YouTube Continues Demonetizing Gun Videos

Not exactly breaking news, right? But the percentage of my videos that YouTube chooses to pull paid advertising from just keeps going up. Click this photo (possibly twice) to expand it:

That’s my last 29 videos in order. Of those, 20 are demonetized and 1 was removed as “inappropriate content” (a no-frills suppressor review). That’s a 72.4 percent reject rate.

When a video is marked for limited ads, the above is what that means. For all of my videos, it has meant a full loss of any revenue.

YouTube’s “advertiser-friendly content guidelines” can be found HERE. Which one of the following categories would you say I’m in violation of?

Controversial issues and sensitive events

Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not suitable for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be suitable for advertising given the subject matter.

Drugs and dangerous products or substances

Video content that promotes or features the sale, use, or abuse of illegal drugs, regulated drugs or substances, or other dangerous products is not suitable for advertising. Videos discussing drugs or dangerous substances for educational, documentary, and artistic purposes are generally suitable for advertising, so long as drug use or substance abuse is not graphic or glorified.

Harmful or dangerous acts

Video content that promotes harmful or dangerous acts that result in serious physical, emotional, or psychological injury is not suitable for advertising. Some examples include videos depicting painful or invasive surgical or cosmetic procedures, or pranks involving sexual harassment or humiliation.

Hateful content

Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not suitable for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be suitable for advertising.

Inappropriate language

Video content that contains frequent uses of strong profanity or vulgarity throughout the video may not be suitable for advertising. Occasional use of profanity won’t necessarily result in your video being unsuitable for advertising, but context matters.

Inappropriate use of family entertainment characters

Videos depicting family entertainment characters or content, whether animated or live action, engaged in violent, sexual, vile, or otherwise inappropriate behavior, even if done for comedic or satirical purposes, are not suitable for advertising.

Incendiary and demeaning

Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be suitable for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be suitable for advertising.

Sexually suggestive content

Video content that features highly sexualized content, such as video content where the focal point is nudity, body parts, or sexual simulations, is not suitable for advertising. Content that features sex toys, sexual devices, or explicit conversation about sex may also not be suitable for advertising, with limited exceptions for non-graphic sexual education videos.

Violence

Video content where the focal point is on blood, violence, or injury, when presented without additional context, is not suitable for advertising. Violence in the normal course of video gameplay is generally acceptable for advertising, but montages where gratuitous violence is the focal point is not. If you’re showing violent content in a news, educational, artistic, or documentary context, that additional context is important.

comments

  1. avatar Hal_greaves says:

    I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that it is actually both the adverting companies and VISA / MasterCard that’s the true culprit behind this.

    I work in marketing for “verboten” products such as adult material and Marijuana related material and I can say the bulk majority of companies paying huge ad revenues are really seriously Puritan, and Visa / MasterCard are even worse.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Well maybe some of that…..but no, it’s just the cork-sucking SJWs that have infested everything & everywhere.

      All the Left is yapping about Russia intefering with 2016 election with their laughably small social media buy ON BOTH SIDES.

      Just watch how Google, Facebook, Youtube, and all social media is just going to put a blackout on conservative info during the 2020 election.

      Just look how blatent Google is with banning Prager University videos and getting away with banning THE leading conservative messaging site with over a billion views. If they can get away with banning a site that public, imagine how they are shadow banning scores of smaller conservative sites that have no way to fight them.

      Trump is an idiot for not going anti-trust on these virtual monopolies.

  2. avatar Madcapp says:

    You really don’t see many new gun videos from your average Joe anymore on YouTube. I’ve been hoping to see some end-user experience with the newly available WBP line of AKs, and…nothing. I’ve been looking for other firearms too, and the same result…nill. I have to wonder what’s up on the individual user level…maybe there has been a chilling effect, and people have become too afraid to post gun videos at this point. There’s a topic for discussion….

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      The biggest rush of people doing the average Joe reviews know the videos won’t earn money for them, so they have to try something different to become YouTube famous. I’ve noticed a Huge decline on newish guns too. Leaving only the bigger guys that you’d probably watch on Full 30 anyways.

  3. avatar Dude says:

    No “political conflicts” … So CNN and MSNBC are always demonetized, right?

  4. avatar Mustrum says:

    if I was guessing they probably invoke this rather broad and nebulous section; a catch all for things they don’t like as ‘social justice warriors’,

    “”or other dangerous products is not suitable for advertising””

    it is hard to argue that firearms are not dangerous when they are designed to propel small bits of metal accurately at high speed.

    1. avatar Pu Le Aze.. says:

      “…it is hard to argue that firearms are not dangerous when they are designed to propel small bits of metal accurately at high speed…”

      Really? How about a design that propels large bits (4,000 lbs plus objects) of metal, with a human or humans inside, from directly opposite directions, only 2 feet from each other at high rates of speed, with (sometimes inaccurate) humans at the controls? Repeating that “experiment” oh about a billion times a day, every day, in all weather conditions.

      Doesn’t sound dangerous at all…Right? Nah..

  5. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Yo, Tube, a few million others and I will probably stop watching cars and music. Should work wonders for your advertising revenue.

    1. avatar tibby says:

      Nope. They won’t even notice you and your friends absence.

      1. avatar Geoff "It's allways good to turn a troll into a fun punch-toy" PR says:

        Aw, look at little ‘tibby’, who thinks it is being clever… 🙂

  6. avatar TexTed says:

    The de-monetizing is a thing, a very big thing. But YouTube’s pretty much de-monetized already. The average youtuber needs 1,000 views to make a dollar. Think about that, when you see some video that has 58,000 views, that means the poor yokel who posted it got a whole $58. Or when you see some mega-viral hit that racks up a million views… the person who posted it clocks a paltry $1,000.

    Every bit of gun content needs to get off YouTube and go to a gun-friendly site like Full30, who pays something like 10x per view more than YouTube does.

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      Totally. Did you see my last check from F30? https://www.instagram.com/p/BwK7mNKFy1B/ 😉

  7. avatar Truckman says:

    well I agree with you there but at least what ones I do watch are ones about info on guns and knife making and that’s so few it’s like the cigarette makers and liquor makers and drug pushers they all go broke before they get any of my money last time I brought a pack of cig.s they were 60 cents and that was name brand and it has been 15 years since I got a bottle of whiskey fact is there is a whole bottle sitting in cabinet been there since it was given to me years back

    1. avatar VicRattlehead says:

      I prefer my wiskey to sit for 15yrs (in a barrel) before I enjoy it. It NEVER sits that long on my shelf though. 😂

  8. avatar RF s a BFBD says:

    DON’T FEED THE BEAST. USE AN AD-BLOCKER. SCREW YOUTUBE AND ITS SJW MASTERS.

  9. avatar Binder says:

    At the end of the day I don’t think it is YouTube, but the advertisers. Or now do you think that the advertisers are required to monetize all gun videos?

    There are still a lot of videos on YouTube that Full30 will not touch. Oil trap anyone?

  10. avatar Mehul Kamdar says:

    Serious suggestion to Robert Farago and the TTAG team – why not start a Gun Videos section right here? You have an awesome history in building profitable web based businesses. Why not a gun video business right here to draw the amazingly talented crowd whom Alphabet / Google / Youtube are trying to choke off here, and help them make money while making TTAG wealthier? Frankly, I would much rather watch gun videos here than on Youtube, and I am sure that many others would as well.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      1) Farago sold TTAG quite a while ago and is no longer involved.
      2) Hosting videos is an expensive operation. Servers (redundant and in multiple locations) and internet service (enough to feed all your simultaneous viewers) can be leased from hosting companies or space leased in a data center for your equipment. You need the technical staff that can create and support the site, not a bunch of journalists and bloggers that TTAG has. You also need the business staff to go sell the ad space and pay the content creators.
      3) There’s already alternative video sites, like Full30 they’d have to compete against.

      Instead of just shutting down NRA TV, I think they should open it up to user content creation. They already have the staff, infrastructure, and market penetration to be successful. The advertisers know guns will be featured, and it would be a revenue stream to support their other operations. They can have official “channels” for the shows and personalities they already produce and continue with their non-critical reviews and such (have you ever seen them say bad things about a reviewed gun?). Maybe even spin it off as a quasi-independent for-profit company gives it money based on owning a percentage of the company and licensing of the NRA name. That gives it more separation when a content creator posts a review that calls Sig, Kimber, or whoever’s new product an overpriced piece of junk that isn’t ready for market.

  11. avatar Tom says:

    I’d like to leave YouTube behind, but Full30 isn’t on Roku (I don’t care to watch videos on my small computer screen).

    Ditto re: politically oriented videos I like (e.g., USA Watchdog) — at present there’s no alternative outlet on which one can view on a TV screen.

    Living under a Progressive monopoly (YouTube) really s**ks.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email