# YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible

• [jeffing imminent]

Ok, I think I got all of them. If anyone sees any posts about this that aren't in this topic, flag them or whatever.

• My total revenue for the last 4 weeks: \$0.36
My views in the last 4 weeks: 212

YouTube estimates the following advertising revenue per thousand views for my channel:

USA - \$2796.40
UK - \$1755.30
Germany - \$1471.30
Poland - \$1296.30
Sweden - \$606.20
Estonia - \$6121.90

Math question: How many monetized views have I had?

• @ben_lubar maybe the monetization function is nonlinear

• @bb36e said in WTF Bites:

@ben_lubar maybe the monetization function is nonlinear

I'm wondering if their chart shows tenths of cents formatted as tenths of dollars. That would explain why it's always a multiple of 10 cents.

• @ben_lubar said in WTF Bites:

My total revenue for the last 4 weeks: \$0.36
[...] advertising revenue per thousand views [...]
Math question: How many monetized views have I had?

• @lb_ said in WTF Bites:

@ben_lubar said in WTF Bites:

My total revenue for the last 4 weeks: \$0.36
[...] advertising revenue per thousand views [...]
Math question: How many monetized views have I had?

The beta version of the studio shows me as having earned \$0.02 less, so does that mean I earned TWO ENTIRE CENTS today?

• @ben_lubar said in WTF Bites:

I earned TWO ENTIRE CENTS today?

YouTube just wants to give you it's two cents. Maybe if you ask nicely it will have some useful advice!

• @tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:

• @lb_ said in WTF Bites:

@tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:

YouTube apparently has no wisdom for me...

• Funny comment will appear here.

• @ben_lubar Proper emoji will appear here.

• @lb_ said in WTF Bites:

Did they fix it to actually give a share to small fries? YouTube Red used to be only distributed to like the top 1,000 channels or something shitty, which is why I never bought it on principle.

• @blakeyrat said in WTF Bites:

@lb_ said in WTF Bites:

Did they fix it to actually give a share to small fries? YouTube Red used to be only distributed to like the top 1,000 channels or something shitty, which is why I never bought it on principle.

• @blakeyrat said in WTF Bites:

@lb_ said in WTF Bites:

Did they fix it to actually give a share to small fries? YouTube Red used to be only distributed to like the top 1,000 channels or something shitty, which is why I never bought it on principle.

Doesn't it just distribute to every partner video you watch? Since you're skipping the ad?

• Status: All I need to do to comply with this new YouTube rule and not have my ability to schedule videos to be published revoked is increase my total subscriber count by 1900% in the next 35 days.

Seems like a reasonable thing to ask.

• Seems like a reasonable thing to ask.

Eh, I'm sure there are some pretty cheap services out there to get a small bump. ⭕🔘👶

• @Tsaukpaetra Their new algorithm will consider a channel "healthy" once it has 1000 subscribers and 4000 minutes of watch time per year. Which means that a channel that gets the same ratio of sub views versus guest views as mine would be "healthy" if it had an average of 32.88 seconds per year watched by each subscriber.

• @ben_lubar
Filed under: Like and subscribe below!

• @ben_lubar wait, their requirement is 4000 hours? But there's nowhere in their UI that ever shows watch time as hours. Did they phrase it that way just to seem like it was reasonable?

"Yeah, we used to require 10,000 lifetime views, but now it's 240,000 minutes per year and 1,000 people must see every video you post as soon as you post it. Because that's going to stop abuses of our system like Logan Paul and PewDiePie."

• My YouTube channel has had 98 views so far this year (2018).

My tweet I posted less than an hour ago has:

• My tweet I posted

You should tweet the following:

@YouTube is going to demonetize my channel because I don't have 1k subs. Help a budding tuber get some love? #likeandsubscribe

• My tweet I posted

You should tweet the following:

@YouTube is going to demonetize my channel because I don't have 1k subs. Help a budding tuber get some love? #likeandsubscribe

People are attempting to do that in the comments for the article, but what they don't realize is that 240,000 minutes of yearly view time isn't going to magically happen just because a bunch of random people who don't care about your content subscribe.

• view time

I wonder, does the algorythm count re-views as extra watch time? I could set up an account to loop a playlist at 144p all day and see...

• view time

I wonder, does the algorythm count re-views as extra watch time? I could set up an account to loop a playlist at 144p all day and see...

Probably, because my average watch time per view is 4 minutes and I only have one video that's that short and it's unlisted. (See garden thread in lounge.)

• Probably

Hold my water, I'm going to enlist one of my VMs in the cause of wasted bandwidth!

Edit: Enlisted! Congratulations, @ben_lubar on your 51st sub!

Edit edit: Also, Edge is fuckin' terrible....

• @tsaukpaetra so your plan is to waste bandwidth so you can make my analytics less reliable? Why?

• Why?

I figure I can at least get you 43200 minutes of watch time per month.

It won't really mess with your analytics that much, will it? I mean, who actually watches YouTube in 144p that's not on a 2G connection?

• Also it was about halfway through the nine-hour meeting

If you were awake at that point, they should give you a promotion ... and a medal.

no longer eligible for monetization

What does that actually mean?
That they will disable advertisements for small channels, or that they will keep them but stop giving money to the channels?

my ability to schedule videos to be published

There seems to be an API where you can set `privacyStatus`.

• I could set up an account to loop a playlist at 144p all day and see...

No idea what YT will do if they detect you're trying to inflate views, but none of my guesses actually help Ben very much.

"But how do they know it's not really..." There's no virtue in trying to be clever here. If you haven't gotten that they don't care by this point, you're not paying attention.

• What does that actually mean?
That they will disable advertisements for small channels, or that they will keep them but stop giving money to the channels?

You know it's #2.

• budding tuber

• You know it's #2.

• @pie_flavor It didn't used to. Does it now? I dunno, apparently, since Ben got a little cha-ching from it.

• my ability to schedule videos to be published

There seems to be an API where you can set `privacyStatus`.

I originally joined the partner program to get access to scheduling videos but it seems like the email was badly worded and the only thing I'm losing access to is the ability to earn \$2.70 over the course of 2 years.

• Status: All I need to do to comply with this new YouTube rule and not have my ability to schedule videos to be published revoked is increase my total subscriber count by 1900% in the next 35 days.

Seems like a reasonable thing to ask.

As someone working on a YouTube project, this post was incredibly disheartening up until I remembered that, up front, we decided not to use YouTube monetization.

• @weng I think I was confused by the terrible line break placement:

To rephrase YouTube's blog post in a way that actually makes sense, 99% of the people on this program who are being removed don't get paid at all some years, and 90% get paid less than once every 3 years. (You get paid only when your threshold gets hit, which is at minimum \$100.)

As long as I'm not losing access to the features I signed up for the partner program for (scheduled videos mainly, but also custom thumbnails and a few other things, all of which it looks like are now available to non-partner channels), I don't really care.

• @pie_flavor said in WTF Bites:

@blakeyrat said in WTF Bites:

@lb_ said in WTF Bites:

Did they fix it to actually give a share to small fries? YouTube Red used to be only distributed to like the top 1,000 channels or something shitty, which is why I never bought it on principle.

Doesn't it just distribute to every partner video you watch? Since you're skipping the ad?

Ideally it should distribute to creators based on your watch time, but originally (or so I've heard) it would pool all YouTube Red revenue into a single pool, and distribute it to all YouTube creators based on how much watchtime they accrued.

If you pay \$10 for YouTube Red and you ONLY watch one person, and all that person's watch time comes from you only, ideally all your money (minus YouTube's cut) should go to that one person. What was actually happening is that a majority of your money would've been going to the big YouTubers you didn't watch because they had so much more watchtime than the one person you watched.

I think it's fixed now based on my own numbers, but I have no idea.

In semi-related news:
YouTube To Demonetize Channels It Deems Too Small – 09:10
— Jim Sterling

• @weng I think I was confused by the terrible line break placement:

To rephrase YouTube's blog post in a way that actually makes sense, 99% of the people on this program who are being removed don't get paid at all some years, and 90% get paid less than once every 3 years. (You get paid only when your threshold gets hit, which is at minimum \$100.)

As long as I'm not losing access to the features I signed up for the partner program for (scheduled videos mainly, but also custom thumbnails and a few other things, all of which it looks like are now available to non-partner channels), I don't really care.

Ok, this is really dumb. If I met the view time requirement, I would be hitting the payment threshold two and a half times per day. Does YouTube think anyone who doesn't earn \$92K per year from ads isn't worth paying?

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(4000+hours+per+year)+%2F+(4+minutes+%2B+56+seconds)+*+(268+%2F+1985)+*+\$14.08+in+days+per+\$100

Turns out my math was wrong:

• @ben_lubar In other words, their investors are complaining about carrying so many debts on the balance sheet year to year, most of which will likely never actually be paid

• @weng said in The Official Status Thread:

@ben_lubar In other words, their investors are complaining about carrying so many debts on the balance sheet year to year, most of which will likely never actually be paid

The email from YouTube said this:

While our goal remains to keep the YPP open to as many channels as possible, we recognize we need more safeguards in place to protect creator revenue across the YouTube ecosystem.

Which means their definition of "as many channels as possible" is "channels earning 36% more than the median household income in the USA (2016) just from ad revenue".

See https://twitter.com/BenLubar/status/953687726016155649 for why I'm wrong.

• @ben_lubar oh, that much? Maybe this will finally be the end of clickbait YouTubers, which would be a great thing for my effort.

• @weng said in The Official Status Thread:

@ben_lubar oh, that much? Maybe this will finally be the end of clickbait YouTubers, which would be a great thing for my effort.

I predict it will result in more clickbait because the watch time requirement is so high.

• I have 4x as much watch time as they want (and yes I did convert minutes to hours) but until I get 200 more subscribers I apparently don't bring enough value to their platform to be worth it to them.

Update: YouTube Partner Program – 09:49
— Creator Insider

They're saying we should preemptively disable monetization on videos that are normally flagged by the algorithm... ?

• @LB_ What does the subscriber requirement even accomplish? My channel has 271 lifetime views from subscribers and 13,193 lifetime views from non-subscribers. If I were to get 1000 subscribers with that ratio, that would mean 49,000 non-subscribers would be watching my videos.

• What does the subscriber requirement even accomplish?

It's probably a good predictor of future success. You only have access to your data, which is tiny and not very interesting. Presumably they've looked at a lot of data. It might also be something that advertisers want. That is, they want their ads to be seen by lots of people.

• What does the subscriber requirement even accomplish?

It's probably a good predictor of future success. You only have access to your data, which is tiny and not very interesting. Presumably they've looked at a lot of data. It might also be something that advertisers want. That is, they want their ads to be seen by lots of people.

But the 240,000 minutes of watch time already accomplishes that. They could have required a certain number of unique viewers instead of 1,000 subscribers. In my situation, 98% of my viewers don't count towards that requirement.

• @ben_lubar wait, their requirement is 4000 hours? But there's nowhere in their UI that ever shows watch time as hours. Did they phrase it that way just to seem like it was reasonable?

Apparently it's a default you can change:

I wonder, does the algorythm count re-views as extra watch time?

Yes, watch time is completely unrelated to views. You get views by just loading the edit page in your video manage because of the ad break editor video player. You get watch time from people actually watching the video, and if they skip parts of the video that is considered not watched.

I originally joined the partner program to get access to scheduling videos

They removed that requirement years ago, everyone can schedule videos whether they are a partner or not.

• What does the subscriber requirement even accomplish?

It's probably a good predictor of future success. You only have access to your data, which is tiny and not very interesting. Presumably they've looked at a lot of data. It might also be something that advertisers want. That is, they want their ads to be seen by lots of people.

But the 240,000 minutes of watch time already accomplishes that. They could have required a certain number of unique viewers instead of 1,000 subscribers. In my situation, 98% of my viewers don't count towards that requirement.

But who knows why those unique viewers showed up? Maybe someone popular tweeted something and no one will ever come back to watch anything you ever do again. Having subscribers is a better indicator that you will get those views in the future.

• years ago

According to my analytics, I got my first monetized view on June 13th last year. Unless my channel didn't show any ads for years after I joined the partner program, it only feels like they removed the requirement years ago and it was actually less than one baby ago.

• What does the subscriber requirement even accomplish?

It's probably a good predictor of future success. You only have access to your data, which is tiny and not very interesting. Presumably they've looked at a lot of data. It might also be something that advertisers want. That is, they want their ads to be seen by lots of people.

But the 240,000 minutes of watch time already accomplishes that. They could have required a certain number of unique viewers instead of 1,000 subscribers. In my situation, 98% of my viewers don't count towards that requirement.

But who knows why those unique viewers showed up? Maybe someone popular tweeted something and no one will ever come back to watch anything you ever do again. Having subscribers is a better indicator that you will get those views in the future.

Is having 240,000 minutes of watch time every year not a good indicator that you will get views? From what I parsed from the article, it seems like the system will be checking that threshold every month, so having a single popular tweet won't let you stay in the program long enough to get any payments before you're kicked out.

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.