Skip to main content

Narrowcasting on Youtube


The discussion of narrowcasting we had in class reminded me of this fascinating video on the surprisingly complex process which determines what ad you see when you click on a video on Youtube. The short version is this: In the millisecond between you clicking the video and the ad playing, Youtube's algorithms analyze the video (looking at its title, views, comments, etc.) and analyze you (trying to determine your age, gender, location, etc. based on your watch history) and then give those pieces of information to the algorithms of the advertisers, which have been programmed to target certain kinds of videos and specific viewer demographics. The advertiser algorithms then hold an auction to determine what commercial you see when the video loads.

While this process is certainly useful for Youtube, advertisers and content creators, it has some disturbing implications. If you and someone else watch the exact same video, you may well see completely different ads. This, as with all narrowcasting, contributes to the breakdown of our culture into sub-groups of similar people who consume the same media, see the same ads, and have increasingly limited knowledge of the other sub-cultures. This kind of division contributed to the outcome of the last presidential election, as people split into self-contained bubbles where they were exposed only to information from their side.

Comments

  1. I remember hearing about this a while ago but I thought that it was not that big of a deal on Youtube. Also it seems strange that Youtube has struggled so much in the past at putting ads in the places where they need to be and not where they shouldn't be when they do this with all of their consumers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Eh, it's not that surprising to me. Computer programs are very bad at the kind of thinking necessary to categorize Youtube videos.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hopefully This Play Isn’t Being Graded on the Title

SCENE: A grand stone throne room. Towering statues of past monarchs line the walls in alcoves, most armored and armed for battle. Rows of lanterns, seemingly floating in midair, provide a deep purple light which fails to fully illuminate the huge room’s recesses. In the center, a throne is rigidly carved into an enormous stalagmite which thrusts up through the otherwise flagstone floor. Runic script twines around the tower of rock, and the ancient skull of some gigantic horned beast is impaled on its tip. Stone steps and a smooth walkway lead down from the throne to a simple wooden table awkwardly sitting in the room’s center. It is surrounded by several ordinary chairs and bears an unrolled map, an ornate orrery and two flagons. The floor and walls are intermittently marred with scuff marks and faint bloodstains, as if from a recent battle. AT RISE: OLORIN sits uncomfortably on the edge of the throne, wearing a flowing, verdant green cloak with a burnished gold clasp. His feet are ...

Unconventional = Good

Anyone who analyzes enough entertainment media quickly begins to notice a few patterns. Every story has a (usually white and male) protagonist who, along with his band of supporting characters, faces some kind of conflict, defeats the villain, and lives happily ever after. This is (an oversimplified summary of) the Hero's Journey, that pervasive force which consigns so many stories to the dustbin of sameness. This common theme makes all media somewhat similar, but within specific genres there are many more of these similarities, so much so that one quickly realizes that the vast majority of stories are just a bunch of prefabricated parts assembled in a predictable order with a new coat of paint slapped on to trick people into thinking its something different. For evidence of this, I direct you to go to  TV Tropes , an incredible database of fictional tropes (common elements found in many different pieces of media). Once you're there, find the page of a movie you like and scroll...

An Objection to Merchants of Cool

I generally found Merchants of Cool  to be quite insightful, but on one point I found it rather hyperbolic. One of the experts interviewed as part of the documentary compared American teens to Africa and the corporations marketing to them to European imperialists. The essential problem with this analogy is that modern teens can choose not to be exploited. The inhabitants of Africa could not simply decide to not be affected by Western conquest, but to a degree we can choose to do exactly that. The mook will always exist as a stereotype in media marketed to teenagers, but I can (and do) choose not to watch that media. (In my case this really isn't even that difficult, as I find the kind of media inhabited by mooks to be quite boring). Likewise, the fact that what is fashionable is chosen by a few large corporations doesn't really matter to someone (like me) whose clothing decisions don't factor in what's "cool" on any given day. It's certainly possible to be...