Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

righteousruminations.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 140 posts

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#131

Post by mattmanser »

nafey wrote: post #82
mattmanser wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very bad analogy, you should stop. The message of the grafitti is not what people care about, it's that it was painted in the first place. Your analogy only works if you have a big sign outside your house saying "Please paint my car".

Don't misconstrue what is being said. Imagine the sign saying "Please paint my car but we reserve the rights to remove anything we want". That's essentially what the YouTube user license says.

Graffiti is done without permission. What exactly am I misconstruing? That's exactly why the analogy is so bad.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#132

Post by soared »

Androider wrote: post #107
etherealG wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point of how current targeted advertising works. The person paying for the advertising is the one choosing when/where to show it to you. They are intentionally getting in your way with something irrelevant, since it suits their campaign goals. What you describe is a system where the consumer has control over how they are advertised to, but that only works when you are the one with power in…

As an advertiser, I would love to only show relevant ads. Current methods for targeted advertising are extremely broad and ineffective, as in: females 35-44, interested in travel, living in Texas. Want to target hobby astronomers who watch a specific Youtube channel? Impossible. Cloud developers who follow the same 3 tell-tale Twitter accounts that clearly define the group? No can do. People at the big 4 in SV with G…

You are using the wrong advertising platform for sure. Everything you want to do is absolutely possible, and more. Well, you can't do the twitter one. But you can do that on Linkedin and can easily do the hobby + youtube channel thing. The two problems are that those audience you want are absurdly tiny and would expensive to reach and that since you don't know about these capabilities you don't have a big enough budget to take advantage of them.

Edit: (With programmatic rtb display ads)

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#133

Post by geff82 »

gregmac wrote: post #126
geff82 wrote: post #89

I think there still is a big opportunity for ad companies that try to actually show stuff the user might interested in. Let me explain. Let's say you are an amateur astronomer, like me. You have subscribed to a paper magazine about astronomy, like me. If, again, you are like me, then you also read the magazine for the ads in it. Ads showing new telescopes, ads talking about astronomy expeditions, ads for the astronom…

> flight offers for the business trip I recently googled. SAS software because I recently did a certification with them and visited their website. Amazon ads showing me business books I recently searched there. Really? My experience is much more: Hotels/flights to a place I went to weeks/months ago and am not planning on going to again. Ads asking me to sign up for a service I am signed up to. Amazon ads for somethin…

Absolutely true. It goes all directions.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#134

Post by naaaaak »

Buge wrote: post #125
naaaaak wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Youtube is demonetizing anyone who disagrees with the narrative. Do you think pewdiepie is right of Fox News? Do you think buzzfeed, printers of the 4chan fanfic "piss dossier" are not notoriously full of bullshit? Have tmz or mtv ever broken any story besides celebrity gossip? Every single "news" organization that printed fake polls for months claiming Hillary would win by huge margins is still considered "News"…

Pewpiepie makes tons of money from Youtube. He's not banned. And most of his videos are monetized. The fact that he's the most successful Youtuber and that he has differing views that Youtube shows that Youtube allows people with differing views to succeed.

I never said he was banned.

> more than a third of his videos had become demonetized

http://www.polygon.com/2017/4/10/15246814/pewdiepie-youtube-...

> "I’m going to have [to be] family friendly from now on"

What daring and original content that's going to be. How "liberal" of YouTube and its massively "liberal" employee base. Such diversity of ideas and language being allowed. Such tolerance.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#135

Post by Buge »

naaaaak wrote: post #134
Buge wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pewpiepie makes tons of money from Youtube. He's not banned. And most of his videos are monetized. The fact that he's the most successful Youtuber and that he has differing views that Youtube shows that Youtube allows people with differing views to succeed.

I never said he was banned. > more than a third of his videos had become demonetized http://www.polygon.com/2017/4/10/15246814/pewdiepie-youtube-... > "I’m going to have [to be] family friendly from now on" What daring and original content that's going to be. How "liberal" of YouTube and its massively "liberal" employee base. Such diversity of ideas and language being allowed. Such tolerance.

Diversity of ideas are allowed. The videos are not removed. If advertisers don't want to advertise on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDJMZWzW8Ko that's not Youtube's fault.

If not paying creators advertising money is censorship, then most other platforms have 100% censorship. Reddit, Vimeo, Facebook, Hacker News, Instagram, Streamable, Imgur all don't pay ad money to creators.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#136

Post by piva00 »

gregmac wrote: post #126
geff82 wrote: post #89

I think there still is a big opportunity for ad companies that try to actually show stuff the user might interested in. Let me explain. Let's say you are an amateur astronomer, like me. You have subscribed to a paper magazine about astronomy, like me. If, again, you are like me, then you also read the magazine for the ads in it. Ads showing new telescopes, ads talking about astronomy expeditions, ads for the astronom…

> flight offers for the business trip I recently googled. SAS software because I recently did a certification with them and visited their website. Amazon ads showing me business books I recently searched there. Really? My experience is much more: Hotels/flights to a place I went to weeks/months ago and am not planning on going to again. Ads asking me to sign up for a service I am signed up to. Amazon ads for somethin…

I really don't get this model of travel ads... I have the same experience, even with what I consider "good" travel sites like Hipmunk: I went to the US once in 2015 on vacations, to this day I still get the occasional spam e-mail telling me about good offers to this or that airport that I just used as a connecting point on my trip and I don't ever plan on going back.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#137

Post by norea-armozel »

I don't get why so many folks thought Google was going to give them a free pass forever when it comes to various touchy subjects. Google depends on advertisers to pay its bills and make profit for its shareholders. If that means Youtube becomes more vanilla than vanilla then that's what will happen. It's not an issue of left/right political spectrum as it is more to do with the fear of alienating their clients (the advertisers) who aren't the consumers or people who make videos on Youtube. So if content creators want to take this an opportunity to find a better distribution and payment scheme I think that would be wise rather than trying to change the beast that is Google because when it comes down to your content Google can easily replace it with the generic PBS channel videos or even hire their own content creators to replace you at a discount.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#138

Post by naaaaak »

naaaaak wrote: post #110
thomask0 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How were the polls fake when they were basically right? The state-polls for Wisconsin / Michigan in the end were wrong, but those states in the end were probably not polled enough to capture the volatility of unprecedented events like the Comey letter. And FYI national polls predicted a 1-4% popular vote win, those where pretty much on the money.

What polls were "basically right" in the month, weeks, and days leading up to the election? I recall most of them being very off the mark because of their methodology. There were a ton of polls that consistently oversampled Democratic voters, women, and other groups to show results that favored Hillary. This is what made them fake polls. They were being conducted to produce a result that would reinforce a narrative.…

https://twitter.com/JoshNoneYaBiz/status/852661406298198016

Reminder of fake polls pushed by fake news. Almost all of the establishment media reported polls like this leading up to the election. They traded all credibility to shill for their candidate. But Google did, too, so such sites are still considered "news" by Google's standards.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#139

Post by eaton »

jlebrech wrote: post #80
DavidSJ wrote: post #10

Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.

but if there was a right leaning "youtube" and they removed overt-lgbt, antifa, anti-trump videos then it's ok right? or is it wrong because they align with the current us-government?

It's called GodTube.com, and it's terrible.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#140

Post by cel1ne »

mattmanser wrote: post #131
nafey wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't misconstrue what is being said. Imagine the sign saying "Please paint my car but we reserve the rights to remove anything we want". That's essentially what the YouTube user license says.

Graffiti is done without permission. What exactly am I misconstruing? That's exactly why the analogy is so bad.

Many user-licenses forbid things like spreading "hateful" (I actually don't like that word) content. Some users post such content, thereby doing something which they had no permission for. When that content is removed, in compliance with the agreement, they call that censorship.

So my analogy still works.

The difference is that on YouTube some "graffiti" are permitted while others aren't whereas on my car, none are permitted.

Post reply on HN