we are getting it sorted now

Me, Emily, and Reactor will be talking about the latest in the culture war once per week. Aiming for sundays at 4pm and getting it up on all platforms as well

Sweet.

Cool beans @Timcast

🎊 🍰

@Timcast in your video today, you forgot to factor in the current 10,000 lifetime views requirement for the YPP. 95% is an exaggerated number. 60-80% is closer to the truth.

how is it exaggerated?

you need 1k subs AND 4k viewer hours

95% of channels dont have 1k subs

And how many of those that do have 4k watch hours?

even less

its harder to quantify viewer hour ranks

there are channels with 2k subs who have less than 4k viewer hours

some channels make amazing videos that are 1 minute long

Oh btw, while you're here Tim, did you hear about the YouTube sponsoring thing? It's basically the equivalent of Twitch Subscriptions for YouTube?

i have not

I'm not sure who/how qualifies for it, but some channels I'm subbed to already have it enabled. You might want to look into it?

When I saw it the first person I thought of was you. lol

i might not have it cuz im with fullscreen

it says only gaming channels righ now

Oh ok.

I should've looked into it a bit more closely, whoops lol, but I think they're looking into non-gaming channels for the future.

@Badg3rman @Timcast I don't think that the number is exagerated, so much as the fact that the point is exagerated. In the channel count, how many of those actually have videos? I'd be concerned that they might be listing channels in the same number as users. For instance, I have two channels, one which I used to post and protect drone footage I was working to sell to a company, and one on which I was testing the waters in video game review. Both would technically be in that 50 million count, but absolutely have no place being monitized as of right now.

What about people who have created channels simply to comment on other people's videos, or used to post family videos? How many of those inflate the count, do you think?

Other than that, it's absolutely believeable that only the top 5% might be monitized. It's believable that only the top 5% of people who post photos on Facebook make livings from their photographs, if only the top 8% would consider themselves actual photographers.

the percentage is exaggerated because the 50 million number is inflated. Not all of those 50 million were eligible for the YPP. The current requirement is 10k lifetime views, which only roughly 11 million channels have.

so we'd have to compare the 2.5 million who MIGHT still be eligible (if they meet the 4,000 hours in 12 months requirement, as well) with these 11 million channels who are eligible for the YPP right now.

Not with the 50 million of total channels on YT.

I suspect something like 90% of channels have like 5 videos or less and were not monetized to begin with.

That, possibly, or if someone puts one viral video up, they could become monitized under the old standard

Nobody knows the real numbers except google and I doubt they are going to want to admit how bad it is.

If they were smart they would just have different tiers of ads so joe bobs widget tighteners could advertise cheap on any channel while Pepsi pays extra to not be associated with Nazi pugs

Actually I’m convinced they already realized that then decided against it because of backroom deals with old media.

Now that google has their money tree its boring to them. They’re more interested in the power to shape opinion and policy IMO.

I'm not certain that's the case.

I think it's potentially heavy-handed as google tends to be with roll-outs like this

I think the viewing hours are probably a fair bit higher than they should be

or perhaps, they should pay particular attention to growing trends, as opposed to a binary system

But it IS in their best interest to try to work with consistent content producers for their advertising space.

The numbers seem foreboding at that height, but perhaps if they were to go and say '300 viewing hours a week' as opposed to 4,000 a year (Roughly the same, 33h shorter per month though...) it would seem a lot more manageable and approachable.

That'd be 4,800 viewing minutes per month, meaning one 5 minute video a month, with 2000 viewers, crosses that easilly.

I'm not sure that they do. I believe that the ads are bought against content, not against viewers.