6 ms·

Most of the creators I watch are switching to a combination of Patreon and in-video advertising "reads" (have you heard about Kiwi Co?!?) both of which cut Goog

Most of the creators I watch are switching to a combination of Patreon and in-video advertising "reads" (have you heard about Kiwi Co?!?) both of which cut Google out of the equation so it's not too surprising to me Google is cranking up the dial on their own advertisements.

btreecat 6y ago
Only they are doing it on channels with out enough viewers to choose those options. Shady af.
- apexalpha 6y ago
  Why is it shady, should Youtube host your video for free? Youtube is an insane free service, there's nothing that comes close to the video and stream quality. To be honest I'm surprised so many video's have been hosted without ads while the creators cash in outside of Google.
  - Quarrelsome 6y ago
    > Why is it shady, should Youtube host your video for free? That has been the service since release, so yes.
    - Google234 6y ago
      It’s still free ...
  - TACIXAT 6y ago
    >should Youtube host your video for free? Yes, because I am making content for them for free. It is unpaid labor on my part in exchange for free hosting. Now it is unpaid labor that makes them money.
    - TACIXAT 6y ago
      Could someone explain the downvotes? I do not believe this is such a radical opinion. Prior to this change you were still producing content for the YouTube ecosystem for free until you hit 4k view hours. Then you could begin to make a meager amount of money. It is not such a great deal for content creators and now it is even worse.
      - freyir 6y ago
        “I am making content for them for free.” YouTube is a business. Hosting and serving your content costs them money. If your content provides no means to recoup those costs, you’re not doing them a favor, they’re doing you a favor.
      - chii 6y ago
        You are not making content for youtube _for free_ - because they didn't ask you to do it. You are just making content. But you did ask youtube to host for free.
  - intricatedetail 6y ago
    They should give creators an option to pay for hosting or to do revenue share with different ad providers. What a Google does is anti competitive and should be illegal.
secondcoming 6y ago
I wonder how long YT will tolerate those in-video ads when YT Premium is supposed to allow for an ad-free experience. I'm also curious as to how the advertisers and YT channels come up with pricing. The advertisers will have no metrics on how often the ad was skipped over, and maybe it's a coincidence, but the channels seem to keep the in-video ad lengths to integer multiples of 'skip 10 seconds' button presses.
- randlet 6y ago
  "The advertisers will have no metrics on how often the ad was skipped over" Lots of the advertisements ask you to visit a custom URL or use a discount code which the advertisers can use as lower bound on how effective an advertisement is.
  - solarkraft 6y ago
    You can argue the custom code is enough, but you're still missing out on a lot of metrics, most importantly when the decision was made (in which part of which video).
    - randlet 6y ago
      For sure. Certainly not ideal but better than naught.
- ballenf 6y ago
  In my mind, there are two large categories of advertisements. The first and more common on traditional media is exposure-type ads which are just about getting the brand name embedded in your head so choose that product over another next time you're shopping. The second is the type in these sponsor ads. They have calls to action and are still interested to a small degree in brand awareness, but it's not the main focus. All that's to say, the latter type of ads is about how many people follow the link and less so about whether the ad landed on all the eyeballs. At least that's my layperson's view, devoid of having ever studied advertising.
- derefr 6y ago

btreecat 6y ago

Only they are doing it on channels with out enough viewers to choose those options. Shady af.

apexalpha 6y ago
Why is it shady, should Youtube host your video for free? Youtube is an insane free service, there's nothing that comes close to the video and stream quality. To be honest I'm surprised so many video's have been hosted without ads while the creators cash in outside of Google.
- Quarrelsome 6y ago
  > Why is it shady, should Youtube host your video for free? That has been the service since release, so yes.
  - Google234 6y ago
    It’s still free ...
- TACIXAT 6y ago
  >should Youtube host your video for free? Yes, because I am making content for them for free. It is unpaid labor on my part in exchange for free hosting. Now it is unpaid labor that makes them money.
  - TACIXAT 6y ago
    Could someone explain the downvotes? I do not believe this is such a radical opinion. Prior to this change you were still producing content for the YouTube ecosystem for free until you hit 4k view hours. Then you could begin to make a meager amount of money. It is not such a great deal for content creators and now it is even worse.
    - freyir 6y ago
      “I am making content for them for free.” YouTube is a business. Hosting and serving your content costs them money. If your content provides no means to recoup those costs, you’re not doing them a favor, they’re doing you a favor.
    - chii 6y ago
      You are not making content for youtube _for free_ - because they didn't ask you to do it. You are just making content. But you did ask youtube to host for free.
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  They should give creators an option to pay for hosting or to do revenue share with different ad providers. What a Google does is anti competitive and should be illegal.

secondcoming 6y ago

I wonder how long YT will tolerate those in-video ads when YT Premium is supposed to allow for an ad-free experience. I'm also curious as to how the advertisers and YT channels come up with pricing. The advertisers will have no metrics on how often the ad was skipped over, and maybe it's a coincidence, but the channels seem to keep the in-video ad lengths to integer multiples of 'skip 10 seconds' button presses.

randlet 6y ago
"The advertisers will have no metrics on how often the ad was skipped over" Lots of the advertisements ask you to visit a custom URL or use a discount code which the advertisers can use as lower bound on how effective an advertisement is.
- solarkraft 6y ago
  You can argue the custom code is enough, but you're still missing out on a lot of metrics, most importantly when the decision was made (in which part of which video).
  - randlet 6y ago
    For sure. Certainly not ideal but better than naught.
ballenf 6y ago
In my mind, there are two large categories of advertisements. The first and more common on traditional media is exposure-type ads which are just about getting the brand name embedded in your head so choose that product over another next time you're shopping. The second is the type in these sponsor ads. They have calls to action and are still interested to a small degree in brand awareness, but it's not the main focus. All that's to say, the latter type of ads is about how many people follow the link and less so about whether the ad landed on all the eyeballs. At least that's my layperson's view, devoid of having ever studied advertising.
derefr 6y ago