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.
 
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.

Isn't Twitch only streaming though? That's not good for everyone. Although honestly I almost never go to Twitch so many I'm wrong.

The smaller you are the worse it is for you on Youtube. No one will ever find your video even if you just uploaded it.
 
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.
It's not about whether or not they want to. Of course they want to. It's just not feasible. Malfeasance of this kind is incredibly difficult to keep secret.

Once you get more than a handful of people working on something, they're not going to keep anything secret. Heh, kiwifarms spends its time documenting people who can't keep shit secret. Even some google employees themselves!

And with Google, we're not just talking about a handful of people, but we're talking tens of thousands of engineers maintaining the servers and software. We're talking about a patented search algorithm that I'm sure every comp sci grad nowadays has looked into. (Patents also being publicly documented also helps too.)

We're talking one of the most influential companies in the world, with a bajillion eyes on everything they do.

If they were actually fucking with the algorithm itself, there'd be evidence of it. We'd hear about it.
 
It's not about whether or not they want to. Of course they want to. It's just not feasible. Malfeasance of this kind is incredibly difficult to keep secret.

Once you get more than a handful of people working on something, they're not going to keep anything secret. Heh, kiwifarms spends its time documenting people who can't keep shit secret. Even some google employees themselves!

And with Google, we're not just talking about a handful of people, but we're talking tens of thousands of engineers maintaining the servers and software. We're talking about a patented search algorithm that I'm sure every comp sci grad nowadays has looked into. (Patents also being publicly documented also helps too.)

We're talking one of the most influential companies in the world, with a bajillion eyes on everything they do.

If they were actually fucking with the algorithm itself, there'd be evidence of it. We'd hear about it.

The top most subscribed people on youtube don't know why their videos are being demonetized or taken down, they don't even know what criteria the bots are using to remove their videos from searches or recommended. And they get no real information back from YT. You'd think in the last 2 years we'd hear some youtube whistleblower trying to help out the content creators. But there's nothing, no one knows anything. Not until they log in to their account and find things gone.

Now apply that to Google, and tell me how we should've heard something.
 
The top most subscribed people on youtube don't know why their videos are being demonetized or taken down, they don't even know what criteria the bots are using to remove their videos from searches or recommended. And they get no real information back from YT. You'd think in the last 2 years we'd hear some youtube whistleblower trying to help out the content creators. But there's nothing, no one knows anything. Not until they log in to their account and find things gone.

Now apply that to Google, and tell me how we should've heard something.
We do hear about those details though.

Youtube is highly automated. They've got a robot system that makes lots of decisions based on types and volumes of reports, probably with lots of filters to (ineffectually) attempt to keep people from spamming reports. The line for having an actual human moderator is like six months long or some shit.

We hear these things from the types of rumors that I'm talking about.

And hell, I'm not even that up-to-date on youtube. I'm sure someone who pays better attention than I do would know better.
 
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.

YouTube is a functional monopoly. The barriers to compete are borderline insurmountable. You'd have to be the level of Facebook or Amazon to compete and both of those are cancers. Or Google would need YouTube to get an Internet Explorer-tier reputation that they ignore to prop up an alternative.

It took years for YouTube to get profitable and that was with Google's backing. For every really popular video, there are 1000 videos taking up storage space that no one's watching. A startup is going to have a disproportionately large amount of negligibly viewed videos and none of the highest highs because they won't have the mindshare. Mindshare is going to be the biggest hurdle. As has been posted, normies are using fewer and fewer websites/services each year. YouTube is already installed on the hundreds of millions of Android devices that are sold each year. If you're a startup, you're not going to be able to outspend Google on ads. You can make monetization/moderation more attractive than YouTube's, which will get some creators and hopefully eyeballs. But once you get their attention, you've got to have a great viewing experience on mobile, desktop and video game consoles. You've also got to be able to take the inevitable media beatdown (NEO NAZI WEBSITE KILLING 300,000,000 PEOPLE A DAY) if you go for lax moderation or being more open. You're going to need the cash to defend yourself in copyright suits. These are all never ending costs.

YouTube also benefits greatly from being part of such a big company. The Android preloads and search engine preferential treatment aren't even the biggest blows. Alongside Facebook, they nearly have complete control over the online ad market. Even if you get an audience you're going to have the uphill battle of trying to convince advertisers to work with you. They'll read the LITERAL NEO NAZI hit pieces. They'll ask if it's worth working with you over buying an ad spread with Google that covers YouTube and generic Adsense banner ads on every other website on the internet. A true YouTube alternative that requires a subscription would never take off. Your exclusive videos will just wind up pirated. Panhandling donations won't be enough.
 
YouTube is a functional monopoly. The barriers to compete are borderline insurmountable. You'd have to be the level of Facebook or Amazon to compete and both of those are cancers.
This is the common wisdom, but no one seems to have any hard numbers as to why that is.
For every really popular video, there are 1000 videos taking up storage space that no one's watching. A startup is going to have a disproportionately large amount of negligibly viewed videos and none of the highest highs because they won't have the mindshare.
Storage costs for video hosting are negligible.
 
If it's so easy to make a YouTube competitor how come all of their competitors are either dead or moved away from being an alternative? Dailymotion has been downplaying UGC for more corporate stuff. Vimeo is aimed at professionals.
 
If it's so easy to make a YouTube competitor how come all of their competitors are either dead or moved away from being an alternative? Dailymotion has been downplaying UGC for more corporate stuff. Vimeo is aimed at professionals.
I wouldn't say it's necessarily easy. I'm just very curious as to where the black hole is in their business model.

I've never encountered an internet business where the biggest cost (by far) wasn't personnel. Like yeah, I'm acutely aware that video is much beefier than other types of internet content, but even considering that, this doesn't make sense.

It's definitely not storage, storage is cheap as fuck. Like $0.02/month to store a few hours of 1080p video. (And if you shop around, you can get much better deals than that.) It might be bandwidth, but even then... I don't know. Porn sites make it work somehow. Something fucky's going on.

One idea I've been kicking around is the possibility of someone making an open source youtube clone. Not like full youtube, but like the phpbb to youtube's facebook. A little open source video site that anyone can drop onto a server and run themselves. So you'd see little gaming groups running their own *tubes. They set the rules. Maybe there could be some ad network integration features. They handle the DMCA complaints themselves.

Personally, I think Youtube's big tent approach is retarded anyway. You're never going to satisfy all the weird little political groups, so you just end up with this milquetoast melange of nothing that no one on any side likes. Basically like TV 2.0. Well, that's exactly what youtube wants, I guess.

Ultimately though, if it is because the business model is fundamentally untenable, then I still wouldn't say youtube is a monopoly. Youtube wouldn't be a monopoly any more than some dipshit giving out free hotdogs has a monopoly on the free hotdog market. Giving something away at a loss (and not recouping your loss at some point) is not an anti-competitive action. It's just dumb.

I don't think anti-trust laws should be used outside of their original purposes. I think a lot of people don't like youtube and facebook for various reasons (some good reasons, some bad reasons), and they think "let's regulate them, they're big! that means monopoly, right?", which is not true.

As someone who works in tech, I honestly don't think I believe in such a thing as a software-based monopoly. I've seen too many businesses started from people's basements for me to believe that a viable business can't beat a established player if it's good enough. Well, unless network neutrality gets nuked. Then we're all fucked.
 
Isn't Twitch only streaming though? That's not good for everyone. Although honestly I almost never go to Twitch so many I'm wrong.

The smaller you are the worse it is for you on Youtube. No one will ever find your video even if you just uploaded it.

Twitch does do "VODS" and such, but you typically have to be subscribed to them to get access to them. Some networks and streamers just ditch that stuff out there and let folks enjoy them as a way of encouraging people in to come watch their streams live.

I wouldn't say it's necessarily easy. I'm just very curious as to where the black hole is in their business model.

I've never encountered an internet business where the biggest cost (by far) wasn't personnel. Like yeah, I'm acutely aware that video is much beefier than other types of internet content, but even considering that, this doesn't make sense.

It's definitely not storage, storage is cheap as fuck. Like $0.02/month to store a few hours of 1080p video. (And if you shop around, you can get much better deals than that.) It might be bandwidth, but even then... I don't know. Porn sites make it work somehow. Something fucky's going on.

One idea I've been kicking around is the possibility of someone making an open source youtube clone. Not like full youtube, but like the phpbb to youtube's facebook. A little open source video site that anyone can drop onto a server and run themselves. So you'd see little gaming groups running their own *tubes. They set the rules. Maybe there could be some ad network integration features. They handle the DMCA complaints themselves.

Personally, I think Youtube's big tent approach is exceptional anyway. You're never going to satisfy all the weird little political groups, so you just end up with this milquetoast melange of nothing that no one on any side likes. Basically like TV 2.0. Well, that's exactly what youtube wants, I guess.

Ultimately though, if it is because the business model is fundamentally untenable, then I still wouldn't say youtube is a monopoly. Youtube wouldn't be a monopoly any more than some dipshit giving out free hotdogs has a monopoly on the free hotdog market. Giving something away at a loss (and not recouping your loss at some point) is not an anti-competitive action. It's just dumb.

I don't think anti-trust laws should be used outside of their original purposes. I think a lot of people don't like youtube and facebook for various reasons (some good reasons, some bad reasons), and they think "let's regulate them, they're big! that means monopoly, right?", which is not true.

As someone who works in tech, I honestly don't think I believe in such a thing as a software-based monopoly. I've seen too many businesses started from people's basements for me to believe that a viable business can't beat a established player if it's good enough. Well, unless network neutrality gets nuked. Then we're all fucked.

Except you're not taking into consideration youtube's scale and domination of the market. It's a catch-all-term, just like "let me google it" is now pretty much a term for "let me search something" online, youtube also does the same for videos.

Per day, some 432,000 hours of content are uploaded to youtube, over 1.3bn users per day use the site. The sheer scale is mind boggling.
 
Except you're not taking into consideration youtube's scale and domination of the market. It's a catch-all-term, just like "let me google it" is now pretty much a term for "let me search something" online, youtube also does the same for videos.

Per day, some 432,000 hours of content are uploaded to youtube, over 1.3bn users per day use the site. The sheer scale is mind boggling.
This is all relative. Everything in that post holds at small scales.
 
What I'm getting from this is that modern youtube is actually a shitty idea that sticks around from sheer inertia and the sunk cost fallacy.
IMO Google also runs it at a loss to make sure nobody else can afford to compete, the same way Walmart used to stock way more cheap generic products, until they pushed everybody small out of business, then the generics got dropped or put in a fancier box with a higher price.
 
If it's so easy to make a YouTube competitor how come all of their competitors are either dead or moved away from being an alternative? Dailymotion has been downplaying UGC for more corporate stuff. Vimeo is aimed at professionals.

It is literally as simple as most content creators on youtube who would otherwise be on other platforms either:

A: Being afraid to lose their audience in the transition.
B: Being afraid that youtube is the one and only true god of video hosting
C: Anything that isn't youtube is going to eventually go under because they aren't youtube
D: Some combination of the above.

The main actual problem is that everyone who suggests "hey how about you go to bitchute or dailymotion, or vimeo" or even just points out that alternatives exist in general always get a response that boils down to "oh well they're not youtube, so obviously they can't out-compete youtube" despite it being a fucking service based on user-made content. For some reason this attitude is so god damn ubiquitous that people make up all sorts of excuses why youtube just can't be taken on for whatever reason. If enough people, who make content for youtube, were to leave it all at once, it would actually have competition, but people for various reasons -both viewer and content creator alike - keep making up all sorts of arguments so they don't have to move their lazy asses from one site to the other to view content.
 
Back