> It's the same file being delivered, they don't switch to just audio.
Youtube has separate audio and video streams available on almost everything. I'd be very surprised if it wasted that data, and a quick search suggests it doesn't waste that data.
> Even if they did, the ad revenue without video playback is 0.
Sounds like they're doing something wrong in the sales process.
What's wrong with the sales process? Do you have advertising experience or are you just guessing?
You're vastly underestimating how 10s of billions of dollars in advertising transactions are conducted. It's far more involved than just a "sales process".
I wasn't actually accusing them of doing something wrong, I was saying that as the logical conclusion of your claim. I'm fully confident that they are able to get money for those ad slots. How would an ad slot by youtube be worth 0?
Because the format is video ads. They’re not paying for audio only. In fact most of them are optimized for video first with audio secondary by having visuals that communicate the message. You see the same with Facebook video ads in the feed.
If you don’t deliver what the advertiser paid for then you can’t charge for the ad.
Changing the format for audio ads that would run in the limited scenario of background video involves way too much effort and tooling to make it worth it.
Youtube has separate audio and video streams available on almost everything. I'd be very surprised if it wasted that data, and a quick search suggests it doesn't waste that data.
> Even if they did, the ad revenue without video playback is 0.
Sounds like they're doing something wrong in the sales process.