iHype

1y

It’s a standard ad? Like a commercial or website ad. Obviously the goal is to get them to then consume it on their own time. Every major label artist’s music is advertised..

Implying the ad is inflating the song directly is misleading though when it’s skippable.

Only counts as a YouTube view if you actually sit there and watch 30+ seconds willingly which at that point is 0 difference from choosing to watch a video YouTube placed in your “up next” list.

However even then that YouTube view doesn’t even count for charts

TheFader

1y

You don’t know when it’s available to skip, it could very well be past the 30 second mark

iHype

1y

An unskippable ad cannot be longer than 15 seconds per YouTube’s own policy

Anything skippable also will not be past 15 seconds

Free YoungBoy

1y

“Does YouTube feature 30 second unskippable ads”

Yes, YouTube is introducing 30-second unskippable ads, particularly for top-performing content on connected TVs, and is also experimenting with pause ads.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
30-Second Unskippable Ads:
YouTube is rolling out 30-second unskippable ads, which will replace the two consecutive 15-second ads that typically appear on the platform.

iHype

1y

And Nokia was a skippable ad.
“ After five seconds, the viewer has an option to skip the ad.”

Free YoungBoy

1y

I never said it wasn’t. First you bring up the billboard chart now this. You’re fighting ghosts man.

This s*** is stupid anyway because it’s not about the views on the ad counting towards the view count even though some do.

It’s about the fact that his video is playing as a YouTube ad and it’s funny considering everything that’s happened these last few months with the lawsuit and the boosting allegations towards NLU

iHype

1y

“Watching at least 30 seconds”

99.99% of people do not watch an ad longer than 30 seconds.

Sonic Winter

1y

They do if they’re not paying attention and at night when they fall asleep on autoplay

iHype

1y

And Nokia was a skippable ad.
“ After five seconds, the viewer has an option to skip the ad.”

iHype

1y

I’m not saying NLU was botted however the suit was over “botting” which implies doing something under the table that isn’t allowed. Hence it was grounds for a lawsuit.

Having a YouTube ad is pretty transparent and 100% legal.

The comparison makes no sense. This example is not doing anything hypocritical the lawsuit spoke against lmao.

TheFader

1y

Niggas was in here clowning Dancing in the Flames when it was running ads to boost its view count, now you’re saying that doesn’t exist when NOKIA does the same thing

iHype

1y

I’m saying Drake never sued UMG for simply having a YouTube ad, so why are we claiming “ it’s funny considering everything that’s happened these last few months with the lawsuit”

It’s a false equivalence.

He never said a label shouldn’t be allowed to market/advertise their music period

iHype

1y

I’m saying Drake never sued UMG for simply having a YouTube ad, so why are we claiming “ it’s funny considering everything that’s happened these last few months with the lawsuit”

It’s a false equivalence.

He never said a label shouldn’t be allowed to market/advertise their music period

TheFader

1y

He’s effectively suing them for marketing Not Like Us. There is zero evidence of foul play anywhere whatsoever. Every time someone gets asked to show evidence of there being foul play, they can’t answer.

UMG didn’t do anything out of the ordinary to market Not Like Us than they would with any other hot single gaining steam on its own.

I’m 100% positive that if there were Not Like Us video ads on other videos, you dumbasses would use that as evidence of UMG colluding to make the song more popular than it actually was

TheFader

1y

He’s effectively suing them for marketing Not Like Us. There is zero evidence of foul play anywhere whatsoever. Every time someone gets asked to show evidence of there being foul play, they can’t answer.

UMG didn’t do anything out of the ordinary to market Not Like Us than they would with any other hot single gaining steam on its own.

I’m 100% positive that if there were Not Like Us video ads on other videos, you dumbasses would use that as evidence of UMG colluding to make the song more popular than it actually was

iHype

1y

No, he/the lawyers specifically accused bot-manipulation and algorithm-fixing.

These are things that would count as illegal, are done under the table, and not publicly disclosed.

Purchasing an ad on a website is not what he sued over. That is completely legal, fully transparent, and acceptable.

I’m not even saying I think NLU had any of that, however this isn’t comparable to what he actually was suing over.

iHype

1y

No, he/the lawyers specifically accused bot-manipulation and algorithm-fixing.

These are things that would count as illegal, are done under the table, and not publicly disclosed.

Purchasing an ad on a website is not what he sued over. That is completely legal, fully transparent, and acceptable.

I’m not even saying I think NLU had any of that, however this isn’t comparable to what he actually was suing over.

orangetcovid

1y

crine its almost like that's why there's a lawsuit and discovery is being presented to the owls😂😂😂

eat s***
Drake won

TheFader

1y

Absolutely zero evidence of any of this btw

iHype

1y

..and I’m not saying there is, I’m saying that was what the lawsuit was about.