YT TV?

02 March 2026

I suppose this moment had to come eventually. This blog has steered away from the ‘Is YouTube TV or not’ debate on the basis that to me it makes as much sense as arguing whether or not a direct mail piece for my local pizza place is a newspaper, given that both are printed on paper.

But here we are. The debate rumbles on, an example of how the great debates of our industry have degenerated from things that matter to things that really don’t.

There is nothing wrong with YouTube. It’s a great example of a structure within which creators can create. It’s a brilliant outlet for those who for whatever reason can’t find their way into, or prefer not to bother with broadcast or streaming channels.

It’s also a valuable distribution mechanism for those broadcast and streaming channels to showcase their wares.

So, given its many merits why can’t YouTube just be YouTube? The answer is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how advertisers ought to allocate their budgets.

You’ll note ‘ought to’.

In a previous post I’ve noted the obsession around big numbers. This is a huge problem; and one that is not talked about anything like enough.

The issue is threefold. First, we are very comfortable with the notion that biggest is by definition best. It’s finite, it’s clean. Two million is better than one million. No judgement required. Case closed. Move on.

Secondly, we are nervous about being backed into making a creative judgement. The most obvious use-case is an over-reliance on advertising research. It’s there to guide not to decide. We’re quick to abdicate responsibility to someone else – and if a decision on creative turns out to be wrong, well that’s obviously the research company’s fault, not mine for being indecisive.

Thirdly, there’s a combination of the first two. We have an innate fear of numbers. They’re boring; the detail is tedious. Far easier to take those nice salespeople at their word than to question how they arrived at their numbers, or to query any creative application of the data.

There’s no room for ‘soft’ data, for understanding why or how people are exposed to advertising. All we need to know is how many were exposed. The rest is irrelevant.

How people use YouTube is simply different from how they use TV. Not better, not worse, just different.

TV is regulated; the content is professionally produced; the number of minutes given over to ads is limited; ads are showcased within their own pod. The audience is measured using a system approved by all interested parties. The data is available for full analysis. The audience data ‘building blocks’ are robust, solid, verifiable.

You can argue that you think the system used, be it BARB, Nielsen or whatever is arcane, old-fashioned, due for upgrade, not fit for purpose in today’s world. You may be right, but the point is a different one – the methodology and the data produced are agreed collaboratively, all is available for analysis, everything is transparent. Any upgrade should stick to these basics.

Ads on YouTube, and on other platforms are placed, to be polite, at random. We’ve all seen online ads that appear literally cutting in to (for example) an interviewer’s sentence. They are interruptive in the worst possible way. They are placed by machine; no human would suggest anything so perfectly designed to be ignored.

Regardless, is the data verifiable; analysable? Nope. You can get data but only on the sellers’ terms.

Does anyone recall in-platform video ads? Or do we all just want them over as soon as possible?

Surely how we consume media channels is an important consideration alongside how many consume.

And that’s the point. YouTube is great, so is TV. But they’re different; we use them differently, our mood-states are (probably, I don’t have data…) different.

I really don’t care if YouTube adds a reach point or two – not least because the data are not comparable (although the likes of Origin will help).

Research is there to guide. It should always be questioned.

It may be inconvenient, even hard – but you, the trained professional, get to decide.

The right decision is to treat YouTube as YouTube, not as something it isn’t.