3 ms·

The content likely was not attractive for an advertisers to put an ad on in the first place and so revenues dropped the minute ad controls for advertisers were

by sfifs 9y ago

The content likely was not attractive for an advertisers to put an ad on in the first place and so revenues dropped the minute ad controls for advertisers were added. Google didn't really have a choice but to do this given the billions that were pulled. Will be interesting to see impact on AMJ quarter results.

falcolas 9y ago
> The content likely was not attractive That's our assumption. But all we can do is assume; nobody seems to have a way to verify those assumptions. It appears that the content creators can't even see what category their content has been assigned to, WRT advertisements, to make changes to regain their revenue. Content creators are the ones feeling the pinch now, but we'll all be poorer in the long run.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
There are specific issues, mostly regarding clarity with regard to demonetization. It's all automated, and there are lots of errors. H3H3, for example, made the video "Christian moms against dabbing" as a test for ad-friendly content, but was demonetized because of the word "Christian" in the title. It was not a controversial video, actually quite light-hearted, but the algo still triggered. The frustration you hear/read is that many creators do understand the advertiser issues, but find nevertheless find it difficult to work with YouTube's automated systems.
- sfifs 9y ago
  You need to understand the economic incentives in operation. Advertisers and Google have a risk avoidance incentive. It doesn't matter if they pass up good ad friendly content. They definitely don't want to take a chance to put their brand in front of ad unfriendly content. Now unlike television where ad inventory is limited, on the internet, it's a buyers market. Even if the advertiser passes on something potentially good, he can always find some other content to place on. Indeed what he is buying is actually access to the people watching content, not the content and since the same people on YouTube will probably watch other videos as well, why not de-risk by automatically screening out everything potentially controversial?

by sfifs 9y ago

falcolas 9y ago

> The content likely was not attractive That's our assumption. But all we can do is assume; nobody seems to have a way to verify those assumptions. It appears that the content creators can't even see what category their content has been assigned to, WRT advertisements, to make changes to regain their revenue. Content creators are the ones feeling the pinch now, but we'll all be poorer in the long run.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago

There are specific issues, mostly regarding clarity with regard to demonetization. It's all automated, and there are lots of errors. H3H3, for example, made the video "Christian moms against dabbing" as a test for ad-friendly content, but was demonetized because of the word "Christian" in the title. It was not a controversial video, actually quite light-hearted, but the algo still triggered. The frustration you hear/read is that many creators do understand the advertiser issues, but find nevertheless find it difficult to work with YouTube's automated systems.

sfifs 9y ago
You need to understand the economic incentives in operation. Advertisers and Google have a risk avoidance incentive. It doesn't matter if they pass up good ad friendly content. They definitely don't want to take a chance to put their brand in front of ad unfriendly content. Now unlike television where ad inventory is limited, on the internet, it's a buyers market. Even if the advertiser passes on something potentially good, he can always find some other content to place on. Indeed what he is buying is actually access to the people watching content, not the content and since the same people on YouTube will probably watch other videos as well, why not de-risk by automatically screening out everything potentially controversial?