4 ms·

Content providers think they want their videos to stay monetized, but I don't think they don't. With regard to monetizing videos, am I totally wrong to assume

Content providers think they want their videos to stay monetized, but I don't think they don't. With regard to monetizing videos, am I totally wrong to assume that this is entirely based on what advertisers are willing to sponsor? So if company A decides, for whatever reason, they don't want to pay for ads on videos that talk about some subject that they don't agree with, I think we can all agree that they should have the right to do that. And if that causes a community backlash against that advertiser, then that's a good. Boycotts are better than laws. If some video has content, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with it, and youtube is seeing advertisers shy away from such content, then why would youtube continue to force that advertisers ads to show up on that video. They would lose the advertiser. No advertiser. No money. So leaving it monetized only to lose advertisers and thus money isn't exactly what the content creators want either.

indubitable 9y ago
I think what you're saying explains the situation quite concisely. It seems that it would be somewhat difficult to argue that advertisers truly care where their ads are placed in terms of moral values. There's no shortage of western companies setup and advertising in places like Saudi Arabia/Belarus/etc. If there was any money to be made in North Korea and they were allowed, there's every reason to believe that there'd be McDonalds and Starbucks on every corner. However, the whole point of advertising is to positively influence the population regarding your product's brand. If an advertiser's ads are shown on something that's domestically controversial and the face a social backlash, well that's a complete waste of money. And even if an advertiser chooses to pull their advertising from something some group found controversial not only does it rarely appease the offended group, but it's increasingly likely in today's society that another group will counterprotest - again resulting in brand damage and a complete waste of money. The only completely economically safe path is to restrict your ads to the most neutral, neutered, and completely inoffensive content possible. Well, at least unless the target is large enough - in which case the brand image gained from that viewership will likely dwarf any sort of brand damage from people protesting against it. And this seems to be, in a nutshell, the solution that YouTube and advertisers are choosing. For that matter it could even go some way to explaining the increasing sterilization of things like mass entertainment. We did this to ourselves. We, as a culture, are simultaneously becoming increasingly intolerant and turning politics into a team sport - quick to finger "allies" and "enemies" alike. People, and companies, who choose to choose no side are left walking on egg shells for fear of being damned or claimed by one side or the other. Read, for instance, the entry on 'gun controversy' relating to Starbucks [1]. This is the no-win situation we're putting companies in today. It sucks. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks#Gun_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks#Gun_controversy

indubitable 9y ago

I think what you're saying explains the situation quite concisely. It seems that it would be somewhat difficult to argue that advertisers truly care where their ads are placed in terms of moral values. There's no shortage of western companies setup and advertising in places like Saudi Arabia/Belarus/etc. If there was any money to be made in North Korea and they were allowed, there's every reason to believe that there'd be McDonalds and Starbucks on every corner. However, the whole point of advertising is to positively influence the population regarding your product's brand. If an advertiser's ads are shown on something that's domestically controversial and the face a social backlash, well that's a complete waste of money. And even if an advertiser chooses to pull their advertising from something some group found controversial not only does it rarely appease the offended group, but it's increasingly likely in today's society that another group will counterprotest - again resulting in brand damage and a complete waste of money. The only completely economically safe path is to restrict your ads to the most neutral, neutered, and completely inoffensive content possible. Well, at least unless the target is large enough - in which case the brand image gained from that viewership will likely dwarf any sort of brand damage from people protesting against it. And this seems to be, in a nutshell, the solution that YouTube and advertisers are choosing. For that matter it could even go some way to explaining the increasing sterilization of things like mass entertainment. We did this to ourselves. We, as a culture, are simultaneously becoming increasingly intolerant and turning politics into a team sport - quick to finger "allies" and "enemies" alike. People, and companies, who choose to choose no side are left walking on egg shells for fear of being damned or claimed by one side or the other. Read, for instance, the entry on 'gun controversy' relating to Starbucks [1]. This is the no-win situation we're putting companies in today. It sucks. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks#Gun_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks#Gun_controversy