- 10 million views?
Come on, I can do this.
4,000 watch hours?
All right, here we go.
Okay, this one got 1,400 views, now that means I need...
Go on, go on, go on, go on. (cheering)
You son of a (bleeps).
1,000 subscribers, 4,000 watch hours
or 10 million YouTube Shorts views.
Do you think those are fair requirements
for the YouTube Partner Program to monetize your channel?
Let us know in the comments below,
but stick around until the end
because the results may astonish you.
Folks, I feel your pain.
The path to monetization can be long and tedious.
It's one of those things where you don't know how hard it is
until you actually have to do it and this goal dominates
conversation on blogs, YouTube forums, and Reddit
because every single content creator starts out
with this dream.
So now, that you've had a chance to add your thoughts,
let's delve into the answers
because an incredible 42,000 people had something to say
when we posted this on our community tab.
If you look at YouTube's Monetization Policy page, it says,
"Being accepted into the YouTube Partner Program
is a major milestone in any creator's journey."
Yes, true, agreed, but if you scroll down a little further,
you'll see that YouTube are admitting the requirements
over time are getting harder and harder to achieve,
and if you do need a quick reminder
of what the monetization requirements are in 2023,
we have a five-minute summary video up here
that you can watch after you finish watching
this video, of course.
Basically, most creators struggle
with the creative requirements that have now been around
for half a decade.
1,000 subscribers, 4,000 hours, or recently introduced
10 million YouTube Shorts views.
I think it's probably fair and safe to say,
millions of creators are still working towards this goal
and have been for years.
So is that fair?
Well, it was incredibly surprising to see
that well over half the 42,000 people who voted said, yes,
the requirements as they are, are fair.
I'm so shocked, in fact.
If I don't want to take a time out for a second
to applaud you all for reinstating my faith
in the YouTube community (clapping),
but let's just dig a little deeper into this.
I see two main reasons why people agree with these terms
and probably the same thoughts YouTube have
on why they won't monetize smaller channels.
There is a certain survival of the fittest mentality
going around here.
Ozzy Encounters were just one of the many creators
who had these similar thoughts.
"I think it ensures that people have to educate themselves
on what makes a good video, how to film and edit better,
the whole concept.
If everything was just handed to you, then the quality
of videos on YouTube would be definitely worse."
And that creator doesn't comment
from a position of privilege.
Look at that subscriber's account, nowhere near monetization
and there were many more creators just like that.
So it's awesome to see that you're all up for the challenge.
Another valid and obvious reason was all to do with money.
Sarah Marie Blog mentioned that the revenue from ads
was already low enough.
So if YouTube lowered the requirements,
there will be even more competition for ad spots
and the revenue will be even lower so much so,
but it wouldn't make any sense to make content.
They have to strike a balance
between three major stakeholders.
Viewers, creators, and advertisers.
So just imagine if a requirements were lowered,
there will be a flood of new creators
with likely subpar content.
YouTube users would likely find it more difficult
to find the content they like to watch
and advertisers may find it more difficult
to find the right videos that serve their products
to the right audiences.
YouTube's goal is to keep people on the platform
and by lowering the monetization requirements,
that's unlikely to happen,
but let's not forget about the other 41% of you
that represents still over 15,000 creators
who think the monetization requirements are unfair.
One very interesting comment that sheds light on why
some people find it hard to reach
these requirements was by Weaponry Fitness.
"Views and watch time seem impossible
with this short attention span era."
Whether it's true or not that people have
shorter attention spans these days,
the truth is they're still spending as much time
on YouTube or any other video platform.
Typically, what disrupts attention span is choice
and that's where things
like TikTok and Shorts come to play away.
You can just swipe away for hours at a time,
and so yeah, as hard and ridiculous as it may seem,
there is now a attention deficit requirement
that you can aim towards.
10 million YouTube Shorts views in 90 days,
and if I was to reverse engineer the comments,
maybe it's not the viewer's attention span,
but it's your ability as a creator
to hold their attention span that's a problem.
We've already done videos
about how to get 4,000 watch hours,
which you can watch over here,
but we need your watch time on this video first
so watch it until the end,
but since we did mention YouTube Shorts,
there does seem to be universal agreement
that 10 million Shorts views in 90 days is pretty outrageous
and not attainable even if you do get a lucky video
that goes viral.
You need several videos that go viral.
A significant number of commenters proposed that watch time
from both Shorts and longform content should be
included together rather than separate.
Now, there is some logic to this
because in a previous video,
it was calculated that if the average YouTube Short got
a view duration of 20 seconds, then 10 million
YouTube Shorts views would add up to 55,000 watch hours,
which is completely ridiculous
versus a longform requirement of 4,000 watch hours.
So if anyone from YouTube is watching this,
we'd love an answer on this.
Now, I do have a personal theory on this,
but I don't how accurate it is.
RPMs for YouTube Shorts are very, very low,
under 5 cents every 1,000 views.
So to get 10 million YouTube Shorts views would be a payout
of around about $300, which if you divide over three months
is $100 per month and that's a minimum threshold
you need to earn to get a payout from YouTube
in your AdSense account.
Just imagine if there were tons of YouTube Shorts creators
who were monetize, but were earning 10 to $20 a month,
they wouldn't get payouts for six months at a time
and that would cause huge customer support problems
for YouTube.
As I say, it's not a perfect theory,
but it's the best one I've got.
Now, how's about this for an alternative solution
to the current requirements?
Basically, the idea is any creator could get some revenue
to help them sustain and create more content.
This would be relative to the fulfillment
of the current monetization requirements.
So for example, a channel may have 100 subscribers
and 400 hours of watch time, they will be entitled
to 10% of the regular revenue from ads.
Now, I can see this having some logic
because there are channels out there who aren't monetized,
but YouTube put adverts on their videos
and they have a right to do that
because it's in the terms of service.
That, I agree, is quite annoying.
So rather than (indistinct) in the entire revenue
from that advert that the creator had no choice over,
it would be a really nice gesture from YouTube
to hand back just a smidgen of that revenue to the creator
as motivation to reach a YouTube Partner Program full-time.
Look, no matter what way you voted
or what opinions you have, none of you sums it up best.
YouTube's house, YouTube's rules.
You're probably focusing best on the things
that you can control, which is making better quality content
for your audience.
When you succeed in doing that, there's a much higher chance
that YouTube will share your content with more people.
That means more subscribers, more watch time,
or more YouTube Shorts views,
but that's also controlled by YouTube's algorithms
and if you wanna learn how they work
and how to get better at negotiating with them,
this is a video you need to watch next.
After you've watched all of those ones
that I suggested earlier on.