Youtube doesn't create content. They utilize content provided to google for free by creators to drive traffic to their website. Google monetizes videos in order to be more appealing to content creators. The problem these creators have is that advertisers, corporations, competitors, and copyright trolls are easily able to game google's automated systems to get channels demonetized and content censored. It doesn't matter to youtube if a channel is demonetized because it still drives traffic to their website, it still provides google with a trove of user data (both from the person visiting youtube and the content creator's own content and usage of the site) and they will happily autoplay/suggest videos full of ads to get visitors away from the demonetized channels.
aggressive demonetization/censoring is far less expensive for google than properly moderating content, and it lets them show they are "doing something" which keeps advertisers happy and the copyright cartels at bay.
This is a popular sentiment, but its not "for free". There's cost involved in storing, transcoding and service videos to millions/billions of users and in the development of those technologies.
Imagine netflix telling movie/TV studios that they can let them stream their content for free because it's costing them money to store and distribute those works after all...
Yes, they are, if the creators choose monetization. (If the creators choose to make content free, including choosing to supply content ineligible for monetization, sure, Google isn't paying for it, but they also aren't getting direct revenue from it.)
Now, the payment is contingent on the revenue Google receives tied to the content, so it's a low-risk/low-cost consignment model (because low-cost because the unit cost of nonproductive inventory is low) rather than a “buy and try to sell” model where content that Google couldn't monetize would leave Google out piles of money that they speculatively paid for the content, but they absolutely are paying creators.
For what it's worth I'm not a big fan of monetization on youtube in general. I prefer content to be posted out of a passion to share than a profit motive and for supporters to support content creators directly, but I also object to the idea that Google owes nothing to youtubers who are simply mooching off of youtube, a company that is graciously providing youtubers a free platform, or that google doesn't gain anything from hosting videos that don't have ads all over them.
Without the content creators youtube is worthless and google has an interest in keeping them happy and using youtube. If creators have grievances with how google handles things, they are free to organize and try to apply pressure collectively.
Without ads YouTube is worthless to Google. Nonmonetized content isn't bringing revenue to Google. Sure, it has an indirect benefit in making YouTube a more attractive place to post monetized content, by it's not like creators get nothing out of it (which is why they post to YouTube rather than arranging other hosting, which is certainly valuable if less likely to be free and also likely to have less reach.)
Google gets huge volumes of valuable data with nearly every video that's uploaded. Google knows things like who the uploader is, what kind of people are in their home and their approximate ages, what clothes they wear, what products they buy, what pets they own, what interests they have.
They also get data on every visitor who views those videos, such as what their interests are or where/when/how often they watched a video or channel. All of that data makes their non-youtube ads more valuable because they can offer the guy watching videos on how to train a puppy dog food ads instead of ads for horse saddles. Youtube doesn't need ads to be a powerful tool for surveillance and data collection capable of bringing google revenue.
I agree that youtubers are getting something out of it too, mostly easier exposure and very simple hosting, but google needs content more than it needs one more place to shove their ads in our faces since much of the rest of the internet is happy to let google put their ads on their own websites.
Why do it in this case? They directly make money from selling ad space. Any data on watching is used directly to sell more ad space and gain more money.
It’s a closed loop. This is how all Google properties operate. Not having ads would be a death knell for YouTube.
Wouldn't a free market allow everyone to be in the mix, but advertisers would make the choice?
Yes, but the decision is based on feedback from advertisers. In YouTube's ideal world, every single video on the site would be monetized, but this isn't possible because advertisers do not want their brand associated with controversial topics, especially those that concern very heated political debates.
> Wouldn't a free market allow everyone to be in the mix, but advertisers would make the choice?
The creators and advertisers have no obligation to work through YouTube. In fact, all of the big creators work directly with advertisers that are friendly to their content by editing sponsored content directly into the video.
The more recent demonitizations have appeared more and more "proactive" in protecting Google, but due to the comments being made by the CEO of youtube, and by the patterns in the demonitizations its not unreasonable to suspect there maybe other factors outside of keeping advertisers happy.
Advertisers can/do choose to bypass Google and just straight sponsor videos.
For example, if you're contracted to do a job, the client doesn't usually arbitrarily change the rates it's paying you unless you have some contractual agreement to do so(overtime, paid leave, etc.).
But that's built into the original contract during negotiations.
YouTube is just "here read this shit and do what we say and we can pay you or choose not to pay you or change what we pay you whenever we feel like it whether you like it or not"
My point is that YouTube does not employ creators, they offer a free service to creators without any guarantees. I'm also pointing out that YouTube does not want to demonetize videos because demonetizing a video costs YouTube money (they host and stream the video for free, but get no revenue in return) and any changes to YouTube's business operations that would reduce the amount of videos that get demonetized would very obviously benefit YouTube.
> if you're contracted to do a job, the client doesn't usually arbitrarily change the rates it's paying you unless you have some contractual agreement to do so(overtime, paid leave, etc.).
YouTube is not contracting creators to do a job, creators are uploading their content to YouTube at no cost to them, and in exchange, YouTube offers a cut of the ad revenue to the creators if YouTube can successfully monetize the video. Whenever a video is demonetized YouTube loses.
More broadly, this same line may exist for any site/company somewhere around the point where whatever awkward construction for "person who regularly posts on site X" or "person who regularly does gig work for company X" starts getting applied to you a lot.
I have no idea how to even begin to define this in legal terms. :)
This seems pretty subjective, difficult to measure, and impractical to enforce.
I would bet money that something can be nailed down in terms of what percentage of time goes into it, what percentage of total income comes from it, and other hard measures like that, if you feel like surveying a few hundred self-described You-Tubers and a few hundred non-You-Tubers. That sure sounds like work I don't feel like doing, though.
Who would verify the amount of time spent by private individuals recording videos using their own equipment in their own homes?
> what percentage of total income comes from it
Why would that matter? It seems odd that YouTube's employer status would depend on whether or not the would-be employee has other sources of income.
>other hard measures like that
This doesn't seem like a realistic "evolution" of employer status. I'm not saying the definition won't ever evolve but it just doesn't seem practical that a private business which offers a free service to consumers would suddenly become an employer of those consumers based on how they use the service.
I'll also add that turning YouTube into an employer would have problematic consequences for creators, e.g. as an employer, YouTube would be in a position to make editorial demands of creators which would put them right back where they started (create advertiser friendly videos or you don't get paid).
At their own behest, not through any formal agreement or obligation from YouTube - YouTube only enters the picture after the producer decides to upload their content to YouTube and they don't have to do that.
> Their work is reviewed and subjected to standards and they expect return
Google offers creators a place to upload their videos for free, it does not offer any guarantees regarding returns.
Yet most galleries can't simply stop asking for payment with admission without also compensating the artist.
Isn't the price the creator gets paid determined by advertisers bidding in an auction?
It's that Google are twats that arrogantly think they can do as they please and offer no explanation for their actions.
You know, like any monopoly entity that is filled with people who depend on a paycheque to live their life.