Culture The YouTube MCN Purge: YouTube networks drop thousands of creators as YouTube policy shifts - The adpocalypse strikes back and it's worse than ever

https://archive.fo/2Be2y

The future of multi-channel networks like Fullscreen, Ritual Network, BBTV and more are in question as thousands of creators are purged.

Multi-channel networks refer to companies that work with hundreds or thousands of YouTube creators under one umbrella. The network pays each creator a percentage of ad revenue (versus creators going through Google AdSense directly) and higher CPM (cost per views). Multi-channel networks have always been contentious. With tens of thousands of creators working under one umbrella, creators can feel like they’re not getting the attention they deserve.

Still, MCNs attract creators who didn’t want to go through YouTube’s laborious AdSense application process, but multiple sources tell Polygon it’s unlikely some MCNs will continue to operate within a year.

It all started a couple of weeks ago when creators working with Fullscreen began tweeting about being dropped from the network, seemingly without cause. According to an email seen by Polygon, Fullscreen told one of its former creators they were being dropped over “a decision that comes from YouTube and is out of our control.” A Fullscreen representative later told Polygon the original message “was inaccurate, and we’ve since revised our emails to creators accordingly.” Fullscreen terminated contracts for “approximately 160 creators” on April 5, according to the rep.

Fullscreen’s representative told Polygon the revised email sent to creators whose contracts have been terminated now reads:

The team here at Fullscreen is reaching out to let you know that your agreement with Fullscreen, Inc. has been terminated. Due to the nature of your uploads and because your uploads may potentially infringe on the right of others or potentially violates applicable laws or regulations, including without limitation YouTube’s Terms of Service and/or YouTube’s Community Guidelines, we feel it best that we part ways. Thank you for your understanding, and good luck with your YouTube channel.

Still, apparent messages from Howard Pinsky, director of creator marketing at Fullscreen, sent on a public Fullscreen Discord provided conflicting reports.

“YouTube is ‘forcing’ all networks to remove creators that are at risk of violating terms of service (copyright issues, misleading thumbnails, etc),” Pinsky said, according to a screenshot of that message. “This isn’t a decision from the networks, but one from YouTube. They’re really starting to clean up the platform. Fullscreen (and other networks) have zero say in this. This is a decision from YouTube. From what they explained to us, ‘many channels that posed a risk of violating YouTube’s terms of service, even if no strikes were present, were released.’”

Pinsky declined to comment when reached out by Polygon to verify the messages.

The decision Pinsky referred to is something called the “Know Your Customer” policy, according to Jason Urgo, CEO of Social Blade, a statistics company that works with multiple MCNs. Urgo told Polygon via email that “YouTube is putting more pressure on MCNs,” pointing to the new policy, which went into effect on March 1, as an example.

The “Know Your Customer” policy puts MCNs in a tricky position, according to Urgo, who said that it pushes companies to drop a large number of creators in order to continue working with YouTube.

“[It] in effect forces MCNs to either watch every video uploaded by their partners, or at least be reasonably confident none of the videos they are uploading could possibly either in the present or in the future violate or even come close to violating a YouTube guideline/terms,” Urgo said. “The way this is enforced is that if a network has more then 50 ‘abuse events’ (an abuse event is when a channel gets terminated or loses their monetization privileges) in a 90 day period they lose the ability to partner any other channel for a period of time.

“If this 50 in 90 rule is triggered multiple times, the MCN can be revoked.”

That means creators are being dropped because of the potential threat they face to YouTube and the MCN, but these reasons weren’t given to creators.

“Due to YouTube’s changes to its partnership program and implementation of stricter content guidelines, we’re required to restructure our network to ensure conformity,” one leaked email sent to a former Fullscreen partner reads. “Your channel will be removed from the network on 4/11, and I am truly sorry we’re not able to keep you with us — believe me I did try!”

Another former Fullscreen creator affected, Justin Rabbit, told Polygon he also wasn’t originally given a proper reason by Fullscreen why the network dropped him. Rabbit said he’s never received a strike on his channel from YouTube.

“Whenever I asked anyone I either got no reply or was told a generic response,” Rabbit told Polygon via email. “When I tried to ask further what I did, I just kept getting the same answer. My channel has never had a strike or any problem with it since I started it. I obey every rule YouTube puts out.”

The new internal policy means that “networks now have to either drop [everyone] but their top partners or bring more people on to manually review all content, which just isn’t economical in most cases,” according to Urgo. This is especially troubling for smaller creators, who faced another major obstacle ahead of the “Know Your Customer” policy. YouTube introduced a new threshold for creators, asking for a minimum of 1,000 subscribers and 4,000 hours of accrued watch time in the past 12 months. This was a radical shift from the previous threshold, which asked for 10,000 channel lifetime views.

SocialBlade has worked with thousands of creators over the years, and multiple MCNs like Disney’s Maker Studios and BBTV, one of the largest MCNs working today, to help creators get partnered. This allowed them to bypass the traditional process of going through AdSense to try and monetize their own videos. YouTube’s policy now means that MCNs like BBTV are increasing their own threshold for clients. Creators must now meet 100,000 views per month to be eligible as a BBTV client.

“The 100,000 views [per month] is a threshold set by BBTV to limit the number of channels who qualify, because YouTube’s new rule in effect turns partners into liabilities and rather then being able to help a large number of smaller partners, they have to focus only on the top, safer ones,” Urgo said. “From a business sense this makes total sense in risk avoidance, but it’s really sad because we’ve always been for the community helping the little guy get a chance to make it.”

This isn’t the first time that a multi-channel network has restructured its creator program to appease YouTube’s new guidelines. Maker Studios dropped support for more than 55,000 YouTubers following controversy over Felix “PewDiePie” Kjellberg last February, according to the Wall Street Journal, although the decision was reportedly in the works before then. Maker Studios limited the number of creators it was working with to approximately 300, with those channels sharing the same core values Disney believes in.

Now, multi-channel networks are going through a similar purge. One manager at a popular MCN, who asked to remain anonymous, said thousands of creators are being dropped from almost every major MCN, including their own, noting that thousands of creators have been dropped.

“YouTube are making it impossible,” the person said. “YouTube are trying to get rid of MCNs to the point where we can no longer operate. I don’t see any MCNs operating within the next six months. It feels like YouTube is trying to make us go bankrupt. We’re at the stage where it’s like the end of an era.”

Thousands of creators are being dropped from MCNs, according to the source, as MCNs become stricter talent managers. Similar to what happened with Maker Studios’ post-PewDiePie, where more than 50,000 creators were dropped, the same thing seems to be happening to all MCNs now. Instead of MCNs being an entry-level partnership for up-and-coming creators, companies will work with a few hundred people already popular. Maker Studios for example, represents jackscepticeye and Markiplier, two of the biggest names in YouTube gaming.

“At this point MCNs just need to disband before we’re forced to,” the MCN manager said. “If they just blatantly saying that YouTube is telling MCNs to unlink channels, it gives YouTube a bad name. MCNs need YouTube. It’s an insane time to be at an MCN right now, and it’s insane to think of what happens next. We haven’t got much left in the MCN era.”

Polygon has reached out to YouTube for comment.

Update: A senior manager at Ritual Network, who asked to remain anonymous, told Polygon the network doesn’t view the internal changes as a negative impact on its own creators.

“Our business model has always revolved around working with the very best talent & the new policy does not affect this,” they said. “The new policy is set out by YouTube to help protect the community and advertisers and will help stop all of the bad actors in the community ... I could understand how this could affect some companies in this space as they work with tens of thousands of YouTube content creators [and] it will always be hard to monitor content at that scale.”

They would not comment on whether Ritual Network did raise the threshold to 100,000 views a month, like BBTV, but did offer this statement.

“Our requirements vary depending on different factors including content quality, views, subscribers, potential etc,” they said. “I am under the impression that a lot of other companies in this space have had to release a lot of channels. However, we have released less than five channels due to this new policy.”

Update 2: A Fullscreen representative reached out to Polygon to confirm creator marketing director Howard Pinsky’s Discord messages. The representative added that “it was a conversation that took place prematurely with creators and Howard has since corrected himself.

“Across the board, Fullscreen has corrected all outbound messaging to more accurately reflect the reason for channel releases from our network as reflected in the official statement given to [Polygon] on Friday,” the representative said.
 
Pretty soon, youtube will just be clips from Major network shows, music videos, and trailers.

They already constantly push these as recommended even though I never watch that kind of content. Well save for music videos. But nothing modern or popular.

I wish I could see the looks on the faces in YouTube headquarters when it becomes clear to them they aren't going to become the next Netflix.

They're taking what set them apart from cable and movie streaming services and throwing it in the trash. And since there's no viable alternative people just have to sit back and take it for now. But if anything ever does come up that people can flock to successfully then Youtube will just be left with all that sponsored major network programming and no real content diversity.
 
Isn't that for the best, though? Youtube has been corrupted by the search for more advertisers and has disincentivized good content in pursuit of that. Since Silicon Valley types never admit they're wrong, hopefully when Youtube dies/becomes completely uncool, another site may be able to take its place. Hopefully whoever owns that site doesn't sell out to Google.

Logan Paul existing doesn't make Cody's Lab, Primitive Technology, PBS SpaceTime, Forgotten Weapons, and so on and so forth, not exist. Yes there's a bunch of disgusting clickbait on Youtube, but they're causing the baby to be dumped with the bathwater.
 
Logan Paul existing doesn't make Cody's Lab, Primitive Technology, PBS SpaceTime, Forgotten Weapons, and so on and so forth, not exist. Yes there's a bunch of disgusting clickbait on Youtube, but they're causing the baby to be dumped with the bathwater.
I'm not saying there isn't good content on Youtube, because there certainly is. The problem with the site isn't its content creators, it's the management. What I'm saying is that a site called "Youtube" that operates the way Youtube does isn't a necessary condition for content creators like those you listed to create good content. If Youtube goes farther up its own ass and keeps trying to be more like Netflix, then there's a possibility that another website will try take over the niche that Youtube used to fill. More realistically though, unless Youtube puts a lot of people's videos in limited-state hell, people will continue to use Youtube and just ask people to donate directly through Patreon. I just want Youtube to die for other reasons.
 
Logan Paul existing doesn't make Cody's Lab, Primitive Technology, PBS SpaceTime, Forgotten Weapons, and so on and so forth, not exist. Yes there's a bunch of disgusting clickbait on Youtube, but they're causing the baby to be dumped with the bathwater.
That's true. But we're assuming that's what this is really about, a few high-profile streamers fucking it up for everyone else. When the truth might be that advertisers have finally figured out that internet advertising doesn't fucking work or that it barely works and isn't worth the money they've been dumping into it.
 
Google successfully choked most of the Internet to death in just a few years. Smaller sites died off because everybody got greedy and switched all their content to YT. What are these assholes going to do now?

Run off to twitch, which people are doing in their droves.

I'll pull my old example I usually do when I talk about youtube which is the Yogscast. Who've basically turned their twitch channel into a TV channel.

They now run their channel 24/7 near enough, with "blocks" of time set from 11am-11pm so you have an idea of which streamer is going in where and when they don't have someone available due to holidays, other work or sickness?

They just play hours of old youtube videos back to back as their "YogsCinema" block. They even now air some videos of theirs as a "premier" on Twitch about an hour or two before they upload it to their youtube channel.

75% of all donations, etc go directly to the streamer during their timeslot, with the remainder going to the company itself to help pay salaries and maintain equipment. Subs all go to the company.

Heck, Magnificent Bastard that is Sips has seemingly given up on youtube entitrely and now operates as a twitch streamer.
 
It does, by definition.

EDIT: Yes yes monopoly isn't the only thing that leads to imperfect competition.

vidme stated when they shut down, they stated a few reasons as to why.

1. video streaming is still expensive infrastructure wise, and costs are unable to be offset
2. they found that facebook would not allow their videos trend over a youtube video of the same kind, or sometimes at all.
3. advertisers weren't willing to deal with them on a large scale in the same way they did youtube
 
Generally when people argue that youtube is a monopoly, they aren't very technically informed about the situation.

Honestly, I'm skeptical about the whole idea of any internet business becoming a monopoly. The barrier to entry is tiny. Put some shit together, and upload the files to a $10/month VPS. There you go.

When your usage gets high enough, and you're successful enough that the site is starting to chug, then with your profits you can afford to upgrade to the $20/month VPS. There you go, there's your internet business.

And anyone can do the same thing to you. Arguing that youtube is a monopoly is like arguing 4chan is a monopoly.
 
Generally when people argue that youtube is a monopoly, they aren't very technically informed about the situation.

Honestly, I'm skeptical about the whole idea of any internet business becoming a monopoly. The barrier to entry is tiny. Put some shit together, and upload the files to a $10/month VPS. There you go.

When your usage gets high enough, and you're successful enough that the site is starting to chug, then with your profits you can afford to upgrade to the $20/month VPS. There you go, there's your internet business.

And anyone can do the same thing to you. Arguing that youtube is a monopoly is like arguing 4chan is a monopoly.
You're technically right, there isn't anything stopping anyone from creating a solid competitor or just doing small scale hosting. The problem is with Youtube being under the Google umbrella if they at any point decide they don't feel like having competition they can push all but the most oddly specific searches away from said competitor and strong arm them into obscurity. And then all the said competition is left with is hits from the 10 or so people that use Bing. Things like Dailymotion are only around because they are propped up by massive companies like Vivendi and the BBC ( plus it started about a year after Youtube and before Youtube was bought up by Google).

So it's not so much that they are a monopoly but that Google/Youtube act more like the old time Mafia.
 
The problem is with Youtube being under the Google umbrella if they at any point decide they don't feel like having competition they can push all but the most oddly specific searches away from said competitor and strong arm them into obscurity.
Now, that indeed would qualify as anti-competitive behavior. However, I haven't heard any credible claims that Google does anything like that.

Furthermore, other people mention things like "infrastructure", which is silly and insulting to the actual work that goes into setting up a site like that.

If I built up a website on the scale of youtube, and if I was spanking all my competitors raw, I'd deserve my success. Now if I was engaged in anti-competitive behavior, then yeah, I'd deserve to get wrecked for it.

But almost no one who calls youtube a monopoly claims they're doing anything wrong.
 
However, I haven't heard any credible claims that Google does anything like that.

Google faces antitrust action from EU competition watchdog
European commission accuses tech firm of skewing search results to favour its own shopping service in breach of competition rules

The European Union has accused Google of cheating competitors by distorting internet search results in favour of its own shopping service as it laid formal charges against the US technology company.

The EU competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, said Google, which dominates search engines globally, had been sent a statement of objections – effectively a charge sheet – to which it can respond. Signalling Brussels’ renewed determination to take the battle to the company, it also opened an investigation into Google’s Android system which is used in about 80% of smartphones worldwide.


https://www.theguardian.com/technol...antitrust-action-from-eu-competition-watchdog

Considering the EU is probably the only entity powerful enough to actually get such a suit to the courts. I'm guessing theres countless of others that Google probably could've just dumped a truck of lawyers on top of if they spoke up at all. It's probably something vidme realized, that they would just go bankrupt trying to fight facebook and google in the courts, and it was simply better to walk away.
 
And anyone can do the same thing to you. Arguing that youtube is a monopoly is like arguing 4chan is a monopoly.

4Chan just has to moderate and pay standard server costs. Any site trying to be like Youtube on the scale of youtube would have to deal with the legal limbo that is hosting a video site. The Viacom-Youtube lawsuit never ended in a precedent favoring video-hosters and it was only the weight of google that ended that without the destruction of the website.
 
Logan Paul existing doesn't make Cody's Lab, Primitive Technology, PBS SpaceTime, Forgotten Weapons, and so on and so forth, not exist. Yes there's a bunch of disgusting clickbait on Youtube, but they're causing the baby to be dumped with the bathwater.

The disgusting clickbait isn’t the reason that advertisers are fleeing. It’s simply the excuse. The real reason that advertisers are fleeing is Youtube’s Ad model doesn’t actually work. In fact it generates negative results for the companies and products being advertised. Network tv long ago worked out the core algorithms for how often and how frequently you can show an ad or even any ads before you start getting a negative effect. Remember network television is an advertising delivery system. The actual show is there for a reason. But YouTube exceeds those levels. A YouTube watcher will get the same add seven times in 10 minutes. By the third time the viewer has sworn to never ever purchase the product or see the movie. YouTube is a lousy ad platform and delivery system.
 
The disgusting clickbait isn’t the reason that advertisers are fleeing. It’s simply the excuse. The real reason that advertisers are fleeing is Youtube’s Ad model doesn’t actually work. In fact it generates negative results for the companies and products being advertised. Network tv long ago worked out the core algorithms for how often and how frequently you can show an ad or even any ads before you start getting a negative effect. Remember network television is an advertising delivery system. The actual show is there for a reason. But YouTube exceeds those levels. A YouTube watcher will get the same add seven times in 10 minutes. By the third time the viewer has sworn to never ever purchase the product or see the movie. YouTube is a lousy ad platform and delivery system.
Reminds me of people commenting that their ad was longer than the actual video they were watching, or if they were watching a trailer they would get the trailer as an ad.
Edit: Or the true evil imo, ads when buffering a video. You pause it to let it load, and then when you press play an ad load, blanking out the buffering progress on the video.
 
Google faces antitrust action from EU competition watchdog
European commission accuses tech firm of skewing search results to favour its own shopping service in breach of competition rules

The European Union has accused Google of cheating competitors by distorting internet search results in favour of its own shopping service as it laid formal charges against the US technology company.

The EU competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, said Google, which dominates search engines globally, had been sent a statement of objections – effectively a charge sheet – to which it can respond. Signalling Brussels’ renewed determination to take the battle to the company, it also opened an investigation into Google’s Android system which is used in about 80% of smartphones worldwide.


https://www.theguardian.com/technol...antitrust-action-from-eu-competition-watchdog

Considering the EU is probably the only entity powerful enough to actually get such a suit to the courts. I'm guessing theres countless of others that Google probably could've just dumped a truck of lawyers on top of if they spoke up at all. It's probably something vidme realized, that they would just go bankrupt trying to fight facebook and google in the courts, and it was simply better to walk away.
So the technical details in this case are going to matter a lot.

Is Google:
  1. just putting publicly labeled advertisements that push people to its own services? (ie "[advertisement] Go to youtube for this!")
  2. putting outright exceptions in its search algorithm to benefit itself? (ie there's a config file somewhere and they go 'boosted_sites = {"*google.com": 1.5}')
  3. redesigning some generic parameters in their search engine that, while technically domain-neutral, benefit google? (ie if the popularity of a site in google's algorithm being measured by (number_of_matching_phrases * matching_phrase_multiplier) + (site_hits * site_hit_multiplier), so when google adjusts site_hit_multiplier, it benefits big names like facebook, and thus google as well.)
The first one is a mundane issue. I can't imagine Google would be too bothered if they had to stop that practice.

The second one is a very serious issue, but I haven't seen any credible evidence of that happening. Frankly, it's such a serious issue that I don't believe something like that could happen without someone leaking evidence of it.

The third one is something I'd really hope bureaucratic shitholes like the EU don't meddle with. It basically amounts to a philosophical disagreement about what makes a good search engine.

It's like when people disagree about whether a search engine should give you different information based on your identity. Like I'm trying to use duckduckgo instead of google nowadays, but it really sucks. Especially for searching for code. I'm noticing a marked difference in the quality of the results I get, and it affects my work.

But regardless of where you stand on this, I just hate how these issues are reported to the public because I guarantee you most readers think the situation is #2, when it's most likely #3 (or possibly #1).
4Chan just has to moderate and pay standard server costs. Any site trying to be like Youtube on the scale of youtube would have to deal with the legal limbo that is hosting a video site. The Viacom-Youtube lawsuit never ended in a precedent favoring video-hosters and it was only the weight of google that ended that without the destruction of the website.
Any site with user supplied content has to deal with that. The DMCA also dramatically lowers the cost of running those sites.
 
Not kidding about the IRL YouTube advertising ads. Google's desperate to get more funding
 

Attachments

  • 20180430_205949.jpg
    20180430_205949.jpg
    4.5 MB · Views: 73
  • 20180430_205945.jpg
    20180430_205945.jpg
    4.1 MB · Views: 86
I stopped using google when they fucked up GIS. They'd been annoying me for awhile but that's the last straw. Google isn't a monopoly either. Use one of the other dozens of search engines out there.
If someone made a search engine that was amazing for code (and google itself isn't particularly good at it, but maybe they just know that I search for code a lot and code results get boosted for me), I'd be a permanent customer.
Not kidding about the IRL YouTube advertising ads. Google's desperate to get more funding
thirsty.gif

thirsty.gif
 
So the technical details in this case are going to matter a lot.

Is Google:
  1. just putting publicly labeled advertisements that push people to its own services? (ie "[advertisement] Go to youtube for this!")
  2. putting outright exceptions in its search algorithm to benefit itself? (ie there's a config file somewhere and they go 'boosted_sites = {"*google.com": 1.5}')
  3. redesigning some generic parameters in their search engine that, while technically domain-neutral, benefit google? (ie if the popularity of a site in google's algorithm being measured by (number_of_matching_phrases * matching_phrase_multiplier) + (site_hits * site_hit_multiplier), so when google adjusts site_hit_multiplier, it benefits big names like facebook, and thus google as well.)
The first one is a mundane issue. I can't imagine Google would be too bothered if they had to stop that practice.

The second one is a very serious issue, but I haven't seen any credible evidence of that happening. Frankly, it's such a serious issue that I don't believe something like that could happen without someone leaking evidence of it.

The third one is something I'd really hope bureaucratic shitholes like the EU don't meddle with. It basically amounts to a philosophical disagreement about what makes a good search engine.

It's like when people disagree about whether a search engine should give you different information based on your identity. Like I'm trying to use duckduckgo instead of google nowadays, but it really sucks. Especially for searching for code. I'm noticing a marked difference in the quality of the results I get, and it affects my work.

But regardless of where you stand on this, I just hate how these issues are reported to the public because I guarantee you most readers think the situation is #2, when it's most likely #3 (or possibly #1).

Any site with user supplied content has to deal with that. The DMCA also dramatically lowers the cost of running those sites.

So your assumption is that Google is acting in good faith to it's competition, when it's own motto is "Don't be evil"? That it wouldn't attempt to not only protect it's market position, but attempt to muscle out any competitors that might be trying to become the next facebook or google? I guess I'm just a pessimist.
 
Back