Yesterday, Silicon Alley Insider reported that online video giant YouTube may be quietly taking payments to promote featured videos.
Michael Learmonth writes: “The ‘featured’ and ‘promoted’ videos on the homepage are chosen by editorial criteria, and, in theory, are not influenced by who is spending money to advertise. Or are they? Advertisers say that ‘promoted’ videos are routinely negotiated into advertising deals on the site. What’s more, advertisers say, YouTube uses the ‘promoted’ video slots to help meet the ad impression guarantees it makes to advertisers who buy impressions on a cost-per-thousand views (CPM) basis.
“A YouTube spokesman says the company won’t comment on agreements with advertisers, but ‘purchasing placement on the homepage as a Promoted Video is not a method of advertising we now offer.’ That said, the company does say “promoted videos,” featured at the top of the page, are rotated by algorithm from a pool of videos selected from ‘users, partners or advertisers.'”
This allegation isn’t new. Back in 2006, Mark Glaser wrote: “The problem is that YouTube is not as transparent as it could be about what is featured on its home page, what slots are paid for, and what criteria it uses to choose the editorial picks. YouTube’s new parent company, Google, is famously tight-lipped about how it ranks search results, how it picks sources on Google News and other important decisions that affect the fortunes of many online businesses. YouTube considers itself to be an entertainment destination, taking Google further into the editorial realm.”
Glaser made this prescient point: “Hiding the ‘YouTube juice’ — the way videos are featured — could have worse implications for the site than hiding Google juice, because YouTube depends on the contributions of its army of video uploaders who might lose faith in the service if they believe promotional slots are rigged.”
