9 ms·

> Are the sponsor parts really so bad? To me not only is it easy to skip, I want indie people to make enough money to produce high quality content; otherwise me

by lawl 5y ago

> Are the sponsor parts really so bad? To me not only is it easy to skip, I want indie people to make enough money to produce high quality content; otherwise media is just what a few biggies want to fund. In my experience, it's the same with ads everywhere else. It (usually) starts out not being overly obnoxious, with just a "this video is sponsored by [garbage tier mobile game/earphones/vpn/whatever] more about them at the end of the video" and then the pitch at the end. I don't mind these. They quickly get the name out at the beginning and then don't interrupt the video. What really annoys me are the ones that interrupt the video. At some point a few of them annoyed me enough that I installed SponsorBlock. Because I don't want to hear or see these ads, but i tolerated them. But once that threshold is crossed where I don't tolerate all of them anymore, why would I not just block all of them? I'm not going to unblock specific channels that are well-behaved to listen to ads for products i will definitely never buy. It's the exact same thing with regular ad-blocking. Sometimes when I'm on a fresh OS I start browsing the web and only notice I don't have an adblocker once I visit a page with super obnoxious ads (e.g. google on mobile and realize there's only ads and no organic results for like the first 5 screens).

input_sh 5y ago
> What really annoys me are the ones that interrupt the video. Especially when those interruptions take two minutes. I don't mind them up to 30 seconds, but their length does get pretty ridiculous from time to time. There's no medium that's gonna make watch two minutes ad without looking away or trying to skip it. You either sell it quickly or don't.
azinman2 5y ago
But what then do you think is a realistic alternative? YouTube costing $20/mo or more? Can’t watch videos without a patron? If your answer is nothing — I expect everything for free, then that’s both unrealistic and parasitic.
- varelse 5y ago
  Easy: a downloader that makes it look like you've watched those stupid commercials, but you actually haven't and you're back to the original video. Let the sponsors beware.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    Until they see they get very little ROI and stop advertising that way. It's not like people sponsoring aren't looking to see what these channels do for them and just spend blindly...
    - genewitch 5y ago
      In the 1940s and 1950s radio programs and eventually television shows were sponsored by advertisers. soap operas get their name for being vehicles for soap companies. Off the top of my head Fitch's soap company was a big advertiser in the 40s. Another big advertiser in the forties and fifties was rexall. I don't know what the return on investment was, I always figured they did it as a way to show that they supported the arts.
      - comprev 5y ago
        Unilever was a sponsor of early TV dramas in the UK
        k12sosse 5y ago
        Ah yes, Unilever. I always loved the dissonance in messaging between owning both the Dove and Axe product lines.
      - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
        I've long known this, but not how they used it to advertise -- was it product placement, pre-roll, being the only mid-roll adverts??
        genewitch 5y ago
- lawl 5y ago
  > But what then do you think is a realistic alternative? Not my department. I'm perfectly happy being a parasite. I used to watch Twitch every now and then. Twitch introduced server side ads and made ad-blocking unreliable and annoying - so i stopped using twitch. My life doesn't depend on youtube, and if they decide to shut me out or the platform stops existing, that's fine with me. Maybe other video platforms can try out other models instead of that effective monopoly google has on online video currently. I've also already said that I tolerate non-obnoxious ads. But looking at the rest of the web, it doesn't seem to go in that direction, so I'll keep blocking until they kick me out.
  - russelg 5y ago
    Twitch is still perfectly fine with streamlink. There's a 15 second loading screen where ads are meant to go (only at the start of your stream), but you don't see any ads.
    - opan 5y ago
      mpv + youtube-dl also works fine.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 5y ago
  I pay $10/mo for YouTube Premium, and my expectation is that I will not have to sit through any ads. A sponsorship is an ad, which violates that expectation, so I use SponsorBlock to skip them. For channels that I watch regularly, I contribute to their Patreon if they have one. I shouldn't have to sit through a sponsorship segment in addition to that.
  - willow-x 5y ago
    If you pay for YouTube Premium, the creators of monetized videos you watch get paid an order of magnitude more than with just YouTube ads.
    - throwaway2037 5y ago
      "order of magnitude" implies 10x. That's great news for small / independent creators! Can someone point me to a source for this information?
      - epse 5y ago
        It's hard to compare apples to apples, as ad revenue is based on amount of ads shown and your premium subscription is divvied up among your most watched creators based on watchtime [1] [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7060016?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7060016?hl=en
        throwaway2037 5y ago
        Great link! Do you think it is fair to say the YouTube Premium payout model is similar to the music streaming platform, Spotify? At the risk of nerd sniping myself, thinking deeper, I wonder if people who sign up for YouTube Premium do less random surfing on YouTube and instead focus on a few channels they love? That would _further_ concentrate their payouts. If true, then the 10x figure sounds reasonable.
        chupasaurus 5y ago
- corobo 5y ago
  Realistic alternative is others will pick up the slack Mass market viewers don't care, adblockers get ad free content, creator gets their slice. We all win
- Nadya 5y ago
  For about 20 years most everything was supported on nothing but some person's own desire to put themselves out into the world. This meant spending out of their own pocket if necessary. If hosting became too much of a bandwidth issue for them to be able to pay for hosting they would release it as a torrent and it would become shared and distributed peer2peer or they'd throw it up on a free file share and the it became the file sharing platform's problem to deal with the bandwidth and try to collect (typically through member-only "premium download speeds"). In the past 10 years or so quality has largely gone down and annoyances like ads and sponsor shoutouts have gone up to the extent "Sponsored by Raid: Shadow Legends" is an actual meme. There are very, very few content creators I feel are worth supporting. This ends up being a bit classist as mostly people with enough personal cash flow and free time can afford to become full-time content creators but by and large that's already kind of the case if you look at the people who become full-time content creators. But I personally feel that if your content is more of the "popcorn" variety that people use to fill their day but don't actually value compared to something people do value then the world at large isn't missing out. If enough people felt they would miss out - they'd pay to keep it around. There are plenty of content creators I watch where I would not be all that sad if they vanished and they stopped creating content - because I use their content to fill gaps of boredom in my day and not because I place any significant value in their content. Then there are a few I absolutely do value and I already support them when possible. I assume ones without a method to directly support them are OK with losing some revenue to ad-blockers and the like. I have absolutely let personal opportunities of collecting cash slide past me because I weighed the effort to collect it to be greater than it was worth so I assume the reason they haven't opened up a way to donate to them directly is for similar reasons. I consider ads to be psychological warfare and something that should (but never will) be illegal if they are designed to be emotionally manipulative in any way. If a dry, boring informercial doesn't inspire you to buy their product then it probably isn't worth buying howdy. I feel absolutely nothing bad about blocking them.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  In fact I do pay for yt premium, yet still get these kinds of ads. So much for that misplaced and invalid attempt at moralizing. "are they so terrible?" and "what's the alternative?" are not my problem to answer, and I don't even have to agree they are valid questions that someone has to answer. I do not accept the premise that the only way content can exist is if advertisers pay for it. That's a false dichotomy. There is no such either/or choice. I will happily live in a world that only has content that was either fully paid for by purchasing copies or subscriptions, or given to the world for free. You attempted to paint anyone using this software or anyone complaining about the ads as somehow morally lacking. I say, if you don't understand why anyone would give away something for free, and only think of the consumers as ungrateful parasites, then I think that says something worse about you than what you tried to say about anyone else.
  - realityking 5y ago
    > I will happily live in a world that only has content that was either fully paid for by purchasing copies or subscriptions, or given to the world for free. How do you feel about DRM to make sure content is only accessible to those who paid for it?
    - t-3 5y ago
      It's a good way to ensure that I will never pay for their products, and will enthusiastically support any competitor who respects their customers.
- p1necone 5y ago
  I'm perfectly fine with businesses that use intrusive ads going out of business - none of this is essential to my well being. The onus is on them to find revenue gathering methods that don't suck, not me. And before you say "but creators have to make money too" - independent art gets created just fine without capitalistic motives, and I vastly prefer the patreon model, or just paying up front for larger content (documentaries, games, films etc). (Although in this particular case, I'm pretty fine with the sponsor method with most of the creators I watch on youtube - there's definitely a line where it could get overbearing, but for the most part it's pretty easy to skip if you want and the brand they're shilling still gets shown to you over and over again so the advertisers aren't really losing out). (Also chiming in with the "I do pay for YouTube premium" gang as well).
  - helloworld11 5y ago
    One thing I absolutely despise about "creators have to make money" is when some of those creators actually use YouTube to cram their shitty music down my throat via ads while I'm playing some other, completely different music that I actually chose. It's grotesque that they think this is an ideal way to promote fan appreciation. I mean, the music styles don't even sync: You could be listening to Bach, with a playback history that clearly shows a preference for classical music, and some idiotic teen pop song by some attention-desperate, barely known singer starts playing via ad, which if you don't click to skip it (say you're in the kitchen with your hands dirty while listening to your interrupted Bach) will play FULLY for its entire 3 to 4 minute duration. Just bloody stupid...
- anonymousab 5y ago
  What is the difference between running this code and simply clicking ahead on the video timeline past the ad? How is it any different from recording a show on tape and just fastforwarding past the commercials?
  - helloworld11 5y ago
    Youtube doesn't really let you do that. If you're watching a video you chose and some shitty little ad gets crammed in there to screw with your enjoyment, its own little yellow timeline appears that you have to sit through until you can click to skip ahead after X seconds.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  apparently the average viewer spends 41 minutes per day on youtube, so that's about 20 hours per month. 1 dollar per hour is pretty cheap when it comes to entertainment, no?
- InvertedRhodium 5y ago
  I already pay $24 NZD for YouTube Premium. I'm simply using SponsorBlock to get the actual experience that payment implies - no ads.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  Psst. We're trying to keep YouTube from turning into cable TV. Please don't interfere.
  - dvtrn 5y ago
    Were you the guy I was having this exact comparison conversation with last night over bourbon and ginger ales? I'm terrified we're already well on the other side of the Rubicon
- kadoban 5y ago
  I'm 100% not going to buy whatever they're selling. If anything I'm less likely to buy something that's advertised to me. I've specifically stopped using services/products if I notice their ads too much. So who is benefiting from me watching sponsor segments? Not me, not the content creator, not the brand. I just skip them manually though tbh, haven't gotten around to automating it.
- nextlevelwizard 5y ago
  > I expect everything for free, then that’s both unrealistic and parasitic. There are plenty of youtubers who do videos as a hobby with no money and the videos still are amazing. Then there are plenty of youtubers who only make 10 minute videos so they can get as many ad breaks as possible and add sponsor ads in the videos and the video quality and content is just terrible.
path411 5y ago
Do you have YouTube premium? If not consider at some point, someone has to give the channel revenue stream or the channel will die
- kadoban 5y ago
  Why not just throw some money at their patreon, or buy some merch? Fairly sure they'll get more of that anyway.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Exactly. Personally I am done with indirect funding models where people burn my time and attention in hopes of getting me to waste enough money on something that surplus cash can be skimmed to pay for the original content. It's ridiculous. Direct payment or GTFO. And I'm putting my money where my mouth is. My Patreon bill was $150 this month. And that's not counting direct payments to creators.
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      > And I'm putting my money where my mouth is. My Patreon bill was $150 this month. And that's not counting direct payments to creators. Nice! I'm still not using Patreon but I "guilty" of paying for promising alpha quality stuff, subscribing to services I don't use deliberately even after realizing I cannot use it yet etc. I think we IT people have a reputation for being a bunch of cynical whiners and I also think it is somewhat deserved so I am happy to hear that I am not alone in actually wanting to pay for good stuff. If anyone wonder what makes me pay, here is the best I can come up with: - stuff I use or can see myself using - one time payments, no subscriptions (unless there is a specific ongoing cost that I realized must be there) - tokens are a nice alternative to subscriptions (eg: $10 for 50 tokens that let me start multi-player games is something I would easily consider for a good game like Polytopia) - not too expensive, once it passes impulse buy at around $10 monthly or $40 one time it gets significantly harder bjt not impossible
    - thinkloop 5y ago
      I love this, but that means you are now paying 3 times: ads/premium, sponsored messages, and patreon. Even if you block ads - as well as the much more complicated sponsored messages - you are still paying by having to manage that system and work around its edge cases. Direct "donation" should include ad-free and sponosor-free access to videos.
midasuni 5y ago
Map Men do great sponsor parts, actually entertaining to watch. I find the same with christmas adverts each year - I don’t do tv, but go out of my way to watch the adverts and get in the festive mood come December.
- eptcyka 5y ago
  I find their sponsor parts to be obnoxious enough to deter from watching their videos when a new one comes out :/
  - tobz1000 5y ago
    Luckily they're at the end of the video, and I believe your opinion is the minority.
- RealStickman_ 5y ago
  The only adverts I actually unskip (using SponsorBlock normally) are those by InternetHistorian.
  - pindab0ter 5y ago
    You should check out Internet Comment Etiquette then.
- swiley 5y ago
  Theirs are very creative, I almost always watch them just because they’re like a little encore.
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  Bill burr on his podcast is also good. He usually spends the segment making fun of the companys or getting off topic mid read ranting about something else. Hes mentioned hes had a few companies demand refunds afterwards.

by lawl 5y ago

input_sh 5y ago

> What really annoys me are the ones that interrupt the video. Especially when those interruptions take two minutes. I don't mind them up to 30 seconds, but their length does get pretty ridiculous from time to time. There's no medium that's gonna make watch two minutes ad without looking away or trying to skip it. You either sell it quickly or don't.

azinman2 5y ago

But what then do you think is a realistic alternative? YouTube costing $20/mo or more? Can’t watch videos without a patron? If your answer is nothing — I expect everything for free, then that’s both unrealistic and parasitic.

varelse 5y ago
Easy: a downloader that makes it look like you've watched those stupid commercials, but you actually haven't and you're back to the original video. Let the sponsors beware.
- azinman2 5y ago
  Until they see they get very little ROI and stop advertising that way. It's not like people sponsoring aren't looking to see what these channels do for them and just spend blindly...
  - genewitch 5y ago
    In the 1940s and 1950s radio programs and eventually television shows were sponsored by advertisers. soap operas get their name for being vehicles for soap companies. Off the top of my head Fitch's soap company was a big advertiser in the 40s. Another big advertiser in the forties and fifties was rexall. I don't know what the return on investment was, I always figured they did it as a way to show that they supported the arts.
    - comprev 5y ago
      Unilever was a sponsor of early TV dramas in the UK
      - k12sosse 5y ago
        Ah yes, Unilever. I always loved the dissonance in messaging between owning both the Dove and Axe product lines.
    - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
      I've long known this, but not how they used it to advertise -- was it product placement, pre-roll, being the only mid-roll adverts??
      - genewitch 5y ago
lawl 5y ago
> But what then do you think is a realistic alternative? Not my department. I'm perfectly happy being a parasite. I used to watch Twitch every now and then. Twitch introduced server side ads and made ad-blocking unreliable and annoying - so i stopped using twitch. My life doesn't depend on youtube, and if they decide to shut me out or the platform stops existing, that's fine with me. Maybe other video platforms can try out other models instead of that effective monopoly google has on online video currently. I've also already said that I tolerate non-obnoxious ads. But looking at the rest of the web, it doesn't seem to go in that direction, so I'll keep blocking until they kick me out.
- russelg 5y ago
  Twitch is still perfectly fine with streamlink. There's a 15 second loading screen where ads are meant to go (only at the start of your stream), but you don't see any ads.
  - opan 5y ago
    mpv + youtube-dl also works fine.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 5y ago
I pay $10/mo for YouTube Premium, and my expectation is that I will not have to sit through any ads. A sponsorship is an ad, which violates that expectation, so I use SponsorBlock to skip them. For channels that I watch regularly, I contribute to their Patreon if they have one. I shouldn't have to sit through a sponsorship segment in addition to that.
- willow-x 5y ago
  If you pay for YouTube Premium, the creators of monetized videos you watch get paid an order of magnitude more than with just YouTube ads.
  - throwaway2037 5y ago
    "order of magnitude" implies 10x. That's great news for small / independent creators! Can someone point me to a source for this information?
    - epse 5y ago
      It's hard to compare apples to apples, as ad revenue is based on amount of ads shown and your premium subscription is divvied up among your most watched creators based on watchtime [1] [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7060016?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7060016?hl=en
      - throwaway2037 5y ago
        Great link! Do you think it is fair to say the YouTube Premium payout model is similar to the music streaming platform, Spotify? At the risk of nerd sniping myself, thinking deeper, I wonder if people who sign up for YouTube Premium do less random surfing on YouTube and instead focus on a few channels they love? That would _further_ concentrate their payouts. If true, then the 10x figure sounds reasonable.
        chupasaurus 5y ago
corobo 5y ago
Realistic alternative is others will pick up the slack Mass market viewers don't care, adblockers get ad free content, creator gets their slice. We all win
Nadya 5y ago
For about 20 years most everything was supported on nothing but some person's own desire to put themselves out into the world. This meant spending out of their own pocket if necessary. If hosting became too much of a bandwidth issue for them to be able to pay for hosting they would release it as a torrent and it would become shared and distributed peer2peer or they'd throw it up on a free file share and the it became the file sharing platform's problem to deal with the bandwidth and try to collect (typically through member-only "premium download speeds"). In the past 10 years or so quality has largely gone down and annoyances like ads and sponsor shoutouts have gone up to the extent "Sponsored by Raid: Shadow Legends" is an actual meme. There are very, very few content creators I feel are worth supporting. This ends up being a bit classist as mostly people with enough personal cash flow and free time can afford to become full-time content creators but by and large that's already kind of the case if you look at the people who become full-time content creators. But I personally feel that if your content is more of the "popcorn" variety that people use to fill their day but don't actually value compared to something people do value then the world at large isn't missing out. If enough people felt they would miss out - they'd pay to keep it around. There are plenty of content creators I watch where I would not be all that sad if they vanished and they stopped creating content - because I use their content to fill gaps of boredom in my day and not because I place any significant value in their content. Then there are a few I absolutely do value and I already support them when possible. I assume ones without a method to directly support them are OK with losing some revenue to ad-blockers and the like. I have absolutely let personal opportunities of collecting cash slide past me because I weighed the effort to collect it to be greater than it was worth so I assume the reason they haven't opened up a way to donate to them directly is for similar reasons. I consider ads to be psychological warfare and something that should (but never will) be illegal if they are designed to be emotionally manipulative in any way. If a dry, boring informercial doesn't inspire you to buy their product then it probably isn't worth buying howdy. I feel absolutely nothing bad about blocking them.
Brian_K_White 5y ago
In fact I do pay for yt premium, yet still get these kinds of ads. So much for that misplaced and invalid attempt at moralizing. "are they so terrible?" and "what's the alternative?" are not my problem to answer, and I don't even have to agree they are valid questions that someone has to answer. I do not accept the premise that the only way content can exist is if advertisers pay for it. That's a false dichotomy. There is no such either/or choice. I will happily live in a world that only has content that was either fully paid for by purchasing copies or subscriptions, or given to the world for free. You attempted to paint anyone using this software or anyone complaining about the ads as somehow morally lacking. I say, if you don't understand why anyone would give away something for free, and only think of the consumers as ungrateful parasites, then I think that says something worse about you than what you tried to say about anyone else.
- realityking 5y ago
  > I will happily live in a world that only has content that was either fully paid for by purchasing copies or subscriptions, or given to the world for free. How do you feel about DRM to make sure content is only accessible to those who paid for it?
  - t-3 5y ago
    It's a good way to ensure that I will never pay for their products, and will enthusiastically support any competitor who respects their customers.
p1necone 5y ago
I'm perfectly fine with businesses that use intrusive ads going out of business - none of this is essential to my well being. The onus is on them to find revenue gathering methods that don't suck, not me. And before you say "but creators have to make money too" - independent art gets created just fine without capitalistic motives, and I vastly prefer the patreon model, or just paying up front for larger content (documentaries, games, films etc). (Although in this particular case, I'm pretty fine with the sponsor method with most of the creators I watch on youtube - there's definitely a line where it could get overbearing, but for the most part it's pretty easy to skip if you want and the brand they're shilling still gets shown to you over and over again so the advertisers aren't really losing out). (Also chiming in with the "I do pay for YouTube premium" gang as well).
- helloworld11 5y ago
  One thing I absolutely despise about "creators have to make money" is when some of those creators actually use YouTube to cram their shitty music down my throat via ads while I'm playing some other, completely different music that I actually chose. It's grotesque that they think this is an ideal way to promote fan appreciation. I mean, the music styles don't even sync: You could be listening to Bach, with a playback history that clearly shows a preference for classical music, and some idiotic teen pop song by some attention-desperate, barely known singer starts playing via ad, which if you don't click to skip it (say you're in the kitchen with your hands dirty while listening to your interrupted Bach) will play FULLY for its entire 3 to 4 minute duration. Just bloody stupid...
anonymousab 5y ago
What is the difference between running this code and simply clicking ahead on the video timeline past the ad? How is it any different from recording a show on tape and just fastforwarding past the commercials?
- helloworld11 5y ago
  Youtube doesn't really let you do that. If you're watching a video you chose and some shitty little ad gets crammed in there to screw with your enjoyment, its own little yellow timeline appears that you have to sit through until you can click to skip ahead after X seconds.
Barrin92 5y ago
apparently the average viewer spends 41 minutes per day on youtube, so that's about 20 hours per month. 1 dollar per hour is pretty cheap when it comes to entertainment, no?
InvertedRhodium 5y ago
I already pay $24 NZD for YouTube Premium. I'm simply using SponsorBlock to get the actual experience that payment implies - no ads.
CamperBob2 5y ago
Psst. We're trying to keep YouTube from turning into cable TV. Please don't interfere.
- dvtrn 5y ago
  Were you the guy I was having this exact comparison conversation with last night over bourbon and ginger ales? I'm terrified we're already well on the other side of the Rubicon
kadoban 5y ago
I'm 100% not going to buy whatever they're selling. If anything I'm less likely to buy something that's advertised to me. I've specifically stopped using services/products if I notice their ads too much. So who is benefiting from me watching sponsor segments? Not me, not the content creator, not the brand. I just skip them manually though tbh, haven't gotten around to automating it.
nextlevelwizard 5y ago
> I expect everything for free, then that’s both unrealistic and parasitic. There are plenty of youtubers who do videos as a hobby with no money and the videos still are amazing. Then there are plenty of youtubers who only make 10 minute videos so they can get as many ad breaks as possible and add sponsor ads in the videos and the video quality and content is just terrible.

path411 5y ago

Do you have YouTube premium? If not consider at some point, someone has to give the channel revenue stream or the channel will die

kadoban 5y ago
Why not just throw some money at their patreon, or buy some merch? Fairly sure they'll get more of that anyway.
- wpietri 5y ago
  Exactly. Personally I am done with indirect funding models where people burn my time and attention in hopes of getting me to waste enough money on something that surplus cash can be skimmed to pay for the original content. It's ridiculous. Direct payment or GTFO. And I'm putting my money where my mouth is. My Patreon bill was $150 this month. And that's not counting direct payments to creators.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    > And I'm putting my money where my mouth is. My Patreon bill was $150 this month. And that's not counting direct payments to creators. Nice! I'm still not using Patreon but I "guilty" of paying for promising alpha quality stuff, subscribing to services I don't use deliberately even after realizing I cannot use it yet etc. I think we IT people have a reputation for being a bunch of cynical whiners and I also think it is somewhat deserved so I am happy to hear that I am not alone in actually wanting to pay for good stuff. If anyone wonder what makes me pay, here is the best I can come up with: - stuff I use or can see myself using - one time payments, no subscriptions (unless there is a specific ongoing cost that I realized must be there) - tokens are a nice alternative to subscriptions (eg: $10 for 50 tokens that let me start multi-player games is something I would easily consider for a good game like Polytopia) - not too expensive, once it passes impulse buy at around $10 monthly or $40 one time it gets significantly harder bjt not impossible
  - thinkloop 5y ago
    I love this, but that means you are now paying 3 times: ads/premium, sponsored messages, and patreon. Even if you block ads - as well as the much more complicated sponsored messages - you are still paying by having to manage that system and work around its edge cases. Direct "donation" should include ad-free and sponosor-free access to videos.

midasuni 5y ago

Map Men do great sponsor parts, actually entertaining to watch. I find the same with christmas adverts each year - I don’t do tv, but go out of my way to watch the adverts and get in the festive mood come December.

eptcyka 5y ago
I find their sponsor parts to be obnoxious enough to deter from watching their videos when a new one comes out :/
- tobz1000 5y ago
  Luckily they're at the end of the video, and I believe your opinion is the minority.
RealStickman_ 5y ago
The only adverts I actually unskip (using SponsorBlock normally) are those by InternetHistorian.
- pindab0ter 5y ago
  You should check out Internet Comment Etiquette then.
swiley 5y ago
Theirs are very creative, I almost always watch them just because they’re like a little encore.
thatguy0900 5y ago
Bill burr on his podcast is also good. He usually spends the segment making fun of the companys or getting off topic mid read ranting about something else. Hes mentioned hes had a few companies demand refunds afterwards.