YouTube Changes Ad Revenue Standards for New Channels

For new YouTube channels seeking to profit off of the content they produce, it appears that 10,000 total views is now the number that must be reached in order to begin receiving ad revenue. The popular video site recently made several announcements about changes to its partner program in order to ensure the legitimacy of YouTube channels. New creators that reach this benchmark will then be subject to a review process for the YouTube Partner Program. If they pass this check, then YouTube will begin to implement ads into their videos, allowing them to earn revenue. Channels that were already earning revenue despite having less than 10,000 views before these changes were announced will not be affected.

Despite my typical reservations about how YouTube is operated and how it treats its content creators, I actually like these new changes, at least in theory. Having a simple, efficient check for new channels at an early benchmark is a smart idea, mostly in order to show that content creators are willing to play by the rules. Also, creators that are serious about making a living out of producing content on YouTube will need far more than 10,000 views to be financially successful, so the benchmark is low enough that it does not really hurt them very much. It will be interesting to see, however, if the review process is actually as effective and fair as it needs to be. If it is anything like YouTube's now infamous copyright claims process, then new content creators have a right to be concerned. Time will tell, and it will certainly be interesting to see how this procedure affects new content on YouTube.

Companies Pull Ads from YouTube amidst Controversy

Concerns have been growing recently over the presence of extremist content on YouTube, particularly videos supporting terrorist organizations like ISIS. Many businesses that pay for advertising on the platform are worried that their content will be placed alongside videos that are extremist in nature, thus reflecting poorly on their brands. The controversy has become so significant that many big companies such as AT&T and Verizon have elected to pull all ads from the platform until Google sufficiently address and correct the issue. Considering that these two companies spend billions of dollars on advertising platforms like YouTube, it is fairly apparent how much of a problem this is becoming for Google.

Google is clearly at fault here, and these companies have every right to be concerned about the protection of their brands. The standards that Google has set with regards to brand protection need to be raised. Giving advertisers more control, allowing them to choose content that they wish their ads to appear alongside would be a logical step in the right direction to alleviate the issue. Whatever action Google decides to take, it needs to do so quickly, in order to not just get back the companies that they have lost, but to prevent more from leaving due to this problem.

McDonald's: The Latest Victim of Hacking

Regardless of its global presence and vast amount of resources, even the largest fast food chain in the world cannot escape the threat of hacking. Several days ago, the corporate Twitter account of McDonald's was compromised, with the responsible party posting the following tweet that attacked Donald Trump.

McDonald's quickly moved to delete the tweet and post a response explaining the situation. Despite these actions, the company received (and in some cases is still receiving) backlash from Trump supporters, many of whom want to #BoycottMcDonalds. Most people seem to understand that the tweet was the result of hacking, but it appears that some people still are not getting the message.

This situation perfectly illustrates the danger that hacking presents and how it can quickly lead to a public relations nightmare for any business with social media presence. Even though McDonald's took immediate action to counter the hack by informing its followers as to what happened, some people failed to see beyond the hacked tweet to fully understand the situation. No matter how much work is put in to fix an incident like this, there is no way to completely put down the backlash that follows, regardless of if it is justified or not. It is interesting to note that the hacked account was specifically McDonald's corporate account, which has far less reach than the company's primary account, meaning that the damage could have been much worse had it happened to that account instead. A situation like this should serve as a cautionary tale to all businesses, showing just how important it is to maintain constant vigilance with regards to their social media pages.  

Millennials Fear Repercussions of Constant Social Media Use

A new report from the American Psychological Association was recently released, finding that about nine out of ten people that fall into the “millennial” age group (18-29) use social media. This may seem fairly logical, but the more concerning issue is that the report also found that nearly 50 percent of millennials fear that their frequent social media use is negatively affecting their health, but physically and mentally. The worst of this crowd, according to the report, are referred to as ‘constant checkers’, who are constantly looking at their texts, emails, or other social media platforms. People falling under this category, on average, reportedly have higher stress levels. Almost two-thirds of Americans believe that occasionally “unplugging” is important. About a fourth of that amount actually performs a technological detox.

As a millennial, this issue of social media overuse has been a topic that I have found myself thinking about more and more often. I would not even remotely consider myself a ‘constant checker’, though I would say that I do look at my social media accounts a fair amount. I have thought several times within that past couple of years about a technological detox of some sort, but I do not think it is a realistic proposition. I do use social media for recreational purposes, but it has also become important for academics. Schoolwork and social media are now inherently connected in many regards, so completely separating oneself from all social media accounts could also have negative consequences. I am not yet at the point where I believe that it is hurting my health, but I do have the concern that it could potentially in the future.

Social Media Police: The Way of the Future

Being careful about what you post online is a lesson that many people have had to learn the hard way, whether it be for applying for a job, avoiding stalkers, or simply trying to stay in the good graces of your significant other’s family. Now it appears as if there is another interested party looking at your Facebook pictures: insurance companies. Insurance investigators are looking at user profiles on social media sites to analyze liability, and it appears that anything public is fair game. For example, if someone enjoys skydiving or spelunking and frequently posts pictures about it, they could face negative repercussions as to what their insurance coverage looks like. In a world where companies are able to pull all of the data about yourself from online and construct a timeline of your life, this development is no surprise; however, it does highlight the caution people should take when they make posts online.

Personally, I am not sure whether or not this is going too far. It is somewhat difficult to emphasize with the consumer argument that these sort of practices are intrusive when the content itself is being posted to a public forum. While it is very easy to tell people to just be smart about what they post, a more realistic solution might be for people to look at their privacy settings for each of their social media accounts and to adjust accordingly. It has gotten to the point where if anything posted on social media contradicts with information you have disclosed previously, you could face damaging consequences. As great as social media is in connecting people and allowing them to share experiences, developments like this shed a light on how it can be used against people.

Netflix Ads: Are They Worth It?

It is fairly common knowledge that a significant reason why people are choosing Netflix as their primary content provider is that there are no advertisements. That is wonderful from a consumer standpoint, but have you ever considered how much the streaming service is turning down to maintain its ad-free platform?

A report recently published by the website Extreamist claims that Netflix is losing upwards of two billion dollars annually by not allowing ads, based on calculations with the averages of Netflix watch time, television ad time, and money spent on television ads. Now whether or not the conclusions this article comes to are accurate, it does raise the question of whether Netflix should seriously consider ad spots with their programming.

Netflix is infamous for not releasing data on how well its programming performs, so it is difficult to gauge if advertising would be effective with this service. Also, as stated previously, many people choose Netflix because of the lack of ads. Who knows what would happen to Netflix’s subscriber numbers if ads were introduced.  The report also brought up a survey that was conducted which showed that a majority of the participants would prefer hire monthly fees over ads. All that being said, leadership from Netflix has expressed great interest in expanding its library of original content to becoming half of the total content available. That is not a cheap investment, and Netflix needs to maintain constant vigilance with its finances if it wants to not only be a streaming service, but also a production company. Revenue gained from ads could help fund more original content.

To be fair, nobody from Netflix has stated any intent to introduce ads; the report is completely based on theoretical circumstances. Netflix is not hurting financially by any means, but looking for more ways to increase revenue is a logical move for any business to make. It does appear that Netflix is going to continue its current approach, at least for the time being. I think it would be very interesting to perform a more in-depth analysis of what drives people to choose Netflix, and if either higher fees or ads would drive them away. 

The Art of Movie Review Embargoes

Have you ever been curious about the reviews for an upcoming film and decided to go to a website like Rotten Tomatoes to see its score, only to find that there are no reviews up for it yet? This seems to be the case more and more often, due to film studios relying heavily on review embargoes. A review embargo is when studios allow film critics to watch early screenings of a film on the condition that the critics release their reviews at a date that is set by the studio. For most films coming out today, embargoes are lifted just days before they are released.

Review embargoes are a tool that studios utilize in order to maximize public turnout for movies. If the embargo for a new Star Wars movie lifted on the Wednesday before its Friday opening, then suddenly the internet would be filled with content about the movie, typically causing great traction on social media. However, there is a more cynical reason for review embargoes.Certain films have review embargoes that are set for the very day that those films are released. Why? The answer is simple: the studio has no confidence in the film performing well critically, and is trying to suppress negative reviews for as long as possible so that they do not keep people away from the theater.

I understand the need for embargoes up to a certain point. Particularly for the tent-pole blockbusters, it makes sense that film studios want to have reviews up at the same time to receive the greatest amount of buzz. I also understand to a lesser extent the wish to protect spoilers until a film is out. However, the need to suppress overwhelming negative reviews until the last minute, while logical, just feels dishonest to me. I really wonder how much the general public understands about how film review embargoes operate, and if they have a significant effect on people who are not necessarily movie-buffs.