Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
This chapter examines the challenges and opportunities faced by filmmakers in Botswana to monetize their film content on YouTube. The researcher uses a Critical Theory framework to explore the power dynamics of platforms toward cultural industries by dissecting the impact of YouTube’s algorithmic bias and geo-restrictions on content monetization potential. Additionally, this study extends to investigating the representation of diverse cultures and communities within the film industry and how YouTube’s policies may contribute to underrepresentation. With the help of qualitative research methods, the findings reveal that, indeed, filmmakers in Botswana face limitations in monetizing their content on YouTube due to regional IP restrictions, inability to meet subscription thresholds, and low viewership turnout. The study also highlights the potential for growth and market penetration through YouTube, as reaching a global audience by Botswana filmmakers can attract interest and investment from various funders. The study concludes that addressing YouTube’s algorithmic bias, geo-restrictions, and economic dynamics is crucial for promoting a more inclusive and equitable film industry in Botswana. It further suggests the need for pragmatic interventions that support filmmakers in navigating these challenges and maximizing their monetization opportunities on YouTube.
*Address all correspondence to: gditlhokwa@hotmail.com
1. Introduction
Botswana’s film industry has experienced significant growth over the past decade, with the emergence of talented filmmakers and the rising demand for home-grown content. The industry has played a crucial role in shaping Botswana’s national identity and culture, and in promoting the country’s tourism sector. The spreading recognition of digital platforms such as YouTube, can be a convenient and cost-effective means for filmmakers to distribute and monetize their content [1, 2]. In 2022, YouTube had over 1.5 billion monthly active users worldwide and has become one of the most popular online platforms for sharing and viewing video content [3]. Despite the increasing popularity of YouTube as a platform for distributing and monetizing short videos and films, the platform’s algorithmic bias presents significant limitations for content creators, particularly for those in developing countries like Botswana. This bias can limit the discoverability and reach of content, as well as its monetization potential [4]. As an emerging subject of interest to researchers, algorithmic bias has been defined at various levels. It can be viewed as a systematic discrimination of certain individuals, groups, or types of content by algorithms, which can lead to imbalanced opportunities and reinforce existing social biases [5, 6, 7, 8].
It is evident that YouTube’s policies, particularly those related to algorithmic bias and geo-restrictions, continue to attract global attention in scholarly literature and shape discourses among content creators and researchers alike [9, 10, 11]. The platform’s algorithm, which determines the visibility and recommendation of videos, has been criticized for its inherent bias toward content that generates high watch time, audience engagement, and relevance of content. This bias can inadvertently limit the exposure of certain types of content, potentially hindering the growth and monetization opportunities for filmmakers. Scholars have highlighted the need for YouTube to address algorithmic bias and create a more inclusive environment for content creators [12, 13]. They argue that the algorithm should not solely prioritize popular or trending content but also consider the diversity of voices and perspectives. According to [14, 15], there has been a considerably fraught relationship between YouTube platform policy and other social groups such as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender and queer communities (LGBTQ), with visible censorship of content to some extent.
Although content creation comes in different shapes, filmmakers, especially those who come from the developing world, as identified in previous literature, continue to face various challenges to make a global impact; some stem from language and cultural barriers that ultimately add to an array of setbacks. These undoubtedly present the potential to heavily deter and limit their ability to explore the available avenues to showcase their creative content and generate revenue from it [16, 17]. Furthermore, the effects of the digital divide, where lack of access to modern content creation technologies and resources has led to the compromised quality of their productions, have also been cited by scholars. For example, studies conducted by [18, 19] revealed that several countries in sub-Saharan Africa still face the challenge of the lack of proper infrastructure, technical equipment, and intensive training required to produce their film content. In addition, the far-fetched access to creative industries and arts funding remains a significant hiccup to many filmmakers from these countries, which emanates from the limited resources, while at the same time having to compete for equal funding opportunities with those that already have enough access to resources [20]. Within these complex and interconnected challenges, scholars continue to suggest a manifold approach to addressing them. For example, they suggest pragmatic reach-out programs and networking initiatives such as organizing local and international film festivals and developing and funding programs that aim to promote the filmmaking craft from developing countries. With the help of platforms such as YouTube as a content distribution platform, it is envisaged that this could boost their exposure and access to funding [21, 22].
By broadening the scope of recommended content, YouTube can provide a platform for underrepresented filmmakers in developing countries like Botswana to showcase their work and reach a wider global audience. Correspondingly, the issue of geo-restrictions poses a challenge for filmmakers in Botswana. YouTube’s policies that restrict access to certain features, such as monetization through the Partner Program, based on the user’s geographical location have been identified to catapult this cultural underrepresentation [23, 24, 25]. Given the above, not only does this restriction affect the content’s global reach, but it can hinder, the ability of Botswana filmmakers to generate revenue from their content and impede their growth within the platform. Therefore, by examining the impact of algorithmic bias and geo-restrictions on filmmakers in Botswana, this study aims to contribute to the existing literature and provide potential strategies for overcoming these limitations.
2.1 Algorithmic bias and its implications for YouTube
Algorithmic bias is a phenomenon that occurs when machine learning algorithms produce results that are systematically skewed toward certain groups or types of content [26]. In the context of online platforms, such as YouTube, algorithmic bias can have significant implications for content creators and consumers. According to [27, 28], the platform’s recommendation algorithm may steer users toward certain types of content based on their previous viewing history. To some extent, this may lead to a homogenization of content and limit the exposure of lesser-known creators [29, 30]. Additionally, YouTube’s monetization policies and algorithms may favor certain types of content, such as those that are advertiser-friendly, leaving other talented creators with limited monetization options [31, 32, 33].
As algorithmic bias has the potential to negatively impact content creators from all backgrounds, it is particularly problematic for filmmakers from developing countries. These creators often face significant challenges in accessing the resources necessary to produce high-quality content, and their work may not fit within the dominant algorithmic frameworks [34, 35, 36, 37]. While some scholars argue that algorithmic bias may have a positive impact on the quality of content by promoting popular, high-quality works [38, 39], others suggest that it perpetuates existing power imbalances and limits diversity and representation, especially with regard to cultural production and marginalization [40, 41, 42].
2.2 Monetization potential and algorithmic bias in film content
Concerns have been raised about the impact of geo-restrictions on the monetization potential of film content on YouTube, particularly for creators from developing countries [43]. As a result, their content may be less likely to appear in search results or be recommended to viewers across different geographical regions, reducing their visibility and limiting their ability to monetize their work, ultimately, reducing its potential audience and limiting their ability to generate revenue [44, 45]. This is because, the algorithms that determine what content is recommended or promoted on platforms like YouTube are often based on metrics such as views, likes, and audience engagement [46], which can disadvantage content that has not yet gained a significant following.
Additionally, algorithmic bias may also lead to content creators being categorized and pigeonholed, with their work being assigned labels that limit its reach or relevance. To some extent, some viewers may flag specific content, deeming it insensitive to particular group or societal issues [47, 48]. This is the case for most of the marginalized communities or least developed countries. For example, research has shown that algorithms can perpetuate and amplify stereotypes and discrimination, especially toward historically marginalized groups. Consequently, [49] argues that thinking of ethical practice in algorithmic predictions and digital discrimination requires a fundamental reconsideration of justice, fairness, and ethics, citing that, it goes beyond mere methodologies and tools, and emphasizes the need for a habit of ethical thinking in the wake of machine learning. Therefore, by integrating relational ethics into data science practices, a more comprehensive and responsible approach can be achieved, promoting fairness and justice in algorithmic decision-making [50].
Despite the potential negative impact of algorithmic bias and geo-restrictions on the monetization potential of film content on YouTube, there is a lack of research on the specific challenges faced by filmmakers in developing countries like Botswana. This study, therefore, aims to address this gap by examining the limitations faced by Botswana film content creators on YouTube, with specific attention toward algorithmic bias and geo-restrictions, and their impact on the monetization potential for this content. To achieve this goal, the study answers the following research questions:
How do Botswana filmmakers perceive the impact of YouTube’s algorithmic bias on the monetization potential of their film content?
What are the specific challenges faced by Botswana filmmakers in monetizing their film content on YouTube, considering algorithmic bias and geo-restrictions?
How do Botswana filmmakers navigate the limitations of algorithmic bias and geo-restrictions to increase the visibility and monetization potential of their film content on YouTube?
2.3 A critical theory perspective
Drawing from the notions of the Frankfurt School theorists who gained popularity in critical studies in the middle of the twentieth century and gave the social theory a perspective that aimed at analyzing and criticizing social, political, and economic structures of society, with a particular focus on power relations and the role of ideology, especially with the media as cultural industries [51], it is paramount to attach to the theoretical resemblance of the creative industry within these power relations and social construction spectrum. Thus, a study conducted by [52] on network television and American society contributes to the body of previous studies on Critical Theory by examining the contradictory imperatives and social effects of network television within the context of advanced capitalism. It challenges dominant paradigms and conventional wisdom by highlighting the contradictions and tensions within network television, and the potential for both hegemonic and subversive social effects.
By emphasizing the need for a critical analysis of television’s contradictory functions and social effects, the study calls for a rejection of monolithic theories of advanced capitalism. It provides a foundation towards the understanding of media institutions and their relationship to broader social structures, making it a significant contribution to the field of Critical Theory, which can also serve as a setting stone for future studies outside of networked television. Television and film, in this regard, are often intertwined as subsets of creative and cultural industries [53, 54]. Although there is a growing body of contemporary research that specifically theorizes film as a mode of cultural industries (cultural production) vis-à-vis Critical Theory such as [55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60], most of these studies have built upon [61] who revisited Critical Theory and film, focusing on the perspectives of Walter Benjamin and Theodor Adorno. The study examines the reasons behind the condemnation of film within the critical Marxist tradition, particularly within the framework of Critical Theory. It also discusses the concept of autonomy in art and the resistance to the study of reception within Critical Theory. The author analyzes Adorno’s critique of mass art and the culture industry, highlighting his emphasis on the form and technique of the artwork and his neglect of the social context in which it is produced and received.
Waldman [61] also addresses the influence of market forces on both autonomous art and mass art, challenging Adorno’s static view of Hollywood films and exploring the gaps and contradictions within them. Another key highlight of this argument is its focus on the attitudes of critical theorists toward film and the implications of their perspectives derived from Critical Theory. However, the application of Critical Theory to filmmaking by previous studies proves to have heavily focused on ‘critiquing’ the film as a product and neglected the dynamics of geo-restrictions and algorithm bias imposed by platforms such as YouTube, which are used by many, as a means to display film content.
The theoretical gap in understanding the power dynamics of platforms, within the context of critical theory, is further widened by the lack of studies that specifically focus on the intricate dynamics of platform power. This includes the examination of how platforms such as YouTube possess the power to host film content and manipulate its visibility through algorithmic promotion. By neglecting to analyze these platform power dynamics, then Critical Theory fails to fully comprehend the existence of media institutions and their role in shaping and disseminating cultural products. Therefore, by employing this theoretical framework, this study aims to contribute to the understanding of the cultural, social, and economic dynamics of utilizing YouTube as a platform for film distribution and monetization. It seeks to provide an appreciation of ways in which power relations, representation, and media ownership shape the experiences and opportunities of filmmakers in Botswana within the global film sphere.
This study utilized a qualitative research design to capture the lived experiences, motivations, and challenges in utilizing YouTube as a platform for film distribution and monetization. The researcher employed purposive sampling to select filmmakers with varying levels of experience, qualifications, and success in the industry to ensure diverse responses. With the aim to yield comprehensive responses on the subject, the researcher used semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with 12 selected participants (seven males and five females) to gather rich and detailed data (see Table 1). The interviews were conducted either in person, through WhatsApp calls, or through video conferencing platforms, based on the participants’ availability and preferences. Prior consent was obtained from the participants to audio-record the interviews, ensuring accurate data capture, and the participants were assured of their anonymity by the researcher.
Participant
Age
Gender
Years in the Film Industry
Highest Educational Qualification(s)
1
37
Male
14
Bachelor’s Degree
2
40
Male
16
Master’s Degree
3
33
Female
11
Bachelor’s Degree
4
30
Male
14
Bachelor’s Degree
5
36
Female
10
Bachelor’s Degree
6
39
Female
5
Diploma
7
37
Female
8
Bachelor’s Degree
8
42
Male
12
Bachelor’s Degree
9
36
Male
6
Bachelor’s Degree
10
39
Male
12
Diploma
11
34
Male
10
Certificate
12
29
Female
4
Bachelor’s Degree
Table 1.
Participants’ demographics.
To maintain consistency and structure during the interviews, an interview guide was developed, which consisted of open-ended questions that explored participants’ experiences, strategies, challenges, and perceptions related to monetizing their film content on YouTube. Before the actual interviews took place, the guide was pilot-tested with a focus group of five filmmakers to ensure clarity and relevance. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim to facilitate data analysis. Later, thematic analysis was used to identify patterns, themes, and categories within the data, which was later coded and interpreted to generate meaningful findings, as presented in the next section.
Based on the three research questions that guided the data collection for this study, the findings indicate that filmmakers in Botswana continue to face challenges in monetizing their film content on YouTube, and were aware of YouTube’s algorithmic bias, emphasized the importance of creative freedom and representation, and recognized the potential for market expansion, cost-effective distribution, and a global outreach through YouTube. These findings suggest that utilizing YouTube as a platform for film distribution and monetization has the potential to holistically benefit the film industry in Botswana. However, participants also highlighted the urgent need for YouTube to address algorithmic bias and geo-restrictions in order to provide equal opportunities for content creators and enable monetization for Botswana-based channels. Furthermore, participants emphasized the importance of government support and regulation to facilitate the growth of the film industry in Botswana and ensure that local content creators can fully utilize YouTube as a platform to showcase their work on a global stage. Thus, the participants’ responses to all the research questions and their themes are presented in the next section.
Research question 1 investigated how Botswana filmmakers perceive YouTube’s algorithmic bias on their film content monetization. A majority of the participants indicated that they perceive YouTube’s algorithmic bias as a significant challenge to monetizing their film content. They believe that the algorithm favors content that generates high engagement, such as clickbait or comedic videos, which may not align with the serious or niche content they create. These biases limit their visibility and monetization potential on the platform. As a result, the thematic analysis of participants’ responses to RQ1 yielded the following specific themes:
4.1 Limited visibility and exposure
Botswana filmmakers perceive that YouTube’s algorithmic bias negatively affects the visibility and exposure of their film content. They believe that the algorithm favors certain types of content or creators, making it difficult for their films to reach a wider audience and gain traction. This limited visibility hinders their ability to attract more viewers and potential monetization opportunities. Some of the participants noted the following:
Participant 1: “I think the little knowledge I have about Botswana not being monetized on YouTube or not one of the states that are able to monetize their YouTube content is because of the population as we are around 2.3 million in Botswana.”
Participant 2: “I believe they have an issue on monetization bias in that sense…I dedicate my time. All my hours go into this. We have bills to pay. I started this YouTube channel so that I can boost my market and be able to penetrate other distribution channels globally and make money from the views, but I am limited to do that.”
4.2 Decreased monetization opportunities
Participants expressed concerns that YouTube’s algorithmic bias hinders their ability to monetize their film content effectively. They believe that the algorithm’s preference for certain content or creators limits the opportunities for ads, sponsorships, and other monetization methods, resulting in lower revenue potential. This decreased monetization potential can impact their ability to sustain their filmmaking careers and invest in future projects. One participant stated the following: “If I’m going to dedicate my time to studying something and actually producing it, especially for those that come with smaller budgets to adopt cost-effective distribution opportunities that are currently available on YouTube, which we cannot deny as a fact…the creative control as well is something that comes with using YouTube because now you are at the mercy of the distributor telling you what they want. Btv [Botswana television] on your case, saying that we do not want kissing scenes, and that means, your creative thought has been tampered with. Otherwise, they do not buy your product. Then, you end up asking yourself: How can I monetize my content to generate money in the midst of such issues? YouTube could be the only answer in this regard, but there are also problems there. Some would even suggest that using social media is bad, you know? Are the governments saying no to social media because we do not understand social media? You know, that’s just basically the same issue as for those who are attempting to ban TikTok because of the data politics.”
4.3 Need for algorithmic understanding
Filmmakers recognize the importance of understanding YouTube’s algorithm in order to optimize their content for better visibility and monetization. They acknowledge that they need to learn how to create content that aligns with the algorithm’s preferences and trends to increase their chances of success. This understanding is crucial for them to navigate the platform and maximize their monetization potential. Below is a participants’ response regarding the understanding of YouTube algorithms:
“I think these are some of the things that I’ve picked on YouTube about its algorithmic bias. It leaves out almost everything else, but every time I open YouTube, they’ll show me things that they already know I’m going to watch. So, this makes it somehow a content recommendation biased.”
4.4 Impact on funding and investment
Participants believe that YouTube’s algorithmic bias can affect their ability to attract funding and investment for their film projects. They perceive that investors may be more inclined to support content that has already gained visibility and popularity on YouTube, making it challenging for emerging filmmakers to secure financial support. This bias can hinder the growth and development of the Botswana film industry as a whole. A participant echoed the following sentiments:
“Another issue that we have to battle with in Botswana is the lack of investors in the film. Essentially, investors are attracted by the number of views. Currently, Botswana Television (Btv) does not provide that platform, but YouTube does. This ultimately means that it would be easier to get funds, because you may ask a security company to sponsor a scene where security services are featured. So, the views determine the exposure of that particular security company, if their uniform was to appear in that scene. Taking the example of Hollywood, there are product placement incentives, but, as a filmmaker, with a YouTube account that has the numbers, it is easy for investors to invest in your account because they know that they are going to benefit in numbers because their products are going to be visible. So, that’s one thing that can help us. Also, when we look at our industry in Botswana, we only have one market, which is our local channels. Btv advertises tenders once a year. So, if we have a YouTube channel, then it would help us to make money and eventually close the existing gap in our industry.”
All the themes discussed above were unevenly distributed across participants’ responses to research question 1, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Distribution of themes from participants’ responses to research question 1.
Research question 2 focused on the challenges faced by Botswana filmmakers in monetizing their film content on YouTube, considering algorithmic bias and geo-restrictions. This study found that the Botswana film industry faces several challenges in monetizing its film content on YouTube. One major challenge is the presence of algorithmic bias, which prioritizes content that generates high engagement, making it difficult for serious or niche content to gain visibility and monetization opportunities. Additionally, geo-restrictions in Botswana limit access to YouTube’s monetization features, preventing content creators from generating revenue from their film content. The participants’ belief that YouTube’s algorithmic bias affects their ability to monetize their content and reach a wider audience is highlighted by some of the comments made during the interviews. They emphasize the importance of being able to dedicate time and effort to their filmmaking career and the need for platforms like YouTube to provide fair opportunities for content creators to earn income and expand their market reach. The following themes were identified from the analysis of participants’ responses to research question 2:
4.5 Geo-restrictions and lack of policies and regulations
As noted above, one of the main challenges cited by the participants, that Botswana filmmakers face in monetizing their film content on YouTube is the geo-restrictions. Participants mention that YouTube monetization is not available in Botswana due to the lack of policies or agreements between the regulatory bodies or policymakers in Botswana and the YouTube platform. This restriction limits their ability to access monetization features and earn revenue from their creative content. Participants highlighted the need for regulatory bodies to embark on the regulation and negotiation process with YouTube to establish policies that allow Botswana content creators to directly receive payment from the platform, just like other content creators in a majority of countries where creatives earn incentives from their content. Accordingly, the absence of such policies creates a barrier for filmmakers in Botswana to monetize their film content effectively. For example, a participant’s response suggested the following:
“…the Botswana Communication Regulatory Authority (BOCRA) should spearhead the regulation and come to an agreement with YouTube to make policies that get Botswana content creators to get payment from YouTube.”
4.6 Subscription threshold
Some participants mentioned that they have not yet reached the subscription threshold required for monetization on YouTube. This threshold refers to the minimum number of subscribers and watch hours that creators need to achieve before they can start earning revenue from their content. The challenge lies in building a substantial subscriber base and generating enough watch hours to meet this threshold. Although this study aimed at establishing the challenges faced by filmmakers to monetize, some of the participants acknowledged that they had not fully utilized YouTube’s monetization potential for their content, while the other decried their inability to meet the YouTube monetization subscription threshold. For example, they echoed the following:
Participant 1:
“Our YouTube channel is fairly new, just a little over 2 months and Botswana as a base has regional IP restriction to YouTube monetization.”
Participant 2:
“YouTube needs to step back with its clickbait and engagement bias. They need to formulate a plan to just let everything be… No matter how little the money may be, they should pay for almost everything, from anything that has 10 views, 100 views to multi-million views. They should be able to pay for all this content because, at the end of the day, it's content that's on their platform that's making their platform being used by a lot of people.”
Regarding responses to research question 2, as outlined above, the distribution of participants’ extracted themes is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Themes from research question 2 responses.
Research question 3 aimed at identifying ways in which Botswana filmmakers overcome algorithmic bias and geo-restrictions to enhance the visibility and monetization potential of their film content going forward. Filmmakers suggested that to overcome algorithmic bias and geo-restrictions, there should be various strategies that would aid them in creating engaging and interesting content that captures the algorithm’s interest and attracts viewers. By focusing on trending topics or creating content related to popular games, they hope to increase their visibility and monetization potential on YouTube. This suggests that participants were aware of the limitations on monetization in Botswana and may consider using South African accounts or leveraging the preference for certain countries to overcome these limitations. Below are the themes that emerged from the responses to this research question:
4.7 Understanding algorithmic bias
Botswana filmmakers are aware of YouTube’s algorithmic bias and its impact on content visibility and monetization. They recognize the need to understand the algorithms and strategies that can help them take advantage of them. By creating interesting and engaging content that aligns with the algorithm’s interests, such as showcasing new features in games or producing high-quality films, they aim to attract the algorithm’s attention and increase their visibility on the platform. One participant responded:
“We understand that we have to put up interesting content that picks the algorithm’s interest, e.g., as a gamer if you make a video about a new feature that is in a game that players do not know about yet, it attracts interest in gamers and gets picked by the algorithms looking at the trend and it automatically goes to the recommended section. So, we are working on strategies to take advantage of it”
4.8 Leveraging trending topics
Filmmakers in Botswana understand the importance of staying up-to-date with trending topics and incorporating them into their content. By creating videos that align with popular trends or address current issues, they aim to increase the chances of their content being recommended by the algorithm and reaching a wider audience. For example, one participant responded by saying:
“But still, I believe there are topics that regardless of how many likes, they should look at the one that generated more likes and reward them accordingly. If they did that, we wouldn't be having to worry about our content not generating income for us”
4.9 Collaborations and networking
Botswana filmmakers recognize the value of collaborations and networking within the YouTube community. By collaborating with other content creators, especially those with larger subscriber bases or established audiences, they can tap into their viewership and increase the visibility of their film content. This can lead to higher engagement, more views, and potentially increased monetization opportunities. A participant noted that:
“I think one of the ways to address the limitations posed by YouTube algorithms, bias, and geo-restrictions is by recognizing the value of collaborations and networking within the YouTube community. By collaborating with other content creators, we can expand our reach and visibility. This can help us overcome the limitations of the algorithm and increase our chances of monetization. Also, networking with other creators can provide us with valuable insights and strategies to navigate the platform effectively. Building relationships and partnerships within the YouTube community from regions that can freely monetize can be a powerful tool in addressing these limitations”
4.10 Targeting global audience
YouTube provides a global platform for content distribution, and Botswana filmmakers see the potential in reaching a wider audience beyond their local market. By uploading their films on YouTube, they aim to attract international viewers and potentially catch the attention of investors or distributors who may be interested in their work. The ability to showcase their films to a global audience can increase their chances of monetization and distribution opportunities.
4.11 Seeking alternative monetization channels
While YouTube monetization options may not be available in Botswana, filmmakers explore alternative ways to monetize their film content. This may include seeking sponsorships, partnerships, or product placements within their videos. This has opened opportunities to overcome their inability to receive payments directly into their bank accounts in Botswana due to restrictions, now resorting to relying on friends or contacts in South Africa or Zimbabwe to receive the money on their behalf and then transfer it to them in Botswana. This process adds complexity and potential delays to their monetization efforts. Some participants responded as follows:
Participant 1:
“The funny thing is, you can use the South African passwords but, you are also able to use your bank account in Botswana, and it looks like they will still pay. Which is something that I'm like oh, all they want to see is you are South African, so it means the preference is a country over another?”
Participant 2:
“There are significant challenges because Botswana does not monetize. So, I had to ask my friend from Zimbabwe to create the account on my behalf, using Zimbabwean YouTube. And another challenge is that even the money is not being credited into our bank accounts in Botswana because I do not qualify for the trading. Therefore, it has to be credited to someone in South Africa or Zimbabwe, then they send the money to me here. Those are the challenges we face.”
From the last research question, as shown in Figure 3, the participants’ responses were distributed as follows:
Figure 3.
Distribution of themes from participants’ responses to research question 3.
The goal of this study was to explore the potential of utilizing YouTube as a platform for film distribution and monetization in Botswana. The findings highlight the importance of YouTube as a platform for filmmakers in Botswana to showcase their talent and monetize their content. The participants provide significant insights into the challenges they face, the opportunities they see, and their suggestions for addressing the limitations posed by YouTube algorithms, bias, and geo-restrictions. One of the key themes that emerged from the interviews is the importance of creative freedom, where participants expressed the need to be able to tell their stories authentically and without compromising their artistic vision. They underscored the limitations they face in traditional media, such as television, where there are often restrictions on content and storytelling approaches. YouTube, on the other hand, offers a platform where filmmakers can have more creative control and explore a wider range of topics and styles. This creative freedom is seen as crucial for filmmakers to fully express themselves as storytellers. Monetization is another significant deficit echoed by the study participants. They emphasized the challenges they encountered in monetizing their content on YouTube. In addition to the challenges mentioned, the regional IP restrictions emerged as a hindrance that prevents Botswana filmmakers from accessing YouTube’s monetization features, thanks to the geographical location they operate from. This limitation further impedes their ability to generate income from their content and limits their potential for growth as filmmakers. Moreover, participants decried the algorithmic bias on YouTube, which tends to prioritize videos with high engagement metrics such as likes, comments, and watch time. This bias can make it difficult for emerging filmmakers to gain visibility and monetize their content, as they may not have a large following or high engagement initially. In essence, YouTube offers other monetization features such as channel memberships, merchandise shelf, and Super Chat. Channel memberships allow viewers to pay a monthly fee to access exclusive content and perks from the filmmaker’s channel, which may greatly benefit Botswana’s film industry in the future. The merchandise shelf feature enables filmmakers to promote and sell their branded merchandise directly on their YouTube channel, while Super Chat allows viewers to pay to have their messages highlighted during live streams, providing an additional revenue stream for filmmakers [62, 63]. Indeed, YouTube’s algorithm rewards engaging and popular content with higher visibility and recommended placement. This means that if a filmmaker’s content receives a high number of likes, comments, and watch time, it is more likely to be recommended to a wider audience, increasing the potential for monetization [63]. This could be a missed chance for those who come from geographical locations that still cannot monetize their content on YouTube, like Botswana, and this presents significant implications for certain aspects of the Critical Theory where ideology, power, the political economy, and domination of digital platforms are critiqued.
Despite these challenges, participants acknowledged the potential of YouTube as a platform for film distribution and monetization. They emphasized its global reach and the ability to attract audiences from around the world. By leveraging YouTube, filmmakers in Botswana can showcase their work to a wider audience and potentially attract international interest and opportunities. Participants also highlighted the importance of audience engagement on YouTube, as it provides a means for filmmakers to receive direct feedback and engage with their audience. YouTube’s comment section and analytics tools allow filmmakers to track their audience’s response, gather feedback, and make improvements to their content. This direct interaction with viewers can be invaluable for filmmakers in understanding their audience’s preferences, refining their storytelling techniques, and building a loyal fan base. In addition, participants discussed the potential for monetization on YouTube. They pointed out the various monetization opportunities available on the platform, such as ad revenue, brand partnerships, and merchandise sales. YouTube’s monetization features can provide filmmakers with a source of income and financial sustainability, allowing them to continue creating content and pursuing their passion. Participants also mentioned the potential for product placement and sponsorships, where companies can invest in a filmmaker’s YouTube channel based on the number of views and exposure their products can receive.
Along with their perceived financial benefits, participants underscored the cost-effectiveness of distributing films on YouTube compared to traditional distribution methods. They mention the high costs and challenges associated with traditional film distribution, particularly for independent filmmakers with smaller budgets. YouTube provides a more accessible and affordable distribution outlet, allowing filmmakers to reach a wider audience without the need for expensive marketing campaigns or physical distribution channels. Participants also highlighted the potential for growth and expansion of the Botswana film industry through YouTube. They noted that the local market in Botswana is limited, with only one national television station and limited advertising tenders. By utilizing YouTube, filmmakers can tap into a global audience and attract international attention. The ability to showcase their work to a larger audience can open doors for collaborations, funding opportunities, and exposure to different markets.
In conclusion, the findings of this study suggest that YouTube has the potential to significantly contribute to the growth of the film industry in Botswana. Using YouTube as a platform for film distribution and monetization, Botswana filmmakers can overcome the limitations of traditional distribution channels and expand their market reach as a key advantage of utilizing YouTube. With YouTube’s global platform, filmmakers from Botswana can reach audiences around the world, breaking free from the limitations of their local market. Uploading films on YouTube can help filmmakers attract viewers from different countries and cultures, increasing their exposure and potential for international recognition. The global market potential, cost-effectiveness, audience insights, and monetization opportunities offered by YouTube make it a valuable tool for filmmakers to generate income from their craft. With proper engagement and policy formulation between YouTube as a platform, and the Botswana film industry, YouTube could possibly benefit Botswana filmmakers with its special features such as channel memberships, Super Chat, merchandise shelf, etc., that aid content creators to earn money through their content.
Although this study addressed its key objectives, there are several limitations, including the small sample size of participants, which may not fully represent the diverse perspectives and experiences of all Botswana filmmakers. Additionally, some of the participants of the study have not yet fully utilized YouTube for monetization, which may limit the depth of insights into the challenges and opportunities of YouTube monetization in Botswana. For future research, it would be beneficial to conduct larger-scale longitudinal studies that include a more diverse range of participants, monitored over time to establish their successes and challenges. Future studies could further explore the potential impact of policy changes and collaborations between regulatory authorities and YouTube on monetization opportunities for filmmakers in developing countries.
1.Vrana V, Das S. Dynamic restructuring of digital media and entertainment sector: Role of urbanization, industrial innovation, and technological evolution. In: Digital Entertainment as Next Evolution in Service Sector. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2023. pp. 15-34
2.Wincci S, Sim YE, Saiful Bahar AA, et al. Practice based research on music artist brand online music video production. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal. 2022;7:165-167
3.Yang S, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, et al. The science of YouTube: What factors influence user engagement with online science videos? PLoS One. 2022;17:e0267697
4.Kingsley S, Sinha P, Wang C, et al. Give everybody [..] a little bit more equity: Content creator perspectives and responses to the algorithmic demonetization of content associated with disadvantaged groups. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2022;6:1-37
5.Dutta M, Pandi AR, Zapata D, et al. Critical health communication method as embodied practice of resistance: Culturally Centering structural transformation through struggle for voice. Frontiers in Communication (Lausanne). 5 Dec 2019;4:1-14. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.3389/fcomm.2019.00067
6.Fazelpour S, Danks D. Algorithmic bias: Senses, sources, solutions. Philosophy Compass. 2021;16:1-16. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1111/phc3.12760
7.Ahmed S, Gil-Lopez T. Engaging with vilifying stereotypes: The role of YouTube algorithmic use in perpetuating misinformation about Muslim congresswomen. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2022:107769902211101
8.Choi D, Lee U, Hong H. It’s not wrong, but I’m quite disappointed: Toward an inclusive algorithmic experience for content creators with disabilities. In: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2022. pp. 1-19
9.Abul-Fottouh D, Song MY, Gruzd A. Examining algorithmic biases in YouTube’s recommendations of vaccine videos. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2020;140:104175
10.Juneja P, Bhuiyan MM, Mitra T. Assessing enactment of content regulation policies: A post hoc crowd-sourced audit of election misinformation on YouTube. In: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2023. pp. 1-22
11.Bryant LV. The YouTube algorithm and the alt-right filter bubble. Open Information Science. 2020;4:85-90
12.Ma R, Kou Y. I’m not sure what difference is between their content and mine, other than the person itself. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2022;6:1-28
13.Dunna A, Keith KA, Zuckerman E, et al. Paying attention to the algorithm behind the curtain: Bringing transparency to YouTube’s demonetization algorithms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2022;6:1-31
14.Rodriguez JA. LGBTQ incorporated: YouTube and the management of diversity. Journal of Homosexuality. 2023;70:1807-1828
15.Southerton C, Marshall D, Aggleton P, et al. Restricted modes: Social media, content classification and LGBTQ sexual citizenship. New Media & Society. 2021;23:920-938
16.Romero-Fresco P. In support of a wide notion of media accessibility: Access to content and access to creation. Journal of Audiovisual Translation. 2018;1:187-204
17.Nunes TWRS. The Internationalization of Film Industries through SVOD Platforms: The Case of Nollywood. [Doctoral dissertation]. Portugal: Universidade Catolica Portugesa; 2020
18.Mauyakufa TF, Pradhan A. Creating a sustainable Zimbabwean film and television industry. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. Bogota, Colombia: IEOM Society International; October 25-26, 2017
19.Kende M, Quast B. Promoting Content in Africa. Internet Society; 2016. Available from: www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Promoting20Content20In20Africa.pdf
20.Kang H, Yin W, Kim J, et al. The competitive advantage of the Indian and Korean film industries: An empirical analysis using natural language processing methods. Applied Sciences. 2022;12:4592
21.Odabasi E. Funds associated with film festivals: Supporting filmmaking in the global south. Loisir et Société/Society and Leisure. 2021;44:66-82
22.Van Hemert T, Ellison E. Punching above our weight: Industry visibility and community engagement in rural and regional film festivals. New Review of Film and Television Studies. 2022;20:522-545
23.Xiang Y. YouTube and the protocological control of platform organisations. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management. 2022;19:348-372
24.Tabares L. Professional amateurs: Asian American content creators in YouTube’s digital economy. Journal of Asian American Studies. 2019;22:387-417
25.van Es K. YouTube’s operational logic: “The view” as pervasive category. Television & New Media. 2020;21:223-239
26.Akter S, Dwivedi YK, Sajib S, et al. Algorithmic bias in machine learning-based marketing models. Journal of Business Research. 2022;144:201-216
27.Ribeiro MH, Ottoni R, West R, et al. Auditing radicalization pathways on YouTube. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2020. pp. 131-141
28.Lambrecht A, Sen A, Tucker CE, et al. Algorithmic recommendations and earned media: Investigating product Echo chambers on YouTube. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2021:1-28. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3951425
29.Fraser T, Crooke AHD, Davidson JW. Music has no borders: An exploratory study of audience engagement with YouTube music broadcasts during COVID-19 lockdown. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;12:1-17. Epub ahead of print. 8 July 2021. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643893
30.Pietrobruno S. YouTube flow and the transmission of heritage: The interplay of users, content, and algorithms. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. 2018;24:523-537
31.Alkhatib A, Bernstein M. Street-level algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2019. pp. 1-13
32.Hokka J. PewDiePie, racism and Youtube’s neoliberalist interpretation of freedom of speech. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. 2021;27:142-160
33.Kellett Z. Anime and Affect: Professional Fandom and the YouTube Platform in the Age of Monetization. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers, the State Newark, New Jersey: University of New Jersey, Graduate School-Newark; 2021
34.Hosseinmardi H, Ghasemian A, Clauset A, et al. Examining the consumption of radical content on YouTube. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences;118. Epub ahead of print. 10 August 2021. pp. 1-8. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2101967118
35.Ma C. What is the “lite” in “alt-lite?” the discourse of white vulnerability and dominance among YouTube’s reactionaries. Social Media + Society. 2021;7:205630512110363
36.Munger K, Phillips J. Right-wing YouTube: A supply and demand perspective. The International Journal of Press/Politics. 2022;27:186-219
37.Matamoros-Fernández A, Gray JE, Bartolo L, et al. What’s “up next”? Investigating algorithmic recommendations on YouTube across issues and over time. Media and Communication. 2021;9:234-249
38.Berman R, Katona Z. Curation algorithms and filter bubbles in social networks. Marketing Science. 2020;39:296-316
39.Li Y, Xie Y. Is a picture worth a thousand words? An empirical study of image content and social media engagement. Journal of Marketing Research. 2020;57:1-19
40.Feeney MK, Porumbescu G. The limits of social media for public administration research and practice. Public Administration Review. 2021;81:787-792
41.Celi LA, Cellini J, Charpignon M-L, et al. Sources of bias in artificial intelligence that perpetuate healthcare disparities—A global review. PLOS Digital Health. 2022;1:e0000022
42.Boratto L, Fenu G, Marras M. The Effect of Algorithmic Bias on Recommender Systems for Massive Open Online Courses. Vol. 11437. 2019. pp. 457-472
43.Tackett S, Slinn K, Marshall T, et al. Medical education videos for the world. Academic Medicine. 2018;93:1150-1156
44.Caplan R, Gillespie T. Tiered governance and demonetization: The shifting terms of labor and compensation in the platform economy. Social Media + Society. 2020;6:205630512093663
45.Graham C, Young F, Marjan A. The generation Z audience for in-app advertising. Journal of Indian Business Research. 2021;13:343-360
46.Munaro AC, Barcelos R, Francisco Maffezzolli EC, et al. To engage or not engage? The features of video content on YouTube affecting digital consumer engagement. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 2021;20:1336-1352
47.Han Y, Lappas T, Sabnis G. The importance of interactions between content characteristics and creator characteristics for studying Virality in social media. Information Systems Research. 2020;31:576-588
48.Clarke RI, Schoonmaker S. Metadata for diversity. Journal of Documentation. 2019;76:173-196
49.Birhane A. Algorithmic injustice: A relational ethics approach. Patterns. 2021;2:100205
50.Lepri B, Oliver N, Letouzé E, et al. Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making processes. Philosophy and Technology. 2018;31:611-627
51.Stoddart MCJ. Ideology, hegemony, discourse: A critical review of theories of knowledge and power. Thought & Research. 2007;28:191-225
52.Kellner D. Network Television and American Society: Introduction to a Critical Theory of Television. Vol. 10. Source: Theory and Society; 1981. pp. 31-62
53.Herbert D, Lotz AD, Marshall L. Approaching media industries comparatively: A case study of streaming. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 2019;22:349-366
54.Newsinger J, Eikhof DR. Explicit and implicit diversity policy in the UK film and television industries. Journal of British Cinema and Television. 2020;17:47-69
55.Flisfeder M. Political theory and film: From Adorno to Žižek. Contemporary Political Theory. 2019;18:255-258
56.Wight K. Dominant discourses in Canadian film school program websites. Media Education Research Journal. 2022;11:1-8. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7459950
57.Tomaselli KG. Africa, film theory and globalization: Reflections on the first ten years of the journal of African cinemas. Journal of African Cinemas. 2021;13:3-28
58.Ordiz I. Serrano CA, Gothic Imagination in Latin American Fiction and Film. Brumal Revista de Investigación Sobre Lo Fantástico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press; 2019. ISBN: 9780826360441. 2020;8:261. DOI: 10.5565/rev/brumal.701
59.Noheden K. Against all aristocracies: Surrealism, anarchism, and film. Modmod (Baltim Md). 2020;27:567-582
60.Ceuterick M. Introduction: Gender, space, and affects in film. In: Affirmative Aesthetics and Wilful Women. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. pp. 1-35
61.Waldman D. Critical theory and film: Adorno and ‘the culture industry’. Revisited. Source: New German Critique. 1977;12:39-60
62.Ørmen J, Gregersen A. Towards the engagement economy: Interconnected processes of commodification on YouTube. Media, Culture and Society. 2023;45:225-245
63.Ribes X. Is the YouTube animation algorithm-friendly? How YouTube’s algorithm influences the evolution of animation production on the Internet. Animation. 2020;15:229-245
Written By
Gopolang Ditlhokwa
Submitted: 02 July 2023Reviewed: 28 September 2023Published: 04 December 2023
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
