14 ms·

YouTubers have to declare ads. Why doesn't anyone else? [video]

380 points by zinekeller 6y ago

tzs 6y ago
In case the title might lead to you expect he's arguing for the rules for social media influencers to be loosened to match those of movies and TV and radio, it is actually the opposite. He argues that those other media should also have the stricter disclosure requirements that current only apply to social media. The video is fairly long (about 30 minutes), but goes into a lot of the history of advertising (explicit, product placements, paid endorsements, etc) in radio, TV, and movies in order to make a thorough case.
- tekromancr 6y ago
  In BOTH the UK and US contexts, too! Pretty comprehensive
- thebrain 6y ago
  I get what he's trying to say but the fact is that the two mediums are different. I know when I watch a TV show, large sums of money went into making the show I'm watching due to the history of television. Writers, actors, set builders, etc. were all paid during the production of a TV show and I know commercials and product placements paid for all of it. When I watch something on YouTube, my first inkling is to think I'm watching some bloke with a webcam making a video in his basement. The history of YouTube causes me to think that the person on YouTube operates all by themselves just for the fun of it. While I know that that's not the case anymore the historic perception is still there, that's what the rules are meant to protect general public against. YouTube creates a different kind of relationship between viewer and content creator, one that's particularly intimate and consequently persuasive.
  - dna_polymerase 6y ago
    On the contrary, I think that TV paid product placements are often way more subtle. On social media and YouTube it's really in your face full on ads.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    > YouTube creates a different kind of relationship between viewer and content creator, one that's particularly intimate and consequently persuasive. It may, but should that relationship be enforced? Letting well-backed productions get away with not disclosing while the less well-backed have extra rules they have to follow is just favoring incumbents. It's similar to the discussion surrounding "real journalism" and bloggers/youtubers.
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    This argument would be valid if not for the rise of reality TV. There's a while genre of shows made to seem "unscripted" when in reality they're almost entirely artificial. Something like pawn stars is a great example of this[1]. Viewers are led to believe that it's actually organic content, and more naive viewers could easily fall for this falsehood. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z31G3Ct98EM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z31G3Ct98EM
    - thebrain 6y ago
      I thought about this as well but reality TV shows are still enough of a spectacle that it's clear that big money is involved. Survivor placed the contestants on an island competing in elaborate challenges with camera's everywhere for a million dollar prize. The Bachelor featured a wealthy suitor/suitress and a dozen attractive people of the opposite sex dressed in ridiculously expensive clothing again with camera's everywhere doing extravagant things. Anyone can end up on YouTube, only certain people can end up on TV and viewers always have this in the back of their minds.
- dheera 6y ago
  "You have to declare that" Excuse me for my ignorance but why is this important? I usually assume any review from someone I don't know personally is potentially sponsored, so I don't really care if they declare it or not. If everyone were taught to make that assumption this wouldn't be an issue. The way I see it, if people listen to influencer bullshit, they're going to get sold on shitty products and that's their problem. I don't listen to influencers, I listen to friends and coworkers who can give me an honest review that I trust.
  - zouhair 6y ago
    Please watch the video before arguing about something that he clearly explained.
    - dheera 6y ago
      I watched the video. Not sure why there's an assumption that I didn't, and I don't think my question is answered.
      - scotty79 6y ago
        Because it's clearly explained in the video that your assumptions about videos from influencers you watch are not common.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      It’s against the rules here to accuse people of not reading the article (watching the video in this case.)
    - hippira 6y ago
      Please also show how the parent might misunderstanding the article instead of just telling them off.
  - 8note 6y ago
    You assume that your friends aren't being paid off by advertisers? They aren't required to tell you
- tinco 6y ago
  Imagine what would happen if this became a thing for TV and movies. Whenever Iron Man would pull up to the Avengers head quarters, you'd get a message "This scene is sponsored by Audi AG". Every war movie would have a "Vehicles and props kindly provided by the US Armed Forces". And those are just the obvious ones. It would be super funny if they'd have to do it retroactively.
  - pydry 6y ago
    They'd just tack it on the credits at the end.
    - LordDragonfang 6y ago
      They already do, the video actually shows that. The video is arguing that they should have to do it the way social media "influencers" have to, either while the product is on screen, or clearly up font at the beginning (the way TV ratings are shown)
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    It would hopefully reduce the value of those ads, so it may turn at least a few away. That would be a great thing!
  - walrus01 6y ago
    > Every war movie would have a "Vehicles and props kindly provided by the US Armed Forces". There's a whole bunch of war movies that are absolutely NOT approved by the US DoD, because they show things in an unfavorable light. Generally this means no access to actual equipment like M1 tanks or 'real' aircraft, which must be substituted using somebody else's b-roll, or CGI. It is generally pretty easy to tell the difference between movies that were filmed with DoD filming office cooperation (Battleship), and ones that might show something about the military in an unflattering or unprofessional light (Three Kings). One very famous example is Apocalypse Now, the helicopter scene and a lot of the rest of it was filmed in the Philippines, after making a large payment to their military for use of the Hueys.
  - JacobAldridge 6y ago
natureboy21 6y ago
Because regulations are primarily about protecting the status quo in an industry and best case only distantly secondarily about protecting consumers
- whatshisface 6y ago
  A slight inclination to protect consumers from the worst excesses of the regulated stems from a desire to prevent the public from getting mad enough to demand change. The distant second, therefore, follows the first.
mlinksva 6y ago
Strikes me as another way broadcast/studio media (and associated formats) escapes scrutiny and regulation directed at internet. As the influencer says at the end of the video, they should play by the same rules. Is there a text equivalent of this video? A bunch of sources are listed under the video, but none is an overview.
- ggggtez 6y ago
  Use the "..." menu below the video, and click "Open Transcript".
- Shivetya 6y ago
  Traditional media is using their influence to lead regulation of social media under the guise of protecting people from fake news after having that same prove their bias and even outright falsification of the news; does a month go by where a major news outlet doesn't have to restate a story? Fake news or declaration something is fake news is no different than product placement. News organizations sell authenticity which they use to make money from actual product placement and many companies desire to advertise through certain outlets as they seem some more desirable than others. At times in my local paper the small print stating a story is paid placement is easily overlooked but these stories tend to only occur on weekends However we have to admit that product placement in some movies and television shows has approached meme quality to where the products were more talked about than the show they were on. On a side note, a friend who does stream on twitch has to be explicit when being paid to play a game or even given a free key. they also prevent give away contest from being limited to subscribers.
franciscop 6y ago
In the web in fact they also declare ads, that's why they have a little "Ad" besides their entry on Google Search or on Google Adsense (and FB? I don't use FB anymore but IIRC also there). Not sure if this is actually regulated, or comes from the "better ads" the Adblock industry created, or both.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  Google pretty much created the status quo on that one. Earlier search engines didn't mark results that had paid to rank higher. Regulators across the world weren't paying attention to the internet at the time. I'm sure if Google decided to remove that word "Ad", regulators would start paying attention.
eCa 6y ago
Tom Scotts channel is pretty much filled with short, nerdy and well-made videos. Highly recommended.
- unfunco 6y ago
  He's a national treasure.
  - wendyshu 6y ago
    Why national?
    - meowster 6y ago
      "National treasure" is a common/colloquial phrase in the United States.
- ymbeld 6y ago
  Pretty overrated.
- lukifer 6y ago
  Relevant to HN's interests: a compelling, layperson-accessible argument against electronic voting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs
pjc50 6y ago
Depends on your country; I'm quite happy with the UK's restriction on adverts, including a ban on advertising prescription meds at all, and restrictions on product placement.
- fsckboy 6y ago
  just to be clear, the video/blogger that this discussion is about is also from the UK and this video is about his unhappiness figured i'd just edit my comment here to add another topic: the video says the lyric "does your Spearmint lose its flavor on the bedpost..." was changed to "chewing gum" because Spearmint was a trademark, which was banned on UK radio. The wikipedia article does not mention Spearmint being a trademark. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearmint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearmint Anybody know the story? [did more research, perhaps the answer is that Wrigley's trademarked the "arrow" design surrounding the word spearmint on the label, the arrow presumably an analogy to a "spear"]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dcomp 6y ago
    Most likely because spearmint was short for Wrigley's spearmint which was trademarked. I don't think spearmint chewing gum was a generic term at the time. Similar to how sellotape(TM) was trademarked but now cellotape is a generic term.
  - Jiocus 6y ago
    I think it's the other way around. The BBC public radio are (were?) not allowed to condone -any- private businesses or products. Then it get's a bit tricky. Trademarks are a consumer protection device which affords the consumer to differentiate between competing products. As the song appeals to a chewing gum, and it's assumed that the general public are aware of one brand, two brands or 50 brands of spearmint-flavoured chewing gums for purchase - the radio may reason that the lyric would be unfit according to their mission. It's less about any actual trademark such as a Spearmint® Chewing Gum, than it is a public association to some marketed goods (and the BBC's stated mission to not condone such). This is just a random reasoning of mine, so a grain of salt etc. This entry mentions this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Does_Your_Chewing_Gum_Lose_Its_Flavour_(On_the_Bedpost_Overnight%3F) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Does_Your_Chewing_Gum_Lose_Its..., but the issue is marked 'dubious'.
jariel 6y ago
This guy is an amazing content creator why doesn't the BBC pick him up? There's a guy called 'Captain Disillusion' or something like that who makes these amazing shows about visual effects that remind me of some of the scientific programming on CBC when I was younger. Why don't they pick him up? His 1-man show is better than most of their expensive content. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Disillusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Disillusion
- rcxdude 6y ago
  It's entirely possible they wouldn't be interested. The successful youtube channels can easily pull in more than they would be paid on the BBC, and they would have less control over what they are creating. (For an example who have explicitly talked about this: the people behind the Corridor Digital channel recently got very close to signing a deal to produce a film with a traditional hollywood source, but decided against it to go their own way independently)
  - jariel 6y ago
    That makes sense, but that gives him a lot of leverage. He can get a fat cheque, with a big production team and set his own terms if he's in a position to do it. Or - he can literally make the same stuff, but have it under BBC terms. I feel there is something better than YouTube for these types of shows. I think the jump between TT/YT and broadcast is too big.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      I think that specifically for this type of show, YT is better in almost every way than broadcast TV. It has a much, much larger audience, they can reach an international audience, the creators have more direct control, they can use formats that just don't fit right into a TV schedule, they get direct feedback on the success of their shows instead of relying on market research and 5th hand accounts. Assuming they are making good money, I really don't see an upside to moving the show to broadcast television.
soheil 6y ago
Several issues with this A) who are the regulators? Typically these are elected officials that at least half of the population typically doesn't see eye to eye with, think left vs right. So why do they get to decide what is "in the interest of the public"? B) what makes undisclosed product placement so inherently evil or at least more evil than normal advertisement? There are extremely deceptive advertising techniques, just because you are aware something is an ad doesn't mean you can be fully aware of the manipulation tactics used against you, many can be very subtle. So to paint the whole thing with such broad brush and assume one just needs a binary answer to know if something is an ad or not assumes all ads are created with the same level of deceptiveness. C) finally people with "power and money" will find a way to communicate their message regardless, you can make it more difficult or expensive for them to do so, but at the end of the day that cost has to be imposed on someone and that is typically the consumer. I also find Tom Scott's videos highly well presented and produced but they lack the same level of quality when it comes to the concepts discussed in them.
jimnotgym 6y ago
I have to admire Tom Scott for his monologues. Long, edit free, pieces to camera are a really pro move, and so rare on YouTube. There is so much prep needed to make that happen. What a star.
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  He'll often include a little bit at the end of him verbally celebrating when he gets it in one take, and it's always delightful.
  - apocalyptic0n3 6y ago
    Him dancing around and celebrating at the end of his 5 minute explanation of YouTube IDs [1] is such an uplifting thing to watch. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gocwRvLhDf8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gocwRvLhDf8
- midasuni 6y ago
  https://youtu.be/mUF4afxMpQk https://youtu.be/mUF4afxMpQk was a great example, 16+ minute take, at least well disguised cuts
  - aembleton 6y ago
    Plenty of cuts in that one. This one is 9:30 as a single take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD79NZroV88 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD79NZroV88
- sixothree 6y ago
  He is one of the reasons I spend so much time on YouTube.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ymbeld 6y ago
I think advertisement should be banned outright. Wouldn’t miss it.
- chrismcb 6y ago
  I bet you worries miss it. It would be a very boring world.
  - ymbeld 6y ago
    I don’t worry about it.
8bitsrule 6y ago
This man (he's not alone on YT) proves that if you talk really, really fast, you can cram more words in. Maybe the idea is that it adds a sense of excitement that the topic itself utterly lacks, while keeping the listener from thinking, and therefore realizing s/he's listening to sheer twaddle. Even more annoying than videos where someone rapidly draws animations while someone else talks.
- trevortheblack 6y ago
  While it's fair to say that the editing of youtube videos has adopted the _grammar_ of fast talking and quick cuts, The existence of grammar does not belie that there is no underlying structure/content/information. Lots of mediums have "cheap" shortcuts that exist to provide structure to the actual content present underneath. See: Shot-Reverse Shot in Cinema V-I or IV-I in popular music Steady drum or kickdrum pattern in popular music Jump cuts and fast talking in youtube None of the above techniques are all that complex, but they're a part of the grammar of the medium. Oh, and they also _solve_ a lot of problems. If you find a problem with the content underneath the simplified techniques, we want to hear about that. [EDIT] readability
  - 8note 6y ago
    V-I in jazz*

380 points by zinekeller 6y ago

tzs 6y ago

In case the title might lead to you expect he's arguing for the rules for social media influencers to be loosened to match those of movies and TV and radio, it is actually the opposite. He argues that those other media should also have the stricter disclosure requirements that current only apply to social media. The video is fairly long (about 30 minutes), but goes into a lot of the history of advertising (explicit, product placements, paid endorsements, etc) in radio, TV, and movies in order to make a thorough case.

tekromancr 6y ago
In BOTH the UK and US contexts, too! Pretty comprehensive
thebrain 6y ago
I get what he's trying to say but the fact is that the two mediums are different. I know when I watch a TV show, large sums of money went into making the show I'm watching due to the history of television. Writers, actors, set builders, etc. were all paid during the production of a TV show and I know commercials and product placements paid for all of it. When I watch something on YouTube, my first inkling is to think I'm watching some bloke with a webcam making a video in his basement. The history of YouTube causes me to think that the person on YouTube operates all by themselves just for the fun of it. While I know that that's not the case anymore the historic perception is still there, that's what the rules are meant to protect general public against. YouTube creates a different kind of relationship between viewer and content creator, one that's particularly intimate and consequently persuasive.
- dna_polymerase 6y ago
  On the contrary, I think that TV paid product placements are often way more subtle. On social media and YouTube it's really in your face full on ads.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > YouTube creates a different kind of relationship between viewer and content creator, one that's particularly intimate and consequently persuasive. It may, but should that relationship be enforced? Letting well-backed productions get away with not disclosing while the less well-backed have extra rules they have to follow is just favoring incumbents. It's similar to the discussion surrounding "real journalism" and bloggers/youtubers.
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  This argument would be valid if not for the rise of reality TV. There's a while genre of shows made to seem "unscripted" when in reality they're almost entirely artificial. Something like pawn stars is a great example of this[1]. Viewers are led to believe that it's actually organic content, and more naive viewers could easily fall for this falsehood. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z31G3Ct98EM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z31G3Ct98EM
  - thebrain 6y ago
    I thought about this as well but reality TV shows are still enough of a spectacle that it's clear that big money is involved. Survivor placed the contestants on an island competing in elaborate challenges with camera's everywhere for a million dollar prize. The Bachelor featured a wealthy suitor/suitress and a dozen attractive people of the opposite sex dressed in ridiculously expensive clothing again with camera's everywhere doing extravagant things. Anyone can end up on YouTube, only certain people can end up on TV and viewers always have this in the back of their minds.
dheera 6y ago
"You have to declare that" Excuse me for my ignorance but why is this important? I usually assume any review from someone I don't know personally is potentially sponsored, so I don't really care if they declare it or not. If everyone were taught to make that assumption this wouldn't be an issue. The way I see it, if people listen to influencer bullshit, they're going to get sold on shitty products and that's their problem. I don't listen to influencers, I listen to friends and coworkers who can give me an honest review that I trust.
- zouhair 6y ago
  Please watch the video before arguing about something that he clearly explained.
  - dheera 6y ago
    I watched the video. Not sure why there's an assumption that I didn't, and I don't think my question is answered.
    - scotty79 6y ago
      Because it's clearly explained in the video that your assumptions about videos from influencers you watch are not common.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    It’s against the rules here to accuse people of not reading the article (watching the video in this case.)
  - hippira 6y ago
    Please also show how the parent might misunderstanding the article instead of just telling them off.
- 8note 6y ago
  You assume that your friends aren't being paid off by advertisers? They aren't required to tell you
tinco 6y ago
Imagine what would happen if this became a thing for TV and movies. Whenever Iron Man would pull up to the Avengers head quarters, you'd get a message "This scene is sponsored by Audi AG". Every war movie would have a "Vehicles and props kindly provided by the US Armed Forces". And those are just the obvious ones. It would be super funny if they'd have to do it retroactively.
- pydry 6y ago
  They'd just tack it on the credits at the end.
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    They already do, the video actually shows that. The video is arguing that they should have to do it the way social media "influencers" have to, either while the product is on screen, or clearly up font at the beginning (the way TV ratings are shown)
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  It would hopefully reduce the value of those ads, so it may turn at least a few away. That would be a great thing!
- walrus01 6y ago
  > Every war movie would have a "Vehicles and props kindly provided by the US Armed Forces". There's a whole bunch of war movies that are absolutely NOT approved by the US DoD, because they show things in an unfavorable light. Generally this means no access to actual equipment like M1 tanks or 'real' aircraft, which must be substituted using somebody else's b-roll, or CGI. It is generally pretty easy to tell the difference between movies that were filmed with DoD filming office cooperation (Battleship), and ones that might show something about the military in an unflattering or unprofessional light (Three Kings). One very famous example is Apocalypse Now, the helicopter scene and a lot of the rest of it was filmed in the Philippines, after making a large payment to their military for use of the Hueys.
- JacobAldridge 6y ago

natureboy21 6y ago

Because regulations are primarily about protecting the status quo in an industry and best case only distantly secondarily about protecting consumers

whatshisface 6y ago
A slight inclination to protect consumers from the worst excesses of the regulated stems from a desire to prevent the public from getting mad enough to demand change. The distant second, therefore, follows the first.

mlinksva 6y ago

Strikes me as another way broadcast/studio media (and associated formats) escapes scrutiny and regulation directed at internet. As the influencer says at the end of the video, they should play by the same rules. Is there a text equivalent of this video? A bunch of sources are listed under the video, but none is an overview.

ggggtez 6y ago
Use the "..." menu below the video, and click "Open Transcript".
Shivetya 6y ago
Traditional media is using their influence to lead regulation of social media under the guise of protecting people from fake news after having that same prove their bias and even outright falsification of the news; does a month go by where a major news outlet doesn't have to restate a story? Fake news or declaration something is fake news is no different than product placement. News organizations sell authenticity which they use to make money from actual product placement and many companies desire to advertise through certain outlets as they seem some more desirable than others. At times in my local paper the small print stating a story is paid placement is easily overlooked but these stories tend to only occur on weekends However we have to admit that product placement in some movies and television shows has approached meme quality to where the products were more talked about than the show they were on. On a side note, a friend who does stream on twitch has to be explicit when being paid to play a game or even given a free key. they also prevent give away contest from being limited to subscribers.

franciscop 6y ago

In the web in fact they also declare ads, that's why they have a little "Ad" besides their entry on Google Search or on Google Adsense (and FB? I don't use FB anymore but IIRC also there). Not sure if this is actually regulated, or comes from the "better ads" the Adblock industry created, or both.

londons_explore 6y ago
Google pretty much created the status quo on that one. Earlier search engines didn't mark results that had paid to rank higher. Regulators across the world weren't paying attention to the internet at the time. I'm sure if Google decided to remove that word "Ad", regulators would start paying attention.

eCa 6y ago

Tom Scotts channel is pretty much filled with short, nerdy and well-made videos. Highly recommended.

unfunco 6y ago
He's a national treasure.
- wendyshu 6y ago
  Why national?
  - meowster 6y ago
    "National treasure" is a common/colloquial phrase in the United States.
ymbeld 6y ago
Pretty overrated.
lukifer 6y ago
Relevant to HN's interests: a compelling, layperson-accessible argument against electronic voting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs

pjc50 6y ago

Depends on your country; I'm quite happy with the UK's restriction on adverts, including a ban on advertising prescription meds at all, and restrictions on product placement.

fsckboy 6y ago
just to be clear, the video/blogger that this discussion is about is also from the UK and this video is about his unhappiness figured i'd just edit my comment here to add another topic: the video says the lyric "does your Spearmint lose its flavor on the bedpost..." was changed to "chewing gum" because Spearmint was a trademark, which was banned on UK radio. The wikipedia article does not mention Spearmint being a trademark. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearmint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearmint Anybody know the story? [did more research, perhaps the answer is that Wrigley's trademarked the "arrow" design surrounding the word spearmint on the label, the arrow presumably an analogy to a "spear"]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dcomp 6y ago
  Most likely because spearmint was short for Wrigley's spearmint which was trademarked. I don't think spearmint chewing gum was a generic term at the time. Similar to how sellotape(TM) was trademarked but now cellotape is a generic term.
- Jiocus 6y ago
  I think it's the other way around. The BBC public radio are (were?) not allowed to condone -any- private businesses or products. Then it get's a bit tricky. Trademarks are a consumer protection device which affords the consumer to differentiate between competing products. As the song appeals to a chewing gum, and it's assumed that the general public are aware of one brand, two brands or 50 brands of spearmint-flavoured chewing gums for purchase - the radio may reason that the lyric would be unfit according to their mission. It's less about any actual trademark such as a Spearmint® Chewing Gum, than it is a public association to some marketed goods (and the BBC's stated mission to not condone such). This is just a random reasoning of mine, so a grain of salt etc. This entry mentions this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Does_Your_Chewing_Gum_Lose_Its_Flavour_(On_the_Bedpost_Overnight%3F) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Does_Your_Chewing_Gum_Lose_Its..., but the issue is marked 'dubious'.

jariel 6y ago

This guy is an amazing content creator why doesn't the BBC pick him up? There's a guy called 'Captain Disillusion' or something like that who makes these amazing shows about visual effects that remind me of some of the scientific programming on CBC when I was younger. Why don't they pick him up? His 1-man show is better than most of their expensive content. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Disillusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Disillusion

rcxdude 6y ago
It's entirely possible they wouldn't be interested. The successful youtube channels can easily pull in more than they would be paid on the BBC, and they would have less control over what they are creating. (For an example who have explicitly talked about this: the people behind the Corridor Digital channel recently got very close to signing a deal to produce a film with a traditional hollywood source, but decided against it to go their own way independently)
- jariel 6y ago
  That makes sense, but that gives him a lot of leverage. He can get a fat cheque, with a big production team and set his own terms if he's in a position to do it. Or - he can literally make the same stuff, but have it under BBC terms. I feel there is something better than YouTube for these types of shows. I think the jump between TT/YT and broadcast is too big.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    I think that specifically for this type of show, YT is better in almost every way than broadcast TV. It has a much, much larger audience, they can reach an international audience, the creators have more direct control, they can use formats that just don't fit right into a TV schedule, they get direct feedback on the success of their shows instead of relying on market research and 5th hand accounts. Assuming they are making good money, I really don't see an upside to moving the show to broadcast television.

soheil 6y ago

Several issues with this A) who are the regulators? Typically these are elected officials that at least half of the population typically doesn't see eye to eye with, think left vs right. So why do they get to decide what is "in the interest of the public"? B) what makes undisclosed product placement so inherently evil or at least more evil than normal advertisement? There are extremely deceptive advertising techniques, just because you are aware something is an ad doesn't mean you can be fully aware of the manipulation tactics used against you, many can be very subtle. So to paint the whole thing with such broad brush and assume one just needs a binary answer to know if something is an ad or not assumes all ads are created with the same level of deceptiveness. C) finally people with "power and money" will find a way to communicate their message regardless, you can make it more difficult or expensive for them to do so, but at the end of the day that cost has to be imposed on someone and that is typically the consumer. I also find Tom Scott's videos highly well presented and produced but they lack the same level of quality when it comes to the concepts discussed in them.

jimnotgym 6y ago

I have to admire Tom Scott for his monologues. Long, edit free, pieces to camera are a really pro move, and so rare on YouTube. There is so much prep needed to make that happen. What a star.

LordDragonfang 6y ago
He'll often include a little bit at the end of him verbally celebrating when he gets it in one take, and it's always delightful.
- apocalyptic0n3 6y ago
  Him dancing around and celebrating at the end of his 5 minute explanation of YouTube IDs [1] is such an uplifting thing to watch. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gocwRvLhDf8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gocwRvLhDf8
midasuni 6y ago
https://youtu.be/mUF4afxMpQk https://youtu.be/mUF4afxMpQk was a great example, 16+ minute take, at least well disguised cuts
- aembleton 6y ago
  Plenty of cuts in that one. This one is 9:30 as a single take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD79NZroV88 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD79NZroV88
sixothree 6y ago
He is one of the reasons I spend so much time on YouTube.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ymbeld 6y ago

I think advertisement should be banned outright. Wouldn’t miss it.

chrismcb 6y ago
I bet you worries miss it. It would be a very boring world.
- ymbeld 6y ago
  I don’t worry about it.

8bitsrule 6y ago

This man (he's not alone on YT) proves that if you talk really, really fast, you can cram more words in. Maybe the idea is that it adds a sense of excitement that the topic itself utterly lacks, while keeping the listener from thinking, and therefore realizing s/he's listening to sheer twaddle. Even more annoying than videos where someone rapidly draws animations while someone else talks.

trevortheblack 6y ago
While it's fair to say that the editing of youtube videos has adopted the _grammar_ of fast talking and quick cuts, The existence of grammar does not belie that there is no underlying structure/content/information. Lots of mediums have "cheap" shortcuts that exist to provide structure to the actual content present underneath. See: Shot-Reverse Shot in Cinema V-I or IV-I in popular music Steady drum or kickdrum pattern in popular music Jump cuts and fast talking in youtube None of the above techniques are all that complex, but they're a part of the grammar of the medium. Oh, and they also _solve_ a lot of problems. If you find a problem with the content underneath the simplified techniques, we want to hear about that. [EDIT] readability
- 8note 6y ago
  V-I in jazz*