4 ms·

On mobile YouTube right now I see two unskippable ads before every video. How long before some genius needs to juice his numbers this quarter and come up with t

On mobile YouTube right now I see two unskippable ads before every video. How long before some genius needs to juice his numbers this quarter and come up with the bright idea of three unskippable ads? Google made over $250 billion in 2021, $30 billion of that is thought to come from YouTube, can someone explain to me what is wrong with this status quo? If blocking a subset of users is such a good idea, why isn't Google rolling it out to everyone today? To the bean counters who seem to have overwhelmed Google, losing a few users might seem like a dog losing some fleas. They are out of ideas for growth. Once blitz scaling has reached the limits of user acquisition the only play left to juice the numbers seems to be “boil the frog”, going to war with their Oort cloud of free users, pay up or else. Are the c-suite types at Google aware that this is exactly the mindset that will make their decline into irrelevance inevitable? Elon Musk inadvertently turned Twitter into a howling wasteland in a few short months, which shows what happens when you boil the user frog too quickly. Imagine how Twitter would look today if Elon instead doubled down on making Twitter the best user experience, offering users tools to make Twitter more relevant, making it an unmissable service for users, and in turn unmissable for advertisers? But instead he pulled the lever all the way from utopia to hellscape, attempting to shake down users to restore some functionality to a clearly degraded product. Enshitifying (thanks Cory Doctorow) the user experience is not a compelling reason to subscribe. Here's a radical idea: customer acquisition and retention by offering the most compelling product. I'm not against advertising per se, I’m against being shaken down to regain a user experience that should be the default. Here are two examples of successful advertising models: 1. Lex Friedman does an ad read at the beginning of his podcast. It’s intentionally skippable, I skip it 90% of the time. But when I'm busy with bread dough on my hands or whatever, I'm still hearing the ads, which are mostly repeat offerings anyway. Advertising is not always appropriate, eg at a kids birthday party or showing a video in a lecture. The lesson: MAKE IT SKIPPABLE! 2. Inserts into shows / product placement, like on VFX Artists React. These seem harder for a behemoth to monetise but I like these because I know that the actual creators are getting paid. Youtube doesn't want to deal with creators with anything closer than a dashboard. This is not the end users fault, it’s not the content creators fault, it’s a symptom of absentee capitalism. Youtube should invest in creators and form true partnerships. The lesson: INVEST IN DEALING FAIRLY WITH HUMANS! I’m not going to pay, I will continue to avoid ads but watch them occasionally. I’m going to keep playing the game of whack-a-mole finding software / hardware solutions. And when a competitor comes along with their slider set more towards user friendliness I’m going to jump ship.

Mindwipe 3y ago
> Google made over $250 billion in 2021, $30 billion of that is thought to come from YouTube, can someone explain to me what is wrong with this status quo? YouTube might (but probably doesn't) make $30 billion in revenue. It certainly doesn't make $30 billion in profit. It's questionable if it even breaks even, and even if it does it's certainly nowhere near paid back the amount of money that has been spent keeping it afloat post acquisition. > If blocking a subset of users is such a good idea, why isn't Google rolling it out to everyone today? Because testing something is pretty much always a good idea. > Here's a radical idea: customer acquisition and retention by offering the most compelling product. That's not a radical idea, it's a bad one if you lose money on most customers and are hoping to make it up at scale. Ad blocking users are unquestionably money losers for Google. > And when a competitor comes along with their slider set more towards user friendliness I’m going to jump ship. What competitor do you think is coming that will be willing to (at a very conservative estimate) set fire to $75 billion+ for a decade to build this competitor, and the investors who loan that $75 billion dollars on a very risky ten year bet not expect a very significant ROI in exchange? YouTube objectively should never have existed - it was extremely predatorily priced in terms of lowered ad load or subscription charging to actually exist as a business, and Google kept it going to scare competitors away. If a competitor actually comes it will be significantly, significantly more monetised than YouTube is.
jsnell 3y ago
> If blocking a subset of users is such a good idea, why isn't Google rolling it out to everyone today? There's a bunch of reasons to do an experiment with a small percentage of users first, and to do a gradual rollout. First, they don't actually know for sure that this works, since users are unpredictable. You need an experiment to see how they react now and in the longer term. Do all the impacted users just immediately switch to a different ad blocker that isn't getting detected? No point in rolling this out further until that is fixed. Do all of those users churn out entirely, rather than some of them disabling the adblocker or subscribing to Premium? Then there's a business decision to be made, and they didn't have data for it earlier. Second, there might be technical issues that make the implementation harmful. For example maybe the JS code causes crashes for legit users on a browser you didn't test, or something. You'd like to contain the damage to just members of the experimental group, not all users of that browser. Third, even if they know this will be a beneficial change, they don't know how beneficial. The people who proposed and implemented the project want to show the impact (an increase of X million in ads revenue, extra Y thousand Premium subscribers, Z reduction in serving costs, whatever their KPI is). The people who funded the team want to know whether they actually got a return on the investment, and whether they should continue staffing further work to improve coverage, etc.

Mindwipe 3y ago

> Google made over $250 billion in 2021, $30 billion of that is thought to come from YouTube, can someone explain to me what is wrong with this status quo? YouTube might (but probably doesn't) make $30 billion in revenue. It certainly doesn't make $30 billion in profit. It's questionable if it even breaks even, and even if it does it's certainly nowhere near paid back the amount of money that has been spent keeping it afloat post acquisition. > If blocking a subset of users is such a good idea, why isn't Google rolling it out to everyone today? Because testing something is pretty much always a good idea. > Here's a radical idea: customer acquisition and retention by offering the most compelling product. That's not a radical idea, it's a bad one if you lose money on most customers and are hoping to make it up at scale. Ad blocking users are unquestionably money losers for Google. > And when a competitor comes along with their slider set more towards user friendliness I’m going to jump ship. What competitor do you think is coming that will be willing to (at a very conservative estimate) set fire to $75 billion+ for a decade to build this competitor, and the investors who loan that $75 billion dollars on a very risky ten year bet not expect a very significant ROI in exchange? YouTube objectively should never have existed - it was extremely predatorily priced in terms of lowered ad load or subscription charging to actually exist as a business, and Google kept it going to scare competitors away. If a competitor actually comes it will be significantly, significantly more monetised than YouTube is.

jsnell 3y ago

> If blocking a subset of users is such a good idea, why isn't Google rolling it out to everyone today? There's a bunch of reasons to do an experiment with a small percentage of users first, and to do a gradual rollout. First, they don't actually know for sure that this works, since users are unpredictable. You need an experiment to see how they react now and in the longer term. Do all the impacted users just immediately switch to a different ad blocker that isn't getting detected? No point in rolling this out further until that is fixed. Do all of those users churn out entirely, rather than some of them disabling the adblocker or subscribing to Premium? Then there's a business decision to be made, and they didn't have data for it earlier. Second, there might be technical issues that make the implementation harmful. For example maybe the JS code causes crashes for legit users on a browser you didn't test, or something. You'd like to contain the damage to just members of the experimental group, not all users of that browser. Third, even if they know this will be a beneficial change, they don't know how beneficial. The people who proposed and implemented the project want to show the impact (an increase of X million in ads revenue, extra Y thousand Premium subscribers, Z reduction in serving costs, whatever their KPI is). The people who funded the team want to know whether they actually got a return on the investment, and whether they should continue staffing further work to improve coverage, etc.