Google Reorganization and Youtube advertising

[aaronfransen]

Recently Youtube (owned by Google) started removing the advertising from quite a large number of users because "they could upset advertisers". The end result is the users posting those videos now receive no revenue.

And it seems to be a very, very large number of users. That got me thinking: If Youtube pulled the advertising, that means they can't *charge* the advertisers for the views, which means they make less money. A LOT less.

How on Earth would the shareholders stand for that?

We got our answer this week: Google's "parent company" Alphabet reorganized all of the sub-companies under a new entity called XXVI. As a result of that one seemingly innocuous change, neither Google nor Youtube now have any shareholders to report to. XXVI is a financial shell, and they are the sole shareholder of companies like Youtube and Google. XXVI is wholly owned by Alphabet, which is publicly traded.

So now Google and Youtube don't have to publicly disclose *anything*. Fantastic. I think Orwell wasn't paranoid enough.

 

[Atreides]

It's a bit more complicated than that because google has 3 types of shares A, B and C. A class shares have 1 vote, B has 10, and C has none. The founders of google, the "insiders" own all the class B shares, so they can always override shareholders.

The "Adpocalypse" is even more weird than you've outlined. As it turns out, some advertisers were specifically requesting that their ads be placed on certain youtubers, like H3H3 and David Pakman etc, and Google refused to do it. There is some weirdness afoot at the circle k, and much of this is and has be ideologically driven. I'd say the reason is that Google is positioning youtube to be a replacement for cable TV, and so they want all troublemakers off the platform. Basically they want legal music videos, makeup tutorials, and skit shows that can be branded for a wider family friendly audience. The vast majority of the people hit are alternative news shows, or people discussing politics.

Google has its own politics, so it doesn't want to subsidize people who aren't down with the leftist narrative.

 

[SocietyoftheSpectacle]

Note the monetisation was the bait,

The de-monetisation has led to a lot of Truther channels avoiding contentious issues
and focusing on the ridiculous.
Big Foot and the Loch ness monster type stuff
for example..

They are OK , and the youtuber who had come to rely on monetisation,
( very much like an addict )
Can now get their FIX again.

JUST Dont mention certain things.

 

[Alejo]

It's a way to hurt people where it counts. You say something that is popular and get to make a few bucks... well great! Now google has made it so you won't be able to make money unless you agree with their political agenda. Something I've got to say is not surprising at all.

In terms of growing a tv network for a wider audience, I wonder if YouTube/google will essentially move away from the influence they currently hold over what people share. I mean people felt they could go on YouTube and have the internet as an audience, something most people understood to be out of their reach with regular TV.

So I wonder if this new course of action could essentially backfire and turn YouTube into just another tv channel.