I think I'm at the point where I value an ad-free internet more than I do youtube content. Certainly not enough to pay $12/mo to watch it without ads.
YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
671–680 of 1001 posts
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#672I don't really understand either side of the equation here. So, on the one hand you have people who use ad blockers. The first retort that comes to mind here is: Well, we'll take our business elsewhere. Which is odd because without ads they aren't paying and them leaving is the goal. Of course on the other hand ... when I read the title my thoughts weren't that I would be okay because I don't ad block youtube. My tho…
It's almost like the growth plan of every tech company in the last decade or so... Grow big by burning capital ("to hell with cost of acquisition our CLV will be so high once they're locked in"); build an ad network; realise an operating profit; fight tooth and nail to protect that ad network... Even Uber is becoming an ads company...
Question: If you'd rather they didn't exist than be ad-supported, why not just ignore them? Surely VC money wasn't going to keep things like YouTube, Uber, and the rest artificially cheap or free with no strings forever, right?
I feel like due to the VC-enabled delayed monetization that tends to happen with startups, we have all (me included) become convinced that it's sustainable to expect a bunch of ad-free, subscription-free content that just creates itself and teleports onto our computer, forever and ever. TANSTAAFL though.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#673I don't really understand either side of the equation here. So, on the one hand you have people who use ad blockers. The first retort that comes to mind here is: Well, we'll take our business elsewhere. Which is odd because without ads they aren't paying and them leaving is the goal. Of course on the other hand ... when I read the title my thoughts weren't that I would be okay because I don't ad block youtube. My tho…
Good point. I don't know what were their expectations for audience reaction. It surely wasn't "oh I need to turn off my adblocker then" or "oh, YouTube Premium, that's neat, lemme get my credit card". For me, it was, in order: - "Three strikes" and... what? Red alert! Let me drop everything and read the damn article right now, because it could be "three strikes and you lose your Google account", which is kinda big fu…
As for YouTube, what should they do? I see 3 options but maybe I'm missing some:
1. Make everyone pay
2. Make everyone either watch ads or pay, user's choice
3. Eliminate all ads. Since there would be little reason to sign up for YTP once ads are eliminated, they're going to have to have "Pledge drives" where they try to beg you to pay just out of generosity, to support a public service for all. Somehow this seems like it'll never not lose huge amounts of money.
4. (sort of the status quo up till now) Nerds get to block ads, and are subsidized by Premium subscribers and suckers.
Admittedly option 3 sounds stupid, I just can't think of any other options for YouTube where it doesn't cease to exist.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#674From 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…
> 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
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.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#675I get that people hate companies but $7 a month for unlimited video on any device with 500 hours uploaded every minute. That's a decent deal. The only drawback is that you don't get Sponsorblock on smart devices. People seem to overestimate how much the average person care about online outrage. Netflix, Reddit, Twitter.. They all seem fine despite being declared dead numerous times.
When I glance at https://youtube.com/premium it quotes $12 a month. Are you talking about the student offer?
Does it really change his point?
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#676I block ads because they're psychological warfare that corporations wage against me. I don't care how unobtrusive the ads are. I don't care if the ads don't track me. I grew up changing the channel on TV when ads came on, and ripping adverts out of magazines before sitting down to read them. I vote for billboard bans whenever I can. I have zero tolerance for ads of any sort. Advertisers have no morals, they're comple…
> I block ads because they're psychological warfare that corporations wage against me. I don't care how unobtrusive the ads are.
I hate ads as much as the next guy. But that's the economic model most of the web is built on. Anybody without a youtube premium subscription who rants about youtube ads is just hypocritical. How should this be financed? Either you give your money or your eyeballs. Nobody is going to work for free so you can watch cat videos.
Please don't come with morals here. Expecting things for free is just as morally problematic.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#677This doesn't really affect me since I subscribe to premium, but something that a lot of ad-based services don't seem to grasp is why people block ads. It's because they've become increasingly obnoxious. Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames. No, adblockers became popular because ads kept getting more loud (both visually and audibly), in…
> Nobody blocked ads when they were a simple column of links in the gutter or maybe an animated GIF banner with 3 frames There were programs way back then that acted as a proxy server that would remove image tags that matched the size used by banner ads. See WebWasher or Proxomitron.
> Proxomitron
I haven't heard that name in a long time. Is that how it worked, by image size? I thought it was URL pattern matching.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#678If you're on iOS, I highly recommend Yattee[1], a free Youtube app with no ads, background playback and sponsor block built-in. The way they get around App Store restrictions is by claiming that they aren't a Youtube app. They're technically a video-watching app which is supposed to be used with your own personal server. The server API they require, however, is supported by Invidious[2], an open-source, privacy-prese…
Yattee + Tailscale + Piped greatly increased my consumption of Youtube videos.
Missing most of the features mentioned (recommendations, watch history, google account, shorts) are all pros instead of cons to me. Just an app for intentionally watching content in a no-frills private environment, it's refreshing.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#679I've had an adblocker in my browser for ages, but I wasn't a big youtube user because it just didn't have sufficient information density for me, even before google put ads in the platform. (Google only stuck ads in YT after they ran all of their competitors out of business!) Finding Vanced (and now ReVanced) with adblocking, SponsorBlock, and the ability to set the speed higher than 2x made it so that I actually use…
YouTube Premium is a far superior experience to Nebula.
The experience yes, but not the price. At least in my country.
Re: YouTube is testing a more aggressive approach against ad blockers
#680I block ads because they're psychological warfare that corporations wage against me. I don't care how unobtrusive the ads are. I don't care if the ads don't track me. I grew up changing the channel on TV when ads came on, and ripping adverts out of magazines before sitting down to read them. I vote for billboard bans whenever I can. I have zero tolerance for ads of any sort. Advertisers have no morals, they're comple…
Bless you! In my late 30s, I went serious about getting ads out of my life. I noticed they were propaganda and brainwashing usually with seriously dark undertones. I stopped watching sports and TV, stopped reading news articles, stopped looking at billboard highway signs, etc. I had no idea how much the advertisements controlled how I felt and thought. I wish we could have stricter laws against advertisers. I believe…
> In my late 30s, I went serious about getting ads out of my life.
Have you also cut everything out of your life that's financed through ads? So I'm expecting you to not use any Facebook, Google, Twitter, Youtube or other modern web content.
I agree that ads are manipulative. That's their very essence. But they exist for a reason. Not to enrich people, but the uphold one side of a bargin. You can't expect everything to be for free.