Twitch Walks Back Controversial Ad Rules Policy (theverge.com) 44
Twitch has reversed its recently announced rules regarding ad display on the platform after facing swift backlash from streamers and content creators. The Verge reports: On Tuesday, Twitch released new rules concerning the way streamers could display ads on the platform. The rules prohibited "burned in" video, display, and audio ads -- the first two of which were popular and common formats used throughout Twitch. Twitch apparently did not discuss the new rules with ambassadors or streamers beforehand, and many were furious about the new policies. [...] Twitch apologized for the rollout, explaining that it would rewrite the rules for greater clarity. Now it seems that rewrite has turned into a full rescinding of the rules totally.
From the company's Twitter thread: "Yesterday, we released new Branded Content Guidelines that impacted your ability to work with sponsors to increase your income from streaming. These guidelines are bad for you and bad for Twitch, and we are removing them immediately. Sponsorships are critical to streamers' growth and ability to earn income. We will not prevent your ability to enter into direct relationships with sponsors -- you will continue to own and control your sponsorship business. We want to work with our community to create the best experience on Twitch, and to do that we need to be clear about what we're doing and why we're doing it. We appreciate your feedback and help in making this change."
Twitch has updated the page outlining its ads policy with the section related to what kinds of ads are prohibited or allowed completely removed. Here's an archived version with the old rules and the new, updated page. The new rules would have been potentially devastating for creators, charities, esports broadcasts, and brands. Now, what seemed like another attempt to take a portion of streamer earnings has backfired.
From the company's Twitter thread: "Yesterday, we released new Branded Content Guidelines that impacted your ability to work with sponsors to increase your income from streaming. These guidelines are bad for you and bad for Twitch, and we are removing them immediately. Sponsorships are critical to streamers' growth and ability to earn income. We will not prevent your ability to enter into direct relationships with sponsors -- you will continue to own and control your sponsorship business. We want to work with our community to create the best experience on Twitch, and to do that we need to be clear about what we're doing and why we're doing it. We appreciate your feedback and help in making this change."
Twitch has updated the page outlining its ads policy with the section related to what kinds of ads are prohibited or allowed completely removed. Here's an archived version with the old rules and the new, updated page. The new rules would have been potentially devastating for creators, charities, esports broadcasts, and brands. Now, what seemed like another attempt to take a portion of streamer earnings has backfired.
Basically (Score:5, Insightful)
"We have altered the rules, pray we don't alter them further" failed because they altered them too much.
Expect similar rule package being drip-fed in tiny pieces over next few years.
Re: (Score:1)
"We have altered the rules, pray we don't alter them further" failed because they altered them too much.
Expect similar rule package being drip-fed in tiny pieces over next few years.
Dont need to wait; the changes they made were none. If you read the original and the new, its the same terms.
What is ... (Score:2)
Re: What is ... (Score:2)
It's retard-speak for "baked in". As in, the ads baked in to the content by the creator, in contrast to dynamic ads inserted by the platform.
Time to say goodbye (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, this has nothing to do with the story. But I fear this is the last time I might be able to do this.
I created this Slashdot account at the turn of the millenium, and it's gone. Disappeared. The Rosco P. Coltrane user no longer exists, and I can't login anymore. The only reason why I'm able to post this is because the cookie in my running browser is still valid apparently. But when I restart the browser or the machine, this will be gone too.
I contacted the Slashdot team. Perhaps they'll be able to restore my account. If they can't, goodbye everyone. It was a fun 23-year run.
Re:Time to say goodbye (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, you are right, I clicked on your username and it said "The user you requested does not exist, no matter how much you wish this might be the case."
Hope you have this fixed.
Re:Time to say goodbye (Score:4, Insightful)
Hope you have this fixed
So do I :) So far, no reply. I emailed feedback@slashdot.org but maybe that's the wrong address...
I'm down to 2 browsers where I'm still logged in. This sucks...
Re: (Score:3)
What? I can click your username and it shows your profile just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
What? I can click your username and it shows your profile just fine.
Been fixed now.
Re:Time to say goodbye (Score:4, Informative)
From here it looks like this affects any slashdot user with a space in their username.
I just tried clicking through tot he profiles of a dozen slashdot users with spaces in their usernames and they all say "The user you requested does not exist".
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting...
Well I sure hope it's just a URL parsing issue and my account isn't actually wiped out. I'm strangely emotional about losing my Slashdot account: it's a relic from my youth, and from a past when the internet was still innocent and didn't yet feel predatory.
Re: (Score:3)
Works when I click on it. Might be down to a particular browser (or insane numbers of privacy plugins).
I lost my original accoutn many many years ago. But I did not have it long so it was not an issue. I would hate to lose this one.
Re: (Score:3)
Works when I click on it
It's been fixed, thank goodness.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My login button at the top has disappeared when I'm not logged in. I think I had to go to (iirc) the /login URL the last time I got logged out. And I think they don't test changes on Firefox, because when I post a message anonymously it works fine, but when I post a message non-anonymously, it doesn't update the page after clicking Submit. It acts like it's still waiting for some kind of response. I guess years ago someone fucked with one of the two code paths and broke it.
And good call to whoever figured
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like it's working now
https://slashdot.org/~Rosco+P.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah groovy! Indeed it works again, and I can login again too. That's truly a relief. Thanks Slashdot!
The Musk Effect -- again (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems these ad platforms haven't gotten the message. The creators/influencers make the content.
Twitch - only the latest with uniliateral random rules they had to backgrack.
Reddit - APIs to go to $25K. LOL!!
Youtube - won't censor fake news.
Twitter - what Musk says, no matter what he said yesterday
Do what you will. It's your platform. You're just killing your own golden geese. You're the Streisand Effect of thinking you mean anything more than your content creators. That's called the Musk Effect
Re: (Score:2)
At least they had some clear policies for what they were going to censor. Before it was fake news stories about vaccines and the election, now it's saying mean things about Elon
Re: (Score:1)
No, they did not have clear policies about what they were gonna censor, since they violated their policies extremely often, and kept it a secret. They even denied shadow banning existed. That's when they suppressed views of politics they didn't like, on an extremely large scale.
They also had no public policy saying they'd take huge lists from the White House, FBI, and DOJ almost daily and ban or shadow ban them.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. The creators make the content. But the advertisers pay the bill.
The balancing act is to keep both happy but when you're the only player in town, you're allowed to squeeze one in favor of the other. Especially in the case of twitch since the website is so damn expensive to run that, as far as I know, it hasn't made Amazon a dime yet.
Re: (Score:1)
it hasn't made Amazon a dime yet.
Amazon lost money for the first four years of its life. On everything.
There's a difference tho. Amazon chose to acquire twitch. That they can't monetize it without being dicks to content is their fault. They can unload it, change the business plan, or whatever else, except that "whatever else" may have consequences. The Musk Efffect shows you can take a $45B purchase to be worth $15B in 6mos. Amazon may be soon to follow.
When are those BE-4 engines for ULA coming again, or are we still focusing on baldy i
Re: (Score:2)
Blue Origin != Amazon. Blue Origin makes BE-4 for both ULA's Vulcan-Centaur and their own New Glenn. Amazon's Keiper is buying launches from anyone other than Roscosmos and SpaceX to hopefully launch their satellites soonish. Just because both companies are started by the same guy does not make them the same company.
Re: (Score:1)
Blue Origin != Amazon. Blue Origin makes BE-4 for both ULA's Vulcan-Centaur and their own New Glenn. Amazon's Keiper is buying launches from anyone other than Roscosmos and SpaceX to hopefully launch their satellites soonish. Just because both companies are started by the same guy does not make them the same company.
So, it's not "Keiper", and nobody makes BE-4 engines although they promise to, and they do redirect resources at the direction of the same guy preventing them from meeting goals and customer expectations. They are not the same company, as you say.
Just incompetently run to naysay their own mileposts to please Jeff.
You were mouthing off what now?
Is the exec fired yet? (Score:3)
Has the executive who approved this new rule been fired yet? Because whoever approved this is obviously too incompetent for the job.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? It was surely a strategy. Implement a ridiculously overpriced scheme, then walk it back and implement another awful scheme that looks far nicer by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On what basis would you fire them? Where's the loss of income? Where's the loss of users? Other than having to issue an apology to a bunch of people who don't care beyond having a little rant on Slashdot, what was the negative business outcome on Twitch?
I'm all for an executive lynching, but if we're going to do that we need to at least consider
a) their job is to make changes.
b) no human being is capable of only making positive changes that work first time every time. And I'm not planning on lynching myself
Re: (Score:3)
On what basis would you fire them?
How about what was written in their own announcement? -- "These guidelines are bad for you and bad for Twitch" When a company exec approved something that is bad for the company, perhaps it is an indication of unsuitability to the position?
Or, how about calling it "taking responsibility for one's action"? Yeah, I know, someone in C-suite actually taking responsibility, that's a totally unamerican thing, only rank and file frontline workers need to be held responsible, executive levels only take credits an
Investor capital drying up, expect more of this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Investor capital is drying up. Online sites like Reddit, Twitch etc that have never made a profit ever, some of them more than a decade old, and have relied on a seemingly unending stream of investment money are now being expected to make a profit. Sites like Reddit which has operated on losses in the $100millions, almost $1Bn in 2021, are now expected by the investors to make a profit which is why you now see them panicking and doing stupid shit like this and in the case of Reddit, charging 3rd party API software unrealistic fees.
Crazy valuations based on user numbers are no longer going to be what drives the valuation of a company, expect headline valuations to fall.
Re: (Score:2)
No they haven't (Score:2)
Despite what they claimed, the new term is still in TOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for saving me the time. I can't believe you are the first one to mention this. Twitch is so stupid for doing that, at the same time they clearly admit the rules are bad for Twitch and it's users.
Re: No they haven't (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Despite what they claimed, the new term is still in TOS.
Eh? The list of banned sponsorship types is still there, yes. The entire section about sponsorship formats has been deleted. You can't accept a pharmaceutical or tobacco sponsorship and you can't promote ICOs or multi-level marketing bullshit, but you can continue to embed sponsor videos in your stream, continue to show sponsorship logos any size you like, and still read out audio ads like a radio DJ. All of that was going to be forbidden, despite it being an estimated 80% of the top 100 streamers' reve
If it's bad (Score:2)
If you recognize that it's bad for everyone involved, why did you do it? Is anybody facing consequences this?
Cry for help (Score:2)
Twitch apologized for the rollout, explaining that it would rewrite the rules for greater clarity. Now it seems that rewrite has turned into a full rescinding of the rules totally.
Is this the derpy idea of some brainlet in the marketing department, trying to apply the technique of outrage clicks to remind people Twitch still exists? It sure smells like it.
I might have used Twitch back when they paid Riot to move all their League of Legends streaming off of YouTube, except the AndroidTV version of the Twitch app is dogshit, so instead I stopped watching professional LoL. Sure got back a helluva lot of time that way. Thanks Twitch.
Who cares? (Score:2)