I can't believe they made $15bn off of YouTube ads. Who are they reaching with that crap?
They didn't specify how much they off of YouTube Premium, but at $120/year they'd need 125 million subscribers to match ads revenue.
They didn't specify how much they off of YouTube Premium, but at $120/year they'd need 125 million subscribers to match ads revenue.
I subscribed to Premium quite early. They were showing me an IKEA bed ad multiple times a day, over a number of days. 3-4 different ads, but always the same product. The end result being that I will sleep on the ground before I ever purchase a Nordli bed.
Whatever Ikea is spending on ads is apparently doing their jobs
And the saying that there is "no such thing as bad publicity" only works in certain cases.
And the fact that ad caused you to purchase something (doesn't matter if it wasn't the bed itself) is a huge win for Google's Youtube advertising strategy. The net result is still causing you to part with money.
And yes, Google getting me to subscribe to YouTube Premium is obviously a win for Google. However, if the most attractive thing about your Product A is that it's "not Product B", that doesn't really build the kind of long-term relationship with your customer that you'd like.
The end result being me currently evaluating whether I need the YouTube Apps at all.
I gladly pay for content in exchange to avoid ads if I can. I'm fine with ad-blocking "morally" when there is no other option, but I'm not OK with blocking ads on services that offer a reasonable price to avoid ads.
Of course, if you don't want to use youtube, by all means, you don't need to pay for it. But I wouldn't view the "pay or see ads" business model as some gross thing to avoid.
That's a good argument! I admit that I fully support the free + ads business model.
Thinking a bit more about this, I believe what irked me about the YouTube experience is (1) that I was repeatedly (ad nauseam) shown the very same ads, and (2) that the frequency was continuously increased to the point where the free+ads version was no longer watchable.
I already expressed what how I feel about (1), and (2) just feels like the wrong kind of pressure, because it impairs the product.
Here are two alternatives to (2) that I would have considered more effective: (A) mark a channel as "favorite" and watch those videos with zero ads, and (B) watch the first 100 videos a month with zero ads.
In both of those cases, I can see someone meeting me half-way. In its current form, it's just increasing and increasing the level on nagware.
Unless the presumption is 100 videos with ads each month will lead to more overall ad video views. Or people turning off ad blockers or whatever people use. I find both hard to believe.
Is this due to some demographic algorithm or something else?
OTOH, friend watching YouTube on tv is used to seeing ads. That’s their base. So it’s not as bad.
If all ad blockers stopped working right now forever. You would likely adapt and be more or less fine with (albeit more annoyed) in due time. Not like your friends relish the ads either.
Everyone?
searching on some SSO topic i had opened a tab with Okta too, and that opened floodgates - for the month after that i had to listen for those 5 seconds of Okta ads before each and every song on Youtube. I dare you to imagine how much it cost Okta (and thus produced profit for GOOG) given that we're talking about Identity Management in enterprise software and potential cost of the leads there.
( Sorry dont have the time to read through it right now )