So, if you haven’t heard yet, there this mega drama going on around Youtube and advertisement used on this platform, particularly demonetization of “hateful” videos, leaving Youtube creators pennyless because they allegedly post “hateful” videos.
The alleged problem is that people viewing Youtube connect video content to the ad shown on that video. For example, running a channel that reports on islamisation of Europe and warning people about its effects on Europe, your videos will get demonetized because the content is “hateful” to muslims. If some brand, lets say Coca Cola is shown on such video, people apparently somehow connect this “hate” against muslims to Coca Cola, like Coca Cola is actively endorsing this…
People aren’t really offended over this
Ok, now that you get the context and concept, you may think, ok, so people really don’t like Coca Cola endorsing hate against muslims! Well, not really. The thing is, it was not the people who started this outrage against ads on “hateful” videos, it was the old, outdated, outgoing mainstream media that launched a mass campaign against Youtube. I mean, all of a sudden, in a very short timeframe, countless old mainstream media outlets spewed out countless articles condemning Youtube displaying brand names on “hateful” videos. Sound familiar? It’s exactly the same freaking thing they did when GamerGate happened, when they launched countless, exactly same worded articles attacking certain group or platform. Why? Youtube is what’s killing these dinosaurs off! Youtube is making them irrelevant. There are Youtube creators who have bigger audiences than most mainstream media outlets combined and they really don’t like that. Are you forming a picture already?
Mainstream media and companies don’t understand how ads work on Youtube
These disingenuous mainstream media outlets apparently think ads are carefully selected for videos. And same seems to go for these companies who are now pulling ads from “hateful” videos in what looks like mass panic. They think someone actually sits “behind their screens”, watching videos and going: “Yes, this hateful video needs some Coca Cola love, lets place their ad on it.”
It’s not how things work! At all! With the amount of videos on Youtube, it’s impossible to do this on any kind of viable level. Ads are served to videos automatically in random fashion, because ads have to be on videos, because that’s how Youtube is sustaining itself. There might be some relevancy based endorsing of ads based on user’s previous view history and Google search, but in general, Youtube has this pool of ads to show and they distribute them to videos on random basis. They don’t connect or endorse the content, they just show some ads.
So, why this outrage over famous brands having their ads shown on “hateful” videos? It doesn’t seem to make any sense to me. It’s not relevant. No one is endorsing anything, it’s just some ads shown on some video. That’s it.
Illogical disconnect between Youtube and TV
What wonders me at this point is, if Youtube videos that are “hateful” portray companies who are advertising their products on such videos in a negative way, how come this doesn’t apply to TV?
There are tons of ads shown on commercial TV channels between movies, series and news. Why no one connects Coca Cola to that jihadi beheading just shown in the news? Why no one connects Toyota to ISIS because they predominantly tow around their fighters around the desert in those cars?
Or to make things even further, do you people remember how they place brands in movies directly? I do. I remember countless action movies where terrorists were recording kidnapped victims with Sony cameras and the producers made sure the SONY brand flashed on the screen in a very hard to miss fashion? Do you people remember all the countless times terrorists in action movies used Nokia phones and again, the film makers made abundantly clear to flash the brand name in viewers field of view. Or how Casio watches were again predominantly shown on bombs and wrists of terrorists?
The big question here is, why is everyone supposedly outraged over some Coca Cola and Toyota ads shown on allegedly “hateful” videos on Youtube, but absolutely no one gave any damn about actual terrorists (still fictional though since it was a movie) using those products of those brands to create terror and harm on TV and in cinema?
Can someone explain to me this illogical disconnect between what’s essentially THE SAME advertisement method? It’s not about endorsement or support, it’s just about showing ads and brand names to make money. Because that’s what capitalism is all about. Money.
My verdict on this drama
Advertisers should tell the mainstream media who artificially kickstarted this drama to kindly piss away. And advertisers should grow a pair and stop pandering to these perpetually offended fruitcakes. No one thinks Coca Cola is endorsing hate just because their ad rolled over a video that somehow offended someone. And from what I’ve seen, it wasn’t even people who were offended or connected the brand to something hateful, it was mainstream media, the old dying one that started all this mess in a hope to hurt Youtube and make it less relevant, because Youtube was hurting mainstream media so badly in recent years. And they succeeded because I’m seeing more and more Youtubers losing their livelihood because their videos are now flagged as “unsafe” and advertisement “unfriendly”. I’m also seeing mass panic from corporations, pulling ads from Youtube because they just don’t understand how advertisement on platforms like Youtube even works. You know, those corporate penguins may be CEO’s and CTO’s, but they have next to zero understanding of how internet works and because they need to think of shareholders, they of course panic. Stop it! No one thinks these companies endorse hate! So, why removing the advertisements? There is no need for that. If TV ads did not negatively portray same brands when associated with negative things on screen, why should they be on Youtube or anywhere else? It’s just some ads shown on some videos. That’s the end of it.