5 ms·

He’s a bit naive about what advertisers want when he says something along the lines of ‘advertisers would love to have their ad shown to 200k users’. ‘Brand Sa

He’s a bit naive about what advertisers want when he says something along the lines of ‘advertisers would love to have their ad shown to 200k users’. ‘Brand Safety’ is a huge thing in advertising and there are companies out there that classify webpages based on their content. Premium advertisers don’t want their ads shown alongside content that can be deemed scandalous or unsafe. Sex obviously falls into this category, a more recent example was Covid-related content; advertisers wanted nothing to do with it. I’m guessing here, but it seems that YT lacks to ability to guarantee premium advertisers that their ads won’t appear on unsafe content and so they demonitise the whole channel. That said, the amount of garbage ads I get shown on YT is astounding, I doubt those advertisers care where their ads get shown.

im3w1l 4y ago
I don't get it. Like so much news is negative. No ads next to sex? No ads next to news of an economic downturn? No ads next to war in Ukraine? No ads next to funeral of Queen Elisabeth? With that reasoning, are they just gonna demonetize news entirely?
- donatj 4y ago
  Yes. It seems bizarre to me. There are ads in the physical Sunday newspaper right next to a story about a murder. I don't assume the advertiser supports murder. Do people actually think ads mean the company's approve of the messages of the content? It doesn't make sense to me. I don't see a terrorist video and think man Proctor and Gamble sure loves terrorists. An ad is just something unrelated to the content on the page, like the buttons. The YouTube logo is on the page. Does that mean I'm supposed to think YouTube stands behind everything on there? Because that's going to get real problematic real quick. This seems easily solvable if Google just strong-armed them. Stand up and say "We will serve your ads on all our content or none of it". Like it really seems like they have the demographic advertisers want. There'd be some gnashing of teeth, but they'd get over it I'm sure.
  - Maken 4y ago
    The Sunday newspaper has limited physical space and probably justifies the ad placement on layout constraints. Google, on the other hand, has built a multi-billion empire over the premise that they can show every single ad to potential consumers. So, when Google is showing your ads to people interested in porn, violence and political controversial topics, it is by extension implying that they are your target audience and the ones your product is designed for.
  - concinds 4y ago
    > Do people actually think ads mean the company's approve of the messages of the content? It doesn't make sense to me. I don't see a terrorist video and think man Proctor and Gamble sure loves terrorists. An ad is just something unrelated to the content on the page, like the buttons. The YouTube logo is on the page. Does that mean I'm supposed to think YouTube stands behind everything on there? Because that's going to get real problematic real quick. Forget about "people". "People" don't think anything, do anything, or change anything. A Twitter account ran by two marketers & copywriters ("Sleeping Giants") copied Gamergate's tactics, went viral, and, by making advertisers fear a botted hashtag damaging their brand, these two marketers singlehandedly made YouTube, Facebook, etc more censorious and delete-happy. The effects are still felt today. It's one of the best viral marketing experiments run in the 2010s after #Kony2012. Absolutely brilliant.
  - jwond 4y ago
    > Do people actually think ads mean the company's approve of the messages of the content? It doesn't make sense to me. I think from the advertisers’ perspective it may also be about just wanting to avoid a negative association. If an ad for a product runs on a video of an interview with a prostitute, then there’s a risk that people might form some association (perhaps unconsciously) between that product and prostitution, or even just an association between the product and any negative emotions from watching the video. It may not be completely logical, but emotions are often not completely logical.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  The ad spots will just be less valuable. There will always be someone willing to advertise no matter how bad a the surrounding content, but with less competition there value is lower.
Dalewyn 4y ago
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate and argue that it is next to impossible in the best of circumstances to successfully prove a negative. It's like trying to prove god(s) don't exist. You can keep on arguing, but ultimately you can't prove the negative with absolute certainty without going to insane ends. Youtube's algorithms could be either hot garbage or the best thing since sliced bread, but it doesn't matter. Youtube can never prove certain ads will never play on certain videos, so the only options are to refuse such requests from advertisers (which is unacceptable for Youtube) or just blanket block certain videos from playing ads period.
- pydry 4y ago
  >or just blanket block certain videos from playing ads period. Yeah except they dont do that. They just play ads and keep all the cash.
- kelnos 4y ago
  > Youtube can never prove certain ads will never play on certain videos Er, what? Sure, they absolutely can, and your god analogy is... not actually analogous. Perhaps YT has chosen not to build a system that allows them fine-grained control over allowing -- or not allowing -- specific ads on specific videos, but that's not the same thing.
Tao3300 4y ago
It certainly hasn't stopped them from running DraftKings and FanDuel ads on his videos anyway. Maybe "pimp interview" and "brothel worker" aren't on the algorithm's pearl-clutch list yet. It's also sickeningly puritanical to lump these videos in as "sexual content" like it's something exploitative that someone's getting off to. This isn't that at all.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  It’s anything. We have books and workshops for erotic photography (tiny percentage, below 1% of books and about 5% of workshops). Just those trigger the algorithms to lower brand safety ratings if they are allowed to show up on the same page (even if the ad is at the top and the book-cover is shown several pages of scrolling below)
bambax 4y ago
Porn sites live on ads; there are many advertisers that think this is fine. Maybe the world needs an alternative YT for sensitive/alternative content, funded by advertisers that would be ok with it? Or YT/Google could just not care; what would brands do? Stop advertising on all Google properties? Good luck with that.

im3w1l 4y ago

I don't get it. Like so much news is negative. No ads next to sex? No ads next to news of an economic downturn? No ads next to war in Ukraine? No ads next to funeral of Queen Elisabeth? With that reasoning, are they just gonna demonetize news entirely?

donatj 4y ago
Yes. It seems bizarre to me. There are ads in the physical Sunday newspaper right next to a story about a murder. I don't assume the advertiser supports murder. Do people actually think ads mean the company's approve of the messages of the content? It doesn't make sense to me. I don't see a terrorist video and think man Proctor and Gamble sure loves terrorists. An ad is just something unrelated to the content on the page, like the buttons. The YouTube logo is on the page. Does that mean I'm supposed to think YouTube stands behind everything on there? Because that's going to get real problematic real quick. This seems easily solvable if Google just strong-armed them. Stand up and say "We will serve your ads on all our content or none of it". Like it really seems like they have the demographic advertisers want. There'd be some gnashing of teeth, but they'd get over it I'm sure.
- Maken 4y ago
  The Sunday newspaper has limited physical space and probably justifies the ad placement on layout constraints. Google, on the other hand, has built a multi-billion empire over the premise that they can show every single ad to potential consumers. So, when Google is showing your ads to people interested in porn, violence and political controversial topics, it is by extension implying that they are your target audience and the ones your product is designed for.
- concinds 4y ago
  > Do people actually think ads mean the company's approve of the messages of the content? It doesn't make sense to me. I don't see a terrorist video and think man Proctor and Gamble sure loves terrorists. An ad is just something unrelated to the content on the page, like the buttons. The YouTube logo is on the page. Does that mean I'm supposed to think YouTube stands behind everything on there? Because that's going to get real problematic real quick. Forget about "people". "People" don't think anything, do anything, or change anything. A Twitter account ran by two marketers & copywriters ("Sleeping Giants") copied Gamergate's tactics, went viral, and, by making advertisers fear a botted hashtag damaging their brand, these two marketers singlehandedly made YouTube, Facebook, etc more censorious and delete-happy. The effects are still felt today. It's one of the best viral marketing experiments run in the 2010s after #Kony2012. Absolutely brilliant.
- jwond 4y ago
  > Do people actually think ads mean the company's approve of the messages of the content? It doesn't make sense to me. I think from the advertisers’ perspective it may also be about just wanting to avoid a negative association. If an ad for a product runs on a video of an interview with a prostitute, then there’s a risk that people might form some association (perhaps unconsciously) between that product and prostitution, or even just an association between the product and any negative emotions from watching the video. It may not be completely logical, but emotions are often not completely logical.
charcircuit 4y ago
The ad spots will just be less valuable. There will always be someone willing to advertise no matter how bad a the surrounding content, but with less competition there value is lower.

Dalewyn 4y ago

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate and argue that it is next to impossible in the best of circumstances to successfully prove a negative. It's like trying to prove god(s) don't exist. You can keep on arguing, but ultimately you can't prove the negative with absolute certainty without going to insane ends. Youtube's algorithms could be either hot garbage or the best thing since sliced bread, but it doesn't matter. Youtube can never prove certain ads will never play on certain videos, so the only options are to refuse such requests from advertisers (which is unacceptable for Youtube) or just blanket block certain videos from playing ads period.

pydry 4y ago
>or just blanket block certain videos from playing ads period. Yeah except they dont do that. They just play ads and keep all the cash.
kelnos 4y ago
> Youtube can never prove certain ads will never play on certain videos Er, what? Sure, they absolutely can, and your god analogy is... not actually analogous. Perhaps YT has chosen not to build a system that allows them fine-grained control over allowing -- or not allowing -- specific ads on specific videos, but that's not the same thing.

Tao3300 4y ago

It certainly hasn't stopped them from running DraftKings and FanDuel ads on his videos anyway. Maybe "pimp interview" and "brothel worker" aren't on the algorithm's pearl-clutch list yet. It's also sickeningly puritanical to lump these videos in as "sexual content" like it's something exploitative that someone's getting off to. This isn't that at all.

Semaphor 4y ago
It’s anything. We have books and workshops for erotic photography (tiny percentage, below 1% of books and about 5% of workshops). Just those trigger the algorithms to lower brand safety ratings if they are allowed to show up on the same page (even if the ad is at the top and the book-cover is shown several pages of scrolling below)

bambax 4y ago

Porn sites live on ads; there are many advertisers that think this is fine. Maybe the world needs an alternative YT for sensitive/alternative content, funded by advertisers that would be ok with it? Or YT/Google could just not care; what would brands do? Stop advertising on all Google properties? Good luck with that.