Content Monetisation Policy

[clementbiron]

What are some documents containing these terms?

Example	Service Name	URL	Title	Jurisdiction(s)
1	Facebook	URL 🔗	Content Monetization Policies	🌐
2	Youtube	URL 🔗	YouTube Channel Monetisation Policies	🌐
3	Twitch	URL 🔗	Twitch Monetized Streamer Agreement	🌐
4	Instagram	URL 🔗	Instagram Content Monetisation Policies	🌐
5	X	First document 🔗 + Second document 🔗	X’s Creator Monetization Standards + Creator Revenue Sharing Terms	🌐

More examples can be found on this spreadsheet contributed by @victoire-wtf.

What could be some alternative names for this type?

Content Monetisation terms
Content Monetization Policy

What is the main topic of these terms?

rules governing monetized content
forms of content that generate revenue for their creator

Who is the obligee of these terms?

monetized content creators
monetised content creator

Are there any relevant references for this type?

No response

Do you have any additional comments or information?

Some questions I have:

• Is YouTube Commerce Products monetisation policies part of YouTube Channel Monetisation Policies?
• Is X’s Creator Monetization Standards a document that contains a Content Monetization Policy under the section Content Standards?

[MattiSG]

Thanks for opening this discussion!

Alternative names

• I don't support replacing “policy” with “terms” as an alternative name. This could be done for every single entry in terms types and is not useful. Same goes with “policies”, “conditions”…
• I believe we should always include US / UK English variations to ease search. In this case, I would find appropriate “Content Monetisation Policy” as main name and “Content Monetization Policy” as alternative name.

Main topic

“rules governing” would be true of any terms type, and “monetized” is jargon. Let's be clearer. What about “forms of content that generate revenue for their creator”?

Obligee

I understand this field is singular.
I suggest we stick to British English as default, in this case this would be “monetised content creator”.

Duplication?

I see quite an overlap with #90. In particular, the example of Twitch is the same in both cases. From what I understand, this (#89) is more about the type of content that can be monetized, while #90 is more about the contractual relationship between the creator of content to monetize and the service provider. I am not sure there is much value in separating the two. In particular, I am afraid that it will be very hard for contributors to distinguish the two. I would be in favor of joining both into a single type and accept that for most services, this will be multi-document terms.

Regarding your question:

Is X’s Creator Monetization Standards a document that contains a Content Monetization Policy under the section Content Standards?

For me, this is further illustration that #89 and #90 should be merged. I also believe that this example should be included in the list.

Fan-funding

Is YouTube Commerce Products monetisation policies part of YouTube Channel Monetisation Policies?

I would say yes, as these rules apply as an addendum to the content monetisation policies.

[victoire-wtf]

My recommendation would be to focus on 'monetization policies' more broadly - and capture everything under it.

The term 'monetization' needs some socializing - but it is the term platforms consistently use to refer to their programs that involve a payment processing component.
(we're working on developing a stronger conceptual framework for monetization - to make it its own policy area, in the same way Advertising or Influencer Marketing are)

Broadly speaking, we find that there are two distinct types of monetization programs:

• Programs that facilitate 1-to-1 payments between two parties: subscriptions, e-tips, influencer marketplaces, e-commerce
• Programs that involve a sourcing component/decision by the platform: ad revenue sharing

Re. content monetization policies - these are also sometimes framed as 'Advertiser-friendly Content Guidelines' (see youtube) or 'Content Guidelines for Recommendation Eligibility' (see snap)

[MattiSG]

We enter the final community outreach phase, that will last 2 weeks, before adding this terms type. Now is the time to:

• ⬆️ upvote that type suggestion if it seems relevant for your field of work;
• 🚀 react with a rocket emoji to that suggestion if it seems acceptable as it is;
• 💬 comment further on the suggestion if there are any potential improvements or limitations.

[clementbiron]

Thank you for your participation!

I share your opinion and will update the disucssions accordingly.

[MattiSG]

Thanks @clementbiron!
I see in our integration process that at least 5 examples should be provided, and there are only 4 in the current case. @victoire-wtf do you maybe have additional examples to contribute here to complete the table? :)

[victoire-wtf]

We're maintaining a list of terms here - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10pbAGUglmcTZJiZsnjedBCoCISi2_a4oXiraVzFhZXI/edit?gid=1808582324#gid=1808582324

[MattiSG]

Thanks @victoire-wtf! I added X as a multi-document example 🙂