5 ms·

I respectfully but completely disagree. The revenue to creators of in-video sponsorships are neither predicated by nor affected by whether or not I or anyone e

I respectfully but completely disagree. The revenue to creators of in-video sponsorships are neither predicated by nor affected by whether or not I or anyone else watch the embedded advertisement. Because there is no way to effectively edit or remove the sponsorship, nor a way for anyone to monitor with a high degree of accuracy or certainty if and how much such an ad is viewed, creators are almost always paid a single lump sum to include the sponsor's message in the video. The amount they are paid is contractually based on viewership numbers achieved before they are paid for the ad or post the video, and any future sponsorship opportunities are simply affected by whether or not people watch the video with the included sponsorship and what click through rate is achieved. The only people who conceivably "lose out" on anything here are the advertisers. But since I personally tend to look disfavorably on intrusive advertising, even this is not true in my situation.

apendleton 7y ago
... unless this practice becomes pervasive, in which case advertisers generally will stop seeing sponsoring this kind of content as worthwhile, and it will no longer be cost-effective to produce it. Your approach depends on most people continuing to view the ads, or at least to be perceived as viewing the ads (doing the "work" to make them cost-effective) while you avoid doing so. It's a classic free-rider problem.
- ajayyy 7y ago
  According to some guy on reddit, they do have pretty detailed viewer retention graphs. https://i.imgur.com/LSobAV4.png https://i.imgur.com/LSobAV4.png https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/cl5t45/i_made_an_addon_that_allows_you_to_skip_those/evu1dni/ https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/cl5t45/i_made_an_a... - Developer
- Spivak 7y ago
  True but I don’t really think there’s any downside to being a free rider, the cost of people just manually skipping the ad is already accounted for and an extension like this will always be super niche like similar tools for podcasts. You with your fancy automated thing that works sometimes is a fraction of a fraction of the viewership that doesn’t see the ad because the viewer wasn’t paying attention or went to the bathroom or fridge. Life is too short to worry about business models changing like this. If you have to watch the ad out of fear that if you don’t you’ll be forced to watch the ad then you might as well not watch the ad.

apendleton 7y ago

... unless this practice becomes pervasive, in which case advertisers generally will stop seeing sponsoring this kind of content as worthwhile, and it will no longer be cost-effective to produce it. Your approach depends on most people continuing to view the ads, or at least to be perceived as viewing the ads (doing the "work" to make them cost-effective) while you avoid doing so. It's a classic free-rider problem.

ajayyy 7y ago
According to some guy on reddit, they do have pretty detailed viewer retention graphs. https://i.imgur.com/LSobAV4.png https://i.imgur.com/LSobAV4.png https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/cl5t45/i_made_an_addon_that_allows_you_to_skip_those/evu1dni/ https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/cl5t45/i_made_an_a... - Developer
Spivak 7y ago
True but I don’t really think there’s any downside to being a free rider, the cost of people just manually skipping the ad is already accounted for and an extension like this will always be super niche like similar tools for podcasts. You with your fancy automated thing that works sometimes is a fraction of a fraction of the viewership that doesn’t see the ad because the viewer wasn’t paying attention or went to the bathroom or fridge. Life is too short to worry about business models changing like this. If you have to watch the ad out of fear that if you don’t you’ll be forced to watch the ad then you might as well not watch the ad.