YouTubers need your support! We might have to shut down without your help

@goodtogo, I have not made any airgun videos and do not have any desire to do so. Now, if I was a professional video editor I would think making some vids on the side would be pretty easy. I would think keeping your regular job and earning extra from vids would of been a smart move. Maybe not as fun but a safer play.

While watching someone else shooting can sometimes be entertaining there is no way I'm going to pay for there hunting trips just to watch.

People that provide a NEEDED service like running a crane should have there hand out at the end of the week. If Matt kept his real job he should have his hand out. The entertainment business has always been a risk. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

I would love to have random people pay me to live, eat, hunt but I sure as hell aint going to ask anyone for it.

Asking for handouts is poor taste in my mind but we are all free to our own opinions.

 
  • Like
Reactions: JoeWayneRhea
"Shelby78"@nueces When did I say I was entertained? No one forced him to do anything! Life is about choices and living with your choices, not asking to be bailed out cause you tried to take the easy road and it didn't work.


You want to talk others? Remember how Ted kept his real job and videos are a side thing?
Ted produce much less videos than Matt. And Matt videos are much more demanding to produce compare to Tedd. 
Matt produce videos with many many camera shots. Each shot need a set up. Tedd videos are self filmed videos.
 
 TO PRODUCE THE QUALITY VIDEOS AND THE AMOUNT OF THEM AND ALL THE WORK THAT GOES INTO IT IS SUBSTANTIAL.
I DONT THINK YOU CAN DO IT A 1/2 HOUR A DAY.
WITH THAT BEING SAID , PEOPLE LIKE MATT,TED,MR GAYLORD,MR CHAPMAN,MR ROSSI, AND MANY MORE ARE A GREAT SOURCE OF INFORMATION .(AND WISDOM TOO.)I LEARNED A LOT FROM ALL I HAD MENTIONED .I WOULD DONATE A MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION MONEY TO MATT.HE IS WORTH IT WITH THE AMOUNT OF TIME HE TAKES TO DO HIS VIDEOS AND WHAT I GET OUT OF IT. IMHO
 
"Joeb631" TO PRODUCE THE QUALITY VIDEOS AND THE AMOUNT OF THEM AND ALL THE WORK THAT GOES INTO IT IS SUBSTANTIAL.
I DONT THINK YOU CAN DO IT A 1/2 HOUR A DAY.
WITH THAT BEING SAID , PEOPLE LIKE MATT,TED,MR GAYLORD,MR CHAPMAN,MR ROSSI, AND MANY MORE ARE A GREAT SOURCE OF INFORMATION .(AND WISDOM TOO.)I LEARNED A LOT FROM ALL I HAD MENTIONED .I WOULD DONATE A MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION MONEY TO MATT.HE IS WORTH IT WITH THE AMOUNT OF TIME HE TAKES TO DO HIS VIDEOS AND WHAT I GET OUT OF IT. IMHO
100%
 
"Shelby78"@nueces When did I say I was entertained? No one forced him to do anything! Life is about choices and living with your choices, not asking to be bailed out cause you tried to take the easy road and it didn't work.


You want to talk others? Remember how Ted kept his real job and videos are a side thing?
If you watched Matt's videos, and I'm sure you did, then you were entertained. Perhpas not enough to motivate you to pay, but obviously enough to invest your time. 

And since you admit to having no clue about makng videos of any sort, your arrogance in calling that choice the "easy road" is laughable.

R
 
@emrider So because I watched something partially and turned it off I was entertained? I thought being entertained meant HOLDING someones attention. You know the first time you watch something but you don't know if you like it or not. You need to watch it some as you have never seen it to make a verdict. I would not claim someone is "entertained" unless they like it.

You seem good at trying to stuff words down my throat but maybe you should read what I actually said. I said I had no interest in making videos. I have taken video editing as part of a tech class so I do know how to do it. I said I have no interest, not that I don't know how. If I said I have no interest in driving to the store today does that now mean I don't know how to drive?

With tech the way it is now I'm willing to bet most people can figure out making some videos and editing them even if they had no experience. 20 years ago not so much.

 
I asked Google's media relations people to specifically comment on Matt's situation and got a response referring me to a series of blog posts and links about a new program Google rolled out March 21.

Since Google would not comment specifically on Matt, I'm left to color between the lines on what people like Ronan Harris, Managing Director, Google U.K. and Philipp Schindler, CHIEF BUSINESS OFFICER have announced:
  1. It appears Google is reacting to pressure from advertisers and goverments on the larger "Fake News" issue. The company is trying to find ways to stop revenue sharing with sites and creators whospread intentionally false, hateful or offensive content virally.
  2. While they were at it Google is responding to advertiser demands to help them avoid being linked to certain types of controversial or offensive content.
  3. It appears this program has ensared all kinds of creators such as Matt @AirArmsHuntinSA, Joerg Sprave @TheSlingshotChannel, and even Historic Hunter Shawn Woods (who puts up videos of mouse traps killing vermin).
    [/LIST=1]
    Google uses words like "violent" and "gory or offensive" to describe the kind of content it wants advertisers to be able to filter out. There is no mention of hunting or guns, but It's my opinion that Google keeps its language intentionally as broad and sweeping as possible so as to capture these categories if it wants to according to whatever political pressure or internal bias is at play, and explain it away however they wish.

    In addition to pressure from governments, the current Bill O'Reilly boycott issue is an excellent example of how sensitive advertisers have become. Google is responding by swinging the pendulum Waaaaay tooooo far.

    Google makes a big deal out saying they offer YouTubers new ways to appeal exclusions. And they say they're trying to protect YouTubers from having their video's ripped off by other viral sites. Seems like no consolation to Matt.

    A final note. Some of you have mentioned that there are other options for distributing video. True enough. But Google is by exponents the biggest gorilla in the room. They literally offer billions of potential eyeballs and they make revenue sharing completely seamless so that content creators only have to spend time creating -- not trying to sell ads. Being cut off by YouTube is the closest thing you can get to a death sentence.
 
"FlexWagtail"I asked Google's media relations people to specifically comment on Matt's situation and got a response referring me to a series of blog posts and links about a new program Google rolled out March 21.

Since Google would not comment specifically on Matt, I'm left to color between the lines on what people like Ronan Harris, Managing Director, Google U.K. and Philipp Schindler, CHIEF BUSINESS OFFICER have announced:
  1. It appears Google is reacting to pressure from advertisers and goverments on the larger "Fake News" issue. The company is trying to find ways to stop revenue sharing with sites and creators whospread intentionally false, hateful or offensive content virally.
  2. While they were at it Google is responding to advertiser demands to help them avoid being linked to certain types of controversial or offensive content.
  3. It appears this program has ensared all kinds of creators such as Matt @AirArmsHuntinSA, Joerg Sprave @TheSlingshotChannel, and even Historic Hunter Shawn Woods (who puts up videos of mouse traps killing vermin).
    [/LIST=1]
    Google uses words like "violent" and "gory or offensive" to describe the kind of content it wants advertisers to be able to filter out. There is no mention of hunting or guns, but It's my opinion that Google keeps its language intentionally as broad and sweeping as possible so as to capture these categories if it wants to according to whatever political pressure or internal bias is at play, and explain it away however they wish.

    In addition to pressure from governments, the current Bill O'Reilly boycott issue is an excellent example of how sensitive advertisers have become. Google is responding by swinging the pendulum Waaaaay tooooo far.

    Google makes a big deal out saying they offer YouTubers new ways to appeal exclusions. And they say they're trying to protect YouTubers from having their video's ripped off by other viral sites. Seems like no consolation to Matt.

    A final note. Some of you have mentioned that there are other options for distributing video. True enough. But Google is by exponents the biggest gorilla in the room. They literally offer billions of potential eyeballs and they make revenue sharing completely seamless so that content creators only have to spend time creating -- not trying to sell ads. Being cut off by YouTube is the closest thing you can get to a death sentence.

  1. Revenus sharing is also available in competitors platforms.
 
"GQ"
"FlexWagtail"I asked Google's media relations people to specifically comment on Matt's situation and got a response referring me to a series of blog posts and links about a new program Google rolled out March 21.

Since Google would not comment specifically on Matt, I'm left to color between the lines on what people like Ronan Harris, Managing Director, Google U.K. and Philipp Schindler, CHIEF BUSINESS OFFICER have announced:
  1. It appears Google is reacting to pressure from advertisers and goverments on the larger "Fake News" issue. The company is trying to find ways to stop revenue sharing with sites and creators whospread intentionally false, hateful or offensive content virally.
  2. While they were at it Google is responding to advertiser demands to help them avoid being linked to certain types of controversial or offensive content.
  3. It appears this program has ensared all kinds of creators such as Matt @AirArmsHuntinSA, Joerg Sprave @TheSlingshotChannel, and even Historic Hunter Shawn Woods (who puts up videos of mouse traps killing vermin).
    [/LIST=1]
    Google uses words like "violent" and "gory or offensive" to describe the kind of content it wants advertisers to be able to filter out. There is no mention of hunting or guns, but It's my opinion that Google keeps its language intentionally as broad and sweeping as possible so as to capture these categories if it wants to according to whatever political pressure or internal bias is at play, and explain it away however they wish.

    In addition to pressure from governments, the current Bill O'Reilly boycott issue is an excellent example of how sensitive advertisers have become. Google is responding by swinging the pendulum Waaaaay tooooo far.

    Google makes a big deal out saying they offer YouTubers new ways to appeal exclusions. And they say they're trying to protect YouTubers from having their video's ripped off by other viral sites. Seems like no consolation to Matt.

    A final note. Some of you have mentioned that there are other options for distributing video. True enough. But Google is by exponents the biggest gorilla in the room. They literally offer billions of potential eyeballs and they make revenue sharing completely seamless so that content creators only have to spend time creating -- not trying to sell ads. Being cut off by YouTube is the closest thing you can get to a death sentence.

  1. Revenus sharing is also available in competitors platforms.

  1. "A final note. Some of you have mentioned that there are other options for distributing video. True enough. But Google is by exponents the biggest gorilla in the room. They literally offer billions of potential eyeballs and they make revenue sharing completely seamless so that content creators only have to spend time creating — not trying to sell ads. Being cut off by YouTube is the closest thing you can get to a death sentence. "

    You seem to have missed this key part of the message.
    R
 
"EMrider"
"GQ"
"FlexWagtail"I asked Google's media relations people to specifically comment on Matt's situation and got a response referring me to a series of blog posts and links about a new program Google rolled out March 21.

Since Google would not comment specifically on Matt, I'm left to color between the lines on what people like Ronan Harris, Managing Director, Google U.K. and Philipp Schindler, CHIEF BUSINESS OFFICER have announced:
  1. It appears Google is reacting to pressure from advertisers and goverments on the larger "Fake News" issue. The company is trying to find ways to stop revenue sharing with sites and creators whospread intentionally false, hateful or offensive content virally.
  2. While they were at it Google is responding to advertiser demands to help them avoid being linked to certain types of controversial or offensive content.
  3. It appears this program has ensared all kinds of creators such as Matt @AirArmsHuntinSA, Joerg Sprave @TheSlingshotChannel, and even Historic Hunter Shawn Woods (who puts up videos of mouse traps killing vermin).
    [/LIST=1]
    Google uses words like "violent" and "gory or offensive" to describe the kind of content it wants advertisers to be able to filter out. There is no mention of hunting or guns, but It's my opinion that Google keeps its language intentionally as broad and sweeping as possible so as to capture these categories if it wants to according to whatever political pressure or internal bias is at play, and explain it away however they wish.

    In addition to pressure from governments, the current Bill O'Reilly boycott issue is an excellent example of how sensitive advertisers have become. Google is responding by swinging the pendulum Waaaaay tooooo far.

    Google makes a big deal out saying they offer YouTubers new ways to appeal exclusions. And they say they're trying to protect YouTubers from having their video's ripped off by other viral sites. Seems like no consolation to Matt.

    A final note. Some of you have mentioned that there are other options for distributing video. True enough. But Google is by exponents the biggest gorilla in the room. They literally offer billions of potential eyeballs and they make revenue sharing completely seamless so that content creators only have to spend time creating -- not trying to sell ads. Being cut off by YouTube is the closest thing you can get to a death sentence.

  1. Revenus sharing is also available in competitors platforms.

  1. "A final note. Some of you have mentioned that there are other options for distributing video. True enough. But Google is by exponents the biggest gorilla in the room. They literally offer billions of potential eyeballs and they make revenue sharing completely seamless so that content creators only have to spend time creating — not trying to sell ads. Being cut off by YouTube is the closest thing you can get to a death sentence. "

    You seem to have missed this key part of the message.
    R

  1. R
    I did not miss anything.
    There are many ways to transfer an audience to another chanel.
    It happen in broadcast television for decades and it can be done on web tv as well in a very successful manner.
    You just need to know how to do it properly.
    Regards
    GQ
 
I ran into an odd twist of this fate when I finally got my longest Airgun Shooter video done this morning and uploaded to my Youtube channel (unionrdr's channel). It said my video was private and none of my friends would be able to view it. I didn't now, nor have I EVER done anything wi8th the settings t make my video(s) private! Looking at the settings to the right on the editing page of the uploader, it said public?! So that had to come from them, now seemingly trying to prevent any gun videos from being viewed at all, while hiding behind the glitchy software BS. I got it fixed, but it was way underhanded to circumvent the settings in the background, despite what I saw on the screen in front of me.
 
"unionrdr"I ran into an odd twist of this fate when I finally got my longest Airgun Shooter video done this morning and uploaded to my Youtube channel (unionrdr's channel). It said my video was private and none of my friends would be able to view it. I didn't now, nor have I EVER done anything wi8th the settings t make my video(s) private! Looking at the settings to the right on the editing page of the uploader, it said public?! So that had to come from them, now seemingly trying to prevent any gun videos from being viewed at all, while hiding behind the glitchy software BS. I got it fixed, but it was way underhanded to circumvent the settings in the background, despite what I saw on the screen in front of me.
Can we see your video ?
Any link ?