That doesn't seem right to me. If they were to cease hosting his material, that would maych their corporate-speak blurb. This sounds to me like more money for YouTube.
If he is demonetized, then his videos won’t get ad placement, so Google won’t make the money in the first place, as it will contribute neither to advertising revenue nor to the marginal benefit from the Premium users derived compared to non-Premium users in avoiding ads.
Since Google pays creators less than it makes from their content, Google is giving up money (in a narrow analysis) by demonetizing Brand, not keeping additional money. (In a broader analysis, the rational for demonetizing is that monetizing toxic content hurts the brand and alienates advvertisers, so it is profitable to demonetize that content in the long run despite the immediate hit from any particular decision to do so.)
The exception is demonetization for certain copyright claims, which effectively isn’t “really” demonetization, its letting the copyright holder take the creators place for monetization.
While Youtube may be discounting direct revenue from this specific and limited set of content, Alphabet recognises the value of ostensibly being the quasi-exclusive repository & catalogue of video content.
Denying to their "users"/viewers the availability of some subset of content hurts their reputation more than "losing" a negligeable fraction of direct monetisation.
Leaving aside the morality of repudiating monetisation while allowing access, this is a sound strategy for maintaining the Youtube platform's monopoly and raison d'être. Which is after all the core of their ability to maximise shareholder value, and what else matters to a corporation?
Not necessarily true. YouTube definitely runs ads on demonetized videos and channels.
There's partial stuff like Content ID matches. If you post my song, YT still shows ads, but you get no money. I now get your ad money (and YT its cut).
Not sure what they meant in case of Russell Brand, but I bet they will show ads for advertisers who don't opt out and pocket the profit.
Why? Their advertisers might complain about being featured on his content
Not showing ads is the same as just burning money for Google.
Because someone, at some point, got an email that looked something like https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-09/416421.pdf (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37572692 ) - and one does not simply see an email like that and not implement this kind of thing.
If you’re just starting out and don’t qualify to become a “partner”, you can’t monetize your videos until you reach X amount of subscribers and Y amount of watch hours.
This doesn’t mean your videos won’t have ads on them. They most assuredly will have ads on them. It just means that YouTube doesn’t consider you good enough to share the revenue with you.
Load of BS of course.
Either content is good enough to place ads on, revenue of which is shared, or your content isn’t good enough to place ads on. Making profit over someone else’s content (however abhorrent the person might be) is just dirty imho.
as long as the number isn't too high I don't really see a problem with it
it's not going to be exposed because why show your cards, you're not a CDN. And there's a reason people use YouTube not CDNs and it's not just the complexity and discovery, it's still not super cheap.
Youtube is a free platform to host video content, they themselves need to pay the bills. At a particular point that your videos become "valuable" they offer to provide you with a cut.
The grey area is potentially how they determine the value
However, I do agree with your comment. If the videos cause harm them nobody should be profiting from them and realistically they should be taken offline as well.
So they’re still making profits off someone else’s work (without retribution)
So I guess we can expect to see wannabe-Billy Mays ads on demonetized shows.
1. YouTube can show ads BETWEEN videos and keep 100% of the money.
2. YouTube runs ads WITHIN videos if owner "monetizes", and shares the profit.
3. Creators run "promotions" within their videos and keep 100% of the money.
They only stopped #2. Both YouTube and Brand are still both making money off brands videos on YouTube.
If you are not partnered, YouTube runs ads within videos and keeps 100% of the money.
It seems pretty clear that there are no in-video ads running on Brand's channel currently. People are welcome to check for themselves:
The video was actually much easier to watch without the blasted YT ads that normally pop up every 5 minutes. And I suppose Brand still gets paid 100% for the embedded promos he narrated and negotiated with the advertisers.
You don't have an ad blocker?
Are these things you want?