Page 1 of 1

Youtube to ditch ad-revenue sharing? (6 Sep, 2017)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:21 am
by aardvark_admin
This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2017/0906.shtml

Most YouTube channels don't make enough revenue from ad-sharing to get a regular pay-out but cumulatively, all this pocket-change represents many tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm picking that Google will axe the ad-revenue share program within the next 24 months because they know it won't hurt business but it will double their profits.

Google's once-proud mantra of "do no evil" needs to be updated to what it now is: "do no evil to profits"

What do readers think?

Am I being overly cynical?

Or would Google be foolish NOT to axe the ad-revenue share program and double its profits from that source overnight?

Re: Youtube to ditch ad-revenue sharing? (6 Sep, 2017)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:26 pm
by GoGijoe
IN before google buys pateron to make cash from the people who use patreon to fund there videos.

Re: Youtube to ditch ad-revenue sharing? (6 Sep, 2017)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:08 pm
by greven
That could make Youtube Red more attractive, or it might just make adblock more attractive

Re: Youtube to ditch ad-revenue sharing? (6 Sep, 2017)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:28 pm
by roygbiv
A case of the gravy train has pulled into the station for YouTube. This means that you have up to 24 months to replace that revenue for the videos you make, whether that means stop making the video or even charge Google to remain with them. Instead of your own YouTube channel have your own web site (run by AWS?), it is cheap as chips nowadays.

Re: Youtube to ditch ad-revenue sharing? (6 Sep, 2017)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:57 pm
by Jimmy
I think it's a bit of a long bow to call such a change "evil".

It would be a business decision in the interests of their shareholders that doesn't happen to suit a number of their suppliers. Which might inconvenience people who have built a model based on the revenue. This is the same as routine business decisions made by most businesses all the time - eg a farmer who changes to a cheaper supplier after being with (say) Wrightsons for 10 years. Losing their business is a blow to the local Wrightsons owner, but the farmer isn't performing a dastardly evil act.

Evil would be if they sold their customer details to Indian scammers, or got out of the streaming business to make landmines and poison gas.

Re: Youtube to ditch ad-revenue sharing? (6 Sep, 2017)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:04 pm
by greven
"do no evil" branded landmines... I like it

Re: Youtube to ditch ad-revenue sharing? (6 Sep, 2017)

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:17 pm
by GoGijoe