It all started with a hashtag, or so the legend says… #SmallYouTuberArmy led the charge…
Two days ago I received the following email (see below end of post), and it sort of went under my radar as I have a tiny tiny channel, which hasn’t made a penny since I launched it roughly a year ago. I haven’t been as consistent with uploading content as I wanted to be, but when YouTube is not your main job, you just don’t have the time to dedicate to it that full-time YouTubers do. You put in what you can, but ultimately, your real job and life in general come first. Since I haven’t made a penny of this channel, and I am not really doing this for the money, the email didn’t bother me at first. I understand why YouTube is doing this. They are having major issues right now with inappropriate or fraudulent content being monetized, and their advertisers are getting increasingly angry about it. They are trying to apply the 80% rule here, by applying a process that will knock out 80% of the problem in one fell swoop. The other 20% they will have to put more time and effort into solving. The real problem here is what triggered this move, and why this move doesn’t solve the problem that this knee-jerk reaction.
I won’t say it started with a complete asshole named Logan Paul, but it definitely ended with him. YouTube has a history with big YouTube “stars” doing “bad” things on their platform. The nonsense with Pewdiepie and Nazis is a good example. YouTube always gives them a slap on the wrist by saying that they won’t be part of their ‘preferred’ advertising program anymore, but their channels are so big, that it doesn’t really affect them. YouTube should, instead, put them on a suspension period after such an incident, where they are unable to monetize anything for a period of at least 30 days. The more severe the infraction (like Logan Paul and the corpse), the longer the suspension. This is the only way to stop this sort of behavior. Why doesn’t YouTube do this? Simple – money. These channels have millions of viewers that see billions of ads every year, that Google is able to charge advertisers for. If they were to actually punish these rogue creators, they would potentially lose millions of dollars per incident. So, they just slap them on the wrist and let them keep publishing and monetizing.
At the same time, however, the advertisers are in a furor over some of the content on YouTube that their ads are being served with. Rightfully so. So YouTube has to make a public spectacle to ‘show’ the advertisers that they are taking this problem seriously, but they can’t punish the high-profile creators like Pewdiepie and Logan Paul, because it will cost them monetarily. So what do they do? They go after the tiny channels that also have objectionable content. Here’s the rub – in order to create a big enough dragnet to catch all the small channels that have objectionable content, they will have to harm the small legitimate channels by way of collateral damage. So their new policy, while meant to tackle the issue of small problematic channels, is actually harming *all* small channels. And this is where I call BS. If YouTube was sincere in their response here, they would suspend the actually accounts that have objectionable content – *all* of them. Not just the small ones. They could then implement rules that state that any *new* channels started after that date are subject to additional scrutiny, and these new channels will not be able to monetize until they go through a probationary period and human check on their content. Do not harm small content creators just because you want to make a public spectacle of your efforts to appease advertisers.
My core problem in all of this is that as a small channel myself, I have always had the opportunity to make revenue off my content. Sure, I never made a penny, but I always had the opportunity. Failure to make revenue was ultimately under my control, and I could blame it on myself, if in fact that is what I was after (obviously I am not). This is going to be so demoralizing for so many small channels, as well as to any potential new channels. Many small channels will think twice about whether they want to keep creating content that they will not be paid for, or start looking for alternatives. Many people who want to start a channel will now have to decide if it is worth the effort. What was once a low barrier to entry business is now becoming a high barrier to entry business – the exact opposite of what the internet is supposed to do. For me, I will continue making content. Why? Because I am doing it to share information, to help people decide if they want to buy games or gaming accessories, to show them what a game looks and plays like, to illustrate how much fun gaming really is, etc. I am trying to expand the gaming industry and market. I am not after money. Unfortunately, much of the world isn’t in that position. They are trying to scrape by, and YouTube may be the only way they can rise up to make a living – even if they are not yet there. This virtually destroys their opportunity and ambition.
My real hope here is that someone, or some group, steps in to offer some real competition in this space. Perhaps Twitch and/or Mixer can expand their services to offer a more YouTube-like service in addition to their streaming service. Amazon has a lot of heft in the cloud space (as does Microsoft) and this is the perfect opportunity for them to swoop in and catch all of the defectors from YouTube. They could build real value around their existing streaming properties while simultaneously helping to build the next generation of platforms for content creation on the internet. If anyone from Amazon or Microsoft is listening – now is your time.
