Sections

Ad-blockers "devastating for smaller channels" - PewDiePie

Popular YouTuber says YouTube Red a response to having 40% of the audience bypassing the existing ad-based model

YouTube's newly introduced Red subscription program has seen some backlash, but one of the video service's biggest stars is defending it as an attempt to solve a very real problem. In a post on his Tumblr page yesterday, Felix "PewDiePie" Kjellberg offered his take on YouTube Red, which lets users skip ads for a $10 monthly fee, and gives them access to exclusive shows (including one starring Kjellberg himself) as well as YouTube Music and Google Play Music services.

Kjellberg said one of the biggest reasons for the introduction of the service is that despite having 1 billion users, YouTube is still losing money, largely because of ad-blocking software. He polled his Twitter followers about ad-block usage on YouTube, and found that 40 percent of the more than 8,000 who responsed used such software. Kjellberg said that number also matches up with what he sees in his own stats from Google.

"It's a number that has grown a lot over the years, from roughly 15-20 percent when I started," Kjellberg said. "And it's not unlikely that it will keep growing. What this means is that YouTubers lose about 40 percent of their ad income. Personally, I'm ok with if you use adblock on my videos. Ads are annoying, I get it, I'm not here to complain about that. But for smaller channels, this number can be devastating."

Kjellberg pointed to tweets he received in response to his poll showing how lightly many of his viewers take the issue of ad-blocking. And while he acknowledged that questions remain about whether YouTube Red is the right answer to the problem, he stressed that the first step to finding the right answer is to understand exactly what the problem is.

"Using Adblock doesn't mean you're clever and above the system," Kjellberg said, adding, "YouTube Red exist[s] because using Adblock has actual consequences."

More stories

2020 sees record US games spending at $56.9bn | US Annual Report

Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War was the best-selling game of the year, while the Nintendo Switch was the No.1 platform

By Marie Dealessandri

YouTube channel GameXplain accused of overworking and underpaying staff

Owner André Segers says he is "absolutely committed" to a postive work/life balance and fair compensation

By James Batchelor

Latest comments (45)

Gareth Martin Senior Progammer, Coconut Lizard5 years ago
When can we have it in the UK?
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Ian Jarvis artist 5 years ago
Over the years Advertisers have created increasingly obnoxious ads which has directly led to this situation. Had they shown some restraint adblockers would not be half as common.
21Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Rupert Loman Founder & CEO, Gamer Network5 years ago
Ian - I agree but there is one other important factor... when you install an adblocker it will block all ads on all sites by default. So (for example) if you didn't like pre-roll ads on YouTube (30 second videos stopping you getting straight to the content you wanted to view) you'd install an adblocker - but as a result GamesIndustry.biz ads (static gifs and 100% relevant to the games industry) are blocked.

The percentage of people who take the time to whitelist their favourite sites is tiny... and so there is a problem that really needs a solution. Unfortunately one common route is to pile on more ads for the 50% of people who aren't blocking, in order to make up for the 50% who are... which in turn prompts more adblock installs...
14Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Show all comments (45)
Shehzaan Abdulla Translator/QA 5 years ago
I hate to say it but it's time the advertising revenue model needs to be retired.

People aren't going to start paying for content they've had for free for years and they aren't going to go back to allowing adverts given the liberties some sites take with their adverts (including some otherwise great sites that I frequent). Copy editors should know that advert placement defines the article just as much as choice image selection!

The adblock crunch was something we knew was coming for years, but I'm not seeing any efforts to work around that other than drop back into the subscription/paid model (which is basically what we had with print media).

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Shehzaan Abdulla on 30th October 2015 6:55pm

4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
I have never really had any problems with ads in particular when it comes to videos and such. I mean it's like having a commercial before the videos begin and sometimes in the middle for longer videos. However, it's only 1 ad at a time. It plays, and then you continue. It's a whole lot better experience than TV, where you have to sit through nearly 4 - 5 minutes of commercials for nearly every half hour show.

I do use adblock though and try to filter out any sites I visit fairly often and if they are not being too intrusive with the ads. That is where ads for me have become a problem, is websites. I actually never even thought I would need to use adblock. However, I can't stand all the ads that decide to make damned noise when you hover your mouse over them. It's so irritating. Then you have pop ups, pop unders. Sometimes you even get the occasional ad that simply doesn't want to close.

That is where things went wrong, that is the reason adblock even exists. People just get fed up with all the bullcrap that is pulled with ads these days. As a consequence, ads in general have gotten a bad rep. Now many people feel they need to block every ad, even non intrusive ads, even good ads.
5Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jeremiah Moss Software Developer 5 years ago
Being that YouTube is a Google property, why not push Google Contributor?

https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development5 years ago
Adverts should be a good thing. I want people to show me products I might not know about, things I might need to order in but forgot about, etc.

However a big flashing gif or a banner floating in the middle of what I'm trying to read isn't "advertising", it's concentration abuse. I run an adblock but I generally only reach for it if the site starts to piss me off.
4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Greg Wilcox Creator, Destroy All Fanboys! 5 years ago
Kjellberg said one of the biggest reasons for the introduction of the service is that despite having 1 billion users, YouTube is still losing money, largely because of ad-blocking software
DUH. Maybe allllll those people really just don't want ads and like it or not, will use any legal means to not see and be annoyed by them. Charging them a privilege fee and trying to wrap new content around it is going to be a funny thing to defend to those smarter consumers who (guess what?) probably aren't paying a lot for the games they buy (thanks to endless sales and in some cases cheaper indie and mobile games in general have devalued chunks of the hobby to free or dirt cheap entertainment).

Also, given that YouTube is now running ads that disrupt NON-video content (as in during the middle of some music-only content!), yeah... that's going to make people block away no matter how much they like Mr. De Pie and his ilk.

Also, while I do agree with Paul above, targeted ads tend to be annoying overly computed nonsense based on recent clicks (even if erroneous ones). I tend to avoid ad clicks on websites for my own direct searches based on my own research, but even that leads to me be bombarded with banners and sidebars on sites that remind me of something I either bought already or didn't buy because it didn't meet my particular needs.

I'm too lazy to use an adblocker, so I'm "forced" to do an occasional search just to stop seeing the same handful of dumb ads in my face every site I go to... :P
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Dan Wood Visual Effects Artist 5 years ago
My limited sympathy for internet based advertising in general has been entirely used up after realising the extent to which even visually unintrusive ads make massive use of a vast array of tracking and data-mining techniques.
At this point it's clear that very few advertising companies will even consider not trampling my right to privacy for their own gain, and there is certainly no clear way to discern an ad that *doesn't* do this, so frankly, I abandon all pretense of considering supporting their use, and will do everything in my power to shut them out, in all cases.

I can certainly understand content creators' discontent with this situation - but I believe Pewdiepie, and all others making this argument, need to realise that joe-public isn't the side that is screwing them over here... it's the advertising platforms themselves that drive people to it, and who only get ever more aggressive in their means by way of response.

If anyone cares to develop and promote an advertising platform that *guarantees* total privacy to its audience, I might consider selectively un-blocking it...

But honestly, I'd rather more content creators moved to Patreon or similar, and efforts were channeled into building a convenient aggregated system where I can directly pay various content creators from a single unified account, or something along those lines.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Dan Wood on 31st October 2015 4:45am

5Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Jace Merchandiser 5 years ago
I thought adding the "skip ad" option after it plays for the first 5 seconds was a good move. But the problem is that all video's don't have this option and they all should have this option. I don't care if the ads are only 15 seconds long, that option should be mandatory. The other annoying thing about Youtube is that when ever their network is having issues/going slow/etc, the videos buffer and have many issues trying to load or play correctly. Meanwhile the ads that precede the videos play just fine. So some people will have sat through the entire ad and still can't watch the video they wanted to see.
9Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@Paul Jace
I thought adding the "skip ad" option after it plays for the first 5 seconds was a good move. But the problem is that all video's don't have this option and they all should have this option. I don't care if the ads are only 15 seconds long, that option should be mandatory.
The reason for that is they are different types of ads that can been turned on by the creator. In fact there are 2 non skip-able options. Short ads and long ads. I also disagree with you, about having to make ads being skip-able, mandatory. Give me a good reason why they should be. Just because you or a few other people can't sit through an ad that is only 15 seconds before a video, doesn't mean others feel the same way. Also, this is content people created, took the time to do and you are enjoying it. The least you can do is be capable of watching a short ad. Did you know, they make no money off of when people skip ads. That is why the non skip-able ones exist.

Also, as stated above, they re still losing money with youtube even though those non skip-able ones exist. So you saying to make skip-able mandatory would actually make the situation worse, not better.
The other annoying thing about Youtube is that when ever their network is having issues/going slow/etc, the videos buffer and have many issues trying to load or play correctly. Meanwhile the ads that precede the videos play just fine. So some people will have sat through the entire ad and still can't watch the video they wanted to see.
That is such a rare problem, and not really that big of a deal. I can't even remember the last time that has happened to me. When it does though ... I just wait and come back later, can't really expect everything to always be perfect.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Jace Merchandiser 5 years ago
I also disagree with you, about having to make ads being skip-able, mandatory. Give me a good reason why they should be
A reason? How about because I don't want to watch them. I'm talking about my viewing habits, not yours. So if the option were available for all videos people like me could skip them and people like you could watch them.
Just because you or a few other people can't sit through an ad that is only 15 seconds before a video, doesn't mean others feel the same way
So the 40% and rising number that Felix quoted is only representative of a few people? Those people didn't want to sit through those ads anymore than I do and they took steps to stop it. I haven't gone that far yet but I have been considering it for awhile.
4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@Paul Jace
A reason? How about because I don't want to watch them. I'm talking about my viewing habits, not yours. So if the option were available for all videos people like me could skip them and people like you could watch them.
That defeats the entire purpose of them. The ads are there for a reason. It doesn't matter if you don't freaking like them. It doesn't mean there needs to be some work around for you. Entitlement much? Not sure why on earth you expect to be catered too like that. It's a free service, you are not paying for it .. so just deal with it like a grown adult or stop using it, and get the hell off youtube.

If you got your way, there wouldn't even be a youtube because they wouldn't be able to afford to keep it running.
So the 40% and rising number that Felix quoted is only representative of a few people?
That doesn't represent the amount of people who can't sit through an ad. That includes everyone who uses adblock that didn't happen to add youtube as an exception. The reason they use adblock may have nothing at all to do with the ads on youtube.
I use ad block, but certainly not because of the ads on youtube. I use it because of the intrusive ads on websites. The ones that make noises and popup or under the browser.

Sadly not everyone take time to add sites to their exception list. They just install it and that's it.
Those people didn't want to sit through those ads anymore than I do and they took steps to stop it.
Really, and what makes you think you speak on behalf of all of them?

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Brook Davidson on 1st November 2015 3:42am

2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Klaus Preisinger Freelance Writing 5 years ago
I call bullshit on all the adblock hype. If you do videos commercially, the money comes from subscription, donations and ad-revenue (merchandising, if you are very lucky); all three of them, not just one. Particularly Twitch is showing that if you allow for a broad monetization strategy, people will flock to you. Consider that Twitch's allowance of a three-pronged strategy even outweighs their downside of having little to no archive and there is no way to monetize the back catalog the way you could on Youtube (if that worked there).

I bet most of the big Youtubers would rather have a per channel subscription model akin to Twitch, than that global subscription Google is serving them.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Curt Sampson Sofware Developer 5 years ago
Brook, in your persona as someone on the side of the advertisers, you're the one that's acting entitled.

The reality of it is, I'm sitting here with my finger over the "Install AdBlock Plus" button, and you're ranting at me about how I should be happy to watch ads that I find annoying. Obviously the easiest solution is for me not to worry about arguing with you and simply push that install button.

You've quite well demonstrated the attitude that made ad-blocking programs so popular: the "I am entitled to your attention no matter what you think, so I'm going to do whatever it takes to get in your face" attitude on the part of advertisers.

The irony is, I use an ad-blocker to go watch interesting television advertisements on YouTube. That makes it pretty clear who's doing it right and who's doing it wrong.
10Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@Curt
Meh, I don't feel like arguing, sorry.
If you want to use adblock, then go ahead. Has nothing to do with me or my attitude.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Brook Davidson on 1st November 2015 9:15pm

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@Klaus
I call bullshit on all the adblock hype. If you do videos commercially, the money comes from subscription, donations and ad-revenue (merchandising, if you are very lucky); all three of them, not just one.
We are talking about the smaller youtubers here. They don't make money off of subscriptions, and I doubt they would have a large enough of a following to make money on donations. So their main source at the time is likely the ad-revenue.

For bigger youtubers, it's less of an issue, but overall they will still lose money due to adblock regardless.
Particularly Twitch is showing that if you allow for a broad monetization strategy, people will flock to you. Consider that Twitch's allowance of a three-pronged strategy even outweighs their downside of having little to no archive and there is no way to monetize the back catalog the way you could on Youtube (if that worked there).
Yes, but Twitch is a streaming service, and most revenue made on Twitch is due to being live and such. I don't think the same kind of strategy would work all that well for youtube. Sure it may work for the bigger channels on youtube, but I doubt it would for everyone else.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Jace Merchandiser 5 years ago
That defeats the entire purpose of them. The ads are there for a reason. It doesn't matter if you don't freaking like them. It doesn't mean there needs to be some work around for you. Entitlement much? Not sure why on earth you expect to be catered too like that. It's a free service, you are not paying for it .. so just deal with it like a grown adult or stop using it, and get the hell off youtube
The purpose for me is to watch video's, not to make other people money while watching videos. Entitled? I gave an easy solution to how having a skip ad option would appease everybody. You're the one that sounds entitled.
If you got your way, there wouldn't even be a youtube because they wouldn't be able to afford to keep it running.
That's funny because I remember watching youtube videos back in 2007-2009 when this model didn't exist in the way it is today and youtube somehow managed to survive just fine. Weird huh.
That doesn't represent the amount of people who can't sit through an ad. That includes everyone who uses adblock that didn't happen to add youtube as an exception. The reason they use adblock may have nothing at all to do with the ads on youtube
And how would you know how many of those people didn't want to sit through ads on youtube? Did you ask them all? Most people I've talked to and from what I've read from those that use ad blockers they don't care where the ads are located online or which sites, they just don't want to view ads period. Even Felix himself says this:
Personally, I'm ok with if you use adblock on my videos. Ads are annoying, I get it, I'm not here to complain about that
He gets it and yet you somehow don't understand why some people feel this way? Um...ok.
Really, and what makes you think you speak on behalf of all of them?
Do I represent them all? No but I'll tell you who's opinion matter's more. First, you have the Youtuber with the most active subscribers telling you that a large portion of his users use ad-blockers because they don't like ads before watching videos and he's ok with this. And second, you have Youtube themselves creating this service so that people....wait for it....can pay to have ads blocked because a large portion of their tens/hundreds of millions of users complained about the ads. So taking those two opinions in mind it's pretty ridiculous that one of the first things you said is that there should be no changes because me and a "few" other people don't want to sit through ads. All of that and you yourself use ad blockers. That's very hypocritical of you.
5Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@Paul
The purpose for me is to watch video's, not to make other people money while watching videos. Entitled? I gave an easy solution to how having a skip ad option would appease everybody. You're the one that sounds entitled.
Yes, and it's a free service and the way they pay for that service is through ads. That means if you want to use the service you need to watch ads. How on earth you don't understand that is beyond me. I realize you don't want to watch ads, but that is how the site works. Without it, there wouldn't be a site in the first place. Adding a skip function would defeat the purpose because the site wouldn't make any money and they would also lose advertisers. The only other option is to make it a paid service, i.e., Youtube Red.

If they continue to have problems with not making money, you do realize they will just end up not allowing you to watch videos if you use adblock .. right? You realize you are lucky they do not already do that ... right?

I mean .. if you don't want to watch ads, then you should either, A. Buy Youtube Red, or B. Don't watch youtube.

Thinking you should be able to watch it free of charge with no ads, is the very definition of being entitled. Personally, I don't even understand how you can say I am the one who sounds entitled. There is nothing entitled about anything I have said. Unless you don't know what the definition is.
That's funny because I remember watching youtube videos back in 2007-2009 when this model didn't exist in the way it is today and youtube somehow managed to survive just fine. Weird huh.
You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Youtube was doing terrible. That is why they sold it to Google in 2006. Maybe you should read a little history on the matter before you make yourself look any more ignorant. If Google had not done what it did, there would not be a youtube. I think you really need to reconsider your definition of fine, it was losing nearly half a billion dollars a year. Oh .. but of course ... weird huh .. that you thought they where doing fine.
And how would you know how many of those people didn't want to sit through ads on youtube? Did you ask them all? Most people I've talked to and from what I've read from those that use ad blockers they don't care where the ads are located online or which sites, they just don't want to view ads period. Even Felix himself says this:
I don't know how many people, but neither do you .. that is the point. So stop speaking for them, and I will not as well. Also . .who cares what Felix says.
He gets it and yet you somehow don't understand why some people feel this way? Um...ok.
I understand why you may not like ads, but that is hardly the point. The point is that is how people make money and that is how they keep the site running. Meaning, in the process of your childishness of being incapable of sitting 15 seconds through an ad, you are unintentionally screwing others over and causing problems. I realize you don't care, because you only care about those 15 seconds rather than other people. I do care though, because unlike you ... I know the issues it causes and I don't want to be part of the problem. I enjoy watching youtube, and I enjoy the entertainment that I get from many creators who spend a lot of time and effort to create it. Why should I screw them over? Sorry, but if watching a 15 second ad helps them. .. that is what I am going to do. Just like I am sure you would like to be paid for the work you do.
Do I represent them all? No but I'll tell you who's opinion matter's more. First, you have the Youtuber with the most active subscribers telling you that a large portion of his users use ad-blockers because they don't like ads before watching videos and he's ok with this.
He is ok with this BECAUSE he is big. Did you not read the whole article? He says right after that "But for smaller channels, this number can be devastating." So .. you are ok since he is ok with it on HIS channel, but you disregard the countless other smaller youtubers it effects. Please don't take Feliz out of context, because he is NOT saying it's ok. He is saying it's ok on HIS channel. Why? Because he can afford to do that.
And second, you have Youtube themselves creating this service so that people....wait for it....can pay to have ads blocked because a large portion of their tens/hundreds of millions of users complained about the ads.
Yes, so pay for Youtube Red. I think that is perfectly fine. I never said I was against Youtube Red. Also .. it wasn't due to complaining about the ads, it was due to them still losing money because of people like you who can't be bothered to actually help others, and only care about themselves.
So taking those two opinions in mind it's pretty ridiculous that one of the first things you said is that there should be no changes because me and a "few" other people don't want to sit through ads. All of that and you yourself use ad blockers. That's very hypocritical of you.
I didn't say anything like there shouldn't be any changes. I support youtube red. I DON'T support bypassing ads without paying for youtube red though. In other words, if you have youtube red .. by all means no ads is fine. If you don't have youtube red, then you SHOULD watch the ads and shouldn't complain.

You recommended to be able to skip all ads, and I am telling you . .that is stupid because it will mean they will lose even more money. Why pay for youtube red if you can skip all ads? Derp ... obviously a dumb idea that you didn't think through all too well. Your recommendation is to essentially screw everyone over, because you don't like ads. Youtube wouldn't even exist if they allowed such a thing because then they would be losing even more money. Why do you think they would keep a service running if they are losing money from it?
4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Jace Merchandiser 5 years ago
Yes, and it's a free service and the way they pay for that service is through ads. That means if you want to use the service you need to watch ads.
All the people who have ad-block would disagree with you. How you don't understand that is beyond me.
You realize you are lucky they do not already do that ... right?
Winning the lottery is considered lucky. Not being able to watch videos without ad-block is not. You should go look up the definition of the word lucky.
You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Youtube was doing terrible. That is why they sold it to Google in 2006.
You should read what I said again. I stated dates after that sale. Furthermore, they could have easily tried other business models during any serious financial problems. There's no one model that all businesses have to adhere to.
I don't know how many people, but neither do you .. that is the point. So stop speaking for them, and I will not as well. Also . .who cares what Felix says.
No the point was that you have been acting like you know everything when you obviously don't, as also pointed out by several other posters. You were the one speaking for everyone saying that I only represented a few people who don't like ads. You can pretend to know everything all you want but your opinion is just that--yours. And for the record, Felix's opinion on this discussion matters to me because he is the one going through it. Does your opinion matter to me? Not even a little bit.
I understand why you may not like ads, but that is hardly the point.
Then perhaps you are slow because that is the entire point of this discussion on using ad blocks. Me and the several millions of people that caused youtube to create this new subscription program don't like the ads. This is why many people(including yourself) already have ad block. If you can't see that as the main point then there's little hope for you going forward.
He is ok with this BECAUSE he is big. Did you not read the whole article?
I think you need to go back and actually read what he said. Beyond saying it sucks for smaller channels he also said ads are annoying. What part of "ads-are-annoying" do you not understand? Would you like me to say it in another language so that you might understand it?
Yes, so pay for Youtube Red. I think that is perfectly fine.
There's a chance that you may find someone in this world that cares that you think it's perfectly fine but you won't find them here in this conversation.
You recommended to be able to skip all ads, and I am telling you . .that is stupid because it will mean they will lose even more money. Why pay for youtube red if you can skip all ads?
As already mentioned there can be several business models implored to make money. Youtube could allow video makers to get paid even if the viewers skip the ads, as long as they play the first 5 seconds. Problem solved. But that's youtube's problem and like I said before I don't care about making other people money. More power to them but that's not my objective when viewing youtube. There are other ways to get around ads without ad blocks and that's what I've been doing. But honestly, Curt was right. This entire time you have demonstrated the demeanor of a spoiled child that didn't get his way. And as such you have done just as much to make me want to start using ad blocks as the actual ads themselves. Discussions are fine but throwing temper tantrums like you are just because everyone doesn't agree with you is not.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@Paul
You should read what I said again. I stated dates after that sale.
Ya, and that is why they did what they did with the ads. The point of me pointing that out was to show you they had to make changes in order to even keep youtube surviving. Even now, it's still not breaking even and they are still losing money. Which just goes to show you, they are doing far from fine.
I stated dates after that sale. Furthermore, they could have easily tried other business models during any serious financial problems. There's no one model that all businesses have to adhere to.
Fair point, any suggestions besides a skip all ads suggestion lol?
No the point was that you have been acting like you know everything when you obviously don't, as also pointed out by several other posters. You were the one speaking for everyone saying that I only represented a few people who don't like ads. You can pretend to know everything all you want but your opinion is just that--yours. And for the record, Felix's opinion on this discussion matters to me because he is the one going through it. Does your opinion matter to me? Not even a little bit.
I never said I knew everything nor am I acted like I do. I also was not speaking for everyone .. you where, by assuming the 40% agreed with you. Also, when I said you represent the few .. Has more to do with just bad wording on my part. i didn't literally mean a few.

As for Felix going through it ... no idea what you mean. He isn't going through anything because he is so big. It's the smaller channels going through it. In fact, I would be going through it as well, because I also am a youtuber. So your point is moot. The truth is, you used Felix because of what he said, not because of him going through it. His comment fit your narrative .. so you used it.
Then perhaps you are slow because that is the entire point of this discussion on using ad blocks. Me and the several millions of people that caused youtube to create this new subscription program don't like the ads. This is why many people(including yourself) already have ad block. If you can't see that as the main point then there's little hope for you going forward.
We are not talking about that, what I am commenting on is you and the skip all ads comment.
I thought adding the "skip ad" option after it plays for the first 5 seconds was a good move. But the problem is that all video's don't have this option and they all should have this option
I am saying if they would have done the above they would be in a worse situation. It defeats the purpose of having the ads to begin with if they all can be skipped. It would also mean they couldn't make that an insensitive for youtube red.
I think you need to go back and actually read what he said. Beyond saying it sucks for smaller channels he also said ads are annoying. What part of "ads-are-annoying" do you not understand? Would you like me to say it in another language so that you might understand it?
It doesn't matter if ads can be annoying, that is how they have been getting paid. Just because you find something annoying doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. All it means is you should stop using the thing you are annoyed with. In this case, you could just as easily stop using youtube. But that isn't something you are willing to do because you enjoy the videos.

Hell, I find ads irritating to at times, but that doesn't mean I don't understand why they are there, nor does it mean I feel I am entitled to watch it with no ads without paying a cent.
There's a chance that you may find someone in this world that cares that you think it's perfectly fine but you won't find them here in this conversation.
So what you are saying is you don't like the idea of youtube red? Then how on earth do you suggest they run youtube? What is your idea that is so much better?
As already mentioned there can be several business models implored to make money. Youtube could allow video makers to get paid even if the viewers skip the ads, as long as they play the first 5 seconds. Problem solved.
Clearly, you did not pay attention. Youtube is already losing money, they would lose even more money doing that. How is that problem solved? That is doing the opposite of what they need to be doing.
But that's youtube's problem and like I said before I don't care about making other people money.
Because your entitled .. we already established that. I know you don't care about anyone else.
But honestly, Curt was right. This entire time you have demonstrated the demeanor of a spoiled child that didn't get his way.
Sounds like projection. You are the one doing that. You are the one who wants there way without watching ads even though you know full well that is how the service works. I am just advocating to respect and do right by others. You may not like ads, and that is fine, but that doesn't mean you should screw over other people.
And as such you have done just as much to make me want to start using ad blocks as the actual ads themselves. Discussions are fine but throwing temper tantrums like you are just because everyone doesn't agree with you is not.
It's a debate . .not a temper tantrum. But I know character assassination is all you can do because you don't have very good arguments. Also .. there you go again. "everyone", Can you not construct a sentence without speaking for everyone else?
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Curt Sampson Sofware Developer 5 years ago
Brook, nobody's forcing anybody to generate content and put it up on YouTube or anywhere else. And nobody's got a right to tell me how I run my web browser on my machine. If you don't like the fact that I use an adblocker, you can either discuss it with me or you can stop putting up your content.

To tell me how I should be browsing the web is extremely entitled. Instead, try asking me for what you want, rather than demanding it.
Fair point, any suggestions besides a skip all ads suggestion lol?
Yes. Sit down and work out how to deliver ads to people without being so annoying. I read paper magazines and newspapers for years without being bothered at all by the ads (in fact, I not infrequently enjoyed reading the ads), and those publishers made good money from putting ads in front of me during their time. So it's not that I'm unwilling to have ads presented to me.

But it's got to be done in a way that doesn't annoy me. Had all you guys who are oh-so-pro-advertising-on-the-web approached it not as "we must force our viewers to look at and engage with ads because we deserve our money," but instead as, "how can I make browsing my site an enjoyable experience while still making revenue from it," this whole adblocker thing wouldn't be nearly as big a problem.

Advertisers, not consumers, dug this hole, and now it's up to them to dig themselves out of it. And it can be done, if they work together with the ad-blockers to set up a subtle way of letting users turn on ads for individual sites. I'd be willing to give most sites a single chance to show me ads, because I'm sympathetic to their need to make money. But as soon as ads get annoying (such as by blinking) the're going to get blocked again and blocked permanently, no matter what your pleas.

For most sites, my order of preference for how I read them is 1) without ads, 2) without annoying ads, 3) not at all, and 4) with annoying ads. I'm simply not willing to pay as much as it seems some publishers want for me to read their sites, and the sooner they get that through their heads, the sooner they'll be able to start making some money off me rather than none.
6Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Jace Merchandiser 5 years ago
Your recommendation is to essentially screw everyone over, because you don't like ads.
So it's ok for you to use ad blocks on sites that make revenue off of their ads playing but it's not ok for me to suggest having an option on youtube where video's can be skipped but also played in full depending on the viewer's choice? That non-logic makes perfect sense....to those wearing tin-foil hats.
Ya, and that is why they did what they did with the ads. The point of me pointing that out was to show you they had to make changes in order to even keep youtube surviving
And like I already said they are open to more than one business model. Just looking at the current skip video option you can either skip videos after they've played for a few seconds or click them closed once they open up during the middle of a video. So why can't they keep expanding upon that? Why can't they find other ways to make money on the site than just video ads? Just like the skip ad option didn't always exist I'd like to see them keep evolving.
I never said I knew everything nor am I acted like I do.
Yes you were and I was not the only one to comment on it. Which is why someone else also said you were acting entitled because that's how all of your post have come across.
you where, by assuming the 40% agreed with you
So because 40% of people polled by the person on youtube with the largest amount of subscribers said they use ad blockers I'm assuming that the majority of them don't like watching ads? Really? You probably should have thought that one through some more.
As for Felix going through it ... no idea what you mean.
You don't huh. Because I'm pretty sure that we have thrown that 40% quote around enough times by now that you should know what it means. So let me elaborate for you. 40% of viewers of yourtube's most successful video maker(based on ad revenue) use ad blockers, which means he's not making money in those circumstances. It doesn't hurt him like it does the smaller channels but he still goes through it and thus the impact is felt. But he at least understands why people use them.
I am saying if they would have done the above they would be in a worse situation.
Perhaps but you're still assuming. There has to be a lot of really smart people at Google/Youtube and I'm sure they can come up with additional ways to make revenue.
Just because you find something annoying doesn't mean it shouldn't exist
I never said ads shouldn't exist. I never said they need to get rid of all ads, I said that the option to skip all ads should be mandatory. For all we know they could make this option mandatory and find out that only 15% of people actually used it to skip ads.
It doesn't matter if ads can be annoying, that is how they have been getting paid.
I'd be inclined to take you serious if you weren't actively using ad blockers to.....block ads from sites and prevent those people/companies from getting paid. Bittersweet irony.
that doesn't mean I don't understand why they are there, nor does it mean I feel I am entitled to watch it with no ads without paying a cent.
I never said I don't understand why they are there. Also, I currently watch youtube(and have for years) without the use of ad blockers. If I felt entitled I would have ran an ad block program for that site a long time ago.
So what you are saying is you don't like the idea of youtube red? Then how on earth do you suggest they run youtube? What is your idea that is so much better?
I don't mind YTR because I won't be using it. I already made my suggestion but if you are asking what I would do to make them more money then I have no answer for you because that's not my job. That's what they are paying their exec's a lot of money for. YTR is another business model that one of those people came up with and now we'll see how that does for them.
Because your entitled
Again, says the guy who's actively using ad blockers to take money away from people on websites all across the internet. What's the over under that you are also blocking ads from here at GIBiz.
I know you don't care about anyone else.
Oh I do, just not you or your opinion.
I am just advocating to respect and do right by others. You may not like ads, and that is fine, but that doesn't mean you should screw over other people.
I hate to sound like a broken record but reading this from a person who's currently using ad blockers to screw people over by blocking their ad revenue is hilarious.
But I know character assassination is all you can do because you don't have very good arguments
That only works when the person you are dealing with has character. But a person telling you that you are wrong and entitled for wanting an option to skip all ads....while they themselves are skipping all ads all over the internet? That's not character, that's a hypocrite.
Can you not construct a sentence without speaking for everyone else?
You clearly have not read over your previous post.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@curt
Brook, nobody's forcing anybody to generate content and put it up on YouTube or anywhere else. And nobody's got a right to tell me how I run my web browser on my machine. If you don't like the fact that I use an adblocker, you can either discuss it with me or you can stop putting up your content.
ROFL ... ya no one is forcing anyone to make games either. Does that mean we shouldn't have to pay for them? lol, what a sorry excuse XD.
However, one thing you are right about is no one can tell you how to run your web browser on your machine. You can run it however you feel like. Doesn't mean I can't comment on it or tell you how I feel about it.

I honestly have a feeling the reason you two are arguing with me to begin with is because you are trying to justify what you are doing. Trying to find reassurance that you are not doing anything wrong.
Yes. Sit down and work out how to deliver ads to people without being so annoying.
So a 15 second ad .. to you is annoying? I mean .. that is a pretty short ad, kinda surprised you would be annoyed by it.
I read paper magazines and newspapers for years without being bothered at all by the ads (in fact, I not infrequently enjoyed reading the ads), and those publishers made good money from putting ads in front of me during their time. So it's not that I'm unwilling to have ads presented to me.
Which in turn makes no sense. So your argument is not about the ads in particular .. it's the kind of ads? See the issue is, it's not like youtube is in control on how the ads are made. I mean most of the ads are the same ads that appear on television. On top of that, most of the time they are catered to each individual and where they are located.

Unless you don't want any ads to play at all, in which case ... I don't know what to tell you. That is one of the ways youtube and youtubers make money. Without that, there simply is no youtube. That is why they now need youtube red. The ads they place on the sides that just sit there does not earn anything unless they are clicked. The same goes with those little ads that appear at the bottom of some videos.
But it's got to be done in a way that doesn't annoy me. Had all you guys who are oh-so-pro-advertising-on-the-web approached it not as "we must force our viewers to look at and engage with ads because we deserve our money," but instead as, "how can I make browsing my site an enjoyable experience while still making revenue from it," this whole adblocker thing wouldn't be nearly as big a problem.
I entirely agree with you. I even commented about that above .. which is why I use adblock myself. I block ads on sites that popup, popunder, or make random noises. To me that is abuse of using ads. However, to me, ads on a video isn't intrusive. It's been the way it's been done for many many years ever since TV. Though even further back radio. Youtube in particular plays about a 15 second ad, most of which you can skip. Yet you still find that intrusive? Cause if you ask me, compared to most media platforms .. that is pretty generous.
Don't understand what more you could want.

It's not like I am saying don't use adblock either, I use it. i am saying only block sites that really deserve to be blocked.
Advertisers, not consumers, dug this hole, and now it's up to them to dig themselves out of it. And it can be done, if they work together with the ad-blockers to set up a subtle way of letting users turn on ads for individual sites. I'd be willing to give most sites a single chance to show me ads, because I'm sympathetic to their need to make money. But as soon as ads get annoying (such as by blinking) the're going to get blocked again and blocked permanently, no matter what your pleas.
Again .. I agree. How is it that you are arguing with me ... when we agree so much? To me it sounds like you are misunderstanding me, because I am not saying don't use adblock if that si what you think I have been saying. I was talking very specifically about the small ads on youtube. The 15 second ads that really are so short, it shouldn't bother most people. If we are talking about ads that are obnoxious, sound making, blinking, popping up, popping under .. etc. I 100% agree with you. They are the reason I use adblock.
4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@Paul
So it's ok for you to use ad blocks on sites that make revenue off of their ads playing but it's not ok for me to suggest having an option on youtube where video's can be skipped but also played in full depending on the viewer's choice? That non-logic makes perfect sense....to those wearing tin-foil hats.
Incorrect, you seem to misunderstand. I don't use adblock on most sites. I only use adblock on sites that abuse ads. So please get that straight. Second, the issue with your suggestion is it is stupid and defeats the point of ads. They already do essentially what you are asking, but then there is also the option for content creators to also use non skipable ads. You are suggesting to get rid of that, and honestly, that would only make the situation worse. Again, they are losing money .. it makes no sense to do something that causes them to lose even more.
And like I already said they are open to more than one business model. Just looking at the current skip video option you can either skip videos after they've played for a few seconds or click them closed once they open up during the middle of a video. So why can't they keep expanding upon that? Why can't they find other ways to make money on the site than just video ads? Just like the skip ad option didn't always exist I'd like to see them keep evolving.
What do you suggest then?. It's irritating you keep saying they can use other business models but you are not giving any examples. What other models can they use besides ads and youtube red?
Yes you were and I was not the only one to comment on it. Which is why someone else also said you were acting entitled because that's how all of your post have come across.
Just because someone agrees with you doesn't make you correct. This isn't a popularity contest. Every person on this site could disagree with me, and it would not necessarily make me wrong.
So because 40% of people polled by the person on youtube with the largest amount of subscribers said they use ad blockers I'm assuming that the majority of them don't like watching ads? Really? You probably should have thought that one through some more.
Except I already pointed out that the 40% could have installed it for any number of reasons. It may not have been specifically installed due to youtube and the 15 seconds ads that play. They could have installed it because of other annoying ads on some other sites. I am pointing out that your assumption on the matter is baseless, because you don't actually know the exact reasons for why they installed adblock. The only thing you can accurately say is those 40% didn't like ads somewhere.
You don't huh. Because I'm pretty sure that we have thrown that 40% quote around enough times by now that you should know what it means. So let me elaborate for you. 40% of viewers of yourtube's most successful video maker(based on ad revenue) use ad blockers, which means he's not making money in those circumstances. It doesn't hurt him like it does the smaller channels but he still goes through it and thus the impact is felt. But he at least understands why people use them.
Ok ... so he is going through it. But he hardly feels it so why should his opinion matter over those who actually are feeling it? That was my point. You used Felix as an excuse for why you should use adblock, and I am pointing out to you, what he says doesn't matter when it comes down to it.
I never said ads shouldn't exist. I never said they need to get rid of all ads, I said that the option to skip all ads should be mandatory. For all we know they could make this option mandatory and find out that only 15% of people actually used it to skip ads.
Again ... they are losing money .. why do you think it would be a good idea to do something that would have a negative effect on them? Not only would all ads now be skippable, but it also means the platform is less desirable for to advertisers. Meaning it also can have a negative effect on those who decide to pay to put their ads on youtube. Less advertisers also equal less money.

It's simply not an option and that is what I am telling you. Your idea makes no sense in the given situation. They are looking to increase profits, not down size them. If anything a good idea would be to make all ads non skippable. While you may not like that, from a company perspective that is a solution. Also ... making videos unplayable with adblock enabled would also be a solution. Not favorable to the consumer but when a company is losing money, something has to be done.
I'd be inclined to take you serious if you weren't actively using ad blockers to.....block ads from sites and prevent those people/companies from getting paid. Bittersweet irony.
Except I only do so to those who abuse ads. To me that is a legitimate reason to use adblock. It's not like I am actively blocking ads in general across all sites.
I never said I don't understand why they are there. Also, I currently watch youtube(and have for years) without the use of ad blockers. If I felt entitled I would have ran an ad block program for that site a long time ago.
Good, that's very good. Which begs the question .. why are you arguing with me then? This all started because I explained to you why skipping all ads wouldn't work .. and then you got all pissy with me explaining how you don't want to watch ads.
I don't mind YTR because I won't be using it. I already made my suggestion but if you are asking what I would do to make them more money then I have no answer for you because that's not my job. That's what they are paying their exec's a lot of money for. YTR is another business model that one of those people came up with and now we'll see how that does for them.
Yes, but you are debating me, so if you want to prove your point the least you could do is come up with some way since you are suggesting there is some other way.
Again, says the guy who's actively using ad blockers to take money away from people on websites all across the internet. What's the over under that you are also blocking ads from here at GIBiz.
See the issue is .. you don't pay attention. I explained several times the types of ads I block. I do NOT block ads on websites unless they give me a reason too.
Oh I do, just not you or your opinion.
Right, if you say so.
I hate to sound like a broken record but reading this from a person who's currently using ad blockers to screw people over by blocking their ad revenue is hilarious.
Only hilarious because you failed at learning how to read properly. Again ... I hate to sound like a broken record, but I don't typically block ads. In fact it's pretty rare. The ads I block are the ones that start making sounds and crap anytime the cursor rolls over it for a split second. Popups, popunders .. etc. Most sites don't do that crap, so they are safe.
That only works when the person you are dealing with has character. But a person telling you that you are wrong and entitled for wanting an option to skip all ads....while they themselves are skipping all ads all over the internet? That's not character, that's a hypocrite.
If only you had an actual argument.
You clearly have not read over your previous post.
I may make a mistake now and then, but I highly doubt I have done it to the extent that you have.
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Curt Sampson Sofware Developer 5 years ago
Brook, I'm not trying to justify what I'm doing to myself; I believe firmly that there's no problem at all with what I'm doing. The publishers of any site I view can easily detect that I'm using disconnect.me and Adblock Plus, and they have the option to refuse to serve the content to me unless I disable these. They choose to serve me the content anyway. It's their decision, not mine.
Youtube in particular plays about a 15 second ad, most of which you can skip. Yet you still find that intrusive?
I had never mentioned this ads up to this point, so I don't know where you get the idea that I find them intrusive. I think you're making up stuff here.

That said, in fact I do often find such things annoying, and if a video on any site starts showing me an advertisement that I can't skip after five seconds if I find it uninteresting, I simply close that tab and go elsewhere.

If you ever end up in business and want to succeed there (not to mention stop coming across as insufferable in comment threads like this one), I suggest you drop your attitude of "I know better than you what you should and shouldn't like" and instead face the reality that you don't get to decide what is and isn't acceptable to consumers. If you are not willing to accept what people tell you about their own preferences (whether directly or indirectly), you'll find that you lose all of your sales to someone else who does listen.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Curt Sampson on 2nd November 2015 7:47am

5Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@Curt
Brook, I'm not trying to justify what I'm doing to myself; I believe firmly that there's no problem at all with what I'm doing. The publishers of any site I view can easily detect that I'm using disconnect.me and Adblock Plus, and they have the option to refuse to serve the content to me unless I disable these. They choose to serve me the content anyway. It's their decision, not mine.
Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.
I had never mentioned this ads up to this point, so I don't know where you get the idea that I find them intrusive. I think you're making up stuff here.
Those where the ads I was talking about with Paul. Are you telling me ... you didn't read the conversation and just decided to argue with me? You may not have mentioned it, but that was what I was talking about to begin with. Go back to the original comment that i responded to Paul, and you will see I have been talking specifically about those 15 second ads.

This was never about using adblock in general.
That said, in fact I do often find such things annoying, and if a video on any site starts showing me an advertisement that I can't skip after five seconds if I find it uninteresting, I simply close that tab and go elsewhere.
Yes, but not everyone does that. I realize you may not like ads .. and that is perfectly fine. You don't have to sit through them and watch them. Just close out of the video or site. Again, I agree with you. What I don't agree with though is the use of adblock in that situation to skip past those ads and watch the content for free. Especially since they are not that long and it's rare that you can't actually skip them.
I suggest you drop your attitude of "I know better than you what you should and shouldn't like" and instead face the reality that you don't get to decide what is and isn't acceptable to consumers.
I never did do that. All I have pointed out is that all the ads on youtube shouldn't be skippable because that would make things worse, and thinking you should be able to skip all the ads, is entitlement. I mean, you may think you should be able to skip all ads, but the least you can do is admit that is entitlement because you feel you are entitled to watch those videos with out any ads.

Don't go on a rant about how I think "I know better than you" when it is you who clearly has misunderstood me, or didn't read what was going on properly before commenting.
If you are not willing to accept what people tell you about their own preferences (whether directly or indirectly), you'll find that you lose all of your sales to someone else who does listen.
I am willing to listen, doesn't mean I have to accept the unreasonable. Not everyone preferences are reasonable. Making all ads skippable is not reasonable. So I honestly, couldn't give a crap what you or anyone else thinks who is being unreasonable. If the sale goes to someone, else .. I also wouldn't care. Chances are that sale was absolutely worthless anyway.

Let me ask you this ... as a software developer .. do you always listen to every single thing a customer may want or asks for? Cause usually you have to take suggestions and evaluate whether or not the suggestion fits in with what you are doing. It's the same with game development. You can't just add in every single thing a customer asks for. So just because someone wants something doesn't mean you need to give it to them.

So again, I don't care about yours, or Pauls preferences. Maybe offer a good argument for why you think ads should be skippable .. and then I may consider it. However, neither of you have given me any good reason for why this should be the case. Why should you be entitled to not watch any ads on youtube ever?

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Brook Davidson on 2nd November 2015 8:53am

2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Aleksi Ranta Category Management Project Manager 5 years ago
If people had experienced some value from viewing adds maybe they wouldnt have installed blocking sotfware. Just a thought.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Aleksi Ranta on 2nd November 2015 9:50am

7Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Rafa Ferrer Localisation Manager, Red Comet Media5 years ago
Aleksi:
If people had experienced some value from viewing adds maybe they wouldnt have installed blocking sotfware. Just a thought.
Nor would they ever pay for ad-free versions of sites and apps.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
ads dont add...value. They add rage quit, ad blockers or bypassing strategies.
4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Curt Sampson Sofware Developer 5 years ago
Rafa writes,
Nor would they ever pay for ad-free versions of sites and apps.
No. In fact, they might pay to get the adverts. Remember a magazine called Computer Shopper?

As for Brook, *sigh*.
What I don't agree with though is the use of adblock in that situation to skip past those ads and watch the content for free.
You may not agree with it, but who are you to tell the folks who made that content how they should distribute it (or not)? Remember: those owners made the decision to let me view the content without the ads, rather than choosing to detect that I'm running an ad blocker (which is very easy to do) and not serve me the content because I am.

Now you're coming across as doubly insufferable; you're not only deigning to tell me how I should browse the web, but you're also telling content producers that they shouldn't be distributing their content to those who skip ads because you don't personally approve of it. When are you going to figure out that you are not the arbiter of what people want and should want in this world?
All I have pointed out is that all the ads on youtube shouldn't be skippable because that would make things worse....
Actually, I completely disagree with this. Were I an advertiser on YouTube, I would very much want my ads to be skippable. Not only do I not want to piss off potential customers by forcing them to watch something that annoys them (thus probably forever associating my brand in their mind with "annoying"), but I'd also lose the feedback I can get from what is essentially allowing my audience to vote on whether the advert appeals to them.
...but the least you can do is admit that is entitlement because you feel you are entitled to watch those videos with out any ads.
No, I do not feel I am entitled to that at all. If the purveyors of those videos want to prevent me from watching them if I don't watch the adverts, they're perfectly within their rights to do that, and I will happily accept that. The fact is, they know I'm using adblock and they choose to let me see the videos anyway even though they could deny me that pleasure. The only person who thinks I shouldn't be voluntarily accepting what the video producers are voluntarily offering is you, and you're not even involved in this transaction otherwise.
I am willing to listen, doesn't mean I have to accept the unreasonable.
And since when are you the person who gets to decide for others what they should feel is and isn't "unreasonable"?
Let me ask you this ... as a software developer .. do you always listen to every single thing a customer may want or asks for?
Absolutely. As an engineering type with an extensive understanding of business, I'm shocked and frustrated by how people wilfully choose to do things in an inefficient, money-losing and frankly Just Wrong way. But I learned a long time ago that I don't well understand the motivations of the majority of people in this world, and I need to be humble enough to accept that, even though what they're doing is not right for me, they get to decide what's right for them. I've struggled mightily from time to time to implement for these folks things I didn't entirely understand (and I'm sad that this lack of understanding on my part probably led me to do a less than brilliant job of it), but while I'll make an attempt to bring these folks around to my point of view, I'm never so bold as to think that people are wrong to be happy in their own way rather than mine.
So again, I don't care about yours, or Pauls preferences.
No. Nor, frankly, do we care about yours, especially when your preference is more about telling us what to do than about what you yourself do. You could at the very least uninstall your own adblocking software yourself before lecturing us about how awful it is to block adverts.
5Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paolo Giunti Narrative Designer 5 years ago
ads dont add...value. They add rage quit, ad blockers or bypassing strategies.
Well, to tell the truth....

When i go to the cinema, i actually welcome trailers of future movie releases.
If i'm reading a webcomic, seeing a banner pointing to another webcomic is actually likely to prompt me to click it.
These ads do add some value because they make me aware of other content that is similar to what i'm already looking for.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Paolo Giunti on 2nd November 2015 6:28pm

6Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Rafa Ferrer Localisation Manager, Red Comet Media5 years ago
@Curt:
Were I an advertiser on YouTube, I would very much want my ads to be skippable.
And you would have that. YouTube lets content creators choose their advertising model. Skippable, non-skippable video ads or no videos at all and have just AdSense featured videos on the related sidebar (you can combine these options as you please). And they do warn that non-skippable video ads will translate to less views due to rage quits, like Dr. Chee mentioned, so of course they know better than to make all ads non-skippable.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Craig Page El Presidente, Awesome Enterprises5 years ago
I didn't realize how much people hated web ads, I always found it easy to click the X to close the ad and continue to the site, or to wait 5 seconds on YouTube and skip it.

One place I actually ENJOYED ads was the Xbox Live dashboard, it was all ads for new games or for game sales. I miss that with the PS4, where they've buried all of that deep within their store hidden beneath a thousand menu and submenu choices.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@Craig
I know right. I didn't realize so many people actually hated them this much. It's nuts because I thought our society pretty much was used to it. I mean Radio and TV started with ads and it's been that way ... well forever since then.

I feel like the people who hate ads and want to actually skip them entirely, they probably don't realize how much that actually effects whether a service is free or not. I mean here we have Google who is known for running pretty much everything on ads, going to an actual service for once. It's pretty unprecedented for Google to do something like this. But when you have something that is losing money, I suppose you just have to do something.

What is even more sad is we have a whole bunch of people who simply don't care, which is crazy. I can't understand how so many people like youtube, but are willing to screw them and content creators over.

You have 2 sides. Those who are content creators and those who are content consumers. Many content creators despise adblock. It's actually become a pretty big topic around the network I am part of. It pops up now and then. Then you have the content consumers whom many love adblock and feel they shouldn't have to watch ads. But they also feel they shouldn't have to pay for the content either. Not really sure how you solve such a problem other than forcing it and not allowing something like adblock. I really think it's the only legitimate way to solve the underlying issue.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@Rafa
Curt already knows that, he wants those non skippable ads to become skippable. In other words, he feels the content creators shouldn't have a choice to put non skippable ads on their content. His reasoning is because he doesn't like ads.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Connor Martin Aspiring game designer/tester 5 years ago
A more intelligent and well thought implementation of advertisements would reduce the need for excessive adblocking. I use it and will often see the counter go up to 30+, maybe 50+ on a channel with a bit of a spotlight, which is why many turn to a patreon as it is a far more convincing and proactive way of assisting people you believe make quality entertainment or what have you.

When I stop seeing 20 second advertisements on a 40 second clip, I might feel a bit better about turning it off.....oh and playlists, I can't have 150 videos or more set-up to all start with some infuriating recent musician telling me to go listen to their crud for 30 seconds, yes I will refresh constantly to get a skippable ad and even then it is work where there shouldn't be.
4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@Connor
When I stop seeing 20 second advertisements on a 40 second clip, I might feel a bit better about turning it off
In other words, because of a select few who do crap like that, rather than just not watching their content anymore you would rather use adblock and block all ads which also punishes those who don't do that.

I guess I must be one of the select few here who actually cares that using adblock on everything actually causes problems for other people. Not sure why, but I expected more people to feel similarly.

It's one of those things that is going to eventually come back to bite everyone in the ass. Pardon my language. Well .. we will just have to wait and see how this all goes. Hopefully youtube red ends up being successful. If it's not, I can't imagine what they are going to do next.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Jace Merchandiser 5 years ago
Incorrect, you seem to misunderstand. I don't use adblock on most sites
Saying "I use ad blocks but..." just comes across as nothing but excuse making. You've been pretending to be all high and mighty saying that I should not have suggested a mandatory skip option or that ad blockers shouldn't be used and yet you are doing just that. Save your excuses for someone who cares.
What do you suggest then?. It's irritating you keep saying they can use other business models but you are not giving any examples
Which part of "that's not my job" do you not understand? They pay people a lot of money for that very reason. It's up for them to come up with other models, not me.
Just because someone agrees with you doesn't make you correct.
It proved my point.
Except I already pointed out that the 40% could have installed it for any number of reasons.
You mean another reason like, oh I don't know, that they don't like ads? Didn't I just say that in the post you replied to? There's no assumption there, you install ad blockers to block ads regardless of which site's spur you on.
Ok ... so he is going through it. But he hardly feels it so why should his opinion matter over those who actually are feeling it?
His opinion matters for precisely why I said it does, he is experiencing this right now. You on the other hand are not, which makes his opinion on this situation actually matter while yours is essentially worthless.
Except I only do so to those who abuse ads. To me that is a legitimate reason to use adblock
I see you have more excuses. Show me 10,000 people who pirate music, games and movies and they will give you 10,000 legitimate reasons why they do it.
Good, that's very good. Which begs the question .. why are you arguing with me then? This all started because I explained to you why skipping all ads wouldn't work .. and then you got all pissy with me explaining how you don't want to watch ads.
Actually you were the one being pissy when you told me that if I don't like the way ads work then I need to get the hell off of youtube along with several other childish ranting. But regardless of where it's gone I wouldn't have listened to you anyway because.....
See the issue is .. you don't pay attention. I explained several times the types of ads I block. I do NOT block ads on websites unless they give me a reason too.
So you want to lure me away from the evils of ad blocking and yet you are doing it and probably have been for awhile. Sure you say you don't block ads from some websites but at this point your sincerity is pretty suspect. You're like a serial bank robber trying to tell other people not to steal dvd's from the store. That opinion just can't be taken seriously. Get back to me when you don't use ad blockers.
Only hilarious because you failed at learning how to read properly. Again ... I hate to sound like a broken record, but I don't typically block ads. In fact it's pretty rare
Uh huh, I'm sure it's rare. I'm sure you only added ad blocks for a handful of sites and you never forget to add sites to your accepted list. Do unicorns live in your neighborhood as well. How about Yetti.
If only you had an actual argument.
Me: "I've been thinking about using ad blocks for yourtube but I'd like if they made skipping ads mandatory."

You: "What?? Skipping ads is stupid. That's the way it is and if you don't like it get the hell off of youtube. When you use ad blocks to skip ads you screw people out of making money, which is exactly what I do but I'm going to sit on this centimeter tall high horse and pretend I don't really use ad blocks on most sites. And spoiler alert, I use ad blocks for here on GIBiz too but don't tell anyone, tee hee. What's that? You ask why I'm allowed to use ad blocks but condemn other people for doing it? Because I'm the attention grabbing king of the world, woo-hoo!!!!!"

Seems about right and backs up my argument perfectly.
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@Paul
Saying "I use ad blocks but..." just comes across as nothing but excuse making. You've been pretending to be all high and mighty saying that I should not have suggested a mandatory skip option or that ad blockers shouldn't be used and yet you are doing just that. Save your excuses for someone who cares.
You really need to learn to read. I have not once said using adblock is wrong or it shouldn't be used. I said it shouldn't be used in specific situations. The reason you keep bringing it up though is because it's the only argument you can make, even though it's a stretch.
Which part of "that's not my job" do you not understand? They pay people a lot of money for that very reason. It's up for them to come up with other models, not me.
I don't care if it's not your job, if you can't at least come up with an idea that you claim exists, then stop arguing with me. You made a claim .. so now prove it.
You mean another reason like, oh I don't know, that they don't like ads? Didn't I just say that in the post you replied to? There's no assumption there, you install ad blockers to block ads regardless of which site's spur you on.
We are talking specifically certain types of ads, or have you forgotten that? This conversation was never about all ads.


It proved my point.
No you did not, you have not presented anything besides an immature argument for why you think you should be able to skip through every single ad.
His opinion matters for precisely why I said it does, he is experiencing this right now. You on the other hand are not, which makes his opinion on this situation actually matter while yours is essentially worthless.
I already mentioned i am a youtuber, so I am experiencing it as well. which means by your standards my opinion matters too. But I forgot you don't know how to read .. which is probably why you didn't know that even though I already mentioned it once already.
I see you have more excuses. Show me 10,000 people who pirate music, games and movies and they will give you 10,000 legitimate reasons why they do it.
Yep .. you keep using that as your go to argument because you have not got one. Please try to come up with something better. I already explained several times I don't use adblock other than for the ads that are intrusive. Not really an excuse .. at least nothing like yours. I mean if you think this makes me look bad, just think about how bad it makes you look lol. You are the one essentially talking about how you don't like ads and think you deserve to be able to skip them all.
Actually you were the one being pissy when you told me that if I don't like the way ads work then I need to get the hell off of youtube along with several other childish ranting. But regardless of where it's gone I wouldn't have listened to you anyway because.....
Yes, people who need to use adblock on youtube .. really should get the hell off youtube .. they are ruining it. However, we already established you only care about yourself because you don't mind screwing everything up apparently. If you consider it childish to tell people who do not contribute, to get the hell out .. then I will accept being childish. Big deal, at least I know I am not causing issues for other people.
So you want to lure me away from the evils of ad blocking and yet you are doing it and probably have been for awhile.
Never said that, but of course we all know it's your only argument. You have to keep bringing up that I use adblock as if I am against it. Maybe if you learned to read, you would know I am not against adblock in particular.
Sure you say you don't block ads from some websites but at this point your sincerity is pretty suspect. You're like a serial bank robber trying to tell other people not to steal dvd's from the store. That opinion just can't be taken seriously. Get back to me when you don't use ad blockers.
Same boring argument, that is just fallacious. Please try to come up with something new and something that actually makes sense please.
Uh huh, I'm sure it's rare. I'm sure you only added ad blocks for a handful of sites and you never forget to add sites to your accepted list. Do unicorns live in your neighborhood as well. How about Yetti.
Oh .. but did you know there is an option that only blocks sites you add to a list? You just go into options and click "Show ads everywhere except for these domains..."
Heck, you don't even need to block the whole sites ads, you can block specific ads too. All you have to do is click "Block an ad by its URL"

Sorry that you seem so dang ignorant on the subject. Maybe you should do some research and come back to me before you start an argument you seem to know nothing about.
You: "What?? Skipping ads is stupid. That's the way it is and if you don't like it get the hell off of youtube. When you use ad blocks to skip ads you screw people out of making money, which is exactly what I do but I'm going to sit on this centimeter tall high horse and pretend I don't really use ad blocks on most sites.
Again .. same argument. On top of that, you are now also assuming I block most ads. In other words you now have to make things up for your argument because you know your arguments are terrible. You will try anything to be correct .. even lying.
And spoiler alert, I use ad blocks for here on GIBiz too but don't tell anyone, tee hee.
See .. more lying because you can't win with merit. Just more and more character assassination. How about you come back with an actual argument that doesn't require making crap up?
You ask why I'm allowed to use ad blocks but condemn other people for doing it? Because I'm the attention grabbing king of the world, woo-hoo!!!!!"
Never said I was against using ad block .. but I suppose with your 1st grade reading level .. that's what it may have sounded like I said. I suggest you go and reread what I said, and stop trying to make me out to be the bad person when I have already clearly stated several times what I use adblock for. Hell my very first comment on this thread explains it. In fact I didn't use adblock for the longest time, until they started doing the things I explained on that comment.

But hey .. I know you liek to lie, so try and make up more lies about me to suit your argument .. go ahead. I will always come back to refute them over and over again until you can't take it anymore. I can do this all day.
Seems about right and backs up my argument perfectly.
You essentially spoke for me all the while making lies, and than used that to try and win the argument. ROFL That is pretty funny.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Brook Davidson on 3rd November 2015 1:47am

2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Curt Sampson Sofware Developer 5 years ago
Curt already knows that, he wants those non skippable ads to become skippable. In other words, he feels the content creators shouldn't have a choice to put non skippable ads on their content. His reasoning is because he doesn't like ads.
You might want to reconsider how much you're going to go on accusing others of having poor reading and comprehension skills when you're getting my options completely backwards from what they really are.

I believe the exact opposite of what you said: I believe content publishers ought to have the choice of doing whatever they like. If they want to have non-skippable adverts, I have no problem at all with that. What I get the feeling you're objecting to is not my opinion toward content creators, but my opinion that content consumers can also do whatever they like in reaction to what content creators do, including installing ad-blocking software.

I also get the feeling you have some sort of issue with consumers viewing content without viewing the adverts when the publishers voluntarily allow this. (The technical means for not delivering content to users who use ad blocking software are not difficult.) Basically, you've got consumers consuming content in a way they want, publishers delivering content in a way that they clearly want to allow, and you're poking your nose in to this voluntary arrangement between two parties that has nothing to do with you and telling them they should be doing things differently.
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@Curt
You might want to reconsider how much you're going to go on accusing others of having poor reading and comprehension skills when you're getting my options completely backwards from what they really are.
Sorry, actually I mistook you for Paul, since I am arguing with you two back and fourth. Paul is the one who believe all the ads should be non skippable. Again .. sorry for confusing you with him.

I believe the exact opposite of what you said: I believe content publishers ought to have the choice of doing whatever they like. If they want to have non-skippable adverts, I have no problem at all with that.
Ya, you and I agree for the most part, besides the whole choice of using adblock on youtube.
What I get the feeling you're objecting to is not my opinion toward content creators, but my opinion that content consumers can also do whatever they like in reaction to what content creators do, including installing ad-blocking software.
Yes, content consumers most certainly can do so, but I don't think it's the right thing to do. But I suppose if youtube allows it, I can't argue with that. It's not my decision to make. However, I do consider it along the same lines of pirating to an extent because by all means the ads are part of the youtube service and you are bypassing it illegitimately. If they wanted you too use adblock .. they wouldn't be adding that as a part of youtube red. They are hoping people will drop adblock and pay the monthly fee.

If it doesn't work out .. that choice they give you may no longer be a choice.
I also get the feeling you have some sort of issue with consumers viewing content without viewing the adverts when the publishers voluntarily allow this.
Voluntarily allow it is pretty strong claim when youtube doesn't actually come out and say such a thing. They may not block the use right now, but that doesn't mean it will always stay like that. The more people who abuse adblock, the more likely youtube is going to have to do something about it. Especially if people are unwilling to pay for youtube red.

You seem to be under the impression that just because they allow it, that means it's ok. When in reality it's causing problems, and you know they don't want you to use it.
Basically, you've got consumers consuming content in a way they want, publishers delivering content in a way that they clearly want to allow, and you're poking your nose in to this voluntary arrangement between two parties that has nothing to do with you and telling them they should be doing things differently.
Incorrect, I am talking about skipping ads that are not meant to be skippable. No where, not once have I said that I think people shouldn't be able to skip ads that are skippable. In fact, if content creators don't want to turn on non skippable ads, I am fine with that.

The only thing I am against is skipping ads that are not meant to be skipped. The only exceptions being ads that are intrusive, and when I mean intrusive I mean causes problems. Like loud noises, popups, popunders, or anything else that could possibly be malicious.

Skipping ads that are not meant to be skipped other wise is wrong, because that is part of the service you are using. Skipping them very well could be violating the ToS of using the service. Actually even for youtube adblock is violating the ToS because it states under the ToS that any change to the service is a violation. Word for word "You agree not to alter or modify any part of the Service."

So while they may not enforce it, it doesn't make it right to do.


Edit:
Technically, Paul is right about the fact, even for me it's wrong that I am using adblock, even if the ads are intrusive. The correct response would be to simply not use the service / site. Which honestly, I may just start doing that instead.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Brook Davidson on 3rd November 2015 4:05am

2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Jace Merchandiser 5 years ago
The reason you keep bringing it up though is because it's the only argument you can make, even though it's a stretch.
I keep bringing it up because it's relevant and defeats the whole point of your argument. You have constantly tried to tell me how I should have to watch ads on youtube while you are using your ad block software to block ads all over the place. So no it's not a stretch and I won't ignore it. It also means your word isn't worth anything.
I don't care if it's not your job, if you can't at least come up with an idea that you claim exists, then stop arguing with me. You made a claim .. so now prove it.
Do I have to prove something to miss high and mighty? Nope. Would I even care to do such a thing? Nope. Do you acually understand what "that's not my job" means? Apparently not.
We are talking specifically certain types of ads
Since when. Ad blocks block all ads, regardless if you installed them for youtube or any other site. So again, there's no other reason why those people would be using that software if they didn't want to block ads.
you have not presented anything besides an immature argument for why you think you should be able to skip through every single ad
I gave a suggestion for not having to sit through annoying ads I don't want to watch. You went on a temper tantrum because you didn't agree with me. I then suggested wanting to use ad blocks and you went on another temper tantrum about how that screws people out of making money....even though you yourself do that. You're the one with no real argument.
I already mentioned i am a youtuber
And I bet your channel is called the hypocrisy hour, filled with nothing but childish rants, lunatic rationales and pointless arguments about nothing. Your subscribers must be thrilled, both of them.
Please try to come up with something better
Better than someone telling me not to do something they feel is wrong despite the fact that they are doing it? Why would I need to do that, especially when it will just lead to more of your silly excuses.
You are the one essentially talking about how you don't like ads and think you deserve to be able to skip them all.
Actually if you could read you'd notice that I'm far from the only one on here commenting that I'd like more options to skip ads. And saying that doesn't make any of us look bad. Although if you meant that to mean that it makes us look bad to you then I don't know about the rest of them but that certainly wouldn't bother me in the least.
Yes, people who need to use adblock on youtube .. really should get the hell off youtube .. they are ruining it.
There you go again trying to speak for everyone.
because you don't mind screwing everything up
Before you called it screwing people over for taking away their money. You know, like the money you take from them with your ad block software. Last time I checked I didn't possess any of that.
Please try to come up with something new and something that actually makes sense please.
It makes perfect sense to those with reading comprehension skills. Its's not my fault you can't keep up but I can suggest some good educational sites.
Again .. same argument. On top of that, you are now also assuming I block most ads. In other words you now have to make things up
No I'm pretty sure you installed that software to use it, not to just let it sit there. That's not making things up, it's the truth. One day you may actually learn what that is although I have my doubts.
See .. more lying because you can't win with merit. Just more and more character assassination
If you didn't add GIB to your list then the ads would be blocked and you've proven time and time again that you can't be taken for your word . And please stop the nonsense whining, we already established that you have zero character. There's nothing to assassinate.
Never said I was against using ad block
Really?
Yes, people who need to use adblock on youtube .. really should get the hell off youtube
Sure sounds like you are against it. But keep lying if it makes you feel better.
stop trying to make me out to be the bad person
I didn't have to do anything, your replies did that. I personally don't think you are a bad person at all, not very bright but that doesn't necessarily mean you are bad.
I can do this all day.
If I didn't have a job and a social life I could do it all day too.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Paul Jace on 3rd November 2015 6:59am

2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Shirley Programmers 5 years ago
Entertaining as the 'who's most entitled' bickering is (no, it really isn't) adblocking is no longer just about removing eye melting abuse from web pages, it's now a serious attack vector for malware. The entire shaky pile of markets and shady middlemen selling ad space needs dismantling in favour of more controllable and safe approaches. One with legal liabilities of business wrecking scale that can't be evaded by pointing at a middleman ad spot auction site.

If they ever do fix this cesspit I will continue to block any and all executable media formats. Until they overwhelmingly restrain themselves to genuinely unobtrusive text+images everything will stay blocked. Offsite links, not a chance.

The biz has not just made it dangerous to users, the incessant tracking and brain damaged targeting has made online advertising nearly irrelevant to most of us. I really never need to see ads for something I've just researched or bought, yet that's all it seems to achieve.

@brook, yes, some of us do hate advertising that much. I stopped seeing them back in the 1980's when VCR appeared and rejoiced when ad skip buttons were invented. It turns out on the web the only sites I find invaluable don't bother advertising intrusively or at all. Maybe it's because I don't spend my day watching cat videos.
5Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Curt Sampson Sofware Developer 5 years ago
However, I do consider it along the same lines of pirating to an extent because by all means the ads are part of the youtube service and you are bypassing it illegitimately.
There is nothing at all illegitimate about using an ad blocker. It's not breaking any laws, it's clearly indicated to YouTube that you're using one, and YouTube has the technical capabilities to block content from those using adblockers if they wish. They clearly do not wish, or they would be doing it.
Voluntarily allow it is pretty strong claim when youtube doesn't actually come out and say such a thing
Nor do the people who post videos on YouTube include notices that say explicitly, "I was not forced to post this video; I did it voluntarily." I suppose my claim that, despite the lack of these notices, that the people posting videos on YouTube are doing it voluntarily would be equally, "pretty strong."

Trust me, the engineers at Google are not so incompetent that they're sitting around wishing they could stop serving content to users of ad blocking software but crippled by the fact that they can't figure out how to do it. Google has solved much, much, much harder problems than this.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.