Is YouTube billing - and not refunding - advertisers for ads served on non-conforming or potentially copyright infringing content? Are its algorithms actively promoting this content to consumers, and deleting details about this content from advertisers’ placement reports?
adalytics.io
Ads observed on YouTube videos which were later deleted from the platform and redacted in ad delivery placement reports

JS Required-PDF:

Note: to get straight to the interesting part, read from the the bullet point number 10 in the summary in the comments.

  • Pro@programming.devOPEnglish
    5·
    17 hours ago
    Summary Part 1
    1. YouTube states “Only content meeting our monetization policies will be eligible to show ads.”
    2. Several advertisers reported to Adalytics that they were allegedly billed (and allegedly mostly not refunded) for video ads served on YouTube channels which were later removed by YouTube for violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines or YouTube’s Terms of Service. Some brands reported being billed thousands of dollars for hundreds of millions of ad impressions served against YouTube channels which YouTube allegedly deleted from its own platform for violations.
    3. When YouTube channels or videos are removed by YouTube for violations, Google appears to retroactively “redact” or “delete” data from advertisers’ ad delivery reports. Once YouTube removes a channel, the ad delivery reports are updated to say: “Channel no longer available”, such that brands cannot readily know what sorts of content their ads served against.
    4. According to various media buyers, YouTube’s own records show that the brands were billed for (and mostly not refunded) for ads served on channels were served on YouTube channels which were “terminated” “due to multiple or severe violations of”:
    • “YouTube’s policy prohibiting hate speech”
    • “YouTube’s policy on nudity or sexual content”
    • “YouTube’s policy prohibiting content designed to harass, bully or threaten.”
    • “YouTube’s policy on violence”
    • “YouTube’s policy prohibiting impersonation”
    1. In some cases, video ads appear to have been served against YouTube channels which were “terminated due to a legal complaint” or “removed due to a court order”. One of the channels which appears to have been removed was allegedly funded by an entity that - according to the US Department of Justice - was allegedly linked to a foreign intelligence information warfare and psyop operation. The channels’ operators stated they were “victims of this scheme”, knew “nothing about any of this fraudulent activity”, and “were “deceived and are victims” if the allegations are proven to be true.”
    2. In addition to retroactively redacting or deleting “offending” data from advertisers’ ad delivery reports without issuing full refunds, Google also appears to consistently withhold data about where significant portions of brands ads served. In some advertisers’ YouTube placement reports, between 10-40% of their channel-level or video-level ad delivery data is aggregated into a reporting category called: “Total: Other”. There appears to be no transparency or detail about where ads were served when the ads deliver against: “Total: Other”. It does not appear to be readily possible for a media buyer to know if the ads were served on Channels that were deleted for violations, low quality content, or otherwise. One brand reported that when they looked at “video-level” (rather channel-level) ad delivery reporting, YouTube had bucketed over 90% of their media spend into the “Total: Other” category, thus depriving the brand of transparency into where the majority of their ads served at a video-level.
    3. Google has previously stated it is committed to “at least 99% effective at ensuring brand safety of advertising placements on YouTube, in accordance with industry standards.” YouTube is Media Rating Council (MRC) accredited for “brand safety”, and works with “independent” third party verification vendors. Multiple advertisers reported that it is unclear to them whether the MRC or third party verification vendors have visibility into retroactively deleted YouTube channels or non-transparent “Total: Other” ad delivery as part of their brand safety assessments
    4. One small business (SMB) marketer allegedly spent over twelve months repeatedly asking - via email and in verbal meetings - why he was charged for ad delivery on YouTube, where over 50% of his ad spend was non-transparent in the “Total: Other” category. After 12+ months, YouTube reportedly agreed to provide him with a $50,000 custom credit in response to his repeated requests.
    5. In addition to serving adjacent to sexual content, hate speech, violence, and alleged foreign intelligence operations, significant portions of YouTube ads are served against content which was removed by YouTube due to “third-party claims of copyright infringement”.
    6. Content from all major film studios - Amazon/MGM, Paramount, Lionsgate, Disney, Universal Pictures, Warner Brothers, Sony - was found on third party YouTube channels (third party meaning the channels are not the official channels of these respective film studios). Content from streaming services such as Netflix, NBCUniversal Peacock, Disney+, and Apple TV+, was available for watching on third party YouTube channels. For example, the Netflix films “Extraction 2”, “Heart of Stone”, and “Atlas” could be watched in their entirety on multiple third party YouTube channels, where they received millions of views.