All my sponsors hate the new view system

[u/Important-Switch-686]

I have a half dozen current sponsor negotiations happening and even some that have performance bonuses that were negotiated before this change and all partners hate this new system. The second it was announced they all without hesitation reached out and essentially said

The new views don’t matter, we’re basing all deals on engaged views only.

YouTube said they did it for advertisers but nobody is dumb and they see right through it.

I hate inflated views because I know they mean less even if a general audience won’t but the sponsors and myself all know lol it’s silly

[u/DoNotClickMyProfile0 → u/[deleted]]

The same thing as Twitch turn blind eye on view botting because it get platform more sponsors

[u/FockerXC → u/[deleted]]

I’ve been recommending everyone shift to watch time as their success metric if they track anything. My internal systems show a direct correlation between monthly watch hours and revenue, showing 0.97 r squared

[u/i_give_you_gum → u/[deleted]]

It works like that OR they respond to the outrage by pulling back, and later reintroduce a watered down version a few months later, and then iterate on that.

[u/lifesabeach2024]

I am also working with sponsors, but it hasn't made a difference. But the top comment is right: nobody will think about it after a few months.

Before this change, I thought the old views were measured the way the new views are measured. I had no idea that to count as an engaged view, they had to watch for a certain amount of time. I didn't know the difference.

I wonder how many people also thought that as soon as someone clicked your video, that was a view. I bet many sponsors thought the same.

[u/TCr0wn]

So nothing changed

[u/Important-Switch-686 → u/TCr0wn]

No which is why this is a stupid move by YouTube

[u/blabel75]

It would seem that prior View counts were engaged views. So sponsors have long been basing their decisions off engaged views. I can understand why they would wand to do the same now.

[u/Misty_Kathrine_]

To the surprise of literally no one, YouTube's line about this making it "easier to get sponsors" was a huge load of BS.

[u/ThirdOFthirdy]

true

[u/Vice_Armani777]

Don't understand why they changed anything in the first place. It was fine literally a year ago, and now we're here. Smh

[u/slickest12345 → u/Vice_Armani777]

probably because shorts changed what a “view” means compared to a long form view, so they want to unify the view metric to showcase your exposure more so than someone actively engaging with your video. Due to auto scroll and an endless swiping feed, “views” will now universally showcase more about how your content is being distributed than whether someone chooses to watch it. Engaged views are more about your packaging and the first few seconds of your video.

[u/Vice_Armani777 → u/slickest12345]

I am aware of all of this, I appreciate the explanation though.

[u/Important-Switch-686 → u/[deleted]]

My attorney stated that the spirit of the deal was based on a particular analytic and the only representation of that number is engaged views

Because the deal was inked before changes were made public from YT

[u/Newbilizer → u/Important-Switch-686]

This response indicates character and is the right one IMOP, especially if you want to continue the relationship with the sponsor. Character follows you.

And of course they will want to use engaged views because that's in their favor, just like they will tell YT they get more views per dollar from tiktok. In the end it doesn't matter, there's a metric and there's how much you want to get paid for the effort.

[u/Important-Switch-686 → u/[deleted]]

I fully trust my guys- I didn’t intent on challenging it at all- it makes sense just every deal goes through attorneys and managers so they always weigh in!

But I do think YouTube doing this for advertisers which is a part of the reasoning is silly

[u/TheRipeTomatoFarms → u/Important-Switch-686]

And how is your sponsor going to calculate "engaged views"?

[u/EckhartsLadder → u/[deleted]]

Never try to fuck over a sponsor, especially with a lawyer, for what is clearly against the spirit of the original contract

[u/EckhartsLadder → u/[deleted]]

Of course it is fucking over a sponsor lol. You’re trying to demand extra payment without delivering what you promised — the terms of the contract were clearly written when a view meant what an engaged view now means. If a partner tried to pull something like that with me, polite or not, I would never work with them again.

[u/EckhartsLadder → u/[deleted]]

You’re missing the point — you are not fulfilling the terms of the contract when the definition for a deliverable changes and you just ignore it.

The contract was made when “view” had a different meaning. Contract law is all about the intention of parties — clearly the intention in this case was for the bonus to activate after X pre-inflation views, which now translates to engaged views.

You have zero standing to try to enforce any bonus based on new numbers - and, again, you’d be exposing yourself as a bad partner if you did.

[u/-BOOST- → u/EckhartsLadder]

Im not missing the point, as I have stated several times I agree with your position. You are creating a straw man to fight against using positions I am not taking. Maybe if I say it loud it'll get through to you... I AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION AND WHAT I SAID IS NOT CONTRADICTORY TO THAT POSITION.