top of page

Youtube and the Ad Blocker Dilemma

I recently joined a Reddit group discussing Youtube and the rollout to block users from using ad blockers. Now as part of their community guidelines for those who want to view videos on YouTube have been greeted with the following message:

Of course, this garnered a lot of responses from those complaining about the intrusive ads to those bantering to the complainers to shut up or pay for it.

I’m sure the ones who are sitting there saying, “shut up and pay for it”, aren’t shedding out any money not to see ads either and probably will spend money at some point to serve their addiction to YouTube, since they are claiming the other side has an addiction.

Or it could be creators, trolling reddit to see who’s complaining, since most creators have made YouTube their sole bread and butter with no back up plan, at least from what I can tell and what I have seen with other creators, and I’ll get into that in a minute.

As a person who studied business management, as many of my peers I know, I can understand both sides.

Google rolling out this “remove your ad blocker or else pay”, doesn’t seem to sit well with a lot of users who are correct in claiming the ads are pointless, intrusive and really have nothing to do with the users who see these ads or are interested in making any purchases for anything being advertised.

To add further intrusion, when a message pops up on your screen from YouTube, “disable your ad blocker or else”, seems to give off vibes, if anyone disobeys Google, will experience horrible ramifications like, you won’t be able to watch YouTube videos anymore or will this go a step further and experience strike punishments as a creator does and be banned from checking email for a week.

Most times than not, due to mass reporting, creators have experienced receiving emails from YouTube from either copyright claims, blocked or removed videos or one of the worst to receive, when a creator receives a strike.

(You can find more information here when it comes to strikes and violating community guidelines,won't%20get%20a%20strike.)

Due to the inception of community guidelines, which we all need in one form or another, creators who receive emails regarding copyright claims or strikes will receive an explanation what video resulted in the strike, what policy the video violated, how this affects your channel and what are the next steps you can take in order to continue creating content for your channel.

Other times, mass reporting of a video can take on a whole different form which can stem from haters who disagree with your content, since people have high differences of opinion, they don’t know how to let go and continue living, feeling the need to harass a creator for their differences of opinion.

On top of that, since it seems social media chooses what hate seems to be acceptable, especially from the right-wing media who continue to spew hate by using their faux religious concepts to control a group of people, they feel, have gotten “out of control”.

I’ve noticed too, some creators choose very carefully how to spread their own form of hate, by using celebrity back stories and mind you – I’m not talking about white people doing this. Sadly, there are creators with their own agenda to continue to spew hate, while purporting their “victim” mentality on to others.

We certainly do not live in a world where people can’t just agree to disagree. Remember the days of changing the channel. You can do that on YouTube as well. It’s called keep scrolling.

The horrible thing about having broken guidelines is when YouTube makes decisions about demonetizing your channel, since most creators have YouTube as their sole or main income. I’ve seen creators post videos about getting an email informing them their channel getting demonetized, claiming it came out of nowhere. I’m sure they’ve received emails before, since they do lay that note out in their policies I linked in this article. So, to say it’s random, can be questionable.

Additionally, I don’t know the processes or procedures once YouTube has received a report about a creator, if it in fact, it can be a random decision to demonetize without someone sending some type of reporting a video.

In defense to those creators who are reported, without previous violations of a video, are the people at YouTube actually watching the video or are they taking the complainer’s report at face value, if the creator has not received any previous emails regarding their channel’s content and then making a hasty decision to demonetize if the channel has had no history of violations.

The ideal thing is to investigate and give the creator a chance or to rectify the issue, if there is in fact an issue that may need to be addressed. However, to investigate means a human needs to sit down and actually view the video without disruptions and if they don’t have the manpower to do that, then there has to be another solution. As much as people may hate it, not all videos are breaking guidelines and if YouTube sees mass reporting of a video, before making decisions on taking down a channel or demonetizing a creator’s works, they should really do their homework.

If the “executives” aren’t doing their due diligence to create a working conducive environment for a creator and appealing to the masses who are in their hurt feelings, this can be extremely unproductive and petty on their behalf.

During an appeal, before any decision is made, critical thinking skills must be involved in the process and not base their decision on a snowflake’s feelings.

It kind of feels like a credit card, you buy something, it’s taken out immediately, but if there was a mistake you have to wait 7 to 10 business days for the transaction to resolve before the money is returned to your card.

“Pointless Advertising”

No matter how much “personal information” Google claims not to collect from you, they assume these are the ads you want to see, according to age, location, the type of content you are watching, etc.

Here are just some of the variety of pointless ads we’ve seen multiply over time on YouTube:

Multi-level marketing type ads (MLM) which may or may not include “affiliate marketing”. Most of these ads are promoted by Youtubers. Some Youtubers have taken up the MLM themselves, creating content while promoting luxury lifestyles and how you too can live the same lives, just by simply ripping people off. But they “fail” to tell you how they are ripping you off first.

Affiliate marketing is a bit different, as most affiliates include a code to use at check out for a product, therefore the creator may receive an incentive every time the code is used or a special bulk rate for the creator (I’m guessing), where the creator can make money when their audience uses the code.

Mental health awareness ads have become one of the bigger ads most creators promote, especially when the pandemic took over our lives. Since people could not go out, online video platforms took over and had become available for those who were looking for therapy.

While Youtubers rave about this one particular service, after a little bit of research, I discovered, they charge an exuberant amount of money per month. In addition to the offer code, which really doesn’t discount by much, I’ve heard stories about this online service, where therapists are usually either aren’t available or they decide to dump you and tell you to find someone else to help you…. allegedly.

And then the tired car insurance ad, for which I don’t think the advertisement or its mascots, would get anyone to change their minds about changing their car insurance, especially if it requires a hassle of paperwork.

In this day and age where everyone is foolishly all about themselves, why does anyone want to waste their time changing something that isn’t broken.

This is a double edge sword comment mind you.

While being selfish isn’t totally a bad thing, the flip side to this dilemma is, where are the options to give someone a choice to accept the changes without using extortion as a means to get you to comply, which in essence, this is what Google is doing.

While the ads are irrelevant to say the least, it doesn’t help when multiple ads play throughout the video, giving the user an unpleasant experience to finish watching a video they enjoy while supporting the creator.

A great source of this example is Snapchat. While I love Snapchat or the funny face filters, (which haven’t been as funny as when it first launched), there are different stories you can click on and once you become invested in the story, an ad pops up, with no relation to you or the story and I can’t tell you how many times, I’ve clicked out of the story, never knowing what happened next.

On the flip side, as a retail store owner selling lotions, CBD and Hemp products, including metaphysical items, would I like my products to be front and center for a user to see and perhaps purchase, fuck yeah. Why not?

But what if that user is a religious person, who has zero interests in alternative products. It can spark their curiosity, but that doesn’t mean they will buy something. Therefore, my store will be reaching the wrong customer, thus making it an unpleasant experience for both the user and me.

Why? The answer is simple.

Google is a monopoly of the content creator platform and creators monopolize the use of the platform. In that equation, Google and the content creator are making money from the shared revenue agreement.

No one creates content with ads in mind, being the creator has no clue what ads will play in between the videos and how many times those ads will play.

Google will make money regardless.

I, however, as a business owner will have to make the advertising enticing enough in order for me to make money, in addition, I would need to make multiple ads to condition a user to see it time and time again so they can remember it. The double edge sword to having a person see my ads time and time again can also annoy them, as we’ve seen in Temu.

A person having their ads play on someone’s video isn’t technically making money, unless the user is buying a product from that ad.

I remember last year, there was a tarot creator I used to follow. I really liked her vibe and how she expressed herself in her videos, so I set up my notifications, so when she went live, I would sit in my office to listen and engage with others in the chat room.

At some point when I had entered into the chatroom for one of her live readings, I noticed she made me a moderator, which I was fine with for that day. She mentioned whoever got into the chatroom first, she made them a moderator. I was like, well okay, for as long as she understood I couldn’t commit all the time, I was good with being a moderator ‘as needed’.

One day, as we were all waiting on the countdown, I got trapped of not being able to skip a political ad, which for me, was pointless. I was tired of the political ads, everyone bashing each other, while saying what a great job they will do. I mentioned this to one of the others in the chat room and they also mentioned how annoying they found them as well.

Later that week, I reached out to her on Instagram, via voice thanking her for the reading. She in turn replied and inquired if she had made me a moderator and I answered yes. She then replied back to let me know she “un-modded” me due to the comment I made about “pointless ads” and, “you do know that’s how I get paid”.

I was taken aback by this and explained to her that wasn’t my intention, as the ad related to politics, and I was tired of seeing repetitive ads. I also mentioned I didn’t mean to offend her in any way or take away anything she was doing, as she had my full support.

Meanwhile, I was the offended one, due to her childish response and how she conveniently forgot, I was one of the few people, every time she came on live, donating to her channel out of my own pocket.

After this interaction, every time I joined her live, I couldn’t get out of my head her response to me and it did not sit well, even while trying to stay subscribed and committed in supporting her channel.

The feeling of being spoken down bothered me tremendously.

Was I this “meany” who didn’t like ads, but yet, I still gave money out from my pocket to support her.

Even after this interaction, I noticed when I did donate money to her during her lives, normally she would mention me by name, thanking me for the “energy donation”.

While she did say thank you, she used a generalized thank you statement.

Sort of defeats the “YouTube” rule, when you donate money on a live, normally you would get mentioned by name. I think some creators forget they can always give that money to someone else.

I soon unfollowed her on Instagram while remaining subscribed to her channel.

From there, I could no longer tolerate the innuendoes of how she makes her money, almost as if I was getting thrown jabs for the comment I made again and again, ignoring I wasn’t the only one who made that comment.

On top of that, the “extra” she provided in her videos about her personal life and not really focusing on what the content was, why we were all there, was becoming absurd and annoying.

Am I being too harsh right now as I’m writing this?

Absolutely I am.

Understand why I am being harsh.

The “YouTube” Beginnings

Over the years, when YouTube first began, there wasn’t the content we see now. It was more like shorts, but in a longer form.

YouTube was started by three former PayPal employees in February 2006. Google acquired it in November 2006 for 1.65 billion dollars.

If you were offered that kind of money, would you turn it down?

There are people who begin something with the goal of selling it for tons of money.

Once Google had their hands on the video sharing platform, was when all began to change. If there were members sharing music, now the copyright infringements came to form.

Of course, if you have a reaction channel to music, I’m sure there are rules in place of how long to play the song, while commenting in between, that way the whole song isn’t playing in one shot.

Content creators who wanted to use music in their videos were not allowed to use copyrighted material as an introduction to their videos, unless they have written permission or have licensed and paid to use copyrighted material and must show proof of that particular copyright.

Having this knowledge, this gave other platforms to give musical creators to upload their material, which can be used either by donating or crediting the person of the tunes you have used in your videos.

When Google acquired YouTube, I don’t believe there were ads in the beginning, however, once they rolled out for ads to play in the beginning of the video and during the video, it became a relentless circle of disruptions. These disruptions took away the user’s experience from being able to watch their favorite creator, especially when you’re invested into something. Most of the pointless ads were two to three playing in one shot after another.

Any creators inserting their own ads, would simply make it as part of their video content, either from the beginning or in the middle.

It wasn’t like you were warned, “we’ll be back in 2 and 2”, or “we’ll be back after these messages”, it was more like, you’re sitting there, watching something scary and suddenly you’re jolted by some sunshine ad, talking about orange juice, taking away every moment of investment you had to that paranormal video, at least in my case.

If anyone recalls this, then you know the reason why ad blocker was installed. No one is going to make a purchase for that cream to get rid of warts, that isn’t FDA approved.

I think even one very popular music creator made a comment about complaints from his viewers about the constant and intrusive ads.

While he did comment how annoying they were, he also mentioned, he had no control over that.

Overall, how does this affect creators? Will they benefit from the monetary gain to have more ads disrupting the flow of content or will they lose viewership due to people’s annoyance with the ads.

Only time will tell.

The Analytics

YouTube uses analytical metrics to give content creators an idea of where they may gain and lose viewers during their videos. It also includes other variables, such as traffic source, returning subscribers versus new viewers, which content was the most viewed versus the content less viewed. This is important for a creator, as they can use this system to be able to gauge what future content will look like.

Can the ads affect the creators work with more disruptions of ad playing than the video itself leaving people in an abysmal state, unable to complete viewing the video?

It possibly can.

Can the extortion tactics give an incentive for anyone on a tight budget to splurge about $16 dollars a month to $22 a month (price will depend on location) to give the premium a go and see if it’s worth it?

That too is a possibility and for how long?

That means Google executives should consider incentives for users spending their money per month for a premium service, while making lame excuses for raising prices (which they are actually doing).

YouTube is not a streaming service, equivalent to HBO, Starz or any other streaming service providing content people prefer, like documentaries and movies. Granted, YouTube does have these types of content, but if someone is logically thinking they can pay the same amount and get more from a viable streaming service, why spend the extra $16.99 a month for YouTube.

YouTube could be making financial mistakes, but we won’t know for sure until a certain amount of time has passed.

I had made a comment about Google won’t know they have lost money upon reviewing their five-year plan and someone commented back, how can they lose money? By people not viewing ads.

Stupid comments like that can’t garner me to reply without getting paid for it LMAO!

The reality is, if someone makes a five-year plan and says within 5 years, we can hit a target of this money coming in due to ad revenue, that may be true. Google can offer a very enticing plan for companies to advertise.

But if the advertising goes nowhere, the marketing department will come back with numbers to the corporate heads making everyone unhappy and question why they spent so much money advertising with a well-known company and getting nothing out of it.

It’s not about the person viewing the ads, it’s about a company seeking out resources to place their advertisement for the public to be able to see them and purchase products.

In the most simplest terms, if I advertised with a local paper, and that paper claimed their viewership is a set of numbers either monthly or weekly, I can almost guarantee, that ad can be seen by a wide range of people, depending on if the newspapers are located in a physical location, online or both.

By making a three-month advertising commitment, I should expect to see an upswing in sales. A great way to confirm how customers saw your ad is, “mentioned you saw this add {in said newspaper} and get 10% off your next purchase”.

Advertisements using appealing words such as discounts will garner anyone’s attention. Who doesn’t love a discount or reduced price?

But, if three months go by and I don’t gain any new sales, what does that say about the newspaper and the viewership they claim to have.

Then I would have to reconsider my options in advertising with them again and now the newspaper loses revenue from me paying them advertising dollars.

You see how that works?

Where does that leave the Creator?

Creators have gotten really comfortable with that YouTube money and believe me, had I not fallen into the depression back in 2012, or perhaps redirected my energy to everything I’m doing now, who knows where I would be floating within that YouTube paycheck.

Corporations will always change their standards and policies but will these changes give the YouTube creator the opportunity to expand or will they believe everyone will just eventually pay for a premium service, since most have gotten really comfortable with having that main source of income.

Google Corporation is an ever-changing world, striving to keep up to date with the latest technology and services for both the user and creator.

While no one ever thinks in their mind, how can this income be taken away? Keep in mind, YouTube will continue to update their community service guidelines to fit the narrative of what’s acceptable and what’s not acceptable.

And in order to keep in line with those guidelines, words like, “unalive”, murder, kill, rape, sexual assault/sexual battery, child molestation, child porn, all of these words, also spoken in true context of crime stories, suddenly now have become words in “promoting violence” which isn’t the case.

We seem to live in a world where people want to be coddled with unrealistic words that doesn’t speak a truth of bigger volumes that maybe some need to hear. There’s no such word as “unalive”. When someone is killed its murder. Period. The End!

I remember a manager I worked for back in 2000, she always said, if you’re going to do something do it big, don’t strive for little steps, take big steps and bigger steps.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. Technology does not stand still and neither do corporate companies who are all about profit. Without profit, a company fails. It’s common sense.

What’s not common sense? Extortion. Last time I checked, extortion is still a crime.

Ask yourself, what is the one thing you have no problem spending money per month versus making a monthly investment on YouTube premium. If your favorite creator said, we are making ad free content in another platform for a certain amount of money per month, would you do it? Can you see yourself making an investment to your favorite content creator if they went a different route in video sharing?

What would be the difference?

Using a platform such as YouTube, makes it easy for a creator to upload content and engage with their views, whether it be though people leaving comments or interacting on live chats. This isn’t different from any other platform you want to utilize and make money from your content.

The question and answers lie only with the user.

And everyone else on Reddit with their sarcastic tones about people “crying” about seeing ads, y’all can suck ass. Clearly most people on the subreddit know nothing about business or how it works.

And you see, this is the fun part about having my site, I can say whatever the fuck I want, within reason of course. While I can’t say you suck ass on a social platform, I can say it here, anytime I want.

Until then. Take care of you.

1 Comment

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
Truth Teller
Truth Teller
Dec 15, 2023
Rated 5 out of 5 stars.

I have to say Google and their executives are very lost in greed other than the lack of marketing skills in their department to try and enforce a protection from sites because they think they are so special we will disable adblocker at their command. I am seeing a lot of creators beginning to move away from having their youtube utilized as much. The thing is will they make the same amount of money. I don't think Google will go broke but they certainly open themselves for others to step in and offer a better monetization platform.

bottom of page