Google in general have been resistant to letting anyone see how effective their ads truly are - and most studies that get close tend to show extremely questionable efficacy results.

If Google shows everyone how ineffective ads actually are, they’d crumble.

>It's wild to me that advertisers are willing to use first party metrics.

I agree, and find it even wilder that first party metrics from Meta and Google are trusted by most major advertisers (including ad agencies). I'm talking about six-seven figure budgets spent without any third party validation.

I've seen some studies on click fraud[0], but when advertisers are effectively choosing from a duopoly that has limited incentives not to lie in their metrics, I find it strange that there are no popular, widespread and accessible independent validation tools.

0 – https://www.mdpi.com/2073-431X/10/12/164

I feel like it's more "second party" in this case. The first party is the creator, and the tracker/keeper of the view counts is Google. Google certainly isn't a disinterested, certified third party, but they're also not a creator who might make up inflated numbers to get a more lucrative sponsorship.

Advertisers have 2 options for who to place ads with: Google and Facebook. When you have a monopoly, the customer has to take what it can get. Facebook has overstated its views and clicks for years to charge advertisers more, and faced no consequences for doing so.

I've noticed this with TikTok and I'm almost certain YouTube 1P metrics are wildly inaccurate in particular views and non-bot comments.

To me the wild thing is that this ad revenue model could ever have been profitable in the first place.

Click campaigns/conversions and user codes are more important than pure impressions.

Skipping sponsored segments is not necessarily a reflection of hostility. My wife has been subscribed to the Factor meal service for over three years, yet all of my favorite podcasts are constantly hawking it, and I don't particularly feel like sitting through 20 sales pitches a day for something I already purchased. There is unfortunately no way to communicate that information to either the channel owner or the sponsor.

Google is not getting a cut of that sponsorship money. They don't care if it wrecks your deal. They want your ONLY source of income to be Youtube. If you're fully beholden to Youtube, there will be no escape, no way for you to leave and take your viewership with you.

Remember how Youtube used to be a nice cage with lots of air holes and fun toys to occupy you? Light ad enforcement, tools to help you build your viewership etc? People are starting to feel the pinch of those being removed. That cool room is starting to look like what it really is--an industrial cage.

> The automated “Skip Ahead” button (which I use daily) is already hostile to sponsorships

Is it? If I proactively click skip, that means that sponsor is offering something of no use to me. As the sponsor, they successfully make an impression for a second or two anyway. And as a viewer that skip ahead button is much better than pressing right arrow button multiple times

Truly one of the best updates they've made to the YouTube app on Apple TV (and presumably other tv operating systems) of all time. Just one tap of the remote and we can skip all of the "sponsored by Made In" nonsense.

Edit: I guess this is a YouTube premium feature?

in video you can just hit a number to go to the next chunk 1,2,3,4,5 etc. just hit 8 or 9 if you want to see if there is anything of value in a 10 minute video that should have been 30 seconds, but youtube wants 10 minutes

YT would start a revolt among Youtubers if they did this.

It's not in their interest to solve this problem. YouTube is more than happy to pretend you watched nothing and therefore disburse nothing.

To ensure my premium subscription dollars are making it to the creators I've now disabled uBO for the entire youtube domain.

Mate, you’ve taken the pains to configure your user agent to block tracking of views and then you’re complaining that views aren’t tracked. It’s got a nice well-defined API with a sane default and you’ve decided to override it with something else. That’s fine too, but now you’re complaining that you overrode it?

As the old joke goes:

“Doctor, it hurts when I do this”

“Then don’t do it”

As long as your ad blocker isn't blocking the metrics endpoint YouTube relies on to determine whether you're actually watching a video, the youtuber gets paid. In fact, Youtubers make more revenue from Premium views vs ad supported views.

You're describing an existing plugin called SponsorBlock.

IIRC it even has lots of options such as enabling you to allow/disallow self-sponsor segments (the creator promoting their own product), "like and subscribe" calls to action, shock-and-awe intros, podcast recaps, and several other segment types.

If only there were some way that money in my pocket went to some of the people related to the things I like to watch. Some sort of premium service where YouTube could pay for a person to come to my house and collect money from me, and them give it to the people making videos, and then we won't have ads?

Nah, that'll never work.

A lot of sponsors have shyed away from YouTube because of the fake views and botting problem.

Some were paying big money to streamers with 20,000 live viewers. Even though 19000 of those were fake.

The sponsor then sees the ad and did terribly and doesn't sponsor anyone else in the future.

I've never suggested people should stop using ad blockers. I use Pi Hole (and pay for Premium).

[flagged]