this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
699 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
58138 readers
4309 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
Honestly... How much has Google spent trying to counter people skipping ads?
Is it less than the amount of potential profit if everyone was forced to watch ads?
This seems like that situation recently where NYC paid a million dollars to enforce people to pay for train tickets, which was less than twenty thousand a year in lost revenue.
The amount of people who:
Are not statistically significant to YouTube's viewership or income.
I figured that. If I was to guess, I would say ~90% use the native app on their phones or TV to watch YouTube.
In total, I have to assume ad blocking viewers make up a single percent or less.
I don't see how this could make financial sense.
I think it's mostly about saving face for advertisers. Which is funny because Google never does anything for saving face for their users as they shut down services that literally cost a rounding error for them to run.
I think it probably breaks even and fits with their strategy to abuse everyone until they pay for premium