Justin Bieber can breathe a sigh of relief. His music video for “Baby” is no longer the most disliked video on YouTube; that dubious honor now belongs to YouTube’s own “Rewind 2018.” The video was created to highlight the major events on the platform over the past year, but many have criticized YouTube for omitting popular yet controversial moments in an effort to please advertisers.
The public backlash against Rewind is emblematic of YouTube’s recent struggles to manage its massive platform. YouTube’s relationships with its content creators have become especially strained as the company grapples with its heightened social responsibility as the world’s largest video platform. Even as technology companies took a public beating in 2018, the challenges facing YouTube and its creators garnered much less attention — but these challenges are in many ways equally impactful for online platforms and public discourse.
Not Your Average Platform
YouTube holds a unique position among online platforms. In contrast to social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook that appeal to users largely by facilitating real world relationships on the web, YouTube’s model is closer to that of a television network’s. Dedicated creators produce and upload videos to YouTube that attract and keep viewers on the platform. Creators are able to monetize their videos by joining the YouTube Partner Program and showing advertisements on their videos, and the revenue from these advertisements is split between YouTube and the creator.
When the Partner Program was first implemented, it was a win-win. Creators could monetize their videos while YouTube benefited from more, higher quality content. In recent years, however, these partnerships have become strained. For many creators, video monetization has meant that their livelihoods have become dependent on YouTube. As YouTube policies have changed, so too have creators’ incomes, often prompting backlash from some of the most influential online personalities in the world.
Copy … Right?
One consistent monetization issue facing creators is copyright. Copyright plays a crucial role in ensuring that creators get credit, and payment, for their original content. YouTube enforces copyright protections by allowing companies and creators to submit claims against videos that display copyrighted content. Videos that violate copyright protections are penalized primarily in one of two ways: either the video’s revenue is redirected to the original content creator, or the video is removed entirely.
While the protections are sound in principle, they have caused problems when implemented. Alyssa Firman, or Alfsvoid on YouTube, produces videos discussing social and philosophical issues and has close to 90,000 subscribers as of writing. Many of her videos use brief video clips of news broadcasts or interviews, on which she offers commentary. In theory, such content should be protected by fair use, which allows the use of copyrighted material for the purposes of commentary and criticism. But Firman has struggled to use copyrighted material even in this way: In an interview with the HPR, she explained that she “only includes smaller sections [of videos] that do not make watching the initial video obsolete. However, those still get demonetized.” The advertising revenue for the video then goes entirely to the copyright claimant. “Of my 30-ish videos, it is probably the case that 16 to 19 of them are monetized by someone else,” Firman said.
Another option for copyright claimants is to have the violating video taken down entirely. In some cases, this is an automatic process. Firman says that one of her videos on the migrant caravan crisis was repeatedly taken down because it featured clips from Vice documentaries. While this is most likely a case of benign over-enforcement, copyright takedowns can also have more malicious intent. Copyright claims have been used by politicians and governments to take down critical videos — in one instance, the Saudi Arabian government used copyright to takedown the satirical YouTube show “Fitnah.”
Advertiser Unfriendly
A more recent and pressing issue than copyright involves balancing the desires of advertisers and creators, which, as YouTube has painfully discovered, is no easy task. In March 2017, major brands pulled advertising from YouTube videos after their advertisements were shown on highly objectionable content, including terrorist recruitment and neo-Nazi videos. To win back advertisers, YouTube responded with strict content guidelines dictating which types of videos would be allowed to show advertisements and a commitment to more efficiently remove videos that were not advertiser friendly.
These new policies succeeded in bringing back advertisers, but creators were less than happy when many of their videos were suddenly deemed unsuitable for advertising. Some large creators reported upwards of 80 percent declines in advertising revenues. But Steven Oh, chief business officer of the left-leaning TYT Network, told the HPR that he understood why YouTube had to take action: “If it is not done, it may cause all advertisers to flee the platform, which would hurt creators even more.”
Many creators were frustrated that the new guidelines seemed to target not just hateful or offensive content; even videos merely commenting on controversial issues were demonetized as well. PragerU, an organization that makes YouTube videos promoting conservative perspectives on issues like religion and politics, filed a lawsuit against YouTube in October 2017 accusing them of censorship. Craig Strazzeri, chief marketing officer at PragerU, told the HPR that close to 40 of PragerU’s more than 300 YouTube videos have been demonetized and that 80 of its videos have been placed in Restricted Mode, making the videos inaccessible in some schools and workplaces. Strazzeri told the HPR that PragerU’s videos are created for educational purposes and do not contain vulgar or violent content, but are demonetized all the same.
YouTube has also faced accusations of ideological bias. “There is no doubt in my mind that they are targeting conservative content,” argued Strazzeri. However, the claim of a specific ideological bias is questionable. The David Pakman Show, a left-leaning political commentary channel, declared that demonetization represented an “existential threat” to the show and initially resulted in a 99.9 percent decline in revenue. Oh concurred, saying that 10 to 15 percent of videos on TYT, a progressive channel, have also been demonetized — some for no apparent reason and others for discussing issues like racism. It appears that YouTube does not target a specific ideology, but demontizes any content, including news coverage, that might offend advertisers. As Oh said, “if you are going to cover the news, whether from the progressive or the conservative side, it is going to get demonetized at a higher rate.”
Oh told the HPR that one of the main advantages of YouTube over traditional network television is the lack of a gatekeeper. However, the new policies act as type of a financial gatekeeper for content not approved by advertisers. Interestingly, many types of content that advertisers deem unsuitable on YouTube, like coverage of terrorism, are perfectly acceptable on mainstream television networks like CNN or Fox News. “It is frustrating that online videos are held to such a different standard, unfairly so, than television,” Oh said.
New Policies, New Practices
As YouTube’s policies have changed, so have creators’ approaches to monetization. Many creators started earning money directly from their viewers. One preferred way of doing so is through Patreon, where viewers can become “patrons” by offering direct financial support to creators in exchange for perks like exclusive or early access to content. Bremner Morris, the head of creator relations at Patreon, explained the system in an interview with the HPR: “The thing about ad revenue is that it is at the behest of the algorithm, so the creator does not have as much control over how much they will make.” The unpredictability of advertising revenue means making videos as a full-time job is much riskier financially. By contrast, Morris told the HPR, “On Patreon, if you know you have 10,000 patrons paying seven to 12 dollars a month, you can predict that will be a relatively stable form of income.” For smaller creators, Patreon can be essential for generating any meaningful income. Firman told the HPR that her annual earnings from Patreon are 30 times greater than her earnings from YouTube advertising.
For some, the danger of depending on YouTube has always been clear. Rooster Teeth, a popular online media company founded in 2003, built an independent online video platform and maintained it even after the advent of YouTube. As Rooster Teeth CEO Matt Hullum told the HPR, “No other platform is going to do what you want them to do. They are going to do what they want to do.” Today, Rooster Teeth maintains its own platform and accesses multiple revenue streams, including paid subscriptions and merchandise, of which YouTube advertising is only one component, Hullum said. That is not to say Rooster Teeth has been unaffected by YouTube’s advertising policies; Rooster Teeth videos have been demonetized on YouTube, Hullum confirmed. However, because of diversification, even widespread demonetization on YouTube does not pose an existential threat to Rooster Teeth’s content production.
While Rooster Teeth’s model may be appealing to creators suffering from YouTube demonetization, creating an independent online presence is often easier said than done. “It does take a team of engineers and staff that we have to maintain,” Hullum said. Finding outside advertisers can also be problematic. Hullum and Oh told the HPR that Rooster Teeth and TYT, respectively, have turned down advertisers whose values do not align with the companies’. Finally, even if an outside presence is established, convincing viewers to use it can be difficult. “Inertia keeps you on YouTube. We have to present really compelling reasons for people to come to our site,” Hullum said.
Alternative funding platforms like Patreon are also no silver bullet. Morris told the HPR that to succeed on Patreon, creators typically need to create recurring, exclusive benefits for patrons and to invest energy into maintaining a membership model. Furthermore, creators are still dependent on a third party. Patreon recently faced a free speech controversy after it removed YouTube commentator Carl Benjamin over the use of a racial slur. “We have been very explicit that we do not allow hate speech on or off our platform,” Morris said. And while Patreon’s efforts to eliminate hate speech are certainly understandable, they nonetheless raise serious questions about content regulation and creator freedom on the platform.
Fixing the Bugs
To YouTube’s credit, the company has acknowledged the issues facing creators and has made an effort to address them. In October 2017, YouTube announced that it had updated its demonetization algorithm and that millions of videos would be re-monetized. In a perfect world, every video would be personally reviewed before being demonetized. Indeed, Morris told the HPR that creators who are removed from Patreon for copyright or violating content guidelines are always human reviewed. However, with 400 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute, human review on that platform is untenable. Instead, YouTube uses a machine learning algorithm, which gradually learns which videos to automatically demonetize based on data generated by humans. As more data is generated, the algorithm improves and becomes more accurate — but that takes time.
YouTube can also make fixes that are less technical, like improving their communication with creators. According to Strazzeri, “the problem that we have is when their guidelines are so vague that they can arbitrarily choose which videos are objectionable.” Even after a video is demonetized, YouTube rarely offers a satisfying explanation. Strazzeri told the HPR that PragerU’s videos are simply listed as “unsuitable for advertisers,” without specific reason, and that even after contacting YouTube directly, PragerU was simply told that its content was “inappropriate.” In contrast, Morris told the HPR that at Patreon, when a user is removed from the platform, they are first contacted and given a chance to reform their content. By making guidelines around demonetization clearer, YouTube can reduce the confusion currently experienced by creators and diminish the perception of arbitrary content regulations.
YouTube should also consider implementing more nuanced policies for creators. By allowing creators to apply for “whitelist” status, YouTube can ensure that creators who are known to create advertiser friendly content that is often mistakenly demonetized are given more leniency. This would be especially beneficial for news and commentary channels, which would no longer be demonetized simply because of the topics that they cover. On the issue of copyright, rather than demonetizing or removing videos entirely, YouTube can help facilitate profit sharing between the video creator and the original copyright holder. Oh told the HPR that TYT already reaches out to copyright holders when there is a dispute, but that doing so may be more difficult for small creators who have less negotiating power. While YouTube does allow some profit sharing today, this system is primarily for song covers. For Firman, “It does not make sense to me that all of the profits should go to this one channel who is featured in my video for 30 seconds of an hour long video.”
Outro
Despite the serious toll that demonetization has taken on the YouTube community, creators are not wavering when it comes to their content. Firman, Strazzeri, Hullum, and Oh all told the HPR that monetization is still not a major concern for them when deciding the type of content to create. Nonetheless, video monetization is important for encouraging high quantity, high quality content. Creators must find ways to diversify their sources of revenue to ensure that they can continue to create content regardless of YouTube’s policies.
YouTube has faced much criticism from its users over demonetization — often rightly so — but the problem the company faces has no easy solution. YouTube needs advertisers to keep the lights on. Until the demonetization algorithm is able to more accurately determine which videos are truly unsuitable for advertisers, YouTube is going to take the safer route to avoid alienating one of its primary sources of revenue. At the same time, if YouTube’s policies continue to be seen as arbitrary and unjust, and if their communication on demonetization does not improve, creators can and will find ways to cut out YouTube advertising altogether.
The effects of YouTube’s policies are not limited to advertisers, to YouTube, or even to creators. Perhaps the biggest impacts will be felt by viewers. When creators get demonetized, critical voices in public discourse are lost. Putting the fate of creative and engaging content in the hands of advertisers or large corporations like YouTube is a recipe for failure. With an ideal internet, video content would be free yet self-sustaining, just like the advertising model envisioned. Unfortunately, the internet of today is not perfect. If people want to support content that contributes to the world, or even just to their own lives, one of the best ways they can do so is by paying for it. Through financial support, viewers can ensure that their favorite creators and their favorite ideas are never put on pause.
The HPR contacted YouTube for this piece, but was told that an interview could not be arranged.
Image Credits: Pixabay/mojzagrebinfo // Wikimedia/Luigi Novi // Flickr/Travis Wise