3 ms·

My question is: How has the best company in the world at adtech failed so hard on ads that content creators need to do this, and what implications does that fai

by csours 5y ago

My question is: How has the best company in the world at adtech failed so hard on ads that content creators need to do this, and what implications does that failure raise.

johnnyanmac 5y ago
Even if the rates were fair and consistent, I'd feel this is an inevitable venture (unless youtube forbade monetized content creators from having in-video ads). Why not make more money from a 2nd source if it doesn't dimish the first source much? meanwhile, adverts probably have a much better ROI from working on a person by person basis than making a deal with google to cycle in x times per day. It's a win for everyone except the consumers (and it can be argued as an indirect win, since that 2nd source pushes many YTbers to go full time. So, more and more consistent content).
Theodores 5y ago
If your best friend tells you to buy a VPN or Bluetooth ear gadgets you take their recommendations on board. You believe them. If they have a referral code you take it. If they actually use the product too then you are sold. Particularly if they remind you next time you see them. Some people see their favourite YouTubers more than their friends. They see them as hero-friends. This is very much the future of advertising, linear TV style adverts are not for every product.
tomschlick 5y ago
Because they use a pretty brutal demonetization AI that takes away a huge source of revenue for creators over an issue like using the wrong word or talking about a hot button issue. Not only that but when they appeal it can sometimes take days to get a response and they miss out on the monetization of 90% of their views which all happen in that first few days.
izacus 5y ago
What do you mean "failed"? They're double dipping and earning twice the money. They get the YT advertising cut and the Patreon/paid adverts cut. It's like your Cable TV or favorite newspaper charging you for subscription and then filling up the content with ads because they can earn FROM BOTH.
- csours 5y ago
  I can't exactly define the failure, but it sure feels like there has been some failure here.
  - izacus 5y ago
    Well, failure for whom? Capitalism was satisfied, money is earned, we users are skinned and provided shittier experience. I keep being told this is modern economy working as intended -_-
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > They're double dipping and earning twice the money. The advertising cut is not much at all and it's really hard to sustain anything on it. > It's like your Cable TV or favorite newspaper charging you for subscription and then filling up the content with ads because they can earn FROM BOTH. It's more like the flip of that, content having ads but you can subscribe too. If video makers had an easy way to disable ads for direct subscribers, I bet almost all of them would do it right away.

by csours 5y ago

My question is: How has the best company in the world at adtech failed so hard on ads that content creators need to do this, and what implications does that failure raise.

johnnyanmac 5y ago

Even if the rates were fair and consistent, I'd feel this is an inevitable venture (unless youtube forbade monetized content creators from having in-video ads). Why not make more money from a 2nd source if it doesn't dimish the first source much? meanwhile, adverts probably have a much better ROI from working on a person by person basis than making a deal with google to cycle in x times per day. It's a win for everyone except the consumers (and it can be argued as an indirect win, since that 2nd source pushes many YTbers to go full time. So, more and more consistent content).

Theodores 5y ago

If your best friend tells you to buy a VPN or Bluetooth ear gadgets you take their recommendations on board. You believe them. If they have a referral code you take it. If they actually use the product too then you are sold. Particularly if they remind you next time you see them. Some people see their favourite YouTubers more than their friends. They see them as hero-friends. This is very much the future of advertising, linear TV style adverts are not for every product.

tomschlick 5y ago

Because they use a pretty brutal demonetization AI that takes away a huge source of revenue for creators over an issue like using the wrong word or talking about a hot button issue. Not only that but when they appeal it can sometimes take days to get a response and they miss out on the monetization of 90% of their views which all happen in that first few days.

izacus 5y ago

What do you mean "failed"? They're double dipping and earning twice the money. They get the YT advertising cut and the Patreon/paid adverts cut. It's like your Cable TV or favorite newspaper charging you for subscription and then filling up the content with ads because they can earn FROM BOTH.

csours 5y ago
I can't exactly define the failure, but it sure feels like there has been some failure here.
- izacus 5y ago
  Well, failure for whom? Capitalism was satisfied, money is earned, we users are skinned and provided shittier experience. I keep being told this is modern economy working as intended -_-
Dylan16807 5y ago
> They're double dipping and earning twice the money. The advertising cut is not much at all and it's really hard to sustain anything on it. > It's like your Cable TV or favorite newspaper charging you for subscription and then filling up the content with ads because they can earn FROM BOTH. It's more like the flip of that, content having ads but you can subscribe too. If video makers had an easy way to disable ads for direct subscribers, I bet almost all of them would do it right away.