9 ms·

From the article: >“YouTube’s ad-supported model supports a diverse ecosystem of creators, and provides billions of people globally access to content for free

From the article: >“YouTube’s ad-supported model supports a diverse ecosystem of creators, and provides billions of people globally access to content for free with ads,” the company’s statement says. Let's at least be 100% honest with everyone and stop with the disingenuous garbage: 1. Ad-blocker usage is roughly 25-30% of US users. 2. The average YouTube content creator makes less than 0.02 per ad view and thus why many of the large ones choose to use sponsors instead. Most YouTube content creators aren't making ANY money, let alone enough for them to care all that much. For those that are, they're doing just fine w/ad-blockers being used. 3. Google made nearly $70 billion in Q1; they're not hurting at all, especially their executives. 4. The on-going rise in the use of ad-block technologies is simply because platforms, sites, etc, are all absolutely inundating viewers with so much trash in an effort to make more money that it's almost a requirement to use them without having a shitty experience.

Nathan2055 3y ago
> The average YouTube content creator makes less than 0.02 per ad view The number I see tends to fluctuate between $1 to $1.50 per 1,000 views, or about $0.001 to $0.0015 per view. (YouTube makes around twice that in direct gross revenue, and splits it up 55% to 45% between the creator and the platform, respectively.) This obviously fluctuates substantially: if you produce videos that are viewed by prime demographics advertisers are more interested in, you tend to make more. YouTube also has better individual deals signed with their topmost creators, giving them a better revenue split or a different advertiser pool that’s willing to pay more for the most popular YouTubers. Shorts and livestreams also work a bit differently, but that’s too complicated to get into here. CGP Grey has a great video on how YouTube ads work: https://youtube.com/watch?v=KW0eUrUiyxo https://youtube.com/watch?v=KW0eUrUiyxo Sponsors, meanwhile, typically offer massively better rates. Estimates very a lot more, and it depends on your individual track record as a creator, but I’ve seen numbers thrown around ranging from $2.50 to $10 per 1,000 views at the lower end. The biggest creators are apparently being quoted $50 or more per 1,000 views, and that number goes up exponentially as your channel grows. That’s why seemingly every YouTuber is taking those deals, they’re unbelievably lucrative compared to the integrated YouTube ads. Combine that with a healthy Patreon and it’s no wonder why YouTubers are still able to do so well despite Google infamously difficult behavior.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dang 3y ago
In case anyone is wondering, that quote is from https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/29/23778879/youtube-videos-disabling-ad-blockers-detection https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/29/23778879/youtube-videos-d... - we merged the other thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36526224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36526224) hither
midoridensha 3y ago
>3. Google made nearly $70 billion in Q1; they're not hurting at all, especially their executives. This is disgusting. Google's executives do an incredible amount of valuable work, easily thousands of times more than other employees, and deserve rich compensation packages. People need to be willing to pay a lot for Premium, or watch more ads, so that these executives can afford bigger yachts. Why do you hate rich people so much? /s
- peddling-brink 3y ago
  Not me, I fully support billionaires in yachts. I think they should all have yachts and spend lots of time with the exuberant aquatic wildlife off the Iberian coast.
  - hn666 3y ago
    I think they should even venture a bit more into the ocean, maybe observe some historical submerged ships from up close.
- paddim8 3y ago
  To be fair, you can't expect YouTube to bleed money just because the parent company is doing well. They're not a charity.
RF_Savage 3y ago
Considering that even the FBI recommends [0] using one fir security, no surprise. [0] https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-recommends-installing-an-ad-blocker-to-dodge-scammers https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-recommends-installing-an-ad-b...
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Which is so strange, to have a government agency recommend violating terms of service. I suppose they can't advocate for better legislation or regulation of ads themselves.
tehbeard 3y ago
Don't forget that YouTube will actively "demonetize" videos of small/medium creators, and take whatever ad rev. was made on it for themselves and kill the reach of a video. Curiously the same content from bigger brands gets a pass.
basq 3y ago
You touch on what is effectively the biggest problem I see with ads: how aggressive they are. Interrupting my watching experience so you can show me 15 seconds of some chips bouncing around on the screen only serves to frustrate me and cause me to despise whatever you're selling. It's reminiscent of the "butt in chair" managerial mindset, and does not convey a solid understanding of how an intelligent person makes purchase decisions or meaningfully interacts with whatever you're peddling. The most effective advertisements are the ones you don't even realize are advertisements. If you've ever searched reddit for product recommendations, you've likely read covert marketing campaigns disguised as casual suggestions. I'm not saying those are better, they're actually just as bad if not worse, because they are fundamentally dishonest. In my opinion, a tolerable ad is one that does not aggravate me. Non aggressive, non intrusive, quick, to the point, and at least somewhat relevant without having to spy on me. Showing me ads for travel or hotel bookings during a video about videogames or hobby model making isn't useful to me (or anybody I presume).
- washadjeffmad 3y ago
  You're not their target audience, then. It's like spam having obvious misspellings as a bandpass filter for lowered reasoning faculties. YouTube ads are made to appeal to the type of person who doesn't use adblocking. They don't care if they're intolerable to you - they already know you're not going to engage. The question is, if ads are forced on the rest of us and we can't walk into the proverbial other room while they're on, how might we allow ads, make them useless for capturing real data about us, but have them appear valuable?
  - dim13 3y ago
    One correction: ads are not like spam. Ads are spam.
    - ipqk 3y ago
      Spam is unsolicited, and will keep coming no matter what you do. Web ads are implicitly solicited. You go to websites knowing that they will serve ads. If you don't like it, you can stop going to said websites and no more ads.
DeathArrow 3y ago
>>“YouTube’s ad-supported model supports a diverse ecosystem of creators, and provides billions of people globally access to content for free with ads,” the company’s statement says. Before I switched to using adblocking on my phone for youtube (like I did for my desktop), I made sure I will never ever buy whatever crap was presented in YT ads. I believe I am not the only one for which ads have a contrary effect to the desired effect. So, some companies payd Youtube money and end up actually losing money from sales.
- joeythedolphin 3y ago
  I am looking to build a house, and a few days ago I was driving on the highway and saw a billboard for a custom house builder. I made a mental note never to contact that company. If your ad is on the highway, you are not building my house :)
  - mythrwy 3y ago
    My favorite are the injury lawyer billboards. Always wondered how anyone picks an attorney from a billboard, as it seems that would be a negative signal but it must work because there are so many of them.
- everdrive 3y ago
  When I was younger, and more energetic, I would actually seek out an owner's website after seeing an advertisement. There would be a big splash ad for a movie on IGN or something, and I'd find the site for the movie, find the email address, and write some internet-crazy rant about how I'd never watch the movie, and tell everyone I knew that the movie sucked, all because I was shown an advertisement for the movie. It was pretty immature of me, but I felt so strongly about it at the time.
  - DeathArrow 3y ago
    I don't think it was immature. I think wanting to fight for less crap online was idealistic.
  - 3y ago
cplusplusfellow 3y ago
There are entire sites that I won’t visit on mobile - since in 2023 I can’t install a working ad blocker (despite there being a few on the App Store). Mobile experience with ads is the most user hostile experience in tech.
- garciasn 3y ago
  Wiper for iOS seems to work for me in most cases except on YouRube. E: keeping the misspelling.
lennixm 3y ago
I think you're being completely disingenuous here. Using an ad-blocker is free-riding and nothing less. We consume a service provided by Google through server capacity, monetization enginea, and improved discovery and by the creators through sweat and tears in creating video content without paying for it. You can consume the content without being exposed to ads while paying Google and the creators their share by buying Youtube Premium but you choose to instead steal it by both consuming it and not paying for it. It's completely fair to argue that Google makes more than enough money to not have to rely on your ad revenue but after all you're still free-riding.
- taeric 3y ago
  Calling it free-riding is somewhat absurd in this framing, though. Is it free-riding of google to literally play music in my house? They don't pay for it, after all. Consider, you could easily frame this such that they are free riding on my trust to let them sell access to other companies. That they can't deliver on that purchased transfer of trust is their problem, not mine.
- joeythedolphin 3y ago
  Did Google ever unfairly dominate competition? Did Google ever use their power tyrannically? Did Google ever release a product or design that caused untold social damage? Does Google deserve stellar treatment because they treat us stellar? Even if you view their ads or buy their product, is the product still not free of exploiting you? Why is it not the correct moralism that we have a right and a duty to take everything from them until they are no more?
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  Google is free-riding on my internet connection. Add up all their users and that's many billions of dollars of networking they're getting for free, paid for by those users.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  If these sites were truly concerned, why not just put youtube behind a paid username and password like netflix or hbo go or any other streaming content service today? Its because there is massive value in having your content be open to the world and not gatekept behind a subscription. The financials of this business don’t suggest its lacking a means to cover its costs, so why should I pay out my attention for a rate far below I quote anyone else in the market for it?
Ajedi32 3y ago
> Google made nearly $70 billion in Q1 Very disingenuous argument. That's their revenue, not their profit, and that includes their entire business, not just YouTube. Or is your point just that Google is big, therefore even if YouTube is operating at a loss (I don't know if it is or not) they should maintain that indefinitely just because they can?
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  No one is forcing YouTube to operate, at a loss or otherwise. They can stop any time they want. If YouTube disappeared tomorrow it would arguably the best thing that happened to internet video since its inception. You can only imagine the variety of services that would spring up, maybe a standard way of finding and viewing videos would emerge. People don't realise how damaging (essential) monopolies are, abusive or not.
  - missedthecue 3y ago
    Countering adblock is one way Google is "stopping loss-making operations any time they want". And everyone here is behaving like pissy 6 year olds in response
    - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
      And adblocking will just counter them back. By your standards, Google is acting even more juvenile. It will not defeat or reduce adblocking and will likely alienante paying customers. It's less than pointless.
kernal 3y ago
>3. Google made nearly $70 billion in Q1; they're not hurting at all, especially their executives. The CEO of YouTube is probably sweating as their performance is tied to YouTube net profit. YouTube is one of many revenue streams that Alphabet will be tightening over the years. I expect the Android division to also start bringing in revenue that is not connected to Google Play.
JCharante 3y ago
1. Youtube creators move to sponsors where Youtube isn't getting a cut, which means youtube has to keep the lights on with only ad revenue. 2. Many users want to keep blocking/avoiding ads & don't want to pay. So they want to use the service for literally free. What other monitization method do you propose? 3. Their parent company's revenue doesn't matter. Is Google expected to run a free service that is very expensive and serves billions of users? 4. Youtube demonitizes people to keep advertisers on the platform. Users blocking ads & not paying ("freeloaders") only exacerbate the issue by being a drain on resources and further incentivizes Youtube to keep striving to preserve revenue by demonetization.

Nathan2055 3y ago

> The average YouTube content creator makes less than 0.02 per ad view The number I see tends to fluctuate between $1 to $1.50 per 1,000 views, or about $0.001 to $0.0015 per view. (YouTube makes around twice that in direct gross revenue, and splits it up 55% to 45% between the creator and the platform, respectively.) This obviously fluctuates substantially: if you produce videos that are viewed by prime demographics advertisers are more interested in, you tend to make more. YouTube also has better individual deals signed with their topmost creators, giving them a better revenue split or a different advertiser pool that’s willing to pay more for the most popular YouTubers. Shorts and livestreams also work a bit differently, but that’s too complicated to get into here. CGP Grey has a great video on how YouTube ads work: https://youtube.com/watch?v=KW0eUrUiyxo https://youtube.com/watch?v=KW0eUrUiyxo Sponsors, meanwhile, typically offer massively better rates. Estimates very a lot more, and it depends on your individual track record as a creator, but I’ve seen numbers thrown around ranging from $2.50 to $10 per 1,000 views at the lower end. The biggest creators are apparently being quoted $50 or more per 1,000 views, and that number goes up exponentially as your channel grows. That’s why seemingly every YouTuber is taking those deals, they’re unbelievably lucrative compared to the integrated YouTube ads. Combine that with a healthy Patreon and it’s no wonder why YouTubers are still able to do so well despite Google infamously difficult behavior.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dang 3y ago

In case anyone is wondering, that quote is from https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/29/23778879/youtube-videos-disabling-ad-blockers-detection https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/29/23778879/youtube-videos-d... - we merged the other thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36526224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36526224) hither

midoridensha 3y ago

>3. Google made nearly $70 billion in Q1; they're not hurting at all, especially their executives. This is disgusting. Google's executives do an incredible amount of valuable work, easily thousands of times more than other employees, and deserve rich compensation packages. People need to be willing to pay a lot for Premium, or watch more ads, so that these executives can afford bigger yachts. Why do you hate rich people so much? /s

peddling-brink 3y ago
Not me, I fully support billionaires in yachts. I think they should all have yachts and spend lots of time with the exuberant aquatic wildlife off the Iberian coast.
- hn666 3y ago
  I think they should even venture a bit more into the ocean, maybe observe some historical submerged ships from up close.
paddim8 3y ago
To be fair, you can't expect YouTube to bleed money just because the parent company is doing well. They're not a charity.

RF_Savage 3y ago

Considering that even the FBI recommends [0] using one fir security, no surprise. [0] https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-recommends-installing-an-ad-blocker-to-dodge-scammers https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-recommends-installing-an-ad-b...

paulryanrogers 3y ago
Which is so strange, to have a government agency recommend violating terms of service. I suppose they can't advocate for better legislation or regulation of ads themselves.

tehbeard 3y ago

Don't forget that YouTube will actively "demonetize" videos of small/medium creators, and take whatever ad rev. was made on it for themselves and kill the reach of a video. Curiously the same content from bigger brands gets a pass.

basq 3y ago

You touch on what is effectively the biggest problem I see with ads: how aggressive they are. Interrupting my watching experience so you can show me 15 seconds of some chips bouncing around on the screen only serves to frustrate me and cause me to despise whatever you're selling. It's reminiscent of the "butt in chair" managerial mindset, and does not convey a solid understanding of how an intelligent person makes purchase decisions or meaningfully interacts with whatever you're peddling. The most effective advertisements are the ones you don't even realize are advertisements. If you've ever searched reddit for product recommendations, you've likely read covert marketing campaigns disguised as casual suggestions. I'm not saying those are better, they're actually just as bad if not worse, because they are fundamentally dishonest. In my opinion, a tolerable ad is one that does not aggravate me. Non aggressive, non intrusive, quick, to the point, and at least somewhat relevant without having to spy on me. Showing me ads for travel or hotel bookings during a video about videogames or hobby model making isn't useful to me (or anybody I presume).

washadjeffmad 3y ago
You're not their target audience, then. It's like spam having obvious misspellings as a bandpass filter for lowered reasoning faculties. YouTube ads are made to appeal to the type of person who doesn't use adblocking. They don't care if they're intolerable to you - they already know you're not going to engage. The question is, if ads are forced on the rest of us and we can't walk into the proverbial other room while they're on, how might we allow ads, make them useless for capturing real data about us, but have them appear valuable?
- dim13 3y ago
  One correction: ads are not like spam. Ads are spam.
  - ipqk 3y ago
    Spam is unsolicited, and will keep coming no matter what you do. Web ads are implicitly solicited. You go to websites knowing that they will serve ads. If you don't like it, you can stop going to said websites and no more ads.

DeathArrow 3y ago

>>“YouTube’s ad-supported model supports a diverse ecosystem of creators, and provides billions of people globally access to content for free with ads,” the company’s statement says. Before I switched to using adblocking on my phone for youtube (like I did for my desktop), I made sure I will never ever buy whatever crap was presented in YT ads. I believe I am not the only one for which ads have a contrary effect to the desired effect. So, some companies payd Youtube money and end up actually losing money from sales.

joeythedolphin 3y ago
I am looking to build a house, and a few days ago I was driving on the highway and saw a billboard for a custom house builder. I made a mental note never to contact that company. If your ad is on the highway, you are not building my house :)
- mythrwy 3y ago
  My favorite are the injury lawyer billboards. Always wondered how anyone picks an attorney from a billboard, as it seems that would be a negative signal but it must work because there are so many of them.
everdrive 3y ago
When I was younger, and more energetic, I would actually seek out an owner's website after seeing an advertisement. There would be a big splash ad for a movie on IGN or something, and I'd find the site for the movie, find the email address, and write some internet-crazy rant about how I'd never watch the movie, and tell everyone I knew that the movie sucked, all because I was shown an advertisement for the movie. It was pretty immature of me, but I felt so strongly about it at the time.
- DeathArrow 3y ago
  I don't think it was immature. I think wanting to fight for less crap online was idealistic.
- 3y ago

cplusplusfellow 3y ago

There are entire sites that I won’t visit on mobile - since in 2023 I can’t install a working ad blocker (despite there being a few on the App Store). Mobile experience with ads is the most user hostile experience in tech.

garciasn 3y ago
Wiper for iOS seems to work for me in most cases except on YouRube. E: keeping the misspelling.

lennixm 3y ago

I think you're being completely disingenuous here. Using an ad-blocker is free-riding and nothing less. We consume a service provided by Google through server capacity, monetization enginea, and improved discovery and by the creators through sweat and tears in creating video content without paying for it. You can consume the content without being exposed to ads while paying Google and the creators their share by buying Youtube Premium but you choose to instead steal it by both consuming it and not paying for it. It's completely fair to argue that Google makes more than enough money to not have to rely on your ad revenue but after all you're still free-riding.

taeric 3y ago
Calling it free-riding is somewhat absurd in this framing, though. Is it free-riding of google to literally play music in my house? They don't pay for it, after all. Consider, you could easily frame this such that they are free riding on my trust to let them sell access to other companies. That they can't deliver on that purchased transfer of trust is their problem, not mine.
joeythedolphin 3y ago
Did Google ever unfairly dominate competition? Did Google ever use their power tyrannically? Did Google ever release a product or design that caused untold social damage? Does Google deserve stellar treatment because they treat us stellar? Even if you view their ads or buy their product, is the product still not free of exploiting you? Why is it not the correct moralism that we have a right and a duty to take everything from them until they are no more?
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
Google is free-riding on my internet connection. Add up all their users and that's many billions of dollars of networking they're getting for free, paid for by those users.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
If these sites were truly concerned, why not just put youtube behind a paid username and password like netflix or hbo go or any other streaming content service today? Its because there is massive value in having your content be open to the world and not gatekept behind a subscription. The financials of this business don’t suggest its lacking a means to cover its costs, so why should I pay out my attention for a rate far below I quote anyone else in the market for it?

Ajedi32 3y ago

> Google made nearly $70 billion in Q1 Very disingenuous argument. That's their revenue, not their profit, and that includes their entire business, not just YouTube. Or is your point just that Google is big, therefore even if YouTube is operating at a loss (I don't know if it is or not) they should maintain that indefinitely just because they can?

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
No one is forcing YouTube to operate, at a loss or otherwise. They can stop any time they want. If YouTube disappeared tomorrow it would arguably the best thing that happened to internet video since its inception. You can only imagine the variety of services that would spring up, maybe a standard way of finding and viewing videos would emerge. People don't realise how damaging (essential) monopolies are, abusive or not.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  Countering adblock is one way Google is "stopping loss-making operations any time they want". And everyone here is behaving like pissy 6 year olds in response
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    And adblocking will just counter them back. By your standards, Google is acting even more juvenile. It will not defeat or reduce adblocking and will likely alienante paying customers. It's less than pointless.

kernal 3y ago

>3. Google made nearly $70 billion in Q1; they're not hurting at all, especially their executives. The CEO of YouTube is probably sweating as their performance is tied to YouTube net profit. YouTube is one of many revenue streams that Alphabet will be tightening over the years. I expect the Android division to also start bringing in revenue that is not connected to Google Play.

JCharante 3y ago

1. Youtube creators move to sponsors where Youtube isn't getting a cut, which means youtube has to keep the lights on with only ad revenue. 2. Many users want to keep blocking/avoiding ads & don't want to pay. So they want to use the service for literally free. What other monitization method do you propose? 3. Their parent company's revenue doesn't matter. Is Google expected to run a free service that is very expensive and serves billions of users? 4. Youtube demonitizes people to keep advertisers on the platform. Users blocking ads & not paying ("freeloaders") only exacerbate the issue by being a drain on resources and further incentivizes Youtube to keep striving to preserve revenue by demonetization.