this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
571 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
60080 readers
3331 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can't blame them for wanting to restore monetization as adblockers removed most of the revenue from those platforms. But fighting adblockers is not a way to do this. They should either change entire YouTube business model to pay to access, or rework ads to be less annoying. If ads were not annoying as fuck, people wouldn't be pushed to install adblock in the first place. Adblock became popular when video ads with sound started popping up on the websites. This includes video ads in YouTube videos, people just hate to watch video ads.
For every person using an ad blocker there's 10,000 that don't. Going after the fraction of a percent of perceived lost revenue from people who wouldn't click your ads or buy your products anyway is just the epitome of greed.
Agreed. There is always a subset of customers in which a business loses money. The corporations today have grown soft and cannot stomach a loss. It's time we stop catering to weak companies and start catering to those who understand the risks associated with owning a business.
Nah, their problem is some analyst, which does not understand what he was speaking of, who decide that the company should grow by x% in the next quarter. If the company grow only by x -1 % then investors sell, the stock lose value, the shareholders are poorer and the big wings of the company may lose their job due to "loss of confidence in the management" from the shareholders.
True, true. Building their own gallows.
Are ads cheaper now? I imagine with combined slots of ads, their duration, size on the screen they aren't as expensive as they were and letting their clients get more for the same price. Compare one textual block from early android's free apps to fullscreen video ads being a norm, same with youtube, chains of long videos. It seems they caused the deterioration of their own market. I imagine what actual statistics of clicks-per-show look like if they are so desperate. We sometimes hear of how premium superbowl or olympics ads are, and here it feels the exclusivity of access to consumer isn't valued. You buy a slot, but your ad is sandwiched between other random products. How is that exclusive? Businesses would get used to it, but their incencitive isn't there. If they pay big bucks, they want to buy a billboard, not a small string in a tabloid.
As other person have said, users with blocks are a minority. But, what's important, bashing them is a reputational thing. Google's advertising and data-farming business. This gesture is good to promote at the board meating, to their regulars, and maybe charge a bit more. Also important that these blockers kill tracking devices like invisible pixels, so it may be a bigger reason to implement that than some loss of ad revenue.
Google is very smart with ad prices because they are actually not constant. Advertisers have bots that bid how much they want to pay for an ad, determining based on user data how much it's worth for them, and if your bot wins, your ad is shown. That's why if some advertiser decides to pay a lot to a lot of user groups, the same freaking ads are being shown to you all the time