Youtube Advertisers' Boycott: Points of Contention
Numerous advertisers have been pulling out of Youtube and Google, for some weeks now.
A lot of Youtubers, have raised the issue of lost ad revenue on their channels, and others also report lost subscribers, and vastly fewer views.
Numerous advertisers have been pulling out of Youtube and Google, for some weeks now.
A lot of Youtubers, have raised the issue of lost ad revenue on their channels, and others also report lost subscribers, and vastly fewer views.
There are
some points of contention, in the discussion of this issue, so let's start
breaking them down.
1) Monetary
expectations.
Many
viewers have complained that, Youtubers should not have monetary expectations
from Youtube, or that they are not doing real jobs.
The
argument goes like A) Back when Youtube started, there was no ad revenue. B) No
one expected to get paid. It was a hobby. C) They are making videos from their
bedroom, they should find real jobs.
A) Back
when Youtube started, there was no ad revenue. Back when roads were dirt and
gravel, there were no tolls. What's the argument here? That things change over
time? They do. Back when Youtube
started, most videos were shot on low quality, and had terrible sound. Things
move on. Frequently the same people will comment that Youtube is a private
company, so they can do whatever they want. Well guess what they did. They
added advertisements. And they let the video creators have part of that
revenue, to incentivize video creators to make better videos, which in turn
brought more ads to Youtube. There you
go. If you think Youtube would never
seek to monetize their platform you are wrong, because the platform has costs. If
you think Youtube would not share the revenue with creators, you are wrong,
because Youtube, has an incentive, to incentivize creators. So A is an invalid
statement.
B) No one
expected to get paid. It was a hobby. Well sometime ago playing music at
parties was a hobby. Today it's a prestigious job, we call it a DJ. If you want
to get all agnostic about the market, why start with Youtube? When did telling
jokes become a job? I am looking at you stand up comedians. So B is an invalid
statement.
C) They are
making videos from their bedroom, they should find real jobs.
So many wrong things with this one. Some of the world's greatest books have been written in bedrooms. What if a lawyer studies court documents in their bedroom? Is that a job? What if a stock broker, checks share prices from his bedroom, is that a job? What if a tutor, teaches piano, to a teenager, in their bedroom, is that a job? Does it have to include 4 hours of daily commuting in a climate change world, and putting on a suit to be considered a job? And since we are talking about the media, is copy pasting Reuters articles on your site, a job? Is wearing a silly shirt in front of an expensive camera crew, to present a mundane tv game show, a job? Should anyone who has anything to say, book a studio to say it? And is the studio a factor in one's quality of meaning? Is Glen Beck more meaningful than anyone in any bedroom, because he has a studio? Have you been conditioned, to consider something appropriate, only when it happens inside a costly network tv studio? What if the bedroom has top notch microphones, lights,cameras and editing equipment, like most high viewership youtubers have? Besides the demonetization does not strike only bedroom youtubers, but also youtubers who have studios, employ assistants, researchers, animators and so on. So C is an invalid statement.
So many wrong things with this one. Some of the world's greatest books have been written in bedrooms. What if a lawyer studies court documents in their bedroom? Is that a job? What if a stock broker, checks share prices from his bedroom, is that a job? What if a tutor, teaches piano, to a teenager, in their bedroom, is that a job? Does it have to include 4 hours of daily commuting in a climate change world, and putting on a suit to be considered a job? And since we are talking about the media, is copy pasting Reuters articles on your site, a job? Is wearing a silly shirt in front of an expensive camera crew, to present a mundane tv game show, a job? Should anyone who has anything to say, book a studio to say it? And is the studio a factor in one's quality of meaning? Is Glen Beck more meaningful than anyone in any bedroom, because he has a studio? Have you been conditioned, to consider something appropriate, only when it happens inside a costly network tv studio? What if the bedroom has top notch microphones, lights,cameras and editing equipment, like most high viewership youtubers have? Besides the demonetization does not strike only bedroom youtubers, but also youtubers who have studios, employ assistants, researchers, animators and so on. So C is an invalid statement.
As
automation and artificial intelligence grow further, Real Jobs, will become
fewer, at least for a time. Education, Science, Medicine and Entertainment, are
some of the last sectors, where the majority of the work load, will still be
handled, by humans. As the Internet grew faster, making big budget productions
that try to please every target group and taste like nothing, is less sensible.
Having multiple entertainers and opinion makers, that cater to the specific
aspects of their own audience, while having less costly production, is much
more efficient, and has caught on, in the form of Youtube. Saying that people
who get involved in all this don't have a real job, is like believing that
installing seat belts or driving trucks, will be populous careers in 30 years.
I have
chosen to not monetize my channel so far, and that's what a lot of other
youtubers have done. That however should not force anyone, to not monetize, the
hundreds of work hours that go into making watchable videos. The people that on the one hand say Youtube
is a private company blah blah, but on the other hand, say that making videos
is not a job, kinda lose credibility. Besides, Youtube that is a private
company, made it it's job, to host people's bedroom videos. The youtubers that
are hit by the advertiser boycott, provide content for millions of people every
day, and if that is not a job, then all the TV programs of all the past
decades, were not a job either.
2) The
Youtube platform.
Youtube has seen better days, when it comes to video sharing effectiveness and features. The false flagging and bogus copyright claims are still around. The Youtube practice, of keeping creators in the dark, about most changes that take place in the platform, has certainly attracted due criticism. Additionally videos not being organically promoted, and getting shelved by the algorithm is also a thing. All these obstacles, have affected content creators, and in time, Youtube has to eventually deal with these issues. Nevertheless Youtube is still where one can find the most eyes for their videos. Despite its flaws, Youtube contains views and viewers from the entire sociopolitical spectrum, making it, the most visible platform of free discussion on the planet. Corporate media and governments, have clamped down on free speech, by removing comment sections, by filtering results, or by upholding bogus blasphemy and hate speech laws. In the midst of all this, Youtube and Google, have made a considerable effort, to maintain at least some semblance of Free Speech. If you consider, the German government, wants to make Youtubers and Twitch streamers, acquire licenses from the state to broadcast, you will realize, that Youtube has allowed, one way or another, views that can't be freely and massively distributed anywhere else. As censorship, deplatforming and outrage activism continue to permeate Academia, some lectures and debates, can only be safely watched or found on Youtube. Youtube has shown more spine than any of the other massive platforms, who have succumbed to pressure and sanitize/censor their discourse, like Twitter and Facebook.
Taking all
that into consideration, Youtube, despite its flaws, is the biggest most
visible home for Free speech right now. Free Speech is the basis for the
peaceful and prosperous continuation of our society. If you do not realize why
that is, I don't have the time to explain it all. Maybe you should study North
Korea. The only reason, Youtube ever
became influential and popular, is that it hosted original, independent content,
made by thousands of different creators, who could make content for all niche
issues and communities. Youtube's success came from its creators, and all the
innovations they made, on the art of video making. Now the old, failing media
and overgrown governments, whose approval ratings are abysmal, want to dictate, to Youtube and its content
creators, what they should and should not do. But the people have voted. The
people prefer to watch the breakdown of the news, by their favorite Youtubers,
rather than by the spin doctors of the Mainstream Media. People prefer the
variety of Youtube, to the often monotone and repetitive TV shows. People
prefer organizing their videos around their life, with playlists and
subscriptions, rather than organize their life, around their videos, in the
manner traditional TV shows demand.
3) The
Mainstream Media
If the
Mainstream Media was just a market facing capital venture, then it would all be
fine. But the Mainstream media, are so much more than that. The Mainstream media,
are exclusive hotspots of public influence, owned by corporatists, who want to
use that public influence to distort political life and public opinion, in a
way that suits them better. They act as gatekeepers of information and
narratives. The owners of the Mainstream Media, place more importance on the
influence they have, rather than the profits. And we know this, because they
insist on producing shows and publications that return diminished profits, but
serve their own agendas. Many big media now belong, to companies, who make
their main profits, outside the media providing industry itself. Meanwhile, they use their publications to
attack popular Youtubers, or Youtube itself, in an attempt to sabotage those who
stole part of their influence. If you
think this is not so, that Media Corporations only sell programs and
advertising, and that they never were after influencing public opinion, you are
frankly too naive, to take part in this conversation. If you think that all
aspects of life, including, war, corruption, influence, market moves, can be
reduced to a Newtonian yes or no when they take place, you are not equipped for
this conversation. Neither I nor anyone else, can educate people about anything
and everything within one or two videos. If you don't follow the news, if you
are unaware of past actions of corporations and governments, if you do not pay
attention to the gradual onset of censorship and the degradation of public
discourse, I can not make up for that. You have to inform yourself on these
matters, form your own educated opinions, and then we can discuss the finer
details of what is and is not going on. If corruption and market manipulation
were so easy to discuss or to tackle, they would not be thriving. The Mainstream media, are in the business of
creating and maintaining narratives. In Youtube all the media narratives are
broken down and analyzed by numerous commentators, and thus lose their appeal.
At this point I will just remind you how the war on Iraq, was possible, only
after the public was barraged with fake information, by most big media outlets
for weeks. The notorious Nigerian Yellow cake and Sadam's supposed WMD arsenal,
were canards, designed by governments, and promoted by the mainstream media, to
gather public support for a war against Iraq. These issues cost lives, and just
because the perpetrators, manage to divert attention from their actions, it
does not mean we won't hold them accountable. Me and others will continue to
make arguments, and provide relevant information, but those can't stand on a
vacuum. You still ought have a minimal grasp on many issues, to fully
participate in this conversation. You also have to be more receptive to stories
and issues that are developing. After a series of events is completed, it is easier,
to analyze the evidence and use hindsight. But we cannot afford to wait for all
series of events to completely unfold, before we have a say on them. Right now,
diversity of opinion, and integrity of information seem to be under threat, and
many important people think so too. If this is indeed the case, but we do
nothing, because the "Evidence", does not seem that clear yet, then
we have lost this game for good. If later we find out, that indeed there were
moves, against freedom of expression, with evidence and proof, we won't have
the free speech to say it, to communicate it far and wide in society. The
problem is that the evidence is here, but it still hasn't saturated all layers
of this discussion. Angela Merkel was heard asking Mark Zuckeberg how they
could quell dissenting opinions. The German Government, wants to force
Youtubers to apply for broadcasting licenses. Independent sites, or
personalities, like Pewdiepie, are the targets for defamation and slander by
the Mainstream media. Whistle blowers and leakers like Wikileaks are routinely
attacked by the Mainstream Media. Colleges deplatform gay, lesbian, Jewish,
controversial, or academic speakers, under threats by marxist and authoritarian
student unions and criminal elements. These barely scrape the top, of the
mounting indications, that there is either collusion or confluence between
Academia, Media and Governments, to make people conform to certain controlled
narratives.
Let me
remind you at this point, that before and after the US presidential elections,
as well as before and after Brexit, the media was boiling with stories, that
attacked independent outlets who they held responsible for these results. If
the media themselves, are being hysterical, about losing the ability to predict
and form public opinion, and you doubt it, you are not skeptical, you are
willfully ignorant or bored.
4)
Demonetization is not Censorship.
Many people
have said, that Youtube creators, are not being censored by this Advertising
boycott. Free speech, has been prosecuted, throughout history, under various
pretenses, and in many manners. To consider prohibition by government the only
form of censorship, is ahistorical. Censorship has different intensities, and
methods. There is censorship by character assassination. Where someone can
express themselves, only no one pays attention to them, despite the content of
their speech. There is censorship by
marginalization, where some people have valid things to say, but they are
allowed on platforms so small, they become inconsequential. There is censorship
by disincentives. In this case, which closely matches the Youtube issue,
censorship is achieved, by making it ever more laborious to produce and
distribute dissenting opinions, and thus diminishing them. Smart regimes, and companies, do not shoot
people in back alleys to censor them. That would be too obvious, and it would
defeat the purpose. Smart people, censor by using all available subtle methods.
Once the views of their opponents are diminished by a thousand cuts, they fill
the space with their own message and overtake them, in what seems like normal
discourse. If you fail to recognize this, what you are saying, is that bad
things, can come, only by noisy, obvious, psychotic, genocidal, mustachioed
villains. #ReadAnotherBook
5) But if
it's so important, they should do it for free.
When so
many millions are spent on superfluous wasteful productions, every year, I think that it is unfair to
expect the people that provide some needed variety of input, to work for free.
Hollywood films are alike, news outlets are alike, and they waste large part of
their budget on marketing and looks. Nevertheless such productions absorb
millions in funding. To demand that anyone outside the circuit, should work for
free, is buying into the exclusivist rhetoric of conformist institutions. Why
give some people so much strength, that it turns them to corrupt gate keepers,
and deprive others of the means of a decent living? Why should we reward those
who treat us like the common lowest denominator, and punish those who treat us
like people? If let's say TJ Kirk, Pewdiepie or some other Youtuber, is not up
to your standards, I will tell you that I would rather people watched TJ Kirk
and Pewdiepie, rather than another hour of mainstream goo. And the beauty of
Youtube is that if you do not like somebody, you can click to another universe
of video producers waiting for you.
6) Taking
Youtube for granted.
Many people
would say, we should not worry, it's a rough patch, Youtube will be here. Yes,
it may well be here. Maybe it becomes the internet dump of Mainstream Media.
Maybe it becomes one more sack of "same old". This is not good
enough. Youtube became what it is, because of its content creators, and no
third party should just be allowed, to take over that momentum for themselves.
Many people
would say, who cares about Youtube? It was nice while it lasted. Do you
remember the early wikileaks revelations?
The famous chopper video? Do you think it would catch on so much if it
wasn't for Youtube? If you know that the war on Drugs, is a wasteful
ineffective torture of souls, did you learn that on Youtube, or the mainstream
media? Where have you heard the harshest criticisms of religion? On Youtube, or
the Mainstream Media? Where do you find the most stimulating ideas, the most
provocative arguments, the most thought provoking materials? On Youtube or the
mainstream media?
Where do
creationists, extremists and religious fanatics, get exposed in the most
detailed way? On Youtube, or the Mainstream Media?
7) Other
independent platforms
Many people promote new platforms, that would take the place of Youtube, and maintain free speech. It is a good contingency plan, an interesting experiment, and an investment for the future of expression. I agree wholeheartedly. That however, does not diminish the need to defend Youtube. Youtube is the most populous video platform by far. Other similar platforms get only a tiny fraction of the attention and views Youtube receives. Youtube is also the only platform that attracts people from all sides of society, unlike other platforms who have narrower representation. Being bullied into leaving Youtube, and moving to smaller platforms, will be the marginalization of dissenting and independent voices, at least for a time. Diversity of opinion, will be pushed to the side, in a tiny corner of the internet, where it can't reach massive audiences, and thus can't hurt mainstream narratives. Even if we go to another platform now, and make it big and successful like Youtube, the corporate interests, will abandon Youtube after abusing it, and they will attack the new successful independent platform on the rise. And you know if these guys can get Google to bend, any other platform will bend. That's why we need to stop them this time around.
Many people promote new platforms, that would take the place of Youtube, and maintain free speech. It is a good contingency plan, an interesting experiment, and an investment for the future of expression. I agree wholeheartedly. That however, does not diminish the need to defend Youtube. Youtube is the most populous video platform by far. Other similar platforms get only a tiny fraction of the attention and views Youtube receives. Youtube is also the only platform that attracts people from all sides of society, unlike other platforms who have narrower representation. Being bullied into leaving Youtube, and moving to smaller platforms, will be the marginalization of dissenting and independent voices, at least for a time. Diversity of opinion, will be pushed to the side, in a tiny corner of the internet, where it can't reach massive audiences, and thus can't hurt mainstream narratives. Even if we go to another platform now, and make it big and successful like Youtube, the corporate interests, will abandon Youtube after abusing it, and they will attack the new successful independent platform on the rise. And you know if these guys can get Google to bend, any other platform will bend. That's why we need to stop them this time around.
8) But the
advertisers/corporations did not leave with the intend to hurt Youtube. There
is no conspiracy!! They left to protect their public image.
In modern power dynamics, there is no need for
dark rooms filled with cigar smoke, and the methods that power players use, are
not necessarily violent or conspicuous. Any move the Mainstream Media and
others would make against Youtube, would necessarily use the pathways by which
they usually conduct business. Any action they take is almost seamlessly
integrated into their daily activity. But there are details that stand out.
Every day
there are hundreds of cancellations, and modifications of campaigns in the Ad
industry. Usually they never reach news headlines, or create noise. Part of
what advertisers do, is handle issues that come up in promotion, without
attracting negative attention, that would taint the promotion. When advertising
disputes attract attention, it is because some of the players involved, wanted
it to be so. Such public moves, usually aim at influencing the market. Think
about it! Why would they make noise, about their ads being on terrorist videos,
if their purpose was to avoid the disgrace, of having their ads on terrorist
videos? Are they that stupid? Hey, I am shocked people may see my ads play on
terrorist videos, so let's make it known to the world, that my ads played on
terrorist videos! Makes sense!
The advertisers handling BBC, Pepsi or
AT&T maybe technically the ones responsible for pulling out of Youtube, but
such drastic actions are bound to have been discussed with their clients.
Losing all ad presence from Youtube, the biggest video platform in the world,
is a risky move that could affect a client's impressions and revenue. It is not
something an agency would do lightly without advising with their client. The
same goes for other advertisers. If companies, were genuinely just afraid of
their ads playing on the wrong video, they would have their advertisers,
quietly sort this out, with Youtube and Google departments. That is what
companies usually do. Getting the public involved in corporate transactions is
not the norm. This all becomes all the more suspicious, as these revelations,
come right after a series of attacks against the character of Youtube and
Youtubers. Moreover, the advertisers that collectively pulled out of Youtube in
this dramatic move, have not presented accurate data, of how many impressions
were they getting on inappropriate videos. Ad sense, is a vast network of
online advertising. It manages to present, billions of ads, tailored to the
tastes and locality of the user. Some wrong ad impressions, are both
unimportant, and expectable. If advertisers were simply motivated by company
interests, they would run a cost benefit analysis, and see that, a couple of
wrong ad impressions on a sea of targeted online ads, amounts to no damage at
all. WPP CEO Martin Sorrell told CNBC that advertisers boycotting video service
YouTube "doesn't make sense".
Sorrel who is CEO of an Advertising company, also told CNBC that
"Boycotting what is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful
medium, doesn't make sense,". Additionally he stated that "you can't
make things 100 percent brand safe." Brand exposure is unlikely to be
flawless inside or outside Youtube and the internet. On TV, ads will play
frequently in between shocking and upsetting News. Ads are shown by networks
whose approval is barely around 1/3. Doesn't that mean that 70% of the people
who see these ads, link brands to unfavorable Networks? How damaging is it for
a company, to advertise on the Networks that are caught lying? How damaging is
it, to advertise on CNN that has broadcasted lies to promote the acceptance of
two or three recent wars? Does anyone pull ads from Networks, when they spread
obvious lies? Did companies lose half their revenue, because they advertise on
Networks who attacked Trump with yellow journalism? Does Pepsi know every bar
that has their sign in it, and do they know if racists, bigots, or terrorists
go to them? Does GM or Volkswagen know how many of their own cars are parked
outside an extremist rally? Why don't companies ask for documentations of
ideology, before they sell their stuff to people? Is racism or extremism evil
only when it comes to advertising next to it, but not when they are taking the
cash of racists and extremists? In a recent survey 52% of British Muslims
thought that homosexuality should be illegal. Have companies stopped using
Muslim family depictions in their adverts, in the UK? Have they stopped selling
goods to Muslims? Are advertisers hypocrites, that are outraged when their
brand is supposedly mishandled, but actually don't care about bigotry or
extremism? Is the British public sector really that strict, with ads on
extremist videos, when they had allowed hundreds of underage girls, to be
groomed and serially raped for decades in Rotherham? Isn't this selective
outrage too hypocritical to stand?
9) But it
is illegal to advertise next to terrorists!
Some say that organizations of the
State like the BBC would face legal repercussions and fines, because
advertising on hate speech is illegal. That is very convenient. Child rape is
also illegal and the BBC sheltered a child rapist for decades. Even the
investigations they ordered on this scandal have been called a whitewash.
Besides BBC managers have not invested their money on the BBC. If the BBC gets
a fine, the license fee payers will pay it. Some say that looking into the
corruption and crimes of the BBC and other boycotters of Youtube is just an
attempt to smear them. Well isn't the BBC and other boycotters, trying to smear
Youtube as an unsafe platform? If they claim that they care for their
reputation, should we not scrutinize that very reputation? Some say that the
BBC is paid by the TV license fee, therefore, they do not feel threatened by
the increasing expansion of Youtube, that diminishes mainstream media appeal.
That is false. If the viewership and influence of the BBC, keeps declining, not
only will they lose the ability to influence public opinion, but eventually
they will lose funding as well.
10) The Ads made Youtube a corporate hellhole
in the first place.
Youtube's functionality, is dependent upon a great quantity
of quality hardware and software solutions. This is very costly. Youtube would
resort to one method of gaining revenue or another. Advertising is still the
most popular revenue method for media, so Youtube would try that anyway.
Putting corporate ads on independent content is indeed a challenge, but this
new field of advertising will have to grow and improve, because independent
content and the views it attracts, will not go away.
11) How can
the corporations make Youtube corporate by leaving?
Duh? This is a move common
in markets. You first drain your opponent of revenue and then you buy them up
or subdue them to your rules. It really takes minimal knowledge of market
affairs to know this. The corporate advertisers that left Youtube, did more damage
to the public image of Youtube rather than on its revenue. They pulled out
dramatically, in order to create a cascade of advertiser departures from
Youtube. And they got what they aimed for. Now that Youtube is in a weak
position, they will easily compromise with corporate demands. If Youtube
becomes a dump of corporate videos, you will now this had to do with it.
12) The ads will come back Some say, that
advertisers are bound to come back to Youtube.
While this is true, Youtube may
not be Youtube anymore, once they come back. Youtube can now use this pretext
to demonetize more and more content creators, intensifying an already draconian
and unjust system of demonetization. Youtube has been twisting it's algorithms
and functionality for years, in order to meet higher goals, but also to serve
corporate wishes. Yes, the ads may come back. But every time corporations put
pressure on Youtube, Youtube loses some functionality, and this has been
happening for years. The constant corporate demands force Youtube to frequently
intervene on the sensitive ecosystem of independent content, with devastating
results for many content creators. The organic way videos used to spread and
channels used to grow, is gone. Perhaps Youtube is so secretive of the changes
they implement, because sharing information would expose corporate demands, or
promotional tactics. The corporations, serve our needs, and sell us their
products and services. Instead of them putting pressure on Youtube, to be more
like them, we the consumers, should put pressure on corporations, to be more
like Youtube instead. Many corporate campaigns are about diversity, and
cherishing individuality, enjoying the moment, being inspired, free blah blah
and how their products help that...well guess what? Youtube is all that. Youtube is diversity, and about cherishing
individuality, enjoying the moment, being inspired, free, those are all
properties that have more to do with Youtube and independent creators, rather
than corporate products. Maybe corporations should start taking their vapid
campaigns seriously, and listen to the individual, cherish the moment, enhance
individuality, and get BACK IN YOUTUBE, which nurtures all that already.
13) But
they are private companies.
Many say
that Youtube is a private company and they can do whatever they want! Well we
are private citizens and we too can do whatever we want. We can criticize
Youtube, for building a brand name on the backs of Youtube Creators, and now
abandoning them to please corporate bullies. We can stand up and support the
platform that was built with our sweat, and protect it from the unimaginative
corporate suits that want to appropriate it for their needs. We have the right to remind corporations,
that they serve us, and we cherish Youtube, so they should back off. In the
recent years and months, private companies had to deal with all sorts of vapid
outrage activism. Target Australia had to pull GTA V from the shelves, to
satisfy a few noisy offended types. Private cinemas cancel screenings of the Red
Pill documentary, to appease patriarchy screamers. And on a tastier note, Coca
cola had to ditch the New Coca Cola, to salvage their brand. Well this time,
corporations will have to address some serious grievances for a change, and
take their nasty hands of the biggest free expression platform in the world.
Yeah, they are private companies, and we are the customers. This passive logic
of "but they are private companies" is baseless. Besides, free speech is the glue that keeps a
society peaceful, therefore free speech does not only concern governments or
activists. It should concern everyone involved in a stable society.
14)
Advertisers and Companies should follow the audience, not the other way round.
Corporations have numerous scandals and embarrassments in their past and present that are more or less known to many. Nevertheless they try to put forward, this fake facade of purity and luxurious innocence through their corporate promotion efforts. Stop it. We don't buy it. We don't think you are angels, and no amount of boring, sanitized, corporate advertising will change that. We just want your products and services, when they are convenient. We know you are not angels, and we don't care. After all we are not angels either. If you want your brands to gain our attention, know that our attention is on Youtube. No matter what rumors you make about Youtube, no matter how much you hurt its creators financially, you will not get people vibrantly interested in the legacy media again. You can't force people to love the old media again, and the more you try that, the more tainted your image becomes, to the audiences of new media. Once all sixty year olds are gone, corporate platforms will have a 0% of dedicated followers. Do you corporations seriously want to start a fight, with the most important demographic of customers you have? If you do not advertise on us, we will advertise all the scandals and corruption in your recent history.
Corporations have numerous scandals and embarrassments in their past and present that are more or less known to many. Nevertheless they try to put forward, this fake facade of purity and luxurious innocence through their corporate promotion efforts. Stop it. We don't buy it. We don't think you are angels, and no amount of boring, sanitized, corporate advertising will change that. We just want your products and services, when they are convenient. We know you are not angels, and we don't care. After all we are not angels either. If you want your brands to gain our attention, know that our attention is on Youtube. No matter what rumors you make about Youtube, no matter how much you hurt its creators financially, you will not get people vibrantly interested in the legacy media again. You can't force people to love the old media again, and the more you try that, the more tainted your image becomes, to the audiences of new media. Once all sixty year olds are gone, corporate platforms will have a 0% of dedicated followers. Do you corporations seriously want to start a fight, with the most important demographic of customers you have? If you do not advertise on us, we will advertise all the scandals and corruption in your recent history.
