3 ms·
Perhaps you didn't catch my comment's assertions. I stated the model and approximate values I'd be willing pay, given that most creators take in in-stream paid
by tomrod 3y ago
Perhaps you didn't catch my comment's assertions. I stated the model and approximate values I'd be willing pay, given that most creators take in in-stream paid promotions already (above and beyond YT ads) and that general YouTube ads have poor power/are garbage/have low signal to noise ratios.
I don't really care what Google attributes to YouTube indirect or direct revenue and costs on their P&L in the context of average revenue, costs, and approximate minutes streamed, since the marginal costs are ridiculously cheap.
There is a lot of value in Google adopting the first mover advantage in a Bernoulli market. I'd imagine shareholders care about that a lot.
- mike_d 3y ago> Perhaps you didn't catch my comment's assertions. I stated the model and approximate values I'd be willing pay No I understood it perfectly, it is just absurd. You lack power, leverage, or influence over Google so the only lever you have to make a better deal is by offering more money than you are currently to get the terms you'd like.
- tomrod 3y agoI don't need power, leverage, or influence to state level of willingness to pay. That's independent of whether Google chooses to service the market segment I belong to. I'm part of the demand side, not the supply side. They should still rethink their model, regardless.