I guess if everyone was hit equally across the board then those sponsors will eventually adjust to the new metrics, but I assume some genres have more tech-savvy audiences which are more likely to use ad-blockers, so I'm not sure how evenly distributed this penalty falls.
Youtube has no incentive to accurately report this data and no apparent accreditation in their methodology.
If Google shows everyone how ineffective ads actually are, they’d crumble.
The two main options advertisers have are:
* Brand Lift Studies: split audience into treatment and control, use surveys on a small fraction of participants to measure impact
* Conversion Lift: again split audience into treatment and control, compare downstream actions like purchases ("conversions")
These both work on YouTube IIRC.
Anyways, I was mostly referring to sales at physical locations; I assume it's pretty viable to build a system to figure out if someone who previously bought a lot of shein is now buying a lot of temu.
Offline purchases are harder, of course, but pretty sure you can still do this: https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/9994849
(Once I understand your claim I'll be better able to respond: I think "there's effectively no way to be caught" is not true under both of the interpretations I see)
Such as?
I agree, and find it even wilder that first party metrics from Meta and Google are trusted by most major advertisers (including ad agencies). I'm talking about six-seven figure budgets spent without any third party validation.
I've seen some studies on click fraud[0], but when advertisers are effectively choosing from a duopoly that has limited incentives not to lie in their metrics, I find it strange that there are no popular, widespread and accessible independent validation tools.
Many of the advertisers that sell on these platforms are quite familiar with buying ads directly from "old school" media companies. So they have the competence and familiarity to be put off by the metrics but are apparently not in a position to force Google and Facebook to match standards used in other contexts.
Is it? If I proactively click skip, that means that sponsor is offering something of no use to me. As the sponsor, they successfully make an impression for a second or two anyway. And as a viewer that skip ahead button is much better than pressing right arrow button multiple times
Likewise with NordVPN and Raid: Shadowlegends. Never used any of them, don't really intend to, but I do know the name.
Remember how Youtube used to be a nice cage with lots of air holes and fun toys to occupy you? Light ad enforcement, tools to help you build your viewership etc? People are starting to feel the pinch of those being removed. That cool room is starting to look like what it really is--an industrial cage.
Skip Ahead is only for Premium subscribers. The logic probably being native-ads/sponsorships are in fact ads, and Premium users are paying for an ad-free experience.
I’m not sure. They want influencers to make profit using their platform, so they want to make them rich. On the viewcount, a skipped sponsor still looks like a view. No sponsor is going to look at the proportion of watching each part of the video, they just care about the view counter.
What Youtube may want, though, is for paying customers to be able to skip ads. “If you pay you should have no ads”.
It feels rare that I agree with Google on anything these days, but if that is the case... sounds fair.
Then these adult children go an complain there are no competitors. No shit, you scoff at subscriptions and wear your ad-block like a badge of honor. Who the hell would invest in making a platform for non-paying users?
Edit: I guess this is a YouTube premium feature?