Content is King, and Youtube’s Committing Regicide

3minute
read

Does Youtube realise where it’s money actually comes from?

In an effort to draw advertisers to the platform, which Google has been positioning as the new television for years, Youtube is clamping down on content that it believes is not ‘advertiser friendly’ by demonetising videos produced as part of its partnership program. That means creators are suddenly losing revenue due to the sudden implementation of guidelines that are at least 18 months old. While some of these do break the rules, others are being blocked simply because Youtube’s automated flagging system is too rudimentary to pick up on context.

Content that has been perceived as offensive to advertisers so far include Vlogbrothers depiction of life inside a refugee camp, Boogie2988‘s emotional dialogue about dealing with suicidal thoughts, and channels that offer support to the victims of rape.

Producers are irate, as is to be expected. Only six months ago, they fought one of their biggest battles against Youtube via the Where’s the Fair Use? campaign, which shone a damning light on the disparity between how the platform treated its partner creators and major companies like film and music distributors that had been given almost total control over deciding whether content on the site infringed on their copyrights.

While this was done in order to deflect criticism that Google’s services were being abused by pirates, this latest issue is a result of Youtube falling on ineffective practices in a short-sighted bid to reform elements of the platform to make a profit. Such is their right, some would argue, and it absolutely is, provided they’re prepared to lose in the long run.

Advertisers are not what makes Youtube money. Content is. And if Google lets itself continue to be pressured into bowing to tradition and big business, the content will find a new home.

Internet speeds are improving. More video hosting sites are appearing that can match the same speed vs quality ratio that brought creators to Youtube in the first place. And the concept of an open platform is more important than ever. Not just to creators, but to their audiences. It may be some time yet, but give producers enough reasons to move to a new service and they will.

People like (the ironically named) Defy Media’s President Keith Richman, who argue that digital media needs to act like television in order to succeed like television are wrong. There’s a reason audiences tune in en masse to online video, and it’s because creators can make content for their communities without being governed under an iron hand by the networks and the advertisers they are accountable to.

For this reason, perhaps instead of punishing content creators, Youtube should have looked at how they target their advertising instead. Using the same systems currently flagging content for demonetisation, they could deem a video suitable for mature audiences, and offer ad spots accordingly. Instead, they install promotions for Asian dating sites on broad content relating to a topic such as gaming, whether the user is watching something designed for high school teenagers or adult men and women.

They can make this even easier by allowing production partners to designate their own classifications based on new guidelines that must be far more specific than those few already published. Youtube is a fundamental service for video creators, and the vast majority will not risk their livelihood on misconstruing who their work is for.

As of now, Youtube’s only response to the outrage has been a statement to Independent stating they have not changed the definition of what is advertiser-friendly content.

So what?

If they fail to address their failing relationship with content partners soon, it’s only a matter of time before competition rises up to meet those ignored needs, and Youtube is left a husk of what it once was.

 

too many entries