4 ms·

How about this for an idea: YouTube dictates to advertisers how things work, and not the other way around. This woven tale about how advertisers will abandon Yo

How about this for an idea: YouTube dictates to advertisers how things work, and not the other way around. This woven tale about how advertisers will abandon YouTube en masse if they're not in full control is such a load of baloney. If YouTube firmly planted their feet and said "tough luck advertisers - we dictate the terms", any company trying to "abandon" the platform will be back within a month upon seeing massive drops in their acquisition and bottom line. Advertisers don't have a choice - they need YouTube. YouTube could easily dictate this relationship. They choose not to.

evgen 9y ago
Sure, because video advertisers are completely lacking a distribution channel that provides known content and editorial moderation with some basic viewership and viewer demographic numbers... Advertisers do not need YouTube, there are a ton of alternatives available to them ranging from streaming services to conventional broadcast television. YouTube, on the other hand, has big bills to pay and without that sweet, sweet advertising money pumping through Google datacenters the YouTube "platform" will be the one that disappears.
macspoofing 9y ago
>YouTube dictates to advertisers how things work, and not the other way around. They could but if you look at 2017, the stuff YouTube got in trouble from advertiser for is the stuff they got in trouble for from large segments of the public or the media. YouTube doesn't want to take a stand forcing advertisers to accept PewDiePie's Hitler jokes, some guy making fun of feminism, or Logan Paul filming suicide victims. If they do, they'll get destroyed by the media and advertisers will leave anyway.
- developer2 9y ago
  The examples you list are the few obvious, controversial types. The majority of content creators who have been getting demonetized over the past year or two do not have a single shred of "bad stuff" in their content. There are people losing their entire income because they don't fit some algorithm that has nothing to do with (properly) categorized - or reported - content. It doesn't help that there are apologizers who spread the idea that YouTube is somehow targeting "the bad stuff", when that is a very small fraction of what is happening. Everyone focuses on the sensationalist garbage reported by the media; meanwhile all the small channels that are playing by the rules are being left out to dry.
- nailer 9y ago
  TV-era cultural mores being applied to the internet seems unlikely to happen, despite Google applying demonetisation rules to anything beyong 'broadcast TV' levels (see the leaked YouTube docs https://imgur.com/gallery/uTLTS https://imgur.com/gallery/uTLTS ). Internet culture is taking over the mainstream, demonetisation of edgier content might have a shortterm effect of restricting content, but ultimately, it's unlikely to stop the cultural shift - people want edgier humor, and if it's popular enough it will eventually appear on Twitch, Vimeo or elsewhere. Brands are happy to be associated with edgy humor if Jimmy Kimmel is producing it: check out the examples on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj8n78AuN3w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj8n78AuN3w. They'll soon be comfortable if a YouTube equivalent is doing the same.
  - 794CD01 9y ago
    The cultural shift is happening but that doesn't mean the entirety of 4chan lingo is suddenly acceptable now. It merely means someone like Phillip De Franco can get away with opening every video by calling his viewers beautiful bastards.
  - soundwave106 9y ago
    Non-edgy content is not going to disappear, heck it might even be quite popular! (See: Hallmark Channel in "traditional TV land", the appeal of things like cute animal videos in "Internet land") Edgy content is nothing new, either, although of course what is "edgy" changes from generation to generation. Youtube's problem as I see it is differentiation. Howard Stern was "edgy" for his time, similar to how some Youtube producers are "edgy". Yet he has no problem attracting advertisers as far as I know (Googling suggests his radio rates in particular were quite high). But it seems like it was/is much easier in traditional advertising to say "I [do / do not] want to advertise with Howard Stern" then it is to say "I [do / do not] want to advertise with PewDiePie". That's really the crux of the problem as I see it, it flat out sounds like Youtube can't do targeted marketing very well (a ding made more painful considering this is the success story of Google Search). Heck, "I do not want to advertise for ISIS recruitment videos" seemed to be a request Youtube couldn't fulfill for a while. I don't think "edgy" in itself is a problem to many advertisers per se (except for certain step-over-the-line moments) and I agree with you that Youtube is tackling things in a way too crude manner.
apendleton 9y ago
That's what they did initially. Many advertisers left and Youtube ad revenue dropped like a rock. Eventually maybe advertisers would have realized that in the age of cord-cutting they have increasingly limited ways to buy <=millennial eyeballs, but communities are fragile and I think Youtube was justifiably worried that by then their highest-value creators would have abandoned them for better-paying platforms (which was already happening and is continuing to happen). Someone above said this post was really aimed at advertisers and not at creators, and I think that's half-right in that advertisers really are the immediate audience, but making advertisers happy is a thing many creators have been pushing for too, so advertisers will come back and ad payouts will go back up.

evgen 9y ago

Sure, because video advertisers are completely lacking a distribution channel that provides known content and editorial moderation with some basic viewership and viewer demographic numbers... Advertisers do not need YouTube, there are a ton of alternatives available to them ranging from streaming services to conventional broadcast television. YouTube, on the other hand, has big bills to pay and without that sweet, sweet advertising money pumping through Google datacenters the YouTube "platform" will be the one that disappears.

macspoofing 9y ago

>YouTube dictates to advertisers how things work, and not the other way around. They could but if you look at 2017, the stuff YouTube got in trouble from advertiser for is the stuff they got in trouble for from large segments of the public or the media. YouTube doesn't want to take a stand forcing advertisers to accept PewDiePie's Hitler jokes, some guy making fun of feminism, or Logan Paul filming suicide victims. If they do, they'll get destroyed by the media and advertisers will leave anyway.

developer2 9y ago
The examples you list are the few obvious, controversial types. The majority of content creators who have been getting demonetized over the past year or two do not have a single shred of "bad stuff" in their content. There are people losing their entire income because they don't fit some algorithm that has nothing to do with (properly) categorized - or reported - content. It doesn't help that there are apologizers who spread the idea that YouTube is somehow targeting "the bad stuff", when that is a very small fraction of what is happening. Everyone focuses on the sensationalist garbage reported by the media; meanwhile all the small channels that are playing by the rules are being left out to dry.
nailer 9y ago
TV-era cultural mores being applied to the internet seems unlikely to happen, despite Google applying demonetisation rules to anything beyong 'broadcast TV' levels (see the leaked YouTube docs https://imgur.com/gallery/uTLTS https://imgur.com/gallery/uTLTS ). Internet culture is taking over the mainstream, demonetisation of edgier content might have a shortterm effect of restricting content, but ultimately, it's unlikely to stop the cultural shift - people want edgier humor, and if it's popular enough it will eventually appear on Twitch, Vimeo or elsewhere. Brands are happy to be associated with edgy humor if Jimmy Kimmel is producing it: check out the examples on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj8n78AuN3w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj8n78AuN3w. They'll soon be comfortable if a YouTube equivalent is doing the same.
- 794CD01 9y ago
  The cultural shift is happening but that doesn't mean the entirety of 4chan lingo is suddenly acceptable now. It merely means someone like Phillip De Franco can get away with opening every video by calling his viewers beautiful bastards.
- soundwave106 9y ago
  Non-edgy content is not going to disappear, heck it might even be quite popular! (See: Hallmark Channel in "traditional TV land", the appeal of things like cute animal videos in "Internet land") Edgy content is nothing new, either, although of course what is "edgy" changes from generation to generation. Youtube's problem as I see it is differentiation. Howard Stern was "edgy" for his time, similar to how some Youtube producers are "edgy". Yet he has no problem attracting advertisers as far as I know (Googling suggests his radio rates in particular were quite high). But it seems like it was/is much easier in traditional advertising to say "I [do / do not] want to advertise with Howard Stern" then it is to say "I [do / do not] want to advertise with PewDiePie". That's really the crux of the problem as I see it, it flat out sounds like Youtube can't do targeted marketing very well (a ding made more painful considering this is the success story of Google Search). Heck, "I do not want to advertise for ISIS recruitment videos" seemed to be a request Youtube couldn't fulfill for a while. I don't think "edgy" in itself is a problem to many advertisers per se (except for certain step-over-the-line moments) and I agree with you that Youtube is tackling things in a way too crude manner.

apendleton 9y ago

That's what they did initially. Many advertisers left and Youtube ad revenue dropped like a rock. Eventually maybe advertisers would have realized that in the age of cord-cutting they have increasingly limited ways to buy <=millennial eyeballs, but communities are fragile and I think Youtube was justifiably worried that by then their highest-value creators would have abandoned them for better-paying platforms (which was already happening and is continuing to happen). Someone above said this post was really aimed at advertisers and not at creators, and I think that's half-right in that advertisers really are the immediate audience, but making advertisers happy is a thing many creators have been pushing for too, so advertisers will come back and ad payouts will go back up.