engineer on 12.28.12 10:46am
This kind of explains it, but it’s pretty interesting in and of itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIkhgagvrjI
By challengeaccepted on 12.28.12 10:49am
It actually doesn’t explain it much, which is the point. They call views currency for a reason. It’s what advertisers use to gauge how interesting the content is to advertise against. The higher the number the more likely the content owner is to gain money on advertising.
Like Googles pagerank algorithm this one is kept secret to prevent people gaming the system. Looks like that wasn’t completely prevented yet so far. But you can bet that when Google is able to identify the ‘illegal’ views, they will also adjust the algorithm to not count those anymore.
For us viewers it requires some trust in how Google calculates things, the actual method of measuring is probably too complex to even explain and they never will because that will immediately make it useless.
By BrightSilence on 12.28.12 1:39pm
They don’t explain in detail, so no one (including you) outside of Google really knows. That makes any assumptions just that and nothing more.
By Trent Archer on 12.28.12 10:51am
no i think it’s something different. most of these views are likely from kids – i’d say tweens and under. and a VAST percentage of thse views are repeat views.
i volunteer at a school and i’ve noticed that kids have a startlingly high tolerance for repeat viewings of things they like (including this video). then it’s total deconstruction. they break down scenes, frames, elements.
this is the kind of song (simplistic, repetitive, encourages dance and expression) that kids love.
By bewirenomali on 12.28.12 10:55am