I love this mentality. This idea that forcing someone who hates ads to watch a bunch of ads somehow magically makes more wealth happen. The whole thing is a bubble desperately trying not to burst by basically forcing more ads in more places where it actually makes very little difference.
I wonder if creators are actually going to get paid any better if YouTube forces more people to watch ads on their channels. My bet is not.
Creators do get paid a share of the ad impressions. Many also are completely open about it and post videos of how well their videos did and how much money they earned from monetized videos, i. e. videos with ads - this is also why you hear many avoiding e. g. swear words, since YT’s auto detection will then flag their video for de-monetization.
But funny enough, that’s not what I said at all. The cost of running YouTube and the cost of the creators must be paid (plus creating an incentive to produce high quality content in the first place). That can be achieved by ads or by offering a subscription.
My original question still stands: if you were to build a video streaming platform tomorrow, what would your model for financing operation and content creation be?
Do adblocked videos prevent creators from having another view registered for a monetized video?
I don’t know how to do a video platform. If I had the time and skill, I’d rather make a FOSS, federated platform for creators/studios to host and finance on their own dime.
Individually, no. But each view not generating ad revenue does still generate streaming costs. If no one would pay Google to host their ads on YT, I doubt they’d keep the platform online.
Now don’t get me wrong, the threshold at which Google decides that the ratio of adblocked to regular viewers is exceeding their business model is most likely based on corporate greed, and the recent crackdowns on ad blocking are due to the same reason. I think they’re doing fine and there is no need for the recent initiative - but it would be equally dishonest claiming running a platform the size and outreach of YouTube could be done without large investments, one way or the other.
Individually, no. But each view not generating ad revenue does still generate streaming costs. If no one would pay Google to host their ads on YT, I doubt they’d keep the platform online.
Well this kind of renders the whole “if you don’t watch the ads, content creators can’y get paid” morality approach meaningless, don’t you think?
Where is the money supposed to come from? Companies pay Google to put up ads expecting a return on the investment. If Google starts forcing people who inherently avoid advertisements to watch advertisements, what value is that actually supposed generate for either of Google’s customers? I’d just walk away from the screen like I do with regular television.
I don’t think that was ever a moral issue. We’re talking about large corporations in a capitalist setting, moral is not something to bring up in that discussion.
Also, no one said end users are morally obliged to watch ads. The gist is: some kind of revenue stream must exist so that the operator of the platform keeps it running and the creators are enabled to create content.
A paid subscription is a perfectly valid alternative, as are platforms like Nebula, which use that exact model of paid subscriptions. Patreon is a bit tricky since it only serves the content creator. Google famously shut down all kinds of projects without any consideration for their users, I have no doubt they’d pull the trigger on YouTube if it would serve them.
In a perfect world, ads should not exist at all. It took us decades to even regulate ads that are obviously harmful (alcohol, tobacco, gambling, ads propagating body issues via heavily manipulated images etc.), none of that should be forced down people’s throats.
Unfortunately, however, we don’t live in a utopia, but in a capitalist hellscape, so when I talk to people, I actually want to know their practical ideas of keeping the show running.
Currently, I couldn’t recommend anyone to not run an adblocker, the internet would become unusable due to how intrusive and downright dangerous ads have become, both in content for certain audiences, and as networks to deliver malware.
Simple answers just longing for the good old days of the small web are nothing more than nostalgia and willfully ignore how the internet and the society using it have changed. That’s not a practical or remotely useful answer.
We are watching the system change as we speak, and I came here to discuss alternatives. I did not ask a moral question, although I do absolutely believe that people creating high quality content should be paid for their time. I genuinely want to know what people’s ideas and beliefs are and how they think the system will continue to work.
It might have sounded like that at first, but I’m not actually shilling for a company trying to increase ad revenue, and I do hate what current ads have become.
Ads should not manipulate or downright endanger people, and there are also cases where we need to find a different mechanism to deliver ads to people entirely - if a podcast (for me, that means mostly audio dramas) advertises itself as immersive and is not on a platform where I can get an ad-free experience, I simply won’t be able to listen to it. Being immersed into a supernatural, cosmic horror doesn’t go well with hearing about how I should switch my business page to SquareSpace.
I was fine with the “watch these 3 relevant ads in sequence and we leave you alone for the rest of the movie” concept, for example. That to me looks like an indirect form of payment, it’s transparent (no obnoxious product placement) and I can enjoy the rest of whatever media I’m consuming in peace.
Ad-revenue is literally how content creators get paid. If you’re using an adblocker (like me) then you’re freeriding. They’re not getting any money from us viewing their videos.
Nobody is forcing anyone to watch ads. That’s the alternative available to people who don’t want to pay. The other alternative is premium membership. Which ever you choose makes money for the creators. Blocking ads doesn’t.
I hate ads just as much as the next guy but this mentality of expecting to get content for free is ridiculous. That’s unbelieveably narrow sighted and self-centered thinking. If subscribtion based business model was the norm instead of ads-based then we’d have none of the issues that come with targeted advertising. On the other hand if one thinks google is evil company and don’t want to give them money then stop using their products. Damn hypocrites…
Ad-revenue is literally how content creators get paid
Great. If YouTube removes viewers’ abilities to block ads, resulting in more ads watched, will content creators get an increase in pay?
Again, I doubt it.
I hate ads just as much as the next guy but this mentality of expecting to get content for free is ridiculous. That’s unbelieveably narrow sighted and self-centered thinking
You’ve missed the whole point. Ads exist to encourage people to spend money on products, therefore companies profit from paying for advertisements.
Where does the profit come from if someone who doesn’t deal with ads is forced to watch an ad? Do you think that person is just going to decide to spend money?
Secondly, if a creator adds a 1-2m sequence in their video to talk about a sponsor, no one is tracked, no one knows any better if uninterested viewers skip past it, and it’s usually very relevant to that creator’s target audience. I have zero qualms with such a system, and sometimes it’s actually really entertaining.
Morals or not, this is Google scraping at the bottom of the barrel to invent value where there is VERY little to be had. Data-invasive, targeted advertising is superfluous and needs to die.
Where does the profit come from if someone who doesn’t deal with ads is forced to watch an ad?
The creator gets paid for people watching the ads, not for buying the product. For the most part the point of ads is to increase brand recognition which in turn increases sales. Ads work wether you think they do or not. It’s among the most studied economic fields. There’s a good reason companies spend a ton of money on advertising. More people seeing ads = more sales. I too like to tell myself a story about how I’m immune to ads but I know I’m not.
Data-invasive, targeted advertising is superfluous and needs to die.
I agree. The alternative is paying for the service eg. subscribtion based business model.
Targeted or not - I’m not going to watch ads. If it’s a bad service like Instagram I’m just going to stop using it but in the case of YouTube if they manage to make adblocking sufficiently difficult and inconvenient then I’m going to buy premium. I can’t blame them for wanting to get rid of freeriders. If I was them I would probably want to too. Blocking ads is like piracy; I participate in it but it cannot be morally justified. I’m effectively stealing.
I love this mentality. This idea that forcing someone who hates ads to watch a bunch of ads somehow magically makes more wealth happen. The whole thing is a bubble desperately trying not to burst by basically forcing more ads in more places where it actually makes very little difference.
I wonder if creators are actually going to get paid any better if YouTube forces more people to watch ads on their channels. My bet is not.
Creators do get paid a share of the ad impressions. Many also are completely open about it and post videos of how well their videos did and how much money they earned from monetized videos, i. e. videos with ads - this is also why you hear many avoiding e. g. swear words, since YT’s auto detection will then flag their video for de-monetization.
But funny enough, that’s not what I said at all. The cost of running YouTube and the cost of the creators must be paid (plus creating an incentive to produce high quality content in the first place). That can be achieved by ads or by offering a subscription.
My original question still stands: if you were to build a video streaming platform tomorrow, what would your model for financing operation and content creation be?
Do adblocked videos prevent creators from having another view registered for a monetized video?
I don’t know how to do a video platform. If I had the time and skill, I’d rather make a FOSS, federated platform for creators/studios to host and finance on their own dime.
Individually, no. But each view not generating ad revenue does still generate streaming costs. If no one would pay Google to host their ads on YT, I doubt they’d keep the platform online.
Now don’t get me wrong, the threshold at which Google decides that the ratio of adblocked to regular viewers is exceeding their business model is most likely based on corporate greed, and the recent crackdowns on ad blocking are due to the same reason. I think they’re doing fine and there is no need for the recent initiative - but it would be equally dishonest claiming running a platform the size and outreach of YouTube could be done without large investments, one way or the other.
Well this kind of renders the whole “if you don’t watch the ads, content creators can’y get paid” morality approach meaningless, don’t you think?
Where is the money supposed to come from? Companies pay Google to put up ads expecting a return on the investment. If Google starts forcing people who inherently avoid advertisements to watch advertisements, what value is that actually supposed generate for either of Google’s customers? I’d just walk away from the screen like I do with regular television.
I don’t think that was ever a moral issue. We’re talking about large corporations in a capitalist setting, moral is not something to bring up in that discussion.
Also, no one said end users are morally obliged to watch ads. The gist is: some kind of revenue stream must exist so that the operator of the platform keeps it running and the creators are enabled to create content.
A paid subscription is a perfectly valid alternative, as are platforms like Nebula, which use that exact model of paid subscriptions. Patreon is a bit tricky since it only serves the content creator. Google famously shut down all kinds of projects without any consideration for their users, I have no doubt they’d pull the trigger on YouTube if it would serve them.
In a perfect world, ads should not exist at all. It took us decades to even regulate ads that are obviously harmful (alcohol, tobacco, gambling, ads propagating body issues via heavily manipulated images etc.), none of that should be forced down people’s throats. Unfortunately, however, we don’t live in a utopia, but in a capitalist hellscape, so when I talk to people, I actually want to know their practical ideas of keeping the show running.
Currently, I couldn’t recommend anyone to not run an adblocker, the internet would become unusable due to how intrusive and downright dangerous ads have become, both in content for certain audiences, and as networks to deliver malware.
Simple answers just longing for the good old days of the small web are nothing more than nostalgia and willfully ignore how the internet and the society using it have changed. That’s not a practical or remotely useful answer.
We are watching the system change as we speak, and I came here to discuss alternatives. I did not ask a moral question, although I do absolutely believe that people creating high quality content should be paid for their time. I genuinely want to know what people’s ideas and beliefs are and how they think the system will continue to work.
I’m sorry, I didn’t meant to imply you were making the morality argument, it’s just one I hear frequently. I meant to bring it up as an example.
I honestly don’t mind ads as a business model. I just wish they were non-invasive and relevant to the content.
Thanks, I do actually appreciate that comment.
It might have sounded like that at first, but I’m not actually shilling for a company trying to increase ad revenue, and I do hate what current ads have become.
Ads should not manipulate or downright endanger people, and there are also cases where we need to find a different mechanism to deliver ads to people entirely - if a podcast (for me, that means mostly audio dramas) advertises itself as immersive and is not on a platform where I can get an ad-free experience, I simply won’t be able to listen to it. Being immersed into a supernatural, cosmic horror doesn’t go well with hearing about how I should switch my business page to SquareSpace.
I was fine with the “watch these 3 relevant ads in sequence and we leave you alone for the rest of the movie” concept, for example. That to me looks like an indirect form of payment, it’s transparent (no obnoxious product placement) and I can enjoy the rest of whatever media I’m consuming in peace.
Ad-revenue is literally how content creators get paid. If you’re using an adblocker (like me) then you’re freeriding. They’re not getting any money from us viewing their videos.
Nobody is forcing anyone to watch ads. That’s the alternative available to people who don’t want to pay. The other alternative is premium membership. Which ever you choose makes money for the creators. Blocking ads doesn’t.
I hate ads just as much as the next guy but this mentality of expecting to get content for free is ridiculous. That’s unbelieveably narrow sighted and self-centered thinking. If subscribtion based business model was the norm instead of ads-based then we’d have none of the issues that come with targeted advertising. On the other hand if one thinks google is evil company and don’t want to give them money then stop using their products. Damn hypocrites…
Great. If YouTube removes viewers’ abilities to block ads, resulting in more ads watched, will content creators get an increase in pay?
Again, I doubt it.
You’ve missed the whole point. Ads exist to encourage people to spend money on products, therefore companies profit from paying for advertisements.
Where does the profit come from if someone who doesn’t deal with ads is forced to watch an ad? Do you think that person is just going to decide to spend money?
Secondly, if a creator adds a 1-2m sequence in their video to talk about a sponsor, no one is tracked, no one knows any better if uninterested viewers skip past it, and it’s usually very relevant to that creator’s target audience. I have zero qualms with such a system, and sometimes it’s actually really entertaining.
Morals or not, this is Google scraping at the bottom of the barrel to invent value where there is VERY little to be had. Data-invasive, targeted advertising is superfluous and needs to die.
The creator gets paid for people watching the ads, not for buying the product. For the most part the point of ads is to increase brand recognition which in turn increases sales. Ads work wether you think they do or not. It’s among the most studied economic fields. There’s a good reason companies spend a ton of money on advertising. More people seeing ads = more sales. I too like to tell myself a story about how I’m immune to ads but I know I’m not.
I agree. The alternative is paying for the service eg. subscribtion based business model.
Targeted or not - I’m not going to watch ads. If it’s a bad service like Instagram I’m just going to stop using it but in the case of YouTube if they manage to make adblocking sufficiently difficult and inconvenient then I’m going to buy premium. I can’t blame them for wanting to get rid of freeriders. If I was them I would probably want to too. Blocking ads is like piracy; I participate in it but it cannot be morally justified. I’m effectively stealing.