YouTube Ad-Blocker policy - Can it be explained by ad revenue numbers? (lemmy.world)

submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by s38b35M5@lemmy.world to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

First, a disclaimer: I'm no expert, and I only know what is on these documents I linked. I haven't read in-depth reporting by real investigative journalists, nor any reporting sourced or quoted from YT insiders (When I see articles about the ad-blocking, I knock wood that SmartTube is still working and keep scrolling, keen to avoid getting angry at another trillion-dollar company).

I've been doing some light research into Alphabet's YT ad revenue numbers today on my lunch hour. Here is where you find that info.

My curiousity was piqued by a few posts here and elsewhere regarding YouTube's new push to eliminate ad-blockers that indicate the push is because they've been losing money. Per my plebian understanding of these documents: Rather than a substantial decrease, YT had finally seen a 'leveling off' of ad revenue that had previously been enjoying explosive growth for the available history I can view. The historical (according to the data I have available to me) 32-43% increase in revenue leveling in 2022 to almost -2% is likely responsible for this push to more vigorously monetize users.

It's not easy to relate to earnings when they have to be counted in "thousands of millions" of dollars, but if we reduce it all to simple percentages, I suppose we can agree at least that the data they are working from does show a drop in revenue. I suspect (as many do) that the loss in revenue growth in Q3 2022 could at least motivate them to look for ways to make more growth. Where we may find debate is on the concept that growth must continue into infinity.

#Notes

The links below are for Q3, so we're comparing apples>apples. Earnings are provided in millions ($1,000 = $1B) My percentages after the link include ONLY YouTube Ad revenues, not the rest of YT revenues, which are liumped into "Google Other." Revenue!=Profit, and YT expenses are hard (read:impossible) to discern from this simplified report.

Q3 2020, YT ad revenue up 32.42% from same period in 2019 ($3.80B to $5.03B).

Q3 2021, YT ad revenue up 43.04% from same period in 2020 ($5.03B to $7.20B).

Q3 2022, YT ad revenue down 1.86% from same period in 2021 ($7.20B to $7.07B).

Q3 2023, YT ad revenue up 12.45% from same period in 2022 ($7.07B to $7.95B).

I've enjoyed the discussion on this topic, with good points being made all over, like how we can't lose sight of the value a non-ad-viewing user brings to YT simply by watching and increasing viewer counts, subscribing, donating super chat or otherwise, and linking/sharing videos elsewhere.

Lastly: My lunch break is over; I can't respond to any comments for a while, so this is a post-and-run.

#YouTube #Google #EarningsReport #AdBlocker

EDIT: @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com if this doesn't fit the sub please let me know or remove.

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 49 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It’s more of a long term strategy to reign in control of how people “consume” the internet. Google wants an ad on your desktop. They want your browser to stop, just like YouTube videos, to show you a brief 20s ad spot.

They are embolden now because they have amassed a massive user base with Chrome and all its ill gotten derivatives. And the EU eyeballing big tech is likely putting a fire under their ass.

And yes, when ad revenue drops, that tends to focus an ad company. With that said, they have only been increasing ad spots and their length over recent years and that has not had the impact from your data. So…

But yeah, all these companies are just working tireless to as many put locks on the net as possible to force you into more subscriptions, which are what companies are all about. Passive incoming has always been absolute gold.

[-] FrostyTrichs@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Well said, and the things you've listed are why I've begun to de-google myself. After decades of wishing they'd fix certain products and features or compromising just to keep everything under one roof, I'm done with them.

I appreciate the role they played in helping shape the internet, but I won't be a part of helping them try to kill it.

[-] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 9 points 11 months ago

Oh they don’t want to kill it, just own it 🙃

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago

The analysis I read was similar but reached a different conclusion: google had been caught charging for ads that were never seen. Something in the realm of a billion dollars in ad money that was collected supposedly for viewed ads but which actually ran on 0 view videos, etc.

Obviously that would be very bad, so they started crediting advertisers and began the ad-block enshittification.

See https://www.tumblr.com/beesmygod/734866804959281152/google-vehemently-denies-the-reports-findings-and for more

[-] s38b35M5@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Thanks for the comment and link

After reading the adalytics report, it sounds more like ads that were meant to be viewed mid-stream and (presumably) on YouTube content, only when clicked, were instead served on auto-play, looping and muted on third-party websites that donn meet the standards of the sold product.

So like you said, but it seems more that buyers thought their ads would run on certain locations and circumstances that ensured higher viewer interest, and instead were being charged for ads played off screen, behind other ads, and some even viewed by "declared bots".

Yikes. Refunds (credit, excuse me) indeed.

[-] Steve@startrek.website 2 points 11 months ago

I saw this coming when they kept showing me 2 hour long ads midroll in 10 minute videos

[-] sadreality@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

I would assume they would have to take reserves on their books if this "mistake" really ran in billions

[-] Banzai51@midwest.social 21 points 11 months ago

You have to remember the shareholder mentality: If you're not growing by 20% forever, you're losing money.

[-] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 14 points 11 months ago

It doesn't matter if they're making money. Google/Alphabet is a for-profit company. A big part of this means they have to make as much money as possible. MBA programs literally teach that any unrealized potential profit is lost money.

They could rake in a trillion dollars in ads, and they'd still do this if it meant they could get 1.1 trillion instead.

[-] s38b35M5@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

One point I forgot to make above: I'm not sure if we can say the Q3 2023 revenue growth can be related to the new ad-blocking-blocking or not, but I suspect there's a piece of that in there.