13 ms·

YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

122 points by renegadesensei 10y ago

jasonkostempski 10y ago
Here's an idea, advertisers directly pay the content creators they don't have a problem with to show ads natively in their content at a point they both agree is acceptable. And there could be a contract between the 2 parties that covers any concerns either might have.
- gcb0 10y ago
  But... But... I want to advertise for peanuts. I don't want to pay premium publisher prices! Give me premium content around my ads for free! now! /sarcasm. This is a solved problem. The only people complaining are the ones that want the cake and eat it too. There is Zero opportunity here. Because 100% of your market is already served by premium publishers.
  - rtpg 10y ago
    OK so now content creators have to go out there and get ads from companies. Or... they'll find some ad aggregator, and you're basically back to step one!
    - thanksgiving 10y ago
      Maybe you ought to be able to say "I only want to bid on PewDiePie videos" or a whitelist of approved channels. Is that possible now?
      - Androider 10y ago
        That would be fantastic. Like another post in the thread mentioned, if I'm selling telescopes I'd only want to show those ads in front of astronomy videos. Being able to whitelist specific channels (say, DeepSkyVideos and 60 Symbols) or even videos would open up a whole new long tail ad market and allow very low friction "partnering" between content creators and relevant advertisers.
- rl3 10y ago
  Isn't that basically influencer marketing? If the ads are overt then I suppose it's an improvement over the usual fare of subtle product placement and staged testimonials.
- andyjsong 10y ago
  That's why they acquired Famebit: https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/11/google-acquires-famebit-to-connect-youtube-creators-with-brands/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/11/google-acquires-famebit-to...
- mod 10y ago
  This happens a lot, at least in one genre of videos I watch (woodworking).
- ganfortran 10y ago
  So...television, is what your saying. Funny that we went all the back to the starting point. I do agree programmatic ads is a loop of shithole, driving both content and ads into a mutual destruction cycle. Brands are hurting, malware ads are prospering, and on the other hand, clicks become everything and it makes everything clickbaity. Some major cleaning needs to be done otherwise the whole computational ads business is going to die.
- kazagistar 10y ago
  Juding from all the shitty loot box opening videos or whatever, this is already happening to anyone willing to shill on the cheap.
  - Neliquat 10y ago
    Yuuuup. I think this year has been the worst. Unsubbed almost a third of my tech and maker channels because they became 20 minute mikita ads. Look what chinese crap they sent me! Any review of a product you did not pay for is worth what you paid, because someone else paid for it. Much respect for the vloggers and content creators who have respect for their audience and avoid shilling. And even more respect for makers making things and not more goddamn fidget toys.
- joering2 10y ago
  I cannot wait for the day when target audience will be able to make money off of providing information about other people. Website where I can tell that my neighboor is driving BMW, is single and looking for a new house, preferably penthouse with the mandatory view on the lake. So that once ad agency crunch this info, I will eventually benefit when my neighboor clicks some link for advertiser who offered a housing listings that match his preferences 99% Even if 1 cent per click, I take it.
jbob2000 10y ago
This could just be a UI problem. When you see an ad on YouTube, it's right under the video's title, so there's some subconscious association from the video's content to the content in the ad. What if YouTube ads worked more like TV commercials, where you're taking explicitly out of the content (maybe to another page to view the ad?), and then returned to the video? Would this ease advertiser's concerns about placement?
- zitterbewegung 10y ago
  This doesn't work for tv shows so why would it work for Youtube ? Making the ad full screen doesn't eliminate the association of the brand with the show. When the Super Bowl had the clothing malfunction advertisers were pissed .
- threeseed 10y ago
  It seems like you're advocating pop up/under advertising which is universally hated. People aren't on YouTube to watch ads they are there to watch videos. The ads need to be as unobtrusive as possible. The current approach is the only solution.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    I see pre-roll ads on YouTube, is that what you mean by the 'current approach'?
chrisco255 10y ago
Steem is an interesting concept around rewarding content creators through blockchain and cryptocurrency technology: https://steem.io/ https://steem.io/
- Neliquat 10y ago
  Good thing they wont get confused by any other huge online services with a similar name... oh wait... Seriously though, wtf were they thinking?
DavidSJ 10y ago
Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.
- throwaway2048 10y ago
  quite right, its not a first amendment issue, but it is certainly censorship.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- gwright 10y ago
  Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind. I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments and enforced by the legal system but that battle has been lost. Now the unqualified 'censorship' can mean just about any sort of content restrictions and as such is almost useless in its unqualified form.
  - braveo 10y ago
    Your point was valid 20-30 years ago, but not anymore. Not when our bubbles are so largely defined by what we see online. These companies with all the eyeballs are now able to exert an influence on people's lives in a way that companies rarely have been able to do in the past (barring media, which the censorship claim was a bit deal). So it is that nowadays censorship on something like youtube has become a big deal.
    - gwright 10y ago
      Who said it wasn't a concern? It is a concern but the nature of the concern is entirely different for editorial control vs. legal proscriptions. Your response is a nice example of the problem I was pointing out. You are conflating lots of different concerns by assuming that 'censorship' as an unqualified term accurately expresses the particular nuances of the issue you are concerned about. I'm just arguing for clarity in communication. Acting as if Google's editorial choices and speech codes at private universities and content filters on library computers and government efforts to squelch speech are all adequately summarized by the word "censorship" is harmful to clarity in communication.
theartfuldodger 10y ago
eh, it's not a real problem to solve, the large new buyers in the digital video space just are avoiding the complexity of intentional targeting and placements. The measly 100k-250k I spend on video ads on YouTube can be monitored and controlled to appear exactly where necessary. The large media buyers just didn't feel like doing the work.
theartfuldodger 10y ago
eh, it's not a real problem to solve, the large new buyers in the digital video space just are avoiding the complexity of intentional targeting and placements. The measly 100k-250k I spend on video ads on YouTube can be monitored and controlled to appear exactly where necessary. The large media buyers just didn't feel like doing the work.
627467 10y ago
Much prefer decent native/immutable adversiting. I don't care for 'smart' ads. I don't want ads following me around the web, because they tend to advertise things that either I already know/have or decided that I don't care for. That's how 'smart' algorithmic advertising has been working. I never got influenced into clicking that Amazon product ad that followed me through dozens websites or that crowdufing product that's on Twitter/Facebook. If a brand wants to reach me, they better find a good narrative and publisher that gets me to manage the relationship. Not plant some cookie and try to guess my taste based on pages I've been to.
beezischillin 10y ago
It's a weird thing because this seems to be the culmination of YouTube, as a platform, becoming a worse place consistently for content creators. This ad-hysteria seems to have just accelerated the process to its (yet unknown) logical conclusion. I think a lot of content creators didn't look for alternatives to YT as a platform because they've been a pretty alright place for free speech (most of the time -- even during this debacle!), but it's been having some pretty severe issues over the years (a lot of which are caused by YouTube's absolute refusal to deal with people personally). It's also a weird situation, because free video sharing on the Internet is not really a profitable line of business when it exists in a way as liberal as YouTube is (Vimeo, for example is limited for free users, etc.) so there are not as many long term, similarly equipped alternatives to it, at least as of now.
- jopsen 10y ago
  Let's not forget that presence on YouTube likely increases viewer retention. Being part of a channel eco-system where viewers subscribe to multiple channels gives higher retention for all channels. Note. YT did cultivate an entire market of independent media published as subscribe-able channels of videos. It's no surprise moving is hard.
bluetwo 10y ago
I, for one, love the idea of advertisers showing some backbone. About freaking time.
jsonne 10y ago
This is such a manufactured controversy. Most modern advertisements are based around audience rather than content. If brands are so uncomfortable with the content their customers are consuming perhaps they should consider either new customers or new products.
- flukus 10y ago
  On that note, how much neo-nazi propaganda would I have to watch in order for advertisers to avoid me?
  - syrrim 10y ago
    They never would. Unless somebody decided to make public that they were advertising to neo-nazis. Only then do they have to go into damage control.
- bmon 10y ago
  Why is this? Is it because it is easier to categorize users as opposed to content, or do ads perform better when targeted to specific audiences? If I had to guess I'd think that audience targeted adverts would perform better, but here we have a large amount of companies upset that their adverts are appearing next to specific content.
- etherealG 10y ago
  you're wrong, advertising targeting factors both these things.
  - jsonne 10y ago
    I'm aware that it's possible to buy ads both based on content in placements rather than audience based targeting, but the latter is much more pervasive on digital and the former typically requires larger budgets and know how that your average advertiser doesn't possess.
Mrtierne 10y ago
It's more growing pains. Advertisers are starting to better understand the digital space so will hopefully concentrate their efforts and dollars on those creating premium video (like Kurzgesagt). Youtube could help the case by adjusting their recommendation algorithms ... watch one weird video and your recs are ruined.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  Yup, i watched one frikkin video game playthru and now my suggestions are all greasy pewdiepie ripoffs yelling into the mic for hours. Even seemingly normal selections turn out to be video games, which I have precious little interest in. I would pay cash for a way to filter all the little shits. The top 10 vids are almost as bad.
vosper 10y ago
OT: does blogspot look awful on iPhone for everyone else? I have to use the "request desktop site" feature in Safari. I see even official Google posts on blogspot so I would have thought they would make it work...
shams93 10y ago
Is it really censorship or are we seeing the effects of the end of net neutrality with 0 rated services. I'm wondering whether advertisers are using placement as an excuse to try to weasel out of long term ad contracts if youtube's numbers are taking a huge hit to 0 rated video services favored by the carriers? Would you want your ad dollars trapped in a service in decline with long term contracts or try to find some way to get out of it even if its some excuse about a couple ad placements to find a way to break the contract and free those ad dollars for 0 rated carrier favored services?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
visarga 10y ago
Problem with ads is that we don't want to buy from them, we want to search and evaluate products instead. I never buy anything online unless I test both the seller and the product for bad reviews. Ads are just too risky to buy from. I need to trust before I buy, and it's silly to keep watching ads when I know I am not going to buy anything from them.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  Most ads are 'impressions' not primary sales drivers now.
Buge 10y ago
It mentions "removing a channel" and "banning unpopular opinions". But that's not necessary to appease advertisers. You just need to unmonetize those videos. And that's what Youtube's been doing as far as I know.
BillyParadise 10y ago
So... Patreon.
BillyParadise 10y ago
So... Patreon.
kusmi 10y ago
An AI trained to identify extremist video content for an automated ad to video pairing system? I've read enough sci-fi to know where this is going.
RichardHeart 10y ago
I've lost lots of money with Youtube ads sending me children trying to learn their abc's. Lot's and lots of children searching for cartoons landing on my channel against my geo/language/age/interest filters. A few hours on the phone with their Indian tech support got me only false promises of call backs and refunds. I'm unable to reach intelligent/useful person at google adwords tech support. Which is terrible, because I think that's where most of their revenue comes from?
renegadesensei 10y ago
Hey, this is my first time being on the front page so long. Cool. Thanks for all the great comments, dudes.
Udo 10y ago
> 1. A smarter advertising-based model. That would be the wrong lesson to take away here. By and large, ads are a scam on many levels, and it's not at all clear how that could change. Individual deals between content producers and companies seem like the sanest alternative, but it's obvious how that's not an option for the internet at large. > 2. A model that does not rely on advertising. Ads are a symptom of what brought non-corporate Youtube content down, but it's not the root cause. Youtube and its parent company will always be susceptible to repeats and variations of the WSJ attack, and Youtube didn't exactly have a respectful relationship with their content creators to begin with. "Controversial" content such as LGBT-focused videos doesn't just get less ads, it gets suppressed by YT in other ways designed to prevent discoverability. Siloization is the disease. Any crisis is an opportunity for startups. The larger point here is a wakeup call about the structure of the web. There are still opportunities to change this, but companies and governments are fast at work changing that. The time would be now.
geff82 10y ago
I think there still is a big opportunity for ad companies that try to actually show stuff the user might interested in. Let me explain. Let's say you are an amateur astronomer, like me. You have subscribed to a paper magazine about astronomy, like me. If, again, you are like me, then you also read the magazine for the ads in it. Ads showing new telescopes, ads talking about astronomy expeditions, ads for the astronomy club. It is advertisement on the one hand, but still relevant information for my hobby. The companies that buy ads for a longer period burn their brand into my brain, in the "relevant" section of it. Now let's talk about how this would be on the web. When I visit a site about astronomy, I can expect the ads to show: flight offers for the business trip I recently googled. SAS software because I recently did a certification with them and visited their website. Amazon ads showing me business books I recently searched there. But what they often do not show: relevant, juicy astronomy related ads. And when they do, the ad is gone the next time I refresh the page replaced by something else. The ads on the web are most often totally out of context. They might be shown to you because of your recorded behavior before, but still they are totally irrelevant. Probably running an ad network with great ads would be much more manual work than running the next past-behavior based network that tries to mine user data for new ideas. But at least for special interest sites, it could be a gold mine.
- etherealG 10y ago
  I think you're missing the point of how current targeted advertising works. The person paying for the advertising is the one choosing when/where to show it to you. They are intentionally getting in your way with something irrelevant, since it suits their campaign goals. What you describe is a system where the consumer has control over how they are advertised to, but that only works when you are the one with power in the situation. If you use a service for free, like a website, your eyeballs are the service being sold, and the advertiser is going to utilise that service in his interest. That includes putting ads you "don't like" in front of you, that actually do influence your chances of buying that product, on average, in an upward trend.
  - Androider 10y ago
    As an advertiser, I would love to only show relevant ads. Current methods for targeted advertising are extremely broad and ineffective, as in: females 35-44, interested in travel, living in Texas. Want to target hobby astronomers who watch a specific Youtube channel? Impossible. Cloud developers who follow the same 3 tell-tale Twitter accounts that clearly define the group? No can do. People at the big 4 in SV with Go in their resume on LinkedIn? Pfff, you wish. All the data to serve truly relevant ads is there, but advertising networks do not offer the type of targeting required. Today if you want to reach a specific audience you have to make a native advertising deal with the content creator, which is outside the budget and skillset of most advertisers.
autokad 10y ago
> "Perhaps what we need is a browser plugin with a wallet that allows for microtransactions. It could charge a user a penny for every page load on a creator's blog" this sounds like a terrible idea. i imagine being directed to pages that tick me a penny, or leaving a browser tab open for months (i do that) without looking at it but getting ticked for refreshes. or even worse, viruses that try to log visits to pages trying to take pennies from you hopping you dont notice. and who is going to try and fight a 1 penny fraud? even in the best circumstances, i wouldn't want to revisit someones page for fear that ill get charged but the content might not be that interesting or original
Lagged2Death 10y ago
Many channels are seeing their revenues plummet as big companies pull their ads out of fear they will be shown in more controversial videos ... Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Ugh. It's not remotely censorship to stop funding something. You don't have any obligation to pay me to jabber in front of a camera, and neither does anyone else. Putting the distinct ideas of "refusing to pay for X" and "censorship of X" in such proximity is either the result of confusion or a deliberate attempt at emotional Roveian conflation. The linked Guardian article makes no mention of YouTube removing either videos or channels. If that's not happening, then whatever is happening isn't even similar to censorship. Just because the Guardian author throws the term around so casually doesn't make it true. ...we should ask ourselves how comfortable we are with large corporations essentially setting the terms of acceptable political discourse by pressuring media platforms into banning unpopular opinions. Back in the 1970s, when video in America was dominated by three huge networks, an argument like this would have made a glimmer of sense: if advertisers pulled out of a program en masse, the network management would cancel the show in search of something more profitable, and the attitudes or opinions the program espoused might not be represented on television at all anymore. But the internet isn't like that. YouTube isn't like that. You can keep making your show, your blog, your own personal website, etc., regardless of what the advertisers do. There is no panel of bean counters controlling access to limited, valuable airwaves, because the "airwaves" are unbounded in breadth and unmoored from time. One might argue that this is the principal, signature difference between broadcast television and internet video. Even if YouTube was deleting videos outright, they're hardly the only way to share videos online. They simply aren't capable of "banning unpopular opinions" in any effective general way. It's a little tough to take "righteous" "Wiseman's" internet-censorship-based startup ideas seriously when 1) he doesn't seem to understand what censorship is 2) he doesn't seem to understand important differences between the internet and older media systems.
norea-armozel 10y ago
I don't get why so many folks thought Google was going to give them a free pass forever when it comes to various touchy subjects. Google depends on advertisers to pay its bills and make profit for its shareholders. If that means Youtube becomes more vanilla than vanilla then that's what will happen. It's not an issue of left/right political spectrum as it is more to do with the fear of alienating their clients (the advertisers) who aren't the consumers or people who make videos on Youtube. So if content creators want to take this an opportunity to find a better distribution and payment scheme I think that would be wise rather than trying to change the beast that is Google because when it comes down to your content Google can easily replace it with the generic PBS channel videos or even hire their own content creators to replace you at a discount.

122 points by renegadesensei 10y ago

Here's an idea, advertisers directly pay the content creators they don't have a problem with to show ads natively in their content at a point they both agree is acceptable. And there could be a contract between the 2 parties that covers any concerns either might have.

gcb0 10y ago
But... But... I want to advertise for peanuts. I don't want to pay premium publisher prices! Give me premium content around my ads for free! now! /sarcasm. This is a solved problem. The only people complaining are the ones that want the cake and eat it too. There is Zero opportunity here. Because 100% of your market is already served by premium publishers.
- rtpg 10y ago
  OK so now content creators have to go out there and get ads from companies. Or... they'll find some ad aggregator, and you're basically back to step one!
  - thanksgiving 10y ago
    Maybe you ought to be able to say "I only want to bid on PewDiePie videos" or a whitelist of approved channels. Is that possible now?
    - Androider 10y ago
      That would be fantastic. Like another post in the thread mentioned, if I'm selling telescopes I'd only want to show those ads in front of astronomy videos. Being able to whitelist specific channels (say, DeepSkyVideos and 60 Symbols) or even videos would open up a whole new long tail ad market and allow very low friction "partnering" between content creators and relevant advertisers.
rl3 10y ago
Isn't that basically influencer marketing? If the ads are overt then I suppose it's an improvement over the usual fare of subtle product placement and staged testimonials.
andyjsong 10y ago
That's why they acquired Famebit: https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/11/google-acquires-famebit-to-connect-youtube-creators-with-brands/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/11/google-acquires-famebit-to...
mod 10y ago
This happens a lot, at least in one genre of videos I watch (woodworking).
ganfortran 10y ago
So...television, is what your saying. Funny that we went all the back to the starting point. I do agree programmatic ads is a loop of shithole, driving both content and ads into a mutual destruction cycle. Brands are hurting, malware ads are prospering, and on the other hand, clicks become everything and it makes everything clickbaity. Some major cleaning needs to be done otherwise the whole computational ads business is going to die.
kazagistar 10y ago
Juding from all the shitty loot box opening videos or whatever, this is already happening to anyone willing to shill on the cheap.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  Yuuuup. I think this year has been the worst. Unsubbed almost a third of my tech and maker channels because they became 20 minute mikita ads. Look what chinese crap they sent me! Any review of a product you did not pay for is worth what you paid, because someone else paid for it. Much respect for the vloggers and content creators who have respect for their audience and avoid shilling. And even more respect for makers making things and not more goddamn fidget toys.
joering2 10y ago
I cannot wait for the day when target audience will be able to make money off of providing information about other people. Website where I can tell that my neighboor is driving BMW, is single and looking for a new house, preferably penthouse with the mandatory view on the lake. So that once ad agency crunch this info, I will eventually benefit when my neighboor clicks some link for advertiser who offered a housing listings that match his preferences 99% Even if 1 cent per click, I take it.

jbob2000 10y ago

This could just be a UI problem. When you see an ad on YouTube, it's right under the video's title, so there's some subconscious association from the video's content to the content in the ad. What if YouTube ads worked more like TV commercials, where you're taking explicitly out of the content (maybe to another page to view the ad?), and then returned to the video? Would this ease advertiser's concerns about placement?

zitterbewegung 10y ago
This doesn't work for tv shows so why would it work for Youtube ? Making the ad full screen doesn't eliminate the association of the brand with the show. When the Super Bowl had the clothing malfunction advertisers were pissed .
threeseed 10y ago
It seems like you're advocating pop up/under advertising which is universally hated. People aren't on YouTube to watch ads they are there to watch videos. The ads need to be as unobtrusive as possible. The current approach is the only solution.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  I see pre-roll ads on YouTube, is that what you mean by the 'current approach'?

chrisco255 10y ago

Steem is an interesting concept around rewarding content creators through blockchain and cryptocurrency technology: https://steem.io/ https://steem.io/

Neliquat 10y ago
Good thing they wont get confused by any other huge online services with a similar name... oh wait... Seriously though, wtf were they thinking?

DavidSJ 10y ago

Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.

throwaway2048 10y ago
quite right, its not a first amendment issue, but it is certainly censorship.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gwright 10y ago
Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind. I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments and enforced by the legal system but that battle has been lost. Now the unqualified 'censorship' can mean just about any sort of content restrictions and as such is almost useless in its unqualified form.
- braveo 10y ago
  Your point was valid 20-30 years ago, but not anymore. Not when our bubbles are so largely defined by what we see online. These companies with all the eyeballs are now able to exert an influence on people's lives in a way that companies rarely have been able to do in the past (barring media, which the censorship claim was a bit deal). So it is that nowadays censorship on something like youtube has become a big deal.
  - gwright 10y ago
    Who said it wasn't a concern? It is a concern but the nature of the concern is entirely different for editorial control vs. legal proscriptions. Your response is a nice example of the problem I was pointing out. You are conflating lots of different concerns by assuming that 'censorship' as an unqualified term accurately expresses the particular nuances of the issue you are concerned about. I'm just arguing for clarity in communication. Acting as if Google's editorial choices and speech codes at private universities and content filters on library computers and government efforts to squelch speech are all adequately summarized by the word "censorship" is harmful to clarity in communication.

theartfuldodger 10y ago

eh, it's not a real problem to solve, the large new buyers in the digital video space just are avoiding the complexity of intentional targeting and placements. The measly 100k-250k I spend on video ads on YouTube can be monitored and controlled to appear exactly where necessary. The large media buyers just didn't feel like doing the work.

theartfuldodger 10y ago

627467 10y ago

Much prefer decent native/immutable adversiting. I don't care for 'smart' ads. I don't want ads following me around the web, because they tend to advertise things that either I already know/have or decided that I don't care for. That's how 'smart' algorithmic advertising has been working. I never got influenced into clicking that Amazon product ad that followed me through dozens websites or that crowdufing product that's on Twitter/Facebook. If a brand wants to reach me, they better find a good narrative and publisher that gets me to manage the relationship. Not plant some cookie and try to guess my taste based on pages I've been to.

beezischillin 10y ago

It's a weird thing because this seems to be the culmination of YouTube, as a platform, becoming a worse place consistently for content creators. This ad-hysteria seems to have just accelerated the process to its (yet unknown) logical conclusion. I think a lot of content creators didn't look for alternatives to YT as a platform because they've been a pretty alright place for free speech (most of the time -- even during this debacle!), but it's been having some pretty severe issues over the years (a lot of which are caused by YouTube's absolute refusal to deal with people personally). It's also a weird situation, because free video sharing on the Internet is not really a profitable line of business when it exists in a way as liberal as YouTube is (Vimeo, for example is limited for free users, etc.) so there are not as many long term, similarly equipped alternatives to it, at least as of now.

jopsen 10y ago
Let's not forget that presence on YouTube likely increases viewer retention. Being part of a channel eco-system where viewers subscribe to multiple channels gives higher retention for all channels. Note. YT did cultivate an entire market of independent media published as subscribe-able channels of videos. It's no surprise moving is hard.

bluetwo 10y ago

I, for one, love the idea of advertisers showing some backbone. About freaking time.

jsonne 10y ago

This is such a manufactured controversy. Most modern advertisements are based around audience rather than content. If brands are so uncomfortable with the content their customers are consuming perhaps they should consider either new customers or new products.

flukus 10y ago
On that note, how much neo-nazi propaganda would I have to watch in order for advertisers to avoid me?
- syrrim 10y ago
  They never would. Unless somebody decided to make public that they were advertising to neo-nazis. Only then do they have to go into damage control.
bmon 10y ago
Why is this? Is it because it is easier to categorize users as opposed to content, or do ads perform better when targeted to specific audiences? If I had to guess I'd think that audience targeted adverts would perform better, but here we have a large amount of companies upset that their adverts are appearing next to specific content.
etherealG 10y ago
you're wrong, advertising targeting factors both these things.
- jsonne 10y ago
  I'm aware that it's possible to buy ads both based on content in placements rather than audience based targeting, but the latter is much more pervasive on digital and the former typically requires larger budgets and know how that your average advertiser doesn't possess.

Mrtierne 10y ago

It's more growing pains. Advertisers are starting to better understand the digital space so will hopefully concentrate their efforts and dollars on those creating premium video (like Kurzgesagt). Youtube could help the case by adjusting their recommendation algorithms ... watch one weird video and your recs are ruined.

Neliquat 10y ago
Yup, i watched one frikkin video game playthru and now my suggestions are all greasy pewdiepie ripoffs yelling into the mic for hours. Even seemingly normal selections turn out to be video games, which I have precious little interest in. I would pay cash for a way to filter all the little shits. The top 10 vids are almost as bad.

vosper 10y ago

OT: does blogspot look awful on iPhone for everyone else? I have to use the "request desktop site" feature in Safari. I see even official Google posts on blogspot so I would have thought they would make it work...

shams93 10y ago

Is it really censorship or are we seeing the effects of the end of net neutrality with 0 rated services. I'm wondering whether advertisers are using placement as an excuse to try to weasel out of long term ad contracts if youtube's numbers are taking a huge hit to 0 rated video services favored by the carriers? Would you want your ad dollars trapped in a service in decline with long term contracts or try to find some way to get out of it even if its some excuse about a couple ad placements to find a way to break the contract and free those ad dollars for 0 rated carrier favored services?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

visarga 10y ago

Problem with ads is that we don't want to buy from them, we want to search and evaluate products instead. I never buy anything online unless I test both the seller and the product for bad reviews. Ads are just too risky to buy from. I need to trust before I buy, and it's silly to keep watching ads when I know I am not going to buy anything from them.

Neliquat 10y ago
Most ads are 'impressions' not primary sales drivers now.

Buge 10y ago

It mentions "removing a channel" and "banning unpopular opinions". But that's not necessary to appease advertisers. You just need to unmonetize those videos. And that's what Youtube's been doing as far as I know.

BillyParadise 10y ago

So... Patreon.

BillyParadise 10y ago

So... Patreon.

kusmi 10y ago

An AI trained to identify extremist video content for an automated ad to video pairing system? I've read enough sci-fi to know where this is going.

RichardHeart 10y ago

I've lost lots of money with Youtube ads sending me children trying to learn their abc's. Lot's and lots of children searching for cartoons landing on my channel against my geo/language/age/interest filters. A few hours on the phone with their Indian tech support got me only false promises of call backs and refunds. I'm unable to reach intelligent/useful person at google adwords tech support. Which is terrible, because I think that's where most of their revenue comes from?

renegadesensei 10y ago

Hey, this is my first time being on the front page so long. Cool. Thanks for all the great comments, dudes.

Udo 10y ago

> 1. A smarter advertising-based model. That would be the wrong lesson to take away here. By and large, ads are a scam on many levels, and it's not at all clear how that could change. Individual deals between content producers and companies seem like the sanest alternative, but it's obvious how that's not an option for the internet at large. > 2. A model that does not rely on advertising. Ads are a symptom of what brought non-corporate Youtube content down, but it's not the root cause. Youtube and its parent company will always be susceptible to repeats and variations of the WSJ attack, and Youtube didn't exactly have a respectful relationship with their content creators to begin with. "Controversial" content such as LGBT-focused videos doesn't just get less ads, it gets suppressed by YT in other ways designed to prevent discoverability. Siloization is the disease. Any crisis is an opportunity for startups. The larger point here is a wakeup call about the structure of the web. There are still opportunities to change this, but companies and governments are fast at work changing that. The time would be now.

geff82 10y ago

I think there still is a big opportunity for ad companies that try to actually show stuff the user might interested in. Let me explain. Let's say you are an amateur astronomer, like me. You have subscribed to a paper magazine about astronomy, like me. If, again, you are like me, then you also read the magazine for the ads in it. Ads showing new telescopes, ads talking about astronomy expeditions, ads for the astronomy club. It is advertisement on the one hand, but still relevant information for my hobby. The companies that buy ads for a longer period burn their brand into my brain, in the "relevant" section of it. Now let's talk about how this would be on the web. When I visit a site about astronomy, I can expect the ads to show: flight offers for the business trip I recently googled. SAS software because I recently did a certification with them and visited their website. Amazon ads showing me business books I recently searched there. But what they often do not show: relevant, juicy astronomy related ads. And when they do, the ad is gone the next time I refresh the page replaced by something else. The ads on the web are most often totally out of context. They might be shown to you because of your recorded behavior before, but still they are totally irrelevant. Probably running an ad network with great ads would be much more manual work than running the next past-behavior based network that tries to mine user data for new ideas. But at least for special interest sites, it could be a gold mine.

etherealG 10y ago
I think you're missing the point of how current targeted advertising works. The person paying for the advertising is the one choosing when/where to show it to you. They are intentionally getting in your way with something irrelevant, since it suits their campaign goals. What you describe is a system where the consumer has control over how they are advertised to, but that only works when you are the one with power in the situation. If you use a service for free, like a website, your eyeballs are the service being sold, and the advertiser is going to utilise that service in his interest. That includes putting ads you "don't like" in front of you, that actually do influence your chances of buying that product, on average, in an upward trend.
- Androider 10y ago
  As an advertiser, I would love to only show relevant ads. Current methods for targeted advertising are extremely broad and ineffective, as in: females 35-44, interested in travel, living in Texas. Want to target hobby astronomers who watch a specific Youtube channel? Impossible. Cloud developers who follow the same 3 tell-tale Twitter accounts that clearly define the group? No can do. People at the big 4 in SV with Go in their resume on LinkedIn? Pfff, you wish. All the data to serve truly relevant ads is there, but advertising networks do not offer the type of targeting required. Today if you want to reach a specific audience you have to make a native advertising deal with the content creator, which is outside the budget and skillset of most advertisers.

autokad 10y ago

> "Perhaps what we need is a browser plugin with a wallet that allows for microtransactions. It could charge a user a penny for every page load on a creator's blog" this sounds like a terrible idea. i imagine being directed to pages that tick me a penny, or leaving a browser tab open for months (i do that) without looking at it but getting ticked for refreshes. or even worse, viruses that try to log visits to pages trying to take pennies from you hopping you dont notice. and who is going to try and fight a 1 penny fraud? even in the best circumstances, i wouldn't want to revisit someones page for fear that ill get charged but the content might not be that interesting or original

Lagged2Death 10y ago

Many channels are seeing their revenues plummet as big companies pull their ads out of fear they will be shown in more controversial videos ... Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Ugh. It's not remotely censorship to stop funding something. You don't have any obligation to pay me to jabber in front of a camera, and neither does anyone else. Putting the distinct ideas of "refusing to pay for X" and "censorship of X" in such proximity is either the result of confusion or a deliberate attempt at emotional Roveian conflation. The linked Guardian article makes no mention of YouTube removing either videos or channels. If that's not happening, then whatever is happening isn't even similar to censorship. Just because the Guardian author throws the term around so casually doesn't make it true. ...we should ask ourselves how comfortable we are with large corporations essentially setting the terms of acceptable political discourse by pressuring media platforms into banning unpopular opinions. Back in the 1970s, when video in America was dominated by three huge networks, an argument like this would have made a glimmer of sense: if advertisers pulled out of a program en masse, the network management would cancel the show in search of something more profitable, and the attitudes or opinions the program espoused might not be represented on television at all anymore. But the internet isn't like that. YouTube isn't like that. You can keep making your show, your blog, your own personal website, etc., regardless of what the advertisers do. There is no panel of bean counters controlling access to limited, valuable airwaves, because the "airwaves" are unbounded in breadth and unmoored from time. One might argue that this is the principal, signature difference between broadcast television and internet video. Even if YouTube was deleting videos outright, they're hardly the only way to share videos online. They simply aren't capable of "banning unpopular opinions" in any effective general way. It's a little tough to take "righteous" "Wiseman's" internet-censorship-based startup ideas seriously when 1) he doesn't seem to understand what censorship is 2) he doesn't seem to understand important differences between the internet and older media systems.

norea-armozel 10y ago

I don't get why so many folks thought Google was going to give them a free pass forever when it comes to various touchy subjects. Google depends on advertisers to pay its bills and make profit for its shareholders. If that means Youtube becomes more vanilla than vanilla then that's what will happen. It's not an issue of left/right political spectrum as it is more to do with the fear of alienating their clients (the advertisers) who aren't the consumers or people who make videos on Youtube. So if content creators want to take this an opportunity to find a better distribution and payment scheme I think that would be wise rather than trying to change the beast that is Google because when it comes down to your content Google can easily replace it with the generic PBS channel videos or even hire their own content creators to replace you at a discount.