Do you ever click the title on an embedded YouTube video in an article that no longer opens the video on YouTube? You aren’t imagining things. What’s going on is entirely intentional, and there are ethical reasons for it. According to The Verge, the problem has to do with the kind of player YouTube provides for websites as well as how YouTube is implementing protection of its ad revenue. Here’s what’s going on and what this means to publishers and users.
The two YouTube players: Standard vs. PfP
Websites embedded with YouTube videos may choose between two player variants: the standard YouTube player or the YouTube Player for Publishers (PfP).
- Standard Player:Completely controlled by YouTube, the player carries YouTube branding and links to the site. Also, YouTube can choose what advertisement to be served.
- YouTube Player for Publishers (PfP): Launched in 2016, the PfP helps publishers sell their own video ad inventory, offering more opportunities for revenue. YouTube, of course, does not have sight into these ads.
Functionally, the two players look almost similar but would offer more ad control for publishers.
Why the links are missing
Earlier this year, YouTube significantly updated the PfP to completely remove all branding and back-links to the platform. Here is what a YouTube spokesperson, Mariana De Felice, has to say about that:
News publishers can choose between the standard YouTube embedded player or a version designed specifically for them, which gives greater control over the ads experience but removes YouTube branding and links back to YouTube. In order to protect our advertisers and partners, we’ve removed our branding and links back to YouTube from the player.
The bottom line is that it boils down to ad revenue control. The PfP lets publishers sell their ads at a higher rate, but it does reduce YouTube’s visibility into those ads. The removal of links will ensure that YouTube protects its own advertising ecosystem while also differentiating between its players.
SUGGESTED FOR YOU
How this impacts users
For users, removing the links and brands is much more than just giving a cosmetic appearance. Previously when one clicked on a video title with YouTube, they were transported to that website, enabling features like “Watch Later,” creating playlists, etc., but these options are disabled when the PfP is used.
This impacts users in scenarios such as:
- Saving Videos for Later: The “Watch Later” feature, with which content can conveniently be queued, is absent in the PfP player.
- Accessing Additional Features: Its native platform has allowed functionality such as comments, also it includes surfing on content-related things, something lacking in the PfP embedded videos.
A trade-off for publishers
Publishers now encounter a challenging problem:
- One should use the PfP player for maximizing ad revenue with reduced YouTube links and features.
- Stick to the standard player, which offers full YouTube functionality but limits their advertising control.
While this decision is really one of revenue, the inability of the PfP player to be user-friendly could leave the viewer frustrated. The publishers need to weigh this potential against their ad revenue goals and their audience.