>“YouTube’s ad-supported model supports a diverse ecosystem of creators, and provides billions of people globally access to content for free with ads,” the company’s statement says.
Let's at least be 100% honest with everyone and stop with the disingenuous garbage:
1. Ad-blocker usage is roughly 25-30% of US users.
2. The average YouTube content creator makes less than 0.02 per ad view and thus why many of the large ones choose to use sponsors instead. Most YouTube content creators aren't making ANY money, let alone enough for them to care all that much. For those that are, they're doing just fine w/ad-blockers being used.
3. Google made nearly $70 billion in Q1; they're not hurting at all, especially their executives.
4. The on-going rise in the use of ad-block technologies is simply because platforms, sites, etc, are all absolutely inundating viewers with so much trash in an effort to make more money that it's almost a requirement to use them without having a shitty experience.
You touch on what is effectively the biggest problem I see with ads: how aggressive they are.
Interrupting my watching experience so you can show me 15 seconds of some chips bouncing around on the screen only serves to frustrate me and cause me to despise whatever you're selling. It's reminiscent of the "butt in chair" managerial mindset, and does not convey a solid understanding of how an intelligent person makes purchase decisions or meaningfully interacts with whatever you're peddling.
The most effective advertisements are the ones you don't even realize are advertisements. If you've ever searched reddit for product recommendations, you've likely read covert marketing campaigns disguised as casual suggestions. I'm not saying those are better, they're actually just as bad if not worse, because they are fundamentally dishonest.
In my opinion, a tolerable ad is one that does not aggravate me. Non aggressive, non intrusive, quick, to the point, and at least somewhat relevant without having to spy on me. Showing me ads for travel or hotel bookings during a video about videogames or hobby model making isn't useful to me (or anybody I presume).
It's like spam having obvious misspellings as a bandpass filter for lowered reasoning faculties. YouTube ads are made to appeal to the type of person who doesn't use adblocking. They don't care if they're intolerable to you - they already know you're not going to engage.
The question is, if ads are forced on the rest of us and we can't walk into the proverbial other room while they're on, how might we allow ads, make them useless for capturing real data about us, but have them appear valuable?
Spam is unsolicited, and will keep coming no matter what you do.
Web ads are implicitly solicited. You go to websites knowing that they will serve ads. If you don't like it, you can stop going to said websites and no more ads.
Email spam is implicitly solicited. You open your email knowing people are sending you spam. If you don't like it, you can stop opening your email and no more spam.
Don't forget that YouTube will actively "demonetize" videos of small/medium creators, and take whatever ad rev. was made on it for themselves and kill the reach of a video.
Curiously the same content from bigger brands gets a pass.
I think you're being completely disingenuous here. Using an ad-blocker is free-riding and nothing less. We consume a service provided by Google through server capacity, monetization enginea, and improved discovery and by the creators through sweat and tears in creating video content without paying for it. You can consume the content without being exposed to ads while paying Google and the creators their share by buying Youtube Premium but you choose to instead steal it by both consuming it and not paying for it.
It's completely fair to argue that Google makes more than enough money to not have to rely on your ad revenue but after all you're still free-riding.
Users are also part of the content-generation algorithm. Youtube uses my view history in their recommendation algorithm to others. YT uses my interactions the same way, whether it's engaging with the creator in the comments or providing feedback for other viewers or just simply giving it a like.
Yes, I'm consuming the service, but I'm also contributing to it. Less users = less engagement, and maybe that's good for YT's bottom line but it's harmful to the ecosystem.
Using words like 'theft' to describe visiting an openly-accessible webpage with a browser extension that modifies the presentation of that webpage is a bit extreme.
If these sites were truly concerned, why not just put youtube behind a paid username and password like netflix or hbo go or any other streaming content service today? Its because there is massive value in having your content be open to the world and not gatekept behind a subscription. The financials of this business don’t suggest its lacking a means to cover its costs, so why should I pay out my attention for a rate far below I quote anyone else in the market for it?
Did Google ever unfairly dominate competition? Did Google ever use their power tyrannically? Did Google ever release a product or design that caused untold social damage? Does Google deserve stellar treatment because they treat us stellar? Even if you view their ads or buy their product, is the product still not free of exploiting you? Why is it not the correct moralism that we have a right and a duty to take everything from them until they are no more?
Calling it free-riding is somewhat absurd in this framing, though. Is it free-riding of google to literally play music in my house? They don't pay for it, after all. Consider, you could easily frame this such that they are free riding on my trust to let them sell access to other companies. That they can't deliver on that purchased transfer of trust is their problem, not mine.
Ya people want their cake and eat it too. Or we want a free and open internet and that means ads or we really don’t want ads and that means to the app/platform/creator/website to go private and with a paywall. It will never be sustainable to have something free out there without ads and quality. Quality in anything won’t just come out of nowhere when it require investment, sweat and tears.
Alternative take, Google introduced the "customer as the product model", at least they did that at scale. Then honestly, we became dependent on their services as the web became Google, so I don't think it' totally fair to take that view.
No, I think most people are fine with paying for a service, it's just that most people in this thread are completely right.
1.) Google drove up ad coverage in front of videos to the point where I have to watch 2, sometimes 3 ads before I can watch a video. This is insane. I'd rather go back watching TV instead.
2.) Simultaneously, they have made it impossible for creators to support themselves by using ad payouts - indicated by how many creators chose to go with third party sponsorships. So even when I'm using adblock, I'm watching ads, only this time I'm usually okay with it, because I can skip them and even if not, it supports the creators I'm watching (although I'm sure advertisers will slowly figure this out as well and creep over to surreptitious advertising).
> that means to the app/platform/creator/website to go private and with a paywall
You pretend like this isn't already happening. Google is so detached from their customer-base, that Linus Tech Tips is currently starting his own streaming service, that does exactly this. Using their YouTube platform as a way to advertise it.
Larger content creators will just build their own platforms, as Linus proves.
> No, I think most people are fine with paying for a service
> I have to watch 2, sometimes 3 ads before I can watch a video. This is insane. I'd rather go back watching TV instead.
Your 2 statements contradict themselves. If you and others are fine to pay for a service and hate to watch 2-3 ads then why not take YouTube Premium? Now you just said you will prefer not to pay and go watch TV.
> they have made it impossible for creators to support themselves
You can literally pay a subscription to a channel you want to directly support now. How is that not helping to support content creators.
> You pretend like this isn't already happening.
I think you start to reading way too deeper here because I was literally pointing that it is happening and has to happen if people want quality. Or you go free with ads or you go private with a paywall.
Truth is you are already kinda answering what is happening right now:
> So even when I'm using adblock, I'm watching ads, only this time I'm usually okay with it, because I can skip them and even if not, it supports the creators I'm watching (although I'm sure advertisers will slowly figure this out as well and creep over to surreptitious advertising)
During Covid the internet ad market exploded but the price also went way down. If it’s ads on Facebook Google or even YouTube. A lot of people are more on the web with lock downs. They shop even more on Amazon and e-commerce shops. But this influx of new (regular) users made also cost of the ads per user crash because of the influx itself and because of the financial situation.
Coming back on YouTube that’s when and why YouTube started to show a lot more ads before it was 1-2 it went to 2-3 or so. And usually not skipable.
Add to this like you said in your comment people that want to support a channel and do watch ads but never click, advertisers will “figured it out”. Well they already did figured it on out. And they is them and Google Facebook etc. The market already corrected itself at the beginning of Covid. That’s why now you have to see more ads on YouTube because the cost per click is way down.
We can’t just zoom in and avoid all the economic situation. Forget how we got here. And avoid to see what YouTube offers to support content creators and yell that they don’t do a thing when really everything is already there. The question is are people defending this narrative going to fight to always things free with no (little) ads or are they going to put their money where their mouth is?
Still not free-riding when you consider the data they are collecting from viewers even with ad-blockers. People still have accounts to save channels/videos, lots of people or households have Android phones that makes it stupidly easy to link to people, places and purchases. There is significantly more value they still gain from it even if youtube itself operates at a loss.
Maybe if they weren't allowed to collect so much information, or had to pay back the users they are collecting data on could I see the point that ad-blocking is free-riding.
> The average YouTube content creator makes less than 0.02 per ad view
The number I see tends to fluctuate between $1 to $1.50 per 1,000 views, or about $0.001 to $0.0015 per view. (YouTube makes around twice that in direct gross revenue, and splits it up 55% to 45% between the creator and the platform, respectively.)
This obviously fluctuates substantially: if you produce videos that are viewed by prime demographics advertisers are more interested in, you tend to make more. YouTube also has better individual deals signed with their topmost creators, giving them a better revenue split or a different advertiser pool that’s willing to pay more for the most popular YouTubers. Shorts and livestreams also work a bit differently, but that’s too complicated to get into here.
Sponsors, meanwhile, typically offer massively better rates. Estimates very a lot more, and it depends on your individual track record as a creator, but I’ve seen numbers thrown around ranging from $2.50 to $10 per 1,000 views at the lower end. The biggest creators are apparently being quoted $50 or more per 1,000 views, and that number goes up exponentially as your channel grows.
That’s why seemingly every YouTuber is taking those deals, they’re unbelievably lucrative compared to the integrated YouTube ads. Combine that with a healthy Patreon and it’s no wonder why YouTubers are still able to do so well despite Google infamously difficult behavior.
Very disingenuous argument. That's their revenue, not their profit, and that includes their entire business, not just YouTube. Or is your point just that Google is big, therefore even if YouTube is operating at a loss (I don't know if it is or not) they should maintain that indefinitely just because they can?
No one is forcing YouTube to operate, at a loss or otherwise. They can stop any time they want.
If YouTube disappeared tomorrow it would arguably the best thing that happened to internet video since its inception. You can only imagine the variety of services that would spring up, maybe a standard way of finding and viewing videos would emerge.
People don't realise how damaging (essential) monopolies are, abusive or not.
By your standards, Google is acting even more juvenile. It will not defeat or reduce adblocking and will likely alienante paying customers. It's less than pointless.
Which is so strange, to have a government agency recommend violating terms of service. I suppose they can't advocate for better legislation or regulation of ads themselves.
1. Youtube creators move to sponsors where Youtube isn't getting a cut, which means youtube has to keep the lights on with only ad revenue.
2. Many users want to keep blocking/avoiding ads & don't want to pay. So they want to use the service for literally free. What other monitization method do you propose?
3. Their parent company's revenue doesn't matter. Is Google expected to run a free service that is very expensive and serves billions of users?
4. Youtube demonitizes people to keep advertisers on the platform. Users blocking ads & not paying ("freeloaders") only exacerbate the issue by being a drain on resources and further incentivizes Youtube to keep striving to preserve revenue by demonetization.
>>“YouTube’s ad-supported model supports a diverse ecosystem of creators, and provides billions of people globally access to content for free with ads,” the company’s statement says.
Before I switched to using adblocking on my phone for youtube (like I did for my desktop), I made sure I will never ever buy whatever crap was presented in YT ads.
I believe I am not the only one for which ads have a contrary effect to the desired effect.
So, some companies payd Youtube money and end up actually losing money from sales.
When I was younger, and more energetic, I would actually seek out an owner's website after seeing an advertisement. There would be a big splash ad for a movie on IGN or something, and I'd find the site for the movie, find the email address, and write some internet-crazy rant about how I'd never watch the movie, and tell everyone I knew that the movie sucked, all because I was shown an advertisement for the movie. It was pretty immature of me, but I felt so strongly about it at the time.
I am looking to build a house, and a few days ago I was driving on the highway and saw a billboard for a custom house builder. I made a mental note never to contact that company. If your ad is on the highway, you are not building my house :)
Always wondered how anyone picks an attorney from a billboard, as it seems that would be a negative signal but it must work because there are so many of them.
I get very suspicious of things I see advertised too much. It either implies that the company has way too much money and is blowing it on ads, implying some predatory monetisation, or that it's spending money it doesn't have on ads, which means it's going to either implode in a few months or have to jack up prices.
Remember: "Ad-supported content" isn't really ad-supported, it's supported by the customers of whoever's buying the ads.
>3. Google made nearly $70 billion in Q1; they're not hurting at all, especially their executives.
This is disgusting. Google's executives do an incredible amount of valuable work, easily thousands of times more than other employees, and deserve rich compensation packages. People need to be willing to pay a lot for Premium, or watch more ads, so that these executives can afford bigger yachts.
Not me, I fully support billionaires in yachts. I think they should all have yachts and spend lots of time with the exuberant aquatic wildlife off the Iberian coast.
>3. Google made nearly $70 billion in Q1; they're not hurting at all, especially their executives.
The CEO of YouTube is probably sweating as their performance is tied to YouTube net profit. YouTube is one of many revenue streams that Alphabet will be tightening over the years. I expect the Android division to also start bringing in revenue that is not connected to Google Play.
>“YouTube’s ad-supported model supports a diverse ecosystem of creators, and provides billions of people globally access to content for free with ads,” the company’s statement says.
Let's at least be 100% honest with everyone and stop with the disingenuous garbage:
1. Ad-blocker usage is roughly 25-30% of US users.
2. The average YouTube content creator makes less than 0.02 per ad view and thus why many of the large ones choose to use sponsors instead. Most YouTube content creators aren't making ANY money, let alone enough for them to care all that much. For those that are, they're doing just fine w/ad-blockers being used.
3. Google made nearly $70 billion in Q1; they're not hurting at all, especially their executives.
4. The on-going rise in the use of ad-block technologies is simply because platforms, sites, etc, are all absolutely inundating viewers with so much trash in an effort to make more money that it's almost a requirement to use them without having a shitty experience.