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. 

Thoughts on YouTube Red

I find it amazing that despite how much time I put into absorbing content from YouTube’s vast array of creators, I am not even remotely interested in paying a monthly fee for a Red subscription. The service comes with several features that would seem enticing, the biggest of which being that ads are removed from videos. The advertising on YouTube does not bother me very much. When considering that most videos I watch can go upwards of half an hour each, a 30 second advertisement is not a big deal. Further still, the advertisements that I see are frequently matched well with the subject matter of the video I am watching, so I sometimes watch the advertisement all the way through, instead of going straight to the skip option, at least when it is available. Other benefits, such as offline viewing and original programming from some of YouTube’s most popular content creators just do not sway me very much either.

The only real feature that I am interested in is the ability to listen to play videos while on another app or with the screen off, especially when much of the content that I watch is discussion-based, where audio is much more important than video. However, I believe that this “benefit” should have automatically come with the YouTube app in its original form, and it frustrates me greatly that it is being kept to Red subscribers only. It is an intuitive feature should be included in the standard app. There is no way that I am paying $9.99 a month just to be able to look at other apps while using YouTube, especially when other subscription services like Spotify Premium have student discounts that are half that price.

Despite all these reasons, even if YouTube Red were to add features that made me feel that it was worth my money, I would have to still refuse on principle. Almost all of the YouTube channels that I am subscribed to have to deal with false copyright claims on their material, and due to YouTube’s broken copyright claim system, they often are unable to resolve the issues in a timely manner, which leads to them losing revenue from videos that they worked hard to make. Many companies seem to place false copyright claims because they either do not understand copyright law, or they do not care. YouTube has made almost no attempt to resolve this widespread issue, which is making me lose great respect for it as a brand, though I continue to watch it to support my favorite content creators. I refuse to give money to a subscription service that is not even worth my money when its owner is not going to help out the content creators that have made YouTube the social media juggernaut it has become.

Sunday Nights – When TV and Social Media Join Hands

When it comes to television, social media is at its most active on Sundays, according to Nielsen’s recent Social Media Report.  About one third of weekly Twitter activity and over forty percent of weekly Facebook activity focusing on television occurred in the United States this past fall. Audiences are very engaged with their television programming and want to continue the conversation online. Sunday Night Football, along with a number of very popular television series (The Walking Dead, Empire, American Horror Story) have inspired vast fanbases that not only return to watch on a weekly basis, but also post and discuss their reactions and follow conversations on their social media accounts.

It is interesting to see how strong social media activity is surrounding TV despite the fact that traditional TV is drawing in fewer and fewer watchers. Many Americans are opting to cord-cut, choosing instead to rely on streaming services such as Hulu or Netflix. On average, there has been a drop in TV ratings. Investing in television is still a viable option for advertisers, though it is becoming more important to get advertisements paired with shows that are receiving significant audience engagement.

Watching how the relationship between TV programming and its audiences has changed with the advent of social media has been very interesting. I think it is remarkable how people all over the world can participate in a conversation together as they all watch a story or event unfold. With TV, when a channel can create a show or program that gets so many people invested in what happens, those people are going to want to discuss it with others. It will be interesting to look at the statistics for the spring to see if the trend continues.

Oh Internet... Can You Please Leave Ben Affleck Alone?

It is truly amazing how quickly the internet changes its tune.

When Ben Affleck was first cast as Batman over three years ago, the anger from people online was palpable. The overwhelming consensus coming from the internet was that Affleck would not only ruin the character, but also the movie in which he was to debut, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Then the movie came out. And while it received incredibly negative reviews (I personally see it as an extremely flawed but ambitious film), Affleck’s portrayal of the character was almost universally praised. The internet had gone from thinking his casting was an omen to believing his Batman was a metaphorical second coming of Christ.

Fans are now eagerly awaiting Affleck’s solo Batman movie that he is co-writing and directing, tentatively titled The Batman. Unfortunately for Affleck, because he has had two different films come out within the past several months, he has had to constantly deal with questions focusing on his Batman film at press junkets. In recent interviews, it has become very clear that he is growing tired of the questions, and how the internet overanalyzes every word he says to then spread rumors and gossip about if the movie will actually be made. It’s hard not to notice the frustration he is feeling when watching this clip from his recent appearance on Jimmy Kimmel:

Now, I get it. This is how internet fandom operates, and Ben Affleck should accept the situation if he really wants to participate in this franchise. Of course, Batman is a very popular, viable character and any movie featuring him is going to be highly anticipated. However, I believe that Warner Bros. (the film studio that produces the Batman films) should really be trying to take control of the situation, and not leave Affleck to seemingly deal with it on his own, especially if there is a tipping point at which he decides to not make the movie. There have been many rumors as of late about how Affleck is unhappy with both the project and the environment surrounding it, and is considering abandoning it altogether. Warner Bros. should use its social media resources to try and control the narrative, making it clear when certain rumors are flat out untrue while trying to make sure that both the media and the fans are on the same page. I by no means believe that Warner Bros. should deal with every rumor that gains even a modicum of traction, but it should consider addressing fairly popular rumors that are trying to portray the studio's plans in a completely negative light. The studio has several places from which it reports news regarding its DC Comics properties, whether it be Facebook pages or YouTube channels, and it would be nice to see them take advantage of these platforms to keep fans properly informed.

I may be asking for the impossible, but I really would like for the internet to just relax about The Batman, at least until it is officially announced. Ben Affleck should just be allowed to work on the script in peace, but alas, as anyone familiar with the internet knows, it can be a volatile and sometimes unforgiving place.