Distribution : Why do we allow Tubi & YouTube and every other AVOD platform to rip us off? There has to be a better solution no? by Troy Bakewell

Your math is actually forgiving of the platforms gouging. They make much more than that (typically counting each impression four times, ie. counting 250 impressions as if they were 1000). If you are interested in a solution, contact me in DM. The IPG has been developing a method to get around the MPA cartel owned distribution net and serious independent filmmakers should get involved with the upcoming FilmPod platform (see filmpod.app).

Hi Troy, I have been thinking the same thing recently. It happens in music too, where musical artists only get $0.003 of a cent on one platform, whereas it costs more to market. Public performance is the way to be profitable in music. In film, it requires theatrical exhibition in the form of domestic and international distribution. My goal is to get into the PGA; if you follow their lead it may benefit you too.

I’m not sold on theatrical distribution. In my opinion AVOD is the way to go, only we may need creative our own alternative. Kinda like how Indie Rights shook things up? It’s embarrassing that the platforms take basically all of the money.

If this problem was solved it would lead to a new renaissance for low budget indie features. We could all earn enough to keep making better and better movies.

Great perspectives. I hope you select what is best for you. I am currently taking a Stage32 Content Distribution and Sales Agency Agreements Certification and am learning a lot of useful information. I found this document inspiring upon performing independent research @ https://downloads.adc.ep.com/doc/EP_Foreign_Sales_Estimate_Worksheet_2.5...

Kenneth George That is incorrect. Ad-blockers are client-side only. Which means that the ad is still served, your local system just doesn't display it. The server, and therefore the advertiser don't necessarily have any knowledge of that and therefore the advertisements still generate impressions. So the revenue is unaffected except indirectly in the overall statistics - it could be assumed that ad effectiveness would be affected but the issue with that is that there are a ton of reasons that an ad campaign may give poor results that have nothing to do with the server.

Hi Shadow, I Googled Independent Producers Guild, visited your website (I found it useful), and bookmarked it for future reference. I might apply to IPG as a member in the future!

I have heard Tubi is the best payout for Indies?

Kenneth George You have too much faith in google. I have a couple points here, to your statement that "...questionable business practice that could result in billions in fines with a FTC investigation into such deceptive practices..."

1. Just to begin:

2017: €2.42 billion ($2.7 billion) fine for abusing its dominant position as a search engine.

2018: €4.34 billion ($5 billion) fine for illegal practices regarding the Android mobile operating system.

2019: €1.49 billion ($1.7 billion) fine for abusive practices in online search advertising.

2019 COPPA Settlement: Google and YouTube were fined a record $170 million to settle allegations from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the New York Attorney General. The fine was for illegally collecting personal information from children under 13 without parental consent.

2019 Google agreed to a $30 million settlement to stop a class action lawsuit related to its advertising practices

2025: €2.95 billion ($3.5 billion) fine for breaching EU antitrust rules by distorting competition in the advertising technology ('adtech') industry.

2023 - 2025 and Ongoing - numerous DOJ Antitrust lawsuits continue relating to Google & YouTube advertising practices. In April 2025 the court concluded that Google is a monopoly and is abusing its position as a monopoly.

That's to start... Youtube and Google are routinely fined in the multiple millions under various legislation. But even maximum allowed fines are a drop in the bucket of money they make by violating them. While debilitating to a small company, they are just a cost of doing business for a monopoly or cartel, which Google is and which the major studios are, respectively.

If you want to actually investigate practices direct, you could pay for a bunch of google ads and then run your own statistical analysis of results versus their stated results (we have done this). There's no doubt they are cooking their books (as well as a deduction that operative ad blockers do not reduce the number of impressions they claim to have fed).

2. If you actually read and understand the agreements with YouTube, Hulu/Disney+, Tubi etc. which you agree to when you advertise with them, you will be presented with many pages and legal clauses defining an impression. Let me boil that all down for you: "an impression is what we say it is, regardless of the meaning implied by the label" and in the case of Hulu/Disney+ et al, "we will count each actual advertising feed as being four or more impressions" and "ad blockers and similar client side tools are not our problem."

3. Again, ad blockers are client side. A server knows only that it served something to you IP. It knows not what happens when that something gets to your machine. It is not possible for it to know. An ad blocker, despite the word "blocker" still takes in the feed. It just sends it into electrical purgatory instead of your screen.

All these issues are of great concern to the advertising industry and the source of a lot of anger and frustration. There is no solution for them, at this time, which is another matter.

And so you know where I come from on this - I had originated of the first streaming platforms moviesight.net 2 years before youtube began, on an AVOD model, and became very familiar with their business practices which from the start were unethical and illegal. They remain so today. Next I ran Facet.tv for several years (2019-2022) and I am heading the FilmPod initiative for the Independent Producers Guild. FilmPods are rolling out over the next year and are designed to get around industry gatekeepers for distribution and advertising revenues. It's our business to know these things and what is behind them. If one doesn't want to recognize the power and methods of cartels and monopolies within the media industries, one will not succeed in establishing a competing entity with those industries.

Kenneth George No, they don't have the technical capability to determine when ad ad is actually viewed You get charged when an ad is served (which is the contractual definition of an "impression" which you agree to when you buy the ad), not when it is viewed. Precisely because you cannot track the view with anything that amounts to reliable results. An ad blocker cannot block the service of an ad - it has no access to the server. It cannot interfere with the data transfer until it gets to the local device. It can only block the display locally. That's what it does. CTV - the only partially workable tracking technology so far - attempts to track views and ad impressions through smart TVs and mobile devises. But it is highly unreliable even on smart TVs for more reasons than ad blockers - one of those reasons is intentional manipulation by the streaming platforms themselves (both ad servers and content servers). Another is the host of technical issues which make the task unreliable at best. Another is the contractual matrix across dozens and hundreds of players in the system which prevent reliable stats from being discoverable at any rate. It's an extremely complex environment.

But did you just say you would have to see specifics of fines and talk about lack of evidence after I pointed out ~$15B in fines that are public record, as the tip of an iceberg - which you can very easily check out... As well as ongoing DOJ investigations prompted by multiple state AGs?

Honestly.... capitalism, like democracy itself, is a participatory sport. You either get into the weeds and do your own research or you accept what you're told and swallow the official cup of koolaid like most of the sheep.

Kenneth George Thank you, that does prove my point - they don't know when an ad is viewed; they can only tell when they serve, and they have to actively detect for ad blockers within the "invalid traffic.". The operative phrase in this salesman's verbiage is "if we detect invalid traffic" - which is in line with Google's terms of service for ads, which do not bind them to even bother to detect invalid traffic, and which protects them when they still charge for invalid traffic that they didn't or couldn't detect. Note that ad blockers are only one aspect of "invalid traffic" - there's a broad range of reasons an ad doesn't get to your screen even though it is served. That's why the term is so general. To my point throughout.

Stage And Screen Innovations has a $10k/month budget with Google ads and as I said previously, we run our own statistical analysis to compare to the data that Google tells us. Without qualification, Google lies. Their reports aren't inadvertently inaccurate, they are absolute unqualified lies, most of the time mixed with real data. But, in line with Disney/Hulu, Peacock, et al, their terms of service ensure that they can do what they want.

That's why I keep referring you to actual contracts. Everyone thinks they are just documents but they are what rules and they tell the real. They are why lawyers get paid. The spokespeople say what Google wants them to say, or be fired of course. The contracts tell you what is really going to happen. And what really is going to happen is that Google will do what it wants, when it wants, will define an impression and "invalid data" the way it wants, and all it's data of every kind and nature is private and proprietary without any access to you, even for an audit. Ever. Some powers will be couched in terms that misdirect or bury clauses in certain odd places, but that's the art of contracts.

Again, this whole situation is of prime concern to the advertising industry, who know what is going on but have no ability to stop it or to go anywhere else. It's an ongoing discussion, for many years now that canvasses the reliability of stats provided by Google etc.

About that $3.9B loss estimated by Statista - To the extent that Google and other platforms are actually ethical - which as the historical fines and ongoing DOJ investigation suggests is a stretch - I am sure they don't charge for a certain number of ads where they can and do detect "invalid traffic.". But check it out, that "loss" is a blip within a cash flow that doesn't necessarily get to the bottom line. It doesn't necessarily mean a thing and it may not be an actual loss. Why? Google and others may not charge for a given ad - but they immediately serve that again until they can charge your whole retainer. The number of ads served is less important that absorbing your deposit. So your budget gets spent even though they "didn't charge" because they just serve your ad more times until they can say they didn't detect invalid traffic. So isolating a sum that is "lost" due to ad blockers is artificial. It's an interesting statistic but it doesn't impact anyone in reality.

Kenneth George Trust me, you did make my point, as you have made several of them. That you don't recognize that fact means you should never meet me in court.

Up to now I have been very patient, and I hope respectful, with you over several posts. But now you retreat to personal attacks, so you force me to be honest and burst your bubble. Anyone reading this thread has spent 20 seconds to do a search on each of us. Searching me reveals 30+ years experience and a host of links and skills and appearances which can take you hours to exhaust. Searching you reveals you've done nothing in the industry at all, possibly not even sold a script. Which means I know what I am talking about and you have no point of reference to comment on it or not. You haven't even taken the 20 seconds or so to find out who I am and what I have done, but you demand I recite my qualifications.That speaks volumes about the level of your critical thinking.

I am writing for the benefit of those who can think clearly. And especially independent creators who have the guts to try to actually get their vision to screen and make money on it, instead of fantasizing like everyone else. I have responded to your commentary, where you repeatedly say you want real information, with what really matters and with a perspective that you won't get through press releases or self-serving industry spokespeople. You only get that perspective through years of experience at very high levels. That you don't like the information or the point of view does not make it untrue. To nail just one down, which you repeatedly don't seem to want to believe - CONTRACTS RULE. When an advertiser buys ads through Google or any platform, all the marketing that got them to buy it, the words of the representative, the ideas of their team, the assistance of the support people, and the words of spokespeople or press releases or managers or reports or support agents DON'T MATTER. Because the entire relationship is dictated by the contract. So what it says in the contract is what rules. And Google/YouTube's and Disney/Hulu's and all other streaming advertising contracts boil down to say an impression is what they say it is, when they say it, they can change their mind about what it is when they want, and they get paid when they serve an ad, not when an ad is viewed, and if you don't like it that's too bad. That's the arrangement you get into in these contracts. though they might deign serve your ad more often because it might have been blocked on the client side, the fact that they get paid to serve ads and not when ads are viewed doesn't change.

You may not like that multi-billion dollar companies like Google/Youtube can do what they want. No one does. But they can. And they do. Understanding that fact does not disempower you. It arms you to devise strategies that not only get around monopolies, but take advantage of them.

Kenneth George Yes it's clear you don't know what I am talking about half the time. That was my point right? You are unqualified to have the conversation you are trying to have. Now that's just the truth, it's not an insult.

Troy Bakewell Before this conversation spiralled down a rabit hole, it seems Tubi TV is owned by Fox. Buying it for $400 million would seem like a steal considering it reported about 100 million active users in May 2025 alone and over a billion hours in viewing in the same month. If an ad on the platform cost $20 per 1000 views, I would like to see what their financial statement looks like.

Kenneth George Again, I have very patient with you, but you continue to ramp up rudeness. It's not a good look on a 13 year old, much less someone who possibly is older. My public credentials to the extent you can understand them, are a mere 20 second click away. If you're too lazy or incapable of checking that out then no one can help you.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg Get away from me Shadow. Whoever sent you to cyberstalk me with all this negative energy over the last month it seems, tell them to find you something better to do.

I don't deal with or talk to frauds. I am not the one claiming to be an attorney or some legal authority with no license to practice law. If you need attention go find it somewhere else. Just leave me alone!

FYI, I have referred your profile to the California bar. Just dont start deleting stuff. Keep it as it is.

Kenneth George I am sure they'll be very interested in what an unsold writer in the UK with anger issues has to complain about. But here's an idea - stop responding with abusive and inappropriate comments and I won't have to reply.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg Wait, I think I know what this is. You have some sort of weird crush on me Shadow? I once read a book about these types of aggression. Sorry... :-( I am not into guys man if thats your thing ... not judging of course.

Quote from Kenneth George: "Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg Pathetic. Here is the fact. Nothing you have done in 30 years meets my standard. That is what you should know. Now take your frustration somewhere else."

Well Kenneth that is a given since, with no experience and having done nothing in the industry, you don't have a standard yet. But thanks for finally admitting I have 30 years ahead of you. Yeah, you deleted it but we do get emails right?

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg Well, Shadow, since you won’t stop, you can quote this:

"30 years in an industry does not equal talent."

You've shown me what you've done in 30 years. Do you want me to tell you what I think of it? I was trying to be nice.

Put it this way, if you had one of my scripts 30 years ago, you'd probably be retired by now, This is turning into something very pathetic. I don't deal with fraudsters Shadow. And I am clearly not into whatever this is so how about you just move on.

Hi everyone, Ashley here, I’m the Head of Community at Stage 32.

I want to take a moment to step in and redirect the conversation back to a productive and respectful tone.

This post began as a thoughtful discussion about AVOD platforms and the real financial challenges facing indie filmmakers. That’s an important and timely topic, and I appreciate the insights that have been shared. However, the conversation has veered into personal attacks and unproductive back-and-forth that go against the values we hold as a community.

At Stage 32, we work hard to create a space where creatives can share ideas, ask questions, and collaborate without fear of being shut down or disrespected. We expect all members to engage with professionalism, kindness, and an open mind, even when opinions differ.

Let this serve as a clear warning: anyone who continues to be disrespectful, antagonistic, or dismissive in this post from this point forward may be suspended from the platform for violating our community guidelines.

Let’s bring the conversation back to the original intent and keep it constructive. We’re all here to help one another grow. Let’s honor that mission together.

Thank you.