[youpassbutter]

The video isn't misleading. You are missing the point. It's pointing out that advertisers don't really care about how controversial the content is.

> In other words, if your sales team is essentially the "black box of YouTube" you are beholden to YouTube's "demonetization algorithm". Kimmel (ABC/Disney) does not.

That's the point. Why is coca cola fine with advertising on controversial video on kimmel's TV shows but not on other people's content on youtube?

You could discuss the same topic on youtube and you would be demonetized while kimmel isn't. Why? It can't be because advertisers don't like that type of content. Otherwise, they wouldn't be advertising on kimmel ( tv and youtube ).

Advertisers are advertising in china, saudi arabia, israel, russia, etc. So obviously they have no qualms about image or controversy.

From 2011 to 2016, they didn't have qualms about offensive content on youtube.

So what changed? It's simply a matter of traditional media like CNN constantly attacking youtube and advertisers to get more money for themselves.

That's it. If you applied the same rules on youtube as you did on TV, the entire industry would have to shut down.

Think about it. During the las vegas shooting, CNN shows dead bodies and was exploiting controversial topic for their own selfish ends. Advertisers had no problem showing their ads on CNN during that time ( on TV or youtube ). But if a ordinary youtuber covered the topic, it would be flagged as "controversial" and not advertiser-friendly. But that doesn't make sense since advertisers had no problem advertising everywhere else.

The only reason there is demonetization on youtube is because the likes of CNN has been constantly attacking youtubers and advertisers because they want the ad money coming to them. It's pretty slimey but what do you expect from CNN and the media.

[dragonwriter]

> That's the point. Why is coca cola fine with advertising on controversial video on kimmel's TV shows but not on other people's content on youtube?

They aren't, and there is a high-touch, humans in the loop process to avoid their sensitivity getting stepped on in traditional advertising markets like TV.

YouTube (and high-scale online advertising, more generally) replaces that with one size fits all, relatively low overhead approaches which are necessarily much blunter.

> Advertisers are advertising in china, saudi arabia, israel, russia, etc. So obviously they have no qualms about image or controversy.

Or advertising in those places has relatively little impact on image and produced little controversy compared to the scale of audience it gives access to.

I think Laura Ingraham is pretty good recent evidence that advertisers do respond to controversy in the TV advertising market.

[youpassbutter]

> Or advertising in those places has relatively little impact on image and produced little controversy compared to the scale of audience it gives access to.

That's true of anything on youtube.

> I think Laura Ingraham is pretty good recent evidence that advertisers do respond to controversy in the TV advertising market.

No. That proves my point. The only reason some advertisers pulled their ads from her show is because of outside pressure ( AKA other news organizations and NGOs putting pressure on them ).

As I said, advertisers don't care about content. They care about reach. Saudis can kill gays and ban women from driving. The chinese can pollute and steal prisoners organs. CNN/Foxnews and the rest of the news media can clickbait dead children for ratings. Advertisers are willing to advertise in saudi arabia, china, CNN, etc.

As I said, from 2011 to 2016, advertisers were happy as clams to advertisers on youtube. What changed? The only thing that changed is that large media companies decided to attack youtube and advertisers in order to leech more money for themselves.

Everyone is dirty. It's business. There is no such thing as morality. Do you think advertisers peddling for oil companies or soda companies are moral? Do you think propagandists like CNN/Foxnews/NYTimes/Washingtonpost/etc are moral? Do you think youtube/google/alphabet is moral? Of course not.

It's simply a matter of who has to power to push whom around. The tech industry is too young, too divided and too weak to push back against a media war against them.

[apostacy]

> They aren't, and there is a high-touch, humans in the loop process to avoid their sensitivity getting stepped on in traditional advertising markets like TV.

Monetization has nothing to do with branding. Nothing. Advertisers do not care.

When Logan Paul uploaded a video of him gawking at a bloated corpse, it was in YouTube's top trending videos for nearly 24 hours. There was a massive flagging campaign by outraged viewers, but advertisers did not have any objections.

I do not for a second believe that no humans saw what was going on. It was covered in The BBC and The Guardian. And yet the video remained up and advertisers continued to advertise.

Of course Logan Paul is on the secret whitelist, so he could stomp all over the community guidelines and not be punished. YouTube's community guidelines are nothing but an excuse to drive independent creators away from the platform, as are the monetization policies.

All of this talk about controversy is an utter farce.

[nemothekid]

>It's simply a matter of traditional media like CNN constantly attacking youtube and advertisers to get more money for themselves.

Okay. I agree with you. However the video blames YouTube and thats why it's misleading. I don't particularly care if the advertisers are behaving hypocritically - it's YouTube gets largely the blame for advertisers deciding not to spend their money.

>From 2011 to 2016, they didn't have qualms about offensive content on youtube.

What happened was advertisers went from spending a couple million on YouTube, to now billions and now they want a say in the content. Advertisers always had the majority of the say on YouTube, they just never chose to exercise it. This was always a weak point in YouTube's platform, eventually they made enough money where you either have to sell-out or get-out.

If YouTube had the messaging "advertisers have chosen not to pay for ads against your content", would YouTube still be widely blamed?