this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
696 points (93.6% liked)
Technology
59594 readers
3373 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Seems like this could be turned around if enough people would just consciously refuse to patronize anything they saw advertised on youtube.
That seems like it could work, and I would love to say you're right, but many of the companies advertising—especially as we're seeing more and more of the big players—have a really diverse ad spend budget so their dollars are all over the place. Because so many ads aren't looking for a direct sale but rather increase your awareness when you DO want to buy, say, laundry detergent, there's no way to tie your purchase to having seen an ad (though marketers LOVE to try and draw lines to efforts, many are hazy at best). So seeing ads and consciously not buying what you're seeing could in theory lead to a dip in sales, but the watch numbers are high, so no adveriser would be able to tell that dip is because of youtube, or podcasts or... uh... radio?.
So sadly the best way to hurt the system is to a) keep blocking the ads so the watch level is low and the advertisers want out or b) drop the watch level naturally by picking another platform.
Source: a lot of time in advertising.