As y’all know, I like making videos. Music videos, political ads, adorable animals frolicking to happy New Agey tracks. Good times.
When I’ve created original content or used public domain sources, I often choose to monetize the vids with ads. The take is pathetic—maybe ten bucks last year—but every thousandth of a penny helps, right?
Occasionally, YouTube will send me a message that a video has been rejected for monetization because some element in the content is claimed by someone else (like a couple of the old adverts in the Lonely Smoker vid).
Today, I got a rejection of monetization for a new reason, and it’s got me scratching divots in my head.
Thanks for submitting your video(s) for monetization. We didn't approve your video(s) for monetization because the content in your video(s) or video details may not be advertiser-friendly.
If you believe that the content in your video is advertiser-friendly, you can request an additional review below
This is the video YouTube has deemed unfriendly to advertisers:
A video on this subject could have contained a lot of ugly imagery. The story of the Ku Klux Klan and White Citizens Councils offers a lot of things Americans do not want to see.
Rather than highlight the evil that those groups represent, I decided to emphasize the power of hope, solidarity and resistance.
YouTube’s decision has me baffled. So I’m tossing this out to a larger audience:
If you were in charge of advertising for a company or organization, would you consider this video, its images and message, too controversial? Or would you take it as a message of inclusion that would resonate with your customers?
Asking for a me.
update:
Now, this one I would have understood…