3 ms·
I know it wasn't profitable 3-4 years ago, but I believe it's fairly profitable now. But I'm not sure, I suppose the cost of running a video service can shift s
by partiallypro 8y ago
I know it wasn't profitable 3-4 years ago, but I believe it's fairly profitable now. But I'm not sure, I suppose the cost of running a video service can shift so drastically it's hard for it to be steady. I don't think Alphabet breaks out YouTube revenues/profit anymore.
- hobofan 8y agoLast year the initial event of the "adpocalypse" happened, which both demonetized a lot of channels, and at the same time roughly halved what advertisers were willing to pay, even for complying channels. Since then a few additional waves of demonetization happened. Every time Youtube demonetizes a creator they are also demonetizing themselves. The combined effect of all that could have held back profitability significantly, especially considering that they are shooting for comparatively low-margin advertising business model compared to other platforms.
- yoz-y 8y agoIsn't it the advertisers that are pushing for demonetisation?
- zaarn 8y agoThe advertisers are only pushing for only being able to advertise on clean, family-friendly channels. And of course the big TV-like channels.
- vetinari 8y agoNo, they are just taking an advantage of the waves of outrage, that happen for just about any reason, to push their bill lower. Why wouldn't they?
- stingraycharles 8y agoI thought the whole reason for adpocalypse was to ensure advertisers remained paying the same price, by getting rid of content they don’t like?
- tyfon 8y agoIt was to stop them from fleeing the service altogether I think. Google at least kneejerked enough to make it appear that was the case to me.
- tehwebguy 8y agoMany accounts near the top are earning 10X what they earned before. Adpocalypse, IMO, is about consolidation of the ad rev firehose.
- Applejinx 8y agoWhich?