Word Count: 1505 Koshy 1

Nipun Koshy

Professor Leah Zander

English 11000

14 December 2018

The “Adpocalypse”: An Agitation of the Symbiosis of YouTube

Following the discovery that their advertisements were placed alongside hate, discrimination, assault, extremism, and insensitivity, advertisers on YouTube began leaving the platform in late 2016 and 2017 (Kho). This led YouTube to attempt to solve the issue, but this action, in turn, hurt content-creators. Deemed the “Adpocalypse” by one YouTuber (PewDiePie

“THE DELETED PEPSI AD”), this event would change the symbiotic web of relations in

YouTube, and raise questions about the platform and its role in the Digital Age.

It is important to understand the complicated web of relations found in the YouTube ecosystem. Similar to most platforms, four major parties are present: the speaker, the audience, the platform itself (or, more accurately, the regulators and leaders in charge of the platform), and the sustainers (or, more often than not, the advertisers). In the case of YouTube, the speakers are content-creators (also called YouTubers) on the platform. The audience encompasses the viewers of the videos posted onto YouTube by these content-creators. The platform is YouTube itself; since the medium is run by Google, references to YouTube as an entity (one that is in charge of maintaining and governing the platform of YouTube) typically refers to Google. Finally, the sustainers are the advertisers placing advertisements alongside various videos YouTubers made and published. These four parties are engaged in a delicate, four-way Symbiosis (a diagram depicting the relationships between YouTube, its advertisers, YouTubers, and their viewers can be found at the end of this work). Koshy 2

This paper will focus on the effects of the so-called “Adpocalypse,” and determine whether it was as disastrous as its moniker suggests. This will be done by comparing the state of

YouTube’s Symbiosis before and after the Adpocalypse.

Although one content-creator mentioned the possible effects of “advertiser-friendly” policies in August of 2016 (Alexander), it was February and March of 2017 that the controversy began to be known (Alexander; Kho). News organizations reported throughout the and Europe that advertisements on YouTube were placed alongside “hate speech and violent extremist content” (Dunphy). The Times in London, for instance, found that British government ads were paired with “videos extolling rape, anti-Semitism, and terrorism” (Kho). This led large companies across these regions to withdraw their advertising deals with YouTube, which in turn prompted YouTube to promise to find a way to solve this issue. To do this, they created an algorithm which would detect content deemed “unfriendly” for advertisers (Alexander; Dunphy;

Kho); it makes sense that the platform would rely on artificial intelligence to filter through the content considering that about 400 hours of video content is uploaded on the platform per minute

(Kho). These “Not Advertiser Friendly,” or NAF, videos would then be “demonetized,” or be ineligible for ad placement in the video.

However, many content-creators found fault with this move. Some YouTubers, for instance, felt that this was a hindrance of their freedom of expression, which was what had prompted them to join the platform as a content-creator. They felt it forced them to choose between earning revenue or not-censoring themselves (Stanford 6). Those with enough of a following could turn to another platform from which fans could donate money, such as Patreon, or switch to a whole new platform to post and earn revenue on their videos, such as

(Stanford 5-6, Weiss). Some platforms, such as Vidme, even presented themselves as almost an Koshy 3 anti-YouTube, assuring users that they would not “ ‘censor content for bad language or controversial subject matter’ ” (Lichtenstein).

Other YouTubers found that their videos, which attempted to confront and discuss sensitive or controversial topics, were targeted by the algorithm. For instance, Philip DeFranco,

“whose brand revolves around unfiltered, news commentary” (Alexander), was hit hard by the advertiser boycott and the later algorithm (Weiss). Arianna Pflederer posted a video entitled, “Do

You Want to Commit Suicide?” which was flagged NAF, although the video itself actually attempted to dissuade the viewer from the act of suicide (Dunphy).

Most YouTubers, however, began to become annoyed upon finding that content they created were deemed NAF even though the videos themselves presented no violence, racism, bad language, etc. The algorithm seemed to be a bit too sensitive. For instance, Dunphy reported the tale of the vlogger, Romina, whose video about a cat café had been flagged NAF. YouTube did instate an appeal process, which allows the video to be reviewed by a real person, but this is flawed as well. It was found that more popular and larger content-creators were given priority in the review process, which angered smaller YouTubers (Alexander). There are also examples such as Pflederer’s “Do You Want to Commit Suicide?”, which was still deemed NAF even after the appeal process (Dunphy).

Most of the information found about the interactions between content-creators and their audience was written post-Adpocalypse, and in a comparative manner. Stephen Stanford interviewed ten YouTubers with a subscriber count between 1,000 and 500,000, and eight audience members in Sweden. He noted that most of the people he interviewed felt that post-

Adpocalypse YouTube gave greater power to the audience. He quoted one audience member who said, for instance, “ ‘Before the Adpocalypse…it felt that we…were not as important to the Koshy 4 conversation’ ” (27). YouTubers agree, one saying, “ ‘YouTube is a relationship between us, the

YouTubers, and then the audience, and we need each other to make this work’ ” (27). Stanford attributes this greater dependency of YouTubers on their audience to the minimum requirements for video monetization, the appeal process, and other third-party sources of merchandise or other forms of audience funding. Content-creators now seem to value their viewers more, knowing that, without the latter, the former could not have grown to what they are today. In contrast, the relationship between advertisers and YouTubers and their audience is largely unchanged.

YouTubers who can still add ads in their videos in order to gain some revenue, while most viewers skip the ads as soon as they can.

The Adpocalypse has definitely changed the Symbiosis of YouTube. The event caused many content-creators to lose a large amount of their revenue from the platform, and even discouraged many from continuing in the platform. However, in the long run, the Adpocalypse has given the audience greater power in the Symbiosis, especially in the audience’s connection to the content-creator. YouTube itself and its advertisers seem to be largely unaffected. Therefore, the Adpocalypse, although it seemed to be disastrous while it was occurring, now appears to have more positive effects in the long run. Time will tell whether the event was beneficial for the

Symbiosis as a whole. I personally pity the small content-creators who were unfortunate enough to attempt to grow during this time. They were too small to be eligible to have ads on their videos and to have a different method through which viewers could donate to them. Many of these people quit the platform they had heard about and had been a part of as a viewer for years.

They were collateral damage of the event.

What is of much greater interest is what can be understood from the reactions of the four parties of the Symbiosis during the Adpocalypse, particularly the reactions of YouTube. Koshy 5

Advertisers have often found that the audience tends to associate them with the programs they sponsor. As such, to promote their image, advertisers often force traditional media outlets to have strict rules about the programs they air. This is why, for instance, most programs on traditional media outlets censor themselves. Upon the beginning of the Adpocalypse, YouTube had a choice. It could stand by the side of its YouTubers, the content-creators which had been with the platform from its onset and had worked with the platform in order for both parties to grow. Or, YouTube could stand with its advertisers, the group that had allowed the platform and its users to make a living out of the work put into the platform. In some ways, it makes complete sense why YouTube would side with its advertisers, because, without them, both the platform and all its content-creators would end up without much money, and the platform could not be sustained. On the other hand, the outrage felt by content-creators is completely justified. Without

YouTubers making content on the platform, YouTube would be nothing, an empty site.

YouTube’s actions were a betrayal of the trust between the platform and its content-creators, the first people who believed it could become something remarkable. Furthermore, the apparent favoritism the platform has for its larger content-creators was another attack for smaller

YouTubers, who had joined the platform hoping for the “YouTube Dream.”

Steven Stanford raised the idea that “the Adpocalypse was not a one off event instigated by a freak glitch in the algorithm, but rather an evolutionary step, necessary for the platform to reach the next level of success” (44). The event does indeed seem to be an evolutionary step in

YouTube’s development, implying that, for better or worse, the platform seems to be heading on the path to becoming more akin to a traditional media outlet. Koshy 6 The Symbiosis of YouTube of The Symbiosis

Koshy 7

Works Cited

Alexander, Julia. “The Yellow $: a Comprehensive History of Demonetization and YouTube's

War with Creators.” Polygon, Vox Media, 10 May 2018, www.polygon.com/2018/5/10/

17268102/youtube-demonetization--logan-paul-casey-neistat-philip-defranco.

Bardin, Ariel. “Introducing Expanded YouTube Partner Program Safeguards to Protect

Creators.” YouTube Creator , Google, 6 Apr. 2017, -creators.googleblog

.com/2017/04/introducing-expanded-youtube-partner.html.

Brouwer, Bree. “The YouTube ‘Adpocalypse’ and the End of MCNs.” EContent, vol. 40, no. 5,

Sept. 2017, p. 35. EBSCOhost, ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login?url=https://

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=124961128&site=ehost-

live.

Dunphy, Rachel. “Can YouTube Survive the Adpocalypse?” Intelligencer, Media

LLC, 28 Dec. 2017, nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/12/can-youtube-survive-the-

adpocalypse.html.

Kho, Nancy Davis. “YouTube, AI, and the ‘Adpocalpyse.’” EContent, vol. 40, no. 6, Nov. 2017,

pp. 4–8. EBSCOhost, ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login?url=https://search.

ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=126048189&site=ehost-live.

Lichtenstein, Frederike. “Is Vidme the 'NewTube'? Why Video Creators Are Changing Sides and

How They Feel about It.” Masters of Media, 24 Sept. 2017, mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/

blog/2017/09/24/is-vidme-the-newtube-why-creators-are-changing-sides-and-how-they-

feel-about-it/.

PewDiePie, director. THE DELETED PEPSI AD. YouTube, YouTube, 5 Apr. 2017,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MqnE7TPcRw. Koshy 8

Sloane, Garett. “New YouTube Rules Restrict Ads to Vetted Channels as PewDiePie Declares

The 'Adpocalypse'.” AdAge, Crain Communications, 6 Apr. 2017, adage.com/article/

digital/pewdiepie-declares-adpocalypse-youtube-makes-rules/308591/.

Stanford, Steven. YouTube and the Adpocalypse: How Have The New YouTube Advertising

Friendly Guidelines Shaped Creator Participation and Audience Engagement? Thesis,

Lund University, 2018.

Weiss, Geoff. “Here's How The YouTube 'Adpocalypse' Is Affecting Top Creators.” Tubefilter,

Tubefilter, Inc., 4 May 2017, www.tubefilter.com/2017/05/04/how-youtube-adpocalypse-

affected-top-creators/.