They’ve been making people redundant left right and centre for the last few years. They overstretched and overhired after going public and are now being bitten by recession and terrible decisions, of which the recent licence fiasco is just one.
That's it exactly. In addition to over-hiring during COVID, the massive spending spree from a ton of over-inflated, short-sighted acquisitions ever since the IPO absolutely demolished the company's budget. Cutting Weta Digital was only the tip of this latest iceberg.
Given how stagnant the engine has been over the years, I wonder the same thing. So many people over there yet so little value being added to their game engine.
They offer enterprise level support for their engine and also have a lot of mobile focused development. They have their own in house ad provider and dedicated a bunch of man power to monetizing mobile as much as possible
I think they bought some comany that could help them get into the CG movie sence like what unreal is doing with disney and the likes. The new CEO is try to focusing on the gaming aspect of untiy so they are selling off some parts of the acquisition. I think they mostly kept the IP but are liquidating everything else.
What Google seems to forget or simply not care about is I can always just… leave.
I used reddit a lot more than I use YouTube.
If enough viewers and content creators were to jump ship, they’d scramble to change their tune.
Exactly, I had people tell me that we should support YouTube, because it costs money and if we don’t it will disappear.
I would celebrate the day it would happen, YouTube is actually the reason we don’t have much competition there. They used their position and Google monopoly in other areas to establish this monopoly.
It will happen eventually. These kinds of adversarial arrangements between parties are inherently unstable. The enshittification cycle only ends when a site properly collapses. If you think they couldn’t get shittier, give it time. They’ll find a way.
All we need is for a good alternative to become more viable and for the site to have a few more exodus events and it’ll lose its critical mass. Ultimately I think most platforms are going to have to become federated, it’s the only way to avoid enshittification and still grow the network. Growing the network is important because it is the size of youtube and other centralised sites’ networks that gives them their stability and utility. It’s the network effect.
All we need is for a good alternative to become more viable
This is where the biggest challenge lies. Doing what YouTube does is not easy. I don’t think anyone could do it all. So it would have to be picking a choosing. Can anyone upload hours/days/years worth of video content? Are the people who put up those videos able to get paid without having to create their own relationships with advertisers or asking for viewer donations? How are copyright violations handled? Or more sinister video content?
Peertube is a federated system that already handles video.
Moderation is handled by instances with more personal mods.
Bandwidth is handled via multiple instances & p2p protocols so viewers help distribute the load.
I think you’re overstating how difficult youtube’s job is. A lot of that work is problems youtube creates for thsmselves by trying to squeeze their platform for more money. A federated platform doesn’t have that issue.
$10-$30/1,000 views doesn’t sound like much. Except the people who make a career out of YouTube are regularly producing 100k+ view videos. It adds up. It’s one of the things you can pick and choose to leave out of a competitor. But it is a major reason why people put videos on YouTube.
So did you just make up a number? I did try some searching before I spat out mine. It wasn’t extensive research and figured anyone doing any cursory check would come away with the same answer. Which is why I didn’t bother linking anything. I couldn’t find anything that said as low as $0.50/1000 and have never heard a creator saying that low. Hence me asking where you got your number.
How much YouTube pays for 1,000 views? Estimation: On average, YouTubers can earn between $0.25 to $4 per 1,000 views. This range is quite broad due to various factors like niche, location, and viewer engagement.
Remember that “on average” is a slippery term. There are different kinds of average. There is mean, mode and median. The mean for youtubers will skew much higher than the median, for instance, but the median will give you something more realistic for what you should expect to make. In fact half of creators will make less than the median, and even then that’s if we’re excluding all non-earning channels. Mode is even more representative for what you should expect, since it’s the most common amount, and I expect it would be lower still.
The distribution of incomes for youtubers is probably quite extreme, with a long, low tail and a sharp rise at the high end. Similar to this:
Of course I can’t show you the real thing because youtube actively suppresses this information, which tells you it can’t be something they’re proud of. Unfortunately that leaves us in the position of relying on blogs and “calculators” that may or may not be reliable, but anyone seeking to market towards youtube creators has an incentive to make the market look more lucrative than it is.
That’s the calculator from your first link. It’s really strange you didn’t notice that, unless you read this paragraph:
Google pays out 68% of their AdSense revenue, so for every $100 an advertiser pays, Google pays $68 to the publisher. The actual rates an advertiser pays varies, usually between $0.10 to $0.30 per view, but averages out at $0.018 per view. Around 15% of viewers on average watch the requisite 30 seconds of a video ad to count for payment. This means that for 1,000 views, 150 people are likely to watch an ad. At $0.018 per view, Google will charge the advertiser $27, keeping 32% ($9) themselves. The YouTube channel will receive $18 per 1,000 views.
…and then you didn’t notice the weird mathematical alchemy they did where 1000 video views turned into 150 ad views and then suddenly we were talking about the revenue per 1000 ad views. You need to pay attention to when they’re talking about cost per view, revenue per view, and whether it’s per ad view or per video view.
But remember, these are the people who were successful enough to warrant interviewing. The sample bias already selects for the people who are making more money than most.
Your list of sources seemed to originally include an article like this one, but perhaps you read it and realised it said something you didn’t like and removed it. I can’t tell. Lemmy doesn’t show edit histories yet.
Anyway, don’t make bald assertions and then only demand sources when someone disagrees. It looks pretty disingenuous.
I don’t disagree with you, I’m just saying that YouTube is nothing without both its creator and viewers.
A viewer-exodus and a creator-exodus would be tied together, they both feedback into each other.
I even get why YouTube doubledown on catering to their advertisers over the creators and viewers, that’s just money talking.
I’m just saying I don’t owe them my time or attention.
They would hardly be the first Internet giant to fall, thinking they’re too big to fail, not that I see it happening soon though.
That is and big if though. Yeah you, me and half the people here might leave over this, but we block ads already and so are not highly valued to YouTube or a lot of the creators and are only a small drop in the ocean of viewers.
YouTube is betting on more people turning off ad blockers then those that leave. And i am glad to see that it might be having a small effect on more people actually discovering ad blockers instead. Which I bet is something YouTube did not expect to see.
No one in the 90s could imagine the internet without AOL or Yahoo either, and yet…
Or the great Myspace collapse of 2008. Digg before that. Tumblr most recently.
Big sites go boom fairly often.
Now, watching Google go Boom, that’s gonna be like modules breaking loose of the ISS and rez-entering the atmosphere. Drawn out over months, as one wing goes, government breaks up another wing, class action lawsuits bankrupt another wing.
Alphabets circling the drain. And good. Fuck em. Fuck Apple, Fuck Meta, Fuck Amazon, Fuck Reddit.
Just a couple more years now and imma nominate Craig from Craigslist for all the years nobel prizes for officially winning the internet.
Specific niche forums, Craigslist and Wikipedia are the last bits of honestness and fun online. And ymmv with Craigslist people being honest.
In what world Craigslist is honest and Alphabet is circling the drain? They make billions of profit per quarter and they have majority control of the biggest two platforms worldwide (mobile and web). We are not in the wild west years of the early web. It will be decades before Meta or Alphabet collapse, in favor of TikTok or a similar, or even worse, competitor. Mastodon and lemmy are an exception and a niche, not a rule.
I went through a period of de-googling a couple of years ago. Swapping browser, mobile os, search engine, storage, maps, music, video purchases, voice assistant and even email service was relatively simple, there are alternatives out there which do the job just as well if not better than what Google offer.
The only exception is YouTube, yea there are individual sites that occasionally offer some of the videos I want (often with a subscription attached), there are some federated systems like NewPipe which have some videos but there is no one offering remotely the quantity or quality of what you can get on YouTube for free.
As the article states, it’s basically a monopoly at this point without a viable alternative.
I’ve had good success with FairEmail its open source and on Fdroid appstore but google made it so it will only work if you download through the play store which is BS.
Definitely fair email, code is solid and so is the dev. Its got more features for customization than any other mobile email client. Super frequently updated too. And no ads even in the unpaid version.
You know… in all my time upon this earth, I cannot look back and think of a single instance where I thought: “Gosh, this advertisement which has inserted itself in between me and the desired content has actually made me want to go purchase that product.”
I have a couple times but every single time it turned out the ad was blatantly misleading or simply lying. Fuck ads and every person involved in that industry.
Ads are effective, sadly. And why so much money is poured into them. I believe there are a few effects at play but the direct, see and ad and want to go buy it now is only one ofbhem that mostly only affects some people, or a lot of people occasionally.
I think a bigger effect is familiarity. You are far more likely to pick a product you are familiar with or have seen before over something younjave never heard of. Even if you have only ever seen it on advets and completely forgotten that you have ever seen ads for it. So even if you don’t think they work on you they likely do without you realizing, at least enough of the time on enough people that make them worth while running.
These subconscious effects are indeed the most effective ways for an ad to work. However, if an ad is obnoxious enough for you to remember, it can get you to actively avoid the advertised product as well.
Just because I have heard of NordVPN doesn’t mean I’ll necessarily use it (in fact I use arch mullvad, btw.)
Let’s see some numbers that ads work. You can’t just calculate how life would be without ads, but I wonder what would happen if ad expenses for all companies would be capped somehow. When cigarette companies were severely limited in terms of advertising they saved a ton of money. Of course people already knew their brands, but still.
I think ad space sellers wildly overestimate the effectiveness of ads and google has made it far worse with targeted ads. People have gotten used to saying things like “ads work” and “brand recognition” but does anyone know the numbers? Or is this just repeating some phrases you’ve heard?
I don’t know the numbers myself, but I’m quite skeptical.
Except how is ROI estimated? I can imagine it being done both intelligently and stupidly and so I’m curious how well it is actually done.
Part of what I’m sceptical about is that it seems like a practice driven either by a lot of FOMO and vague thinking or a system where it only makes sense to run ads because everyone else is.
This is all measured and not really estimated. If you think that any substantial chunk of that 484Billion is being done ‘stupidly’ then you’re just making presumptuous incorrect guesses without knowing much about the industry.
Revenue (sales) - Investment (total costs) = ROI There is ROAS which similiar: Revenue - Ad Spend = ROAS You can measure things in more detail like CPA (cost per acquisition) to work out how much ad spend you have per sale, again this is a measurement not an estimation.
Where previously there was mass advertisements to millions of people like TV or radio ads which were only affordable to large companies. Advertisers now can target the exact type of person they’re trying to market to for their niche which is a lot cheaper and so more accessible to smaller businesses. To me that makes business sense to do if I can optimise to the right ROI, and nothing to do with FOMO or vague thinking.
Unfortunately I’m genuinely curious. Honestly is a little disheartening though that the first piece of technical pushback has you bailing out. “Correlation is not causation” being stats 101 and all.
If you do have any more to say though I’d happily read it! If not …, all the best.
Just because I have heard of NordVPN doesn’t mean I’ll necessarily use it (in fact I use arch mullvad, btw.)
No it does not mean you will pick it. It means you are more likely to pick it. Given all else being equal you are vastly more likely to pick something familiar than something unfamiliar. And it all comes down to trends and statistics. The hope is that more people will go for your brand that leads to more sales then the cost of the marketing in the first place. You might not go for NordVPN for other reasons, but can you say that about every product you have been advertised to? If anything the more you know about a product the less advertising will affect you in the familiarity sense - these adverts are not so much meant for you as they are for people not familiar with VPNs at all.
But there are a lot of studies on the topic like this and this meta analysis that seem to conclude that advertising is effective. And there are a lot of studies on what various aspects of adverts make them more effective. I am yet to see any research that says adverts are ineffective overall, though I have not dug that deeply into it.
Good products are worth sharing to help shape future products. Grass roots only works if the product is worth using. Vote with your wallet to help shape future products. While the previously poster can be viewed as an “ad”, the post is same as a next door neighbor bringing it up. Mullvad doesn’t do affiliate marketing or pay influencers.
I used to use Mullvad but now I use a different service, but especially like to support open source products.
Companies have tested this. A DIY chain ran an ad and people complained it was annoying, so they stopped running it. Their sales started to decline. Started running the ad again and sales went up.
Probably you’re not the target audience and just collateral damage in the ad war, but for the population in general they work.
A DIY chain is the ad I’m most unlikely to see. The only ads I see are usually the same 5 auto makers advertising the same bland cars on a cliff or in a desert. The vast vast majority of ads don’t work and waste everyone’s time for a small bump in sales and recognition. Especially since the variety of the US market is dominated by so few billion dollar businesses. Like Walmart still advertises. Walmart. The company that owns like 40% of grocery sales in the US and can’t pay their workers a living wage. They’ll gladly stop you from watching your shows though because their marketing department needs a salary.
The fact that companies pour millions into ads means it works for them. Don’t assume that just because you and I (and probably most users on here) aren’t susceptible, it doesn’t mean the majority of the population aren’t too.
There used to be a business joke you’d hear in the ‘60s, often attributed to John Wanamaker, a pioneer in marketing:
“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is, I don’t know which half!”
The joke highlights the dilemma many businesses face in evaluating the effectiveness of their advertising spend. It’s remained relevant in the advertising and marketing industries, reflecting the challenges in measuring the impact of advertising efforts.
I think ad space sellers wildly overestimate the effectiveness of ads and google has made it far worse with targeted ads.
Companies are not just pouring money down the drain and paying zero attention to what comes back up. If that were true the advertising industry would be dead instead of the insane massive monolith that it actually is.
Yeah, I like to think I’m immune to advertising until I see one that makes me think “damn, I haven’t had Burger Restaurant in a while.” The worst part is that I’m fully cognizant of what’s happening, and yet I still want some and it’ll make me think about it for a while afterward, simply because I’m familiar with the food and how it (usually) tastes.
But, joke’s on you, Burger Restaurant! I’m fucking broke, son! Now we’re BOTH having our time wasted
Well, things affecting you unconsciously should be plain illegal. Though that’s how ads are supposed to work since like 50s and earlier, and I think I remember a Colombo episode where what you said is mentioned.
Have you tried to find a principle by which one can filter out this particular thing (advertising namely)? Like the “25th cadre” etc. Before saying it’s unenforceable and terrible to make illegal.
There are regulations about what you can and can’t put into edible products. There are regulations about what you can and can’t use as fuel. There are regulations on materials used in construction, so that they wouldn’t be as toxic as 50 years ago, on paints, on glue and what not.
Though, of course, there’s a solution from another direction which is fundamentally better, simply abolishing trademark laws. But that’d be kinda revolutionary and highly unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Sorry, I was more talking about this in particular:
Well, things affecting you unconsciously should be plain illegal
It is far too general a statement to be enforceable. There are things you can better enforce that focus on the negative effects of marketing, but things affecting you unconsciously is to vague and affects both positive and negative behaviours.
There are regulations about what you can and can’t put into edible products. There are regulations about what you can and can’t use as fuel. There are regulations on materials used in construction, so that they wouldn’t be as toxic as 50 years ago, on paints, on glue and what not.
These are all specific things though, not general broad reaching unenforceable statements. Which I agree with, there is a lot you can do with regulation that prevents bad behaviours of corporations, but these are generally specific things that are trying to solve some actual problem. And in this case you need to specific what things you are trying to prevent.
Even for just adverts, trying to ban all adverts that affect you unconsciously would be a ban on all adverts and marketing. Is that reasonable? I would not say so. It would be better to go after specific things like the regulations around advertising cigarettes. Or more relevant to today, maybe something around the shear amount of information advertising agency collect on you, IMO that is one of the bigger problems with them these days. Or the shear number of them that you get shoved into every aspect. Or putting adverts in products that you have already paid for. Those would be far more reasonable things that you could enforce.
Even for just adverts, trying to ban all adverts that affect you unconsciously would be a ban on all adverts and marketing. Is that reasonable? I would not say so.
I would. Never in my life has an advert made me buy anything I need.
When you need something, you go and find it. And when it finds you, then it needs you and not vice versa.
When the process is “I identify a need, I look for something matching characteristics I need and then I purchase it”, the results are better than it is “I look at something and suddenly have an urge to buy it most likely formed by many adverts seen, heard etc”, in the latter situation I usually realize that I didn’t need the thing at all.
Thus adverts belong to expositions and catalogues and lists you go and find, and not anywhere else.
Depends on your legal preferences, of course. Most of my life I’m a libertarian, so naturally against banning anything consensual, but also against trademark protection, and abolishing trademark protection would reduce the usefulness of ads.
Or more relevant to today, maybe something around the shear amount of information advertising agency collect on you, IMO that is one of the bigger problems with them these days.
Can’t fight that anyway.
Or the shear number of them that you get shoved into every aspect.
I have a better idea - you can be required to watch through ads to get to the page\video\etc you’ve come for, but don’t get stuffed with them in the middle, that becomes illegal. Like those license agreements for software which nobody reads.
IRL that would be - no big unavoidable ads on billboards, but you can come to something like a gazette stand and look through brochures.
The point is that if you look at an advert, you do that consciously, with intention to do just that.
That’s even explainable to geriatric lawmakers.
Or putting adverts in products that you have already paid for.
Yes, that’s a good idea and an already popular one.
That’s not really how they work, or that is not the only way. Their point is to put the logo, slogans, company etc into your memory. This way when you’re shopping for something specific, then the brand pops out to you because you’ve seen it and it gives you a sense of familiarity and hence, higher trust.
Ads work. These companies wouldn’t spend millions in them otherwise. Consumer behavior is among the most studied psychological phenomenoms in the world. If you show an ad to one person it’s near impossible to tell if it had an effect or not but show it to a thousand people and you’ll see it.
Yeah I feel mostly this way too, but the data is solid, ads are effective. Even on me, very rarely. And I’m the type of person who doesn’t ever click ads, out of spite. Even if it’s exactly what I was already looking to actively buy. But every now and then they give me an idea that I pop open a new tab, research, and then buy.
You are not the target market. Advertising is a massive industry for good reason. It works. I know because I own a business and brand name recognition is everything. When people buy things they most often don’t do any research, they just think of the first thing that comes to their head and that’s usually what they buy. Or the first thing that comes up in their product search.
Against all odds? This is a game that’s been going on for year, hacker vs Corp, and the hacker always wins. Same shit as anticheat in games, it’s a constant arms race but the hacker is nearly always a step ahead.
engadget.com
Oldest