Surely ad blockers don't block those video adverts at the start of most Youtube clips?
I would possibly pay to remove them, if it was premium content available.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Hi all,
My point is, why would anyone pay for the subscription service if they can just use adblock. I'm saying, forget subscriptions, allow people to crowdfund the channels they like, or offer it in conjunction as a service for free users, to reduce ads, and less will use adblock out of choice.
Remember when they forced folk to sign up to Google+ so they could use YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTq8TrA3hb4
*Not for the easily offended.
I don't like the idea of a premium service. I think the best model would be for them to go the way of Twitch & add paid subs for users you like.
The only down side there is that it does somewhat hamper new YouTubers - unless the current model doesn't change and they paid per view/sub etc?
They're obviously making money. Ad Blocker is used by 120m people or whatever, even if ALL of those use it on YouTube, that's still 900m people using it without Ad Blocker.
And yes, AB does remove the videos at the start/middle of the videos.
My opinion is that they're trying to force through something like Premium where the argument is they can't function because of ad revenue not being high enough. Personally, I think that is bóllocks given that 90% of people receive the adverts, at a conservative guess.
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - The Fellosophy (U2958)
posted 9 minutes ago
Surely ad blockers don't block those video adverts at the start of most Youtube clips?
I would possibly pay to remove them, if it was premium content available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adblock blocks all ads on YT of any kind.
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 7 seconds ago
Remember when they forced folk to sign up to Google+ so they could use YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTq8TrA3hb4
*Not for the easily offended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They backtracked on that soon enough.
They already have their sponsored videos shown & adverts that are served to most people - this move smacks of greed.
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 34 seconds ago
Remember when they forced folk to sign up to Google+ so they could use YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTq8TrA3hb4
*Not for the easily offended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My sentiments exactly. Google+ is good for small businesses to have an online presence, but the YT integration feels odd.
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - The Fellosophy (U2958)
posted 1 minute ago
Surely ad blockers don't block those video adverts at the start of most Youtube clips?
I would possibly pay to remove them, if it was premium content available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They do, they block all that crap
I have given well over 300 to the guy that created Ad Block
They're obviously making money
----------------------
Not profit though
http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967
They should just detect folk running adblock then dont show them the video. That's about the fairest way to avoid ripping folk off.
Promoted Tweets and Facebooks suggested posts bug me to the extreme.
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 3 minutes ago
They're obviously making money. Ad Blocker is used by 120m people or whatever, even if ALL of those use it on YouTube, that's still 900m people using it without Ad Blocker.
My opinion is that they're trying to force through something like Premium where the argument is they can't function because of ad revenue not being high enough. Personally, I think that is bóllocks given that 90% of people receive the adverts, at a conservative guess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it was 54m in 2014 it's 120m this year, it's more than doubling every year, so they need to do something now.
Alternatively they could do something less intrusive than playing shíte adverts that have no relevance to me at the start of a video.
No YouTube, I don't want to take out a life insurance policy or buy GTA V
If the adverts weren't intrusive, I'd whitelist YouTube. I've whitelisted Ja at home, because the adverts aren't in the way most of the time.
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 26 seconds ago
Alternatively they could do something less intrusive than playing shíte adverts that have no relevance to me at the start of a video.
No YouTube, I don't want to take out a life insurance policy or buy GTA V
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The newspapers with video content are the worst for ramming it down your throat. Watching one or two mins of ads before the actual content.
Does anyone actually watch the ads? Its no great hassle to open your video, wait 5 secs and then skip it. Does thuis really bother people enough that they would consider paying for no ads?
We actually get quite a lot of pressue on us to take intrusive ads. Such as the ones that cover the screen and the like. Which i hate with my very being, as all it does it give people a good reason to use ad-block.
It seems people don't want to pay, don't want to watch ads... Yet want to use the service.
See a problem here?
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 26 seconds ago
Alternatively they could do something less intrusive than playing shíte adverts that have no relevance to me at the start of a video.
No YouTube, I don't want to take out a life insurance policy or buy GTA V
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The newspapers with video content are the worst for ramming it down your throat. Watching one or two mins of ads before the actual content.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The worst are the load videos that start running automatically and are almost impossible to turn off permanently, whilst reading an article.
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 1 minute ago
Does anyone actually watch the ads? Its no great hassle to open your video, wait 5 secs and then skip it. Does thuis really bother people enough that they would consider paying for no ads?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally I don't mind. It's the odd channel that abuses this that annoys me. I watched one that had about 8 ads in it, spread out at strange points throughout the video. That forced me to turn adblock back on, and then you just forget about it. I can't be bothered to keep turning it off and on, as lazy as it sounds.
comment by ► Bebe's Got Talent | NEXT UP: An Audience With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 26 seconds ago
Alternatively they could do something less intrusive than playing shíte adverts that have no relevance to me at the start of a video.
No YouTube, I don't want to take out a life insurance policy or buy GTA V
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The newspapers with video content are the worst for ramming it down your throat. Watching one or two mins of ads before the actual content.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The worst are the load videos that start running automatically and are almost impossible to turn off permanently, whilst reading an article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, auto-play with sound. We were troubled with that for a while.
The video ads is where the £££s are. You might get 40cents per 1000 leaderboard ads served. That will be north of $2 for autoplay video with sound
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by ► Bebe's Got Talent | NEXT UP: An Audience With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 26 seconds ago
Alternatively they could do something less intrusive than playing shíte adverts that have no relevance to me at the start of a video.
No YouTube, I don't want to take out a life insurance policy or buy GTA V
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The newspapers with video content are the worst for ramming it down your throat. Watching one or two mins of ads before the actual content.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The worst are the load videos that start running automatically and are almost impossible to turn off permanently, whilst reading an article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, auto-play with sound. We were troubled with that for a while.
The video ads is where the £££s are. You might get 40cents per 1000 leaderboard ads served. That will be north of $2 for autoplay video with sound
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a pretty good return. It must be because hardly anyone wants it
Thats the issue with a site like ours that has a lot of regular users. All it takes is one bad ad buyer to send folk to a fake flash update and 10% might opt to install add blocker as a result. It is very difficult to get them to then turn it back off, so our revenue will drop 10%. Once this happens 2 or 3 times, it absolutely kills the site. Hence why I get furious when ad companies don't have proper auditing in place for buyers.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Why YouTube Premium is a Bad Idea...
Page 1 of 2
posted on 5/5/15
Surely ad blockers don't block those video adverts at the start of most Youtube clips?
I would possibly pay to remove them, if it was premium content available.
posted on 5/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 5/5/15
Hi all,
My point is, why would anyone pay for the subscription service if they can just use adblock. I'm saying, forget subscriptions, allow people to crowdfund the channels they like, or offer it in conjunction as a service for free users, to reduce ads, and less will use adblock out of choice.
posted on 5/5/15
Remember when they forced folk to sign up to Google+ so they could use YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTq8TrA3hb4
*Not for the easily offended.
posted on 5/5/15
I don't like the idea of a premium service. I think the best model would be for them to go the way of Twitch & add paid subs for users you like.
The only down side there is that it does somewhat hamper new YouTubers - unless the current model doesn't change and they paid per view/sub etc?
They're obviously making money. Ad Blocker is used by 120m people or whatever, even if ALL of those use it on YouTube, that's still 900m people using it without Ad Blocker.
And yes, AB does remove the videos at the start/middle of the videos.
My opinion is that they're trying to force through something like Premium where the argument is they can't function because of ad revenue not being high enough. Personally, I think that is bóllocks given that 90% of people receive the adverts, at a conservative guess.
posted on 5/5/15
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - The Fellosophy (U2958)
posted 9 minutes ago
Surely ad blockers don't block those video adverts at the start of most Youtube clips?
I would possibly pay to remove them, if it was premium content available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adblock blocks all ads on YT of any kind.
posted on 5/5/15
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 7 seconds ago
Remember when they forced folk to sign up to Google+ so they could use YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTq8TrA3hb4
*Not for the easily offended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They backtracked on that soon enough.
They already have their sponsored videos shown & adverts that are served to most people - this move smacks of greed.
posted on 5/5/15
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 34 seconds ago
Remember when they forced folk to sign up to Google+ so they could use YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTq8TrA3hb4
*Not for the easily offended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My sentiments exactly. Google+ is good for small businesses to have an online presence, but the YT integration feels odd.
posted on 5/5/15
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - The Fellosophy (U2958)
posted 1 minute ago
Surely ad blockers don't block those video adverts at the start of most Youtube clips?
I would possibly pay to remove them, if it was premium content available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They do, they block all that crap
I have given well over 300 to the guy that created Ad Block
posted on 5/5/15
They're obviously making money
----------------------
Not profit though
http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967
posted on 5/5/15
They should just detect folk running adblock then dont show them the video. That's about the fairest way to avoid ripping folk off.
Promoted Tweets and Facebooks suggested posts bug me to the extreme.
posted on 5/5/15
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 3 minutes ago
They're obviously making money. Ad Blocker is used by 120m people or whatever, even if ALL of those use it on YouTube, that's still 900m people using it without Ad Blocker.
My opinion is that they're trying to force through something like Premium where the argument is they can't function because of ad revenue not being high enough. Personally, I think that is bóllocks given that 90% of people receive the adverts, at a conservative guess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it was 54m in 2014 it's 120m this year, it's more than doubling every year, so they need to do something now.
posted on 5/5/15
Alternatively they could do something less intrusive than playing shíte adverts that have no relevance to me at the start of a video.
No YouTube, I don't want to take out a life insurance policy or buy GTA V
posted on 5/5/15
If the adverts weren't intrusive, I'd whitelist YouTube. I've whitelisted Ja at home, because the adverts aren't in the way most of the time.
posted on 5/5/15
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 26 seconds ago
Alternatively they could do something less intrusive than playing shíte adverts that have no relevance to me at the start of a video.
No YouTube, I don't want to take out a life insurance policy or buy GTA V
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The newspapers with video content are the worst for ramming it down your throat. Watching one or two mins of ads before the actual content.
posted on 5/5/15
Does anyone actually watch the ads? Its no great hassle to open your video, wait 5 secs and then skip it. Does thuis really bother people enough that they would consider paying for no ads?
posted on 5/5/15
We actually get quite a lot of pressue on us to take intrusive ads. Such as the ones that cover the screen and the like. Which i hate with my very being, as all it does it give people a good reason to use ad-block.
posted on 5/5/15
It seems people don't want to pay, don't want to watch ads... Yet want to use the service.
See a problem here?
posted on 5/5/15
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 26 seconds ago
Alternatively they could do something less intrusive than playing shíte adverts that have no relevance to me at the start of a video.
No YouTube, I don't want to take out a life insurance policy or buy GTA V
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The newspapers with video content are the worst for ramming it down your throat. Watching one or two mins of ads before the actual content.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The worst are the load videos that start running automatically and are almost impossible to turn off permanently, whilst reading an article.
posted on 5/5/15
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 1 minute ago
Does anyone actually watch the ads? Its no great hassle to open your video, wait 5 secs and then skip it. Does thuis really bother people enough that they would consider paying for no ads?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally I don't mind. It's the odd channel that abuses this that annoys me. I watched one that had about 8 ads in it, spread out at strange points throughout the video. That forced me to turn adblock back on, and then you just forget about it. I can't be bothered to keep turning it off and on, as lazy as it sounds.
posted on 5/5/15
comment by ► Bebe's Got Talent | NEXT UP: An Audience With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 26 seconds ago
Alternatively they could do something less intrusive than playing shíte adverts that have no relevance to me at the start of a video.
No YouTube, I don't want to take out a life insurance policy or buy GTA V
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The newspapers with video content are the worst for ramming it down your throat. Watching one or two mins of ads before the actual content.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The worst are the load videos that start running automatically and are almost impossible to turn off permanently, whilst reading an article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, auto-play with sound. We were troubled with that for a while.
The video ads is where the £££s are. You might get 40cents per 1000 leaderboard ads served. That will be north of $2 for autoplay video with sound
posted on 5/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 5/5/15
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by ► Bebe's Got Talent | NEXT UP: An Audience With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 26 seconds ago
Alternatively they could do something less intrusive than playing shíte adverts that have no relevance to me at the start of a video.
No YouTube, I don't want to take out a life insurance policy or buy GTA V
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The newspapers with video content are the worst for ramming it down your throat. Watching one or two mins of ads before the actual content.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The worst are the load videos that start running automatically and are almost impossible to turn off permanently, whilst reading an article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, auto-play with sound. We were troubled with that for a while.
The video ads is where the £££s are. You might get 40cents per 1000 leaderboard ads served. That will be north of $2 for autoplay video with sound
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a pretty good return. It must be because hardly anyone wants it
posted on 5/5/15
Thats the issue with a site like ours that has a lot of regular users. All it takes is one bad ad buyer to send folk to a fake flash update and 10% might opt to install add blocker as a result. It is very difficult to get them to then turn it back off, so our revenue will drop 10%. Once this happens 2 or 3 times, it absolutely kills the site. Hence why I get furious when ad companies don't have proper auditing in place for buyers.
posted on 5/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 1 of 2