Looks like it. Considering that she would have needed to increase her views by 3 orders of magnitude to scratch out $100/month from them. She should have did affiliate marketing & patreon.
She did get some wider attention to a problem that has been discussed inside the YouTube community before. While that's not something I'd want to die for, she may have reached her goal.
This is the modern version of "as seen on TV" ads, I've started unsubscribing to anyone that does it regularly. Advertising intermixed with content is the worst form of advertising.
But why? I understand that the content creators whose videos I enjoy need to earn a living. I understand that in video advertisements offer more stable income. I'm not expecting a free lunch when it comes to these videos that require lots of time, money, and skills. Sure, people used to make and still do make videos out of a passion for the subject but there is far more content now than there used to be. Some creators use Patreon, and I support the ones I really like using that platform but I can't do that for everyone. I think listening to an ad for a VPN service or for the new Intel products is reasonable to access the content I'm not otherwise paying for.
Some channels do it acceptably. CGP Grey comes to mind, usually an ad for a service at the end of the video the advertiser has effectively funded.
It's far worse when people do it without saying, ie product placement. Can't think of any good examples since people usually get away with it, although the obvious blatant example would be any of the Jenner's on Instagram which got into issues for not reporting paid endorsements IIRC.
Can't think of any good examples since people usually get away with it,
Well, that's the thing. I can think of a good few respected tech sites that run "sponsored" articles that are disclosed in the smallest text possible and basically look like normal content. Not that I'm going to start industry beef by pointing them out :-D
This literally never happens, and you are completely wrong.
I would explain how totally wrong your are more... but I don't have enough time in my day to make the full commitment this comment should require.
I would have more time in my day if I was better organized, or kept my tasks in a program like Asana. But alas, I haven't even signed up for the free trial, because i have so little time. If I actually had Asana, I could even put writing an adequate reply to your comment as a task, so that I wouldn't forget, and I could make sure it got done.
But again. I don't even have Asana, so that won't be happening.
> I agree with what people have already said, but I think there's one more point to add: people usually over-estimate how funny their own comments are. We have a tendency to think, "This idea of mine is hilarious! And different! Surely this witticism is the exception." And we are usually wrong. When you have N people all doing that, there's a lot of noise.
> I try to gently point this out to people who complain when their attempt at humor has been downvoted by the community. It's not that we don't like humor. We just don't like banal attempts at humor, which becomes noise. Or, put in a less charitable fashion, "You're not as funny as you think you are."
HN seems to discourage jokes, although I don't see it explicitly in the guidelines. Jokes in the context of people dying probably are even less well-received.
Inquiry, recognition, and then correction of behavior. If something is ‘wrong’ with you, you should hold on to it for dear life because you just demonstrated one of the hardest things for an adult to do. Personal growth.
To be fair, jokes are frequently downvoted here, at least initially. Some people on HN seem to have a big "thing" about it not "turning into Reddit." But I appreciated it. Thanks :-D
The only channel I follow that does it regularly is Spectre Sound Studios, and I accept it because the services Glenn pimps are actually really damn good. And he makes it very clear that it's a paid interlude, not part of the actual content.
>And he makes it very clear that it's a paid interlude, not part of the actual content.
I have to say that with the content creators I follow, that is the norm rather than the exception. There is always a clear delineation between advertisement and the content, even if the advertisement is embedded in the content (i.e native advertising).
That's right, but if you're going to try to make a living creating content, you have to be able to provide for yourself. Outside of advertising, there aren't that many options for generating income - and most of the time, you have to do all of them (adverts, patreon, live appearances, swag sales, etc.) to make a living because individually they aren't enough. And this is what 'hustle' looks like in this space.
There is something off-putting about expecting some of those guys to devote hundreds of hours creating their content and then criticizing them because it's not free enough. High quality content is hard and requires talent, equipment, time and money to do.
> There is something off-putting about expecting some of those guys to devote hundreds of hours creating their content and then criticizing them because it's not free enough
I don't think this is "expected" of anyone. "YouTube creator" is not a career, it's a glorified hobby that can sometimes be lucrative, most of us wish we had the time and financial freedom to mess around with our hobbies and get paid for it but at the end of the day this is a fickle dream that one cannot reasonably expect to work out.
Advertising intermixed with content is also the only type of advertising YouTubers actually have control of. It may be annoying or inconvenient but it's a hell of a lot better than them complaining about the site that hosts their content not doing the work for them.
Those two events have nothing to do with each other.
In Paypal people send each other money, and the man in the middle is blocking it.
In YouTube, Google decides whether or not to put ads on your video and give you part of the money. You aren't entitled to that cash just because you uploaded a video and people saw it.
It's still terrible and irresponsible for YouTube to be arbitrary about it and have no clearly defined rules; it's clear they're unfair. But I don't think the comparison with PayPal makes sense.
Slightly off topic but PayPal doesn't just block it, it seizes the funds entirely for a long period of time. In any case, you're right, YouTube not advertising on videos is not at all like PayPal stealing payments.
> Revenue $0.10
So basically all of her videos were demonetized?