Buzz
Imagine showing up to work tomorrow only to be told that, through no fault of your own, you’ll be hit with an 80 percent pay cut for an unknown period of time. While this might sound like an outlandish scenario, it became a harsh reality for thousands working online when Google’s infamous Adpocalypse struck. Here are ten events that unfolded during and after Google’s PR disaster of a perfect storm.
10. Pewdiepie vs. WSJ: The Calm Before the Storm
In a now-deleted video on his channel, Pewdiepie visited Fivver, a website where people pay for various tasks. He made a request for users to perform actions that ranged from quirky to deeply inappropriate. To his shock, one of the tasks was fulfilled by a person who held up a banner reading “DEATH TO ALL JEWS” while shouting, “Subscribe to Keemstar!” The backlash was swift and severe.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) was one of the first to pounce, compiling instances of Pewdiepie making anti-Semitic jokes and forwarding them to the brands working with him. They demanded explanations from the companies about why they were supporting someone making such comments. As a result, Pewdiepie was dropped by Maker Studio, and his YouTube Red series was canceled just before it was set to premiere. Pewdiepie responded with an apology video, acknowledging his actions but claiming that the WSJ had misrepresented him, taking things out of context in an attempt to damage his reputation.
9. WSJ Hypocrisy: YouTubers Respond
After the news broke that Pewdiepie had been essentially dismissed by Disney and YouTube over his controversial Jewish jokes, fans and acquaintances began investigating the backgrounds of the Wall Street Journal writers involved in the story. Most of them had locked their accounts and blocked access to their post histories, with one notable exception: journalist Ben Fritz.
As people sifted through Fritz’s past posts, they discovered tweets where he stated that making fun of black people was acceptable because the jokes were funny, expressed surprise at how skilled Jews were at frying, and openly admitted to having an affinity for Nazis. Once these tweets came to light, people began questioning the WSJ: if Pewdiepie’s Jewish jokes were enough to get him fired, why wasn’t the journalist involved in the article held accountable for his own racially insensitive remarks?
8. The Adpocalypse Kicks Off
Not long after, the Wall Street Journal published a damning article that revealed video evidence of ads appearing on a blatantly racist video featuring the N-word in the title—something that shouldn’t have been possible given Google’s own advertising guidelines. When advertisers were confronted by the WSJ regarding their ads running on these offensive videos, they quickly pulled their support from YouTube on a massive scale.
As advertisers pulled away, Google’s profits took a significant hit. Estimates suggest that the company’s revenue fell by nearly a billion dollars in just one month. It was undoubtedly a worst-case scenario for the tech giant, a situation that could take months to even begin to stabilize. However, this was only the start of their troubles, as the media frenzy began in full force.
7. The Stab-Proof Vest Video
Usually, nobody pays much attention to clickbait articles from The Daily Mail or The Sun, but they seized the opportunity following the WSJ’s articles and a recent terrorist attack that claimed multiple lives. They published a story claiming Google was rewarding people for teaching others how to kill police officers. While the video’s title, “How To Pierce A Stab-Proof Vest,” was a questionable choice, it was a classic case of judging a book by its cover.
The article claimed that the YouTuber’s video demonstrated how to stab through protective armor similar to that worn by murdered PC Keith Palmer, who was stabbed during the recent terrorist attack. However, Joerg Sprave, the creator of the video, clarified that it was actually a review of the stab-proof vest itself, showing that despite buying one, you shouldn’t feel protected, as he was able to easily stab through it with minimal force.
The article read like something out of Reefer Madness, accusing Google of profiting by teaching terrorists how to kill people. In reality, it was simply a man showing why you shouldn’t place blind trust in the armor sold online. Armor that, very likely, wasn’t even the same type worn by the police officer. Amid the outrage and media calls for his head, the YouTuber nearly lost his channel as his videos were deleted and he received community guideline strikes, which could have cost him his revenue and his ability to continue making videos.
6. Ad Revenue Takes a Nosedive
With a continuous barrage of negative coverage about Google’s YouTube platform and dozens of advertisers withdrawing at once, it was inevitable that something would break—and that something was ad revenue for YouTube’s vast network of channels. Everyone from major creators to smaller ones felt the sting. Prior to the Adpocalypse, a video with one million views could earn anywhere between $1,000 and $2,000, or more depending on its length.
After the Adpocalypse, even some of YouTube’s highest earners reported earning 80 percent less than their usual daily income. This caused a massive impact on smaller creators who were already barely scraping by, now seeing only 20 percent of their former earnings. Smaller, more experimental channels vanished overnight as it became clear that these reduced earnings weren’t going anywhere soon.
5. Thank You Coca-Cola Campaign
As advertisers continued to exit in droves, one major advertiser seemed to remain loyal. Or so it appeared. In an ironic twist, multiple YouTubers with millions of followers came together to release videos thanking Coca-Cola for sticking with Google through all the controversy. But as soon as their videos went live, it was revealed that Coca-Cola had pulled its ads too.
When word spread that even Coca Cola had pulled its support, YouTube quickly shifted gears, offering free advertising to the first brand that returned to their platform. Whether or not this offer was fulfilled remains unclear, but Coca Cola’s departure couldn’t have come at a worse time, considering all the recent praise for their steadfast loyalty, just before they made their exit.
4. The Advertising Blacklist
As many creators were struggling with near poverty-level earnings, a strange pattern began to emerge. Any mention of a potentially controversial topic, even something as simple as firearms, would lead to a sharp drop in ad revenue, often due to YouTube’s automated bots flagging the content.
On the flip side, content that seemed to target children appeared largely unaffected by the Adpocalypse, even if the videos themselves pushed boundaries with suggestive or violent themes wrapped in a child-friendly aesthetic. This created a clear divide in what content was deemed acceptable, which only deepened when rumors of an advertising blacklist began to circulate.
The idea was first raised by the David Pakman Show, where it was claimed a smaller advertiser attempted to place ads directly on their channel, only for the ads to mysteriously fail to appear and no revenue to be generated. While it’s uncertain if this was true, it was clear that something was happening behind the scenes as more and more controversial creators saw their earnings diminish.
3. Class Action Lawsuits
When large amounts of money are involved, it's not surprising that a class action lawsuit comes into play. Some YouTube creators have decided to take legal action against Google, citing how the changes made after the Adpocalypse have severely impacted their livelihoods. One of the groups, known as Zombie Go Boom, used to showcase various weapons by destroying zombie mannequins filled with blood and guts, and they made a decent income doing so.
According to the lawsuit, these YouTubers were once earning up to $500 a day from their videos. However, after the Adpocalypse, their income plummeted to just $30 due to the violent and bloody content in their videos, which no longer qualified for monetization under YouTube’s new rules—rules that are unclear and not fully explained. The creators hope the lawsuit will compel Google to disclose how their algorithm decides which videos are eligible for monetization and which ones are not. It’s definitely going to be a tough fight considering the power and resources Google has on its side.
I don’t have anything substantial on my YouTube channel yet, but I will eventually if I can stop being lazy!
2. Spider-Man and Elsa Videos Take Over
As mentioned in #4 on this list, one odd side effect of the new advertising rules targeting major controversial channels was the rise of extremely inappropriate content wrapped in seemingly kid-friendly packaging. These videos, featuring adult men and women dressing up as Spider-Man, Elsa, and other popular copyrighted characters, quickly became a sensation. The content was often disturbing, featuring simulated violence, sexual acts, and bizarre fetishes.
These videos, despite their explicit nature, were gaining millions of views and even had ads running on them, all because they appeared harmless on the surface. In reality, these videos were far worse than most of the content affected by the Adpocalypse. Recently, Google announced efforts to curb these types of videos, but by this point, the platform had already become flooded with them.
1. Someone Claims That the Wall Street Journal Faked Their News Article
During the peak of the chaos, Ethan Klein from H3H3 Productions released a video suggesting he had evidence that the Wall Street Journal may have fabricated their story about YouTube running ads on a racist video. After speaking directly with the person who posted the original video, he discovered that the user hadn’t earned any revenue from it, despite the WSJ’s claims that ads were being shown.
Reddit users quickly pointed out that the video could have had ads running without the creator earning any money, as it featured copyrighted music and had a third-party claim on it. Once Ethan realized he had made an error, he removed the video and issued an apology. The Wall Street Journal stood by their original reporting, however.
