5 ms·

You shouldn't feel bad for the advertisers, but you should be worried about the content producers you love who provide you free content based on advertisements.

You shouldn't feel bad for the advertisers, but you should be worried about the content producers you love who provide you free content based on advertisements. If true fraud levels were exposed it could shift the digital economy in a massive way. Say you have an unpopular dishwasher and it breaks. It's great to go to Youtube and find someone showing you how to fix the problem even for a relatively niche dishwasher. But if the ad money dries up for that content producer, that video won't be there the next time you look for it. Or you will be forced to pay $1.00 to watch it.

striking 9y ago
I pay for YouTube Red. So that person could be making money and I'm not seeing ads.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  And? Worth it? I don't spend a lot of time on YT but sometimes I wonder how much I'd save in time, inconvenience and distractions if I did Red.
  - striking 9y ago
    I use an adblocker for most sites, but I enjoy the fuzzy feelings Red gives me. Also, I get Google Play Music All Access, and adblocking doesn't work on mobile.
  - bastawhiz 9y ago
    I have it because I pay for Google Play Music. I don't know how people use YouTube without it. If I load a YouTube video in a private browsing window or on a friend's device, I can't imagine what it must be like watching all those ads.
  - hateful 9y ago
    I pay $15/mo for Google Play family. Even though I don't use the Music service, it comes with YouTube Red for you and 4 other family members.
userbinator 9y ago
It's great to go to Youtube and find someone showing you how to fix the problem even for a relatively niche dishwasher. But if the ad money dries up for that content producer, that video won't be there the next time you look for it. Not everyone who makes YouTube videos is doing it for ad money, especially the sort of content you're referring to. A lot of people just do it to document things for themselves and use YT as a "convenient place to put videos"; the fact that everyone else can see is incidental.
- chamakits 9y ago
  Very true. But the only reason that YouTube is there as a platform that allows people to upload videos for free is that they expect to make money either off of that video through ads, or through other videos through ads.
  - manmal 9y ago
    Not necessarily true. Some want to get famous with their videos, some want to express themselves in a creative way, or spread ideas, or build an online following to capitalize later on...
    - mikebenfield 9y ago
      I think the point is that Youtube expects to make money off that video. If Youtube could not make money from people's content, it wouldn't exist.
      - nightcracker 9y ago
        For a while now I've been thinking about the idea of having a state-funded free and open video and image sharing platform. In the modern world I view sites such as imgur and youtube as vital infrastructure, and would really like to see them removed from commercial influence. Just like roads need to be created regardless of their profitability, I think it's important for society that we have means to share and view image and video content regardless of profitability.
dooglius 9y ago
I'd be shocked if the ad revenue per video view were even a cent, and I'd happily pay a cent to see the video in the scenario you described.
- manmal 9y ago
  Indeed, content creators are often better off with a patreon account.
  - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
    You are right Patreon is great, but in the case I mentioned above, I would never support someone on Patreon after my specific dishwasher issue was fixed. Patreon works great when you enjoy someone content on a continual basis. These 1 off trouble shooting type of content producers need to find their own way.
stetrain 9y ago
It could cause short-term shocks, but I feel like over the long run things would recover. If the advertisers thought they were paying $500 for 10000 clicks resulting in $1000 worth of visible revenue, the fact that they really only got 5000 "real" clicks resulting in the same $1000 worth of visible revenue doesn't really change the equation much. Over the long run companies spending money on advertising are going to hone in on how much they can spend compared to how much revenue they get can trace back to that advertising spend. The pay-per-click model and the current cost-per-click pricing is just an implementation detail of the current state of web advertising. Advertising still works when those stats aren't available, like in Podcasts.
- cujo 9y ago
  It does matter though. They don't say they want 10000 clicks in a vacuum. They pay for that many clicks because the math tells them it should be worth $1k in revenue. In reality someone is manipulating the math They should have been able to dedicate half the money for the same revenue, or the same money for double the rev, in your scenario. Put another way, the estimate is that they pay out $500 for $2k in revenue, then someone came in and dumped a bunch of bots in the way and ate away half their revenue. It's not like those empty clicks are people who just weren't compelled to buy what they were selling. They are bots intentionally disrupting commerce.
- tyingq 9y ago
  "Over the long run companies spending money on advertising are going to hone in on how much they can spend compared to how much revenue they get can trace back to that advertising spend." In some niches, there's an unending new supply of get-rich-quick newbies that will pay for underperforming ads. There's really no incentive for Google's AdSense team to focus on fraud in these spaces. Because the suckers just keep coming. Google profits from it, so there's little incentive to fix the glitch.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
QAPereo 9y ago
That would lead to massive piracy... it is not a solution. A business model needs work like a business, not a charity, and you’re always competing its free. It’s simple... ad value or die as a business. Is that easy? No, but why should it be?
Sir_Substance 9y ago
>You shouldn't feel bad for the advertisers, but you should be worried about the content producers you love who provide you free content based on advertisements. You're getting paid with advertising dollars for posting on hacker news? Surprise: you (and all the other posters on hacker news) are the content producers I love. We've never been paid for this nonsense, and I doubt we ever will be. Won't stop us posting though. I'm really not that worried if buzzfeed and medium go under.
manmal 9y ago
The typical dish washer repair video on YT with 10-100k views makes $10-100 in total. And many don’t even have ads enabled. So these are hardly going to be affected. Now, I‘m not sure YouTube itself will survive in its current form if ad money dries up.
fendmark 9y ago
Publishers are buying traffic that is too good to be true from dubious networks and then it is being laundered through the programmatic ad tech machine at scale. Brands looking to build awareness are buying access to this fraudulent traffic. Advertising agencies, ad tech companies, and publishers more times than not are incentivized to look the other way and not investigate what is going on too closely as long as it is profitable. Digital display advertising has long been considered a channel of questionable effectiveness. But the current state of programmatic advertising has made things much worse and will ultimately lead to Advertisers pulling billions of dollars out of this space unless there are significant improvements in getting more transparency into their advertising investments.

striking 9y ago

I pay for YouTube Red. So that person could be making money and I'm not seeing ads.

chiefalchemist 9y ago
And? Worth it? I don't spend a lot of time on YT but sometimes I wonder how much I'd save in time, inconvenience and distractions if I did Red.
- striking 9y ago
  I use an adblocker for most sites, but I enjoy the fuzzy feelings Red gives me. Also, I get Google Play Music All Access, and adblocking doesn't work on mobile.
- bastawhiz 9y ago
  I have it because I pay for Google Play Music. I don't know how people use YouTube without it. If I load a YouTube video in a private browsing window or on a friend's device, I can't imagine what it must be like watching all those ads.
- hateful 9y ago
  I pay $15/mo for Google Play family. Even though I don't use the Music service, it comes with YouTube Red for you and 4 other family members.

userbinator 9y ago

It's great to go to Youtube and find someone showing you how to fix the problem even for a relatively niche dishwasher. But if the ad money dries up for that content producer, that video won't be there the next time you look for it. Not everyone who makes YouTube videos is doing it for ad money, especially the sort of content you're referring to. A lot of people just do it to document things for themselves and use YT as a "convenient place to put videos"; the fact that everyone else can see is incidental.

chamakits 9y ago
Very true. But the only reason that YouTube is there as a platform that allows people to upload videos for free is that they expect to make money either off of that video through ads, or through other videos through ads.
- manmal 9y ago
  Not necessarily true. Some want to get famous with their videos, some want to express themselves in a creative way, or spread ideas, or build an online following to capitalize later on...
  - mikebenfield 9y ago
    I think the point is that Youtube expects to make money off that video. If Youtube could not make money from people's content, it wouldn't exist.
    - nightcracker 9y ago
      For a while now I've been thinking about the idea of having a state-funded free and open video and image sharing platform. In the modern world I view sites such as imgur and youtube as vital infrastructure, and would really like to see them removed from commercial influence. Just like roads need to be created regardless of their profitability, I think it's important for society that we have means to share and view image and video content regardless of profitability.

dooglius 9y ago

I'd be shocked if the ad revenue per video view were even a cent, and I'd happily pay a cent to see the video in the scenario you described.

manmal 9y ago
Indeed, content creators are often better off with a patreon account.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  You are right Patreon is great, but in the case I mentioned above, I would never support someone on Patreon after my specific dishwasher issue was fixed. Patreon works great when you enjoy someone content on a continual basis. These 1 off trouble shooting type of content producers need to find their own way.

stetrain 9y ago

It could cause short-term shocks, but I feel like over the long run things would recover. If the advertisers thought they were paying $500 for 10000 clicks resulting in $1000 worth of visible revenue, the fact that they really only got 5000 "real" clicks resulting in the same $1000 worth of visible revenue doesn't really change the equation much. Over the long run companies spending money on advertising are going to hone in on how much they can spend compared to how much revenue they get can trace back to that advertising spend. The pay-per-click model and the current cost-per-click pricing is just an implementation detail of the current state of web advertising. Advertising still works when those stats aren't available, like in Podcasts.

cujo 9y ago
It does matter though. They don't say they want 10000 clicks in a vacuum. They pay for that many clicks because the math tells them it should be worth $1k in revenue. In reality someone is manipulating the math They should have been able to dedicate half the money for the same revenue, or the same money for double the rev, in your scenario. Put another way, the estimate is that they pay out $500 for $2k in revenue, then someone came in and dumped a bunch of bots in the way and ate away half their revenue. It's not like those empty clicks are people who just weren't compelled to buy what they were selling. They are bots intentionally disrupting commerce.
tyingq 9y ago
"Over the long run companies spending money on advertising are going to hone in on how much they can spend compared to how much revenue they get can trace back to that advertising spend." In some niches, there's an unending new supply of get-rich-quick newbies that will pay for underperforming ads. There's really no incentive for Google's AdSense team to focus on fraud in these spaces. Because the suckers just keep coming. Google profits from it, so there's little incentive to fix the glitch.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

QAPereo 9y ago

That would lead to massive piracy... it is not a solution. A business model needs work like a business, not a charity, and you’re always competing its free. It’s simple... ad value or die as a business. Is that easy? No, but why should it be?

Sir_Substance 9y ago

>You shouldn't feel bad for the advertisers, but you should be worried about the content producers you love who provide you free content based on advertisements. You're getting paid with advertising dollars for posting on hacker news? Surprise: you (and all the other posters on hacker news) are the content producers I love. We've never been paid for this nonsense, and I doubt we ever will be. Won't stop us posting though. I'm really not that worried if buzzfeed and medium go under.

manmal 9y ago

The typical dish washer repair video on YT with 10-100k views makes $10-100 in total. And many don’t even have ads enabled. So these are hardly going to be affected. Now, I‘m not sure YouTube itself will survive in its current form if ad money dries up.

fendmark 9y ago

Publishers are buying traffic that is too good to be true from dubious networks and then it is being laundered through the programmatic ad tech machine at scale. Brands looking to build awareness are buying access to this fraudulent traffic. Advertising agencies, ad tech companies, and publishers more times than not are incentivized to look the other way and not investigate what is going on too closely as long as it is profitable. Digital display advertising has long been considered a channel of questionable effectiveness. But the current state of programmatic advertising has made things much worse and will ultimately lead to Advertisers pulling billions of dollars out of this space unless there are significant improvements in getting more transparency into their advertising investments.