The YouTube Adpocalypse
https://learn.g2.com/youtube-demonetization
In this article, Thomson outlines the three stages of the “YouTube Adpocalypse” and how each staged has been marked by YouTube’s desire to attract more advertisers to their site. First, YouTube implemented a policy that “gave advertisers more control over the placement for their ads,” because advertisers don’t want to indirectly provide revenue to channels that promote certain kinds of negative content. Next, YouTube placed restrictions on eligibility for receiving ad revenue. Finally, YouTube banned extremist commentary, inadvertently demonetizing channels that merely covered controversy and didn’t exhibit extremism. This last step was most unfair to creators who rely on ad revenue to make a living.
If YouTube didn’t tweak it’s algorithm to filter extremist content, then advertisers would look to other video-sharing platforms to give their money to, and YouTube would have to face competitors in this advertisement market. We could view YouTube as a node linked to thousands of advertiser nodes, and although YouTube has thousands of links to advertisers, those thousands of links would be severed if YouTube didn’t provide what advertisers want. In fact, in 2017 YouTube already lost millions when major brands pulled away from YouTube because of extremist content. Because advertisers have plenty of outside options, YouTube’s relative power decreases. In that sense, it’s reasonable to see why YouTube would implement such policies — what company doesn’t want to attract advertisers and make profits? However, YouTube did this at the expense of the smaller “grassroots” YouTubers.
What’s worse is that the fact that smaller YouTubers are suffering will not sway YouTube from changing their decision. Even if these smaller YouTubers stopped uploading videos, moved away from YouTube and started using other platforms like Vimeo or Twitch, YouTube will stay standing because of all the bigger channels that don’t rely on YouTube financially, such as late-night talk shows. Bigger channels that have financial backing elsewhere won’t be affected by the demonetization of their videos.
However, this could be good news for smaller video-sharing platforms competing against YouTube in the market. If enough YouTubers moved away from YouTube, then someday YouTube could be facing competition for advertisers, given that these growing platforms attracted enough creators. Unfortunately, with the rising popularity of a platform again would come the desire of big-name advertisers to be selective about what kind of content they want their advertisement to be displayed over, and this cycle would repeat. In this network of video-platforms, advertisers, and big and small video-creators, it appears that the small, “grassroot” creators are in danger of being on the short end of negotiations.