YouTube adds more details, and restrictions, around which videos can be monetized

YouTube is taking new steps today to get a handle on content that might offend advertisers or, conversely, prevent a YouTube creator from monetizing their videos. Several major brands left the platform’s ad program recently to avoid being linked with hateful and offensive videos. And many creators were upset when videos they saw as benign started to be de-monetized.

YouTube has promised to give advertisers greater control over where their ads appear and to give creators a better sense of what they need to avoid if they want their videos to make money. Today the video service is expanding its creator guidelines on what constitutes an “ad-friendly” video, offering up more details about dos and don’ts, and, importantly, adding three new categories of videos that won’t be eligible for advertising.

YouTube is trying to walk a careful line with these new guidelines. The company needs to give brands more assurance that their ads won’t be placed before objectionable content, while also minimizing any negative reaction from popular creators who depend on ad revenue. It’s a necessary dance as YouTube tries to balance the freewheeling nature of creation with all the ad money flowing through its business.

The new guidelines, according to YouTube VP of product management Ariel Bardin, “take a tougher stance” on:

Hateful content: Content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity, or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization.

Inappropriate use of family entertainment characters: Content that depicts family entertainment characters engaged in violent, sexual, vile, or otherwise inappropriate behavior, even if done for comedic or satirical purposes.

Incendiary and demeaning content: Content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning. For example, video content that uses gratuitously disrespectful language that shames or insults an individual or group.

The first and second points are straightforward enough. For one, YouTube is getting much stricter about discriminatory content and making an effort to be transparent about it. The second section also makes clear that YouTube plans to crack down on videos that feature recognizable family entertainment characters in unseemly situations.

That third area, though — “incendiary and demeaning content” — might be the hardest for YouTube to incontestably define for both creators and brands. There’s plenty of room for debate over where the “gratuitous” line falls. To that end, YouTube says it’s working to improve the appeals process for creators who object to having a video marked as “not advertising friendly.”

To be clear, many videos that fall under the above descriptions will still be permitted on YouTube — they just won’t be allowed to receive advertising dollars. “We hope this additional information will provide you with more insight into the types of content that brands have told us they don’t want to advertise against and help you to make more informed content decisions,” said Bardin.

Comments

Looks like the spiderman and elsa boom is over.

my 5 year old freaking loves those weird videos lol, i would mind if they disappeared

You can’t "lose" money you never had. They simply aren’t making the money they expected to.

That sucks for them, but when you use somebody else’s privately-owned service to make money, you’re subject to their whims and rule changes. That’s just part of the deal. You make money for only as long as YouTube judges it’s in their interests for you to do so. Not yours.

So, if you get an amount of money for months or years and all of a sudden you stop receiving Ninety-Eight Percent of it, you don’t think that’s losing money? They most certainly had it.

Unless you have already earned and are owed that money then you don’t have it. They are entitled to nothing until they have accrued the ad dollars from their monetized material. Sucks but what badasscat posted above is correct.

Nope.

Let’s be clear though. WWE has not lost massive amounts of money due to these rules. WWE has an advertisement team & they work directly with brands to have specific content advertised against their YouTube videos. Hence why many of the ads that play alongside their videos often have WWE Superstars in them promoting these products. They have circumvented YouTube’s own algorithm by working directly with these companies & having them create ads that directly target WWE’s YouTube channel. It’s a luxury they can afford being a huge company with the resources & time necessary to build these advertiser relationships & hire professionals to sell those ads. Also being such a huge company advertisers often want their ads placed next to their content & will attempt to outbid others for that right.

WCPW on the other hand does not have the same level of resources WWE has & thus they are affected FAR worse.

I really meant channels that are related to WWE or independent wrestling rather than WWE themselves.

They can replace "incendiary and demeaning content" for "any right/conservative/critic of left content" and be more honest about.

Um, no. The monetization hit many leftwing media and pundit channels as well.

Example, Secular Talk got incredibly demonetized and had to start a patreon.

Philip DeFranco being another who leans more to the left, as well.

The main criticism is this adds a conservative establishment bias onto channels, discouraging extreme viewpoints, and criticism of established popular point of views.

But this is how all media works. It starts out fringe, and grows more and more to be a gatekeeper of established point of views, and extremes move on to newer platforms.

So then they’ll move onto other platforms. So be it. YouTube is a private company focused on doing what’s best for its business. If "extreme" views are harming it, it makes absolute sense to demonitize that content so Advertisers aren’t put off from promoting on their platform.

Yes they need to do more to make sure they aren’t demobilizing the "wrong things" but people always want these private companies to be more than self-interest based entities. I’m sorry YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. care about their bottom line, their image & have their own core values. They have every right to.

I’d say good luck to all those rightfully affected. Their main source of income will have to be their fan base. I don’t see how any other platform for them will in any way entice advertisers to place content against their videos. They’ll have to work with advertisers directly & partner with folk who support their message & believe in their brand.

Its definitely a complex issue. I remain removed since I not only do not create content for Youtube, I pay for Youtube Red and give more money to the videos I watch than advertisers pay.

its not their fault right wing people are disrespectful towards other peoples existence

"and often don’t want people different from them to exist at all"

Unless they are fetuses.

But then once they are born to poor, unwed, single mothers they join the scourge of the earth group.

sums it up pretty neatly and accurately

The firearms channels I sub to have had an 85% reduction in income

Boohoo

Boohoo

Boo hoo

Wonderful news.

Wow Youtube is going to be a fun place from now on, I hope that Franku and Ethan Kline could manage to get money from other sources to keep on.

View All Comments
Back to top ↑