Are you sure? There are certain coveted demographics that advertisers are willing to pay a lot more money for than others. I don't think it's true that all views are counted the same for monetization purposes.
And then there's views that are desired so little (e.g. those on whacko conspiracy theorist channels) that advertisers aren't willing to pay to put ads on them at all, and you end up with "demonetization".
>Are you sure? There are certain coveted demographics that advertisers are willing to pay a lot more money for than others. I don't think it's true that all views are counted the same for monetization purposes.
I'm not saying any kind of 350,000 views will pay the same -- but unless there's something off (e.g. monetization off, copyright infringement, etc) 350,000 views pay substantially more than $0.1 whether the demographic.
There's plenty of content that advertisers are not willing to spend any amount of money to be associated with. To use a trivial example, imagine if the KKK had a YouTube channel. And as a more nuanced example, this woman's channel. There is some minimum cost per view, and if the ads aren't even worth that much then there won't be any revenue, rather than a small amount.
There's been a rash of negative blowback over the past couple years for being associated with certain types of content, to the point where being monetizable at all is increasingly not the default state. Advertisers would rather not risk it.
By that same logic, aren't paranoid audiences ready to throw their money at post-nuclear-war supply kits and male vitality pills gold patches for advertisers?
And then there's views that are desired so little (e.g. those on whacko conspiracy theorist channels) that advertisers aren't willing to pay to put ads on them at all, and you end up with "demonetization".