5 ms·

I think the OP's point is that people like Colin Furze used to film themselves and just put out content, but now they court sponsors and have a production team.

I think the OP's point is that people like Colin Furze used to film themselves and just put out content, but now they court sponsors and have a production team. All of the people you mentioned have a production team, I think. I've got some channels I watch that don't have production crews (I think) like "Under Dunn" and I enjoy them every bit as much as the big ones you named, if not more... But there's no doubt that even they pay at least some attention to monetization. I also heavily curate my recommendations. It's kind of painful because there's so much crap, but I do still find channels that I enjoy once in a while. They generally aren't new channels, though, just ones I hadn't found yet. A few of my channels got really stupid about monetization, though. One of my woodworking channels recently said that he wasn't going to do any more content like his old content because it doesn't attract new viewers. He's very much trying to make that channel be his day job, and it ruined it for me. I almost never watch his new stuff, but I guess others do, so... Oh well.

sofixa 4y ago
> I think the OP's point is that people like Colin Furze used to film themselves and just put out content, but now they court sponsors and have a production team. All of the people you mentioned have a production team, I think. Why is that a problem? People don't like it when the audio and video quality are good ? Or they don't like it when content producers focus entirely on content creating instead of moonlighting (with the necessary associations with sponsors and what not). I don't mind either, and having seen a few channels "grow" into a more professional outfit, i vastly prefer the new, more qualitative version, even if it wastes me a few seconds for monetisation.
- wccrawford 4y ago
  In itself, I don't have a problem with having sponsors. But far too often, it feels like the person made the video just for the money, instead of because it's something their viewers would actually like to see. Colin Furze has done remarkably little of this, but some of my other channels have entire videos that were obviously just to be a commercial, and the content is almost unlike the other channel content. Seeing one of those feels like they've wasted my time for their own profit, and that feels bad. And you often can't tell if it's going to be a whole video like that, or just an up-front sponsor message.
Youden 4y ago
It's true that monetization has changed things and I can understand that for some folks it's bad but for some I think it's been really good. In the old days the content was only driven by passion, because it wasn't really possible to make a living or fund a production team. These days, you get guys like Colin Furze who are able to do what they're passionate about full-time, with nice equipment and staff to support them. Tom Scott is another good example. He has a production team behind him but his content is still "here's a genuinely interesting thing I wanted to show you", maybe with a short, very obviously marked sponsored segment.
- scarab92 4y ago
  Tom Scott is perhaps a better example of how hollow monetised content can be. His formula is taking topics that have been covered by other creators, dumbing the content down a bit, adding a sponsor block and a clickbait title. There's no effort expended in contributing new topics, or adding new colour to existing topics because researching that requires too much time and expertise to repeat day after day.

sofixa 4y ago

> I think the OP's point is that people like Colin Furze used to film themselves and just put out content, but now they court sponsors and have a production team. All of the people you mentioned have a production team, I think. Why is that a problem? People don't like it when the audio and video quality are good ? Or they don't like it when content producers focus entirely on content creating instead of moonlighting (with the necessary associations with sponsors and what not). I don't mind either, and having seen a few channels "grow" into a more professional outfit, i vastly prefer the new, more qualitative version, even if it wastes me a few seconds for monetisation.

wccrawford 4y ago
In itself, I don't have a problem with having sponsors. But far too often, it feels like the person made the video just for the money, instead of because it's something their viewers would actually like to see. Colin Furze has done remarkably little of this, but some of my other channels have entire videos that were obviously just to be a commercial, and the content is almost unlike the other channel content. Seeing one of those feels like they've wasted my time for their own profit, and that feels bad. And you often can't tell if it's going to be a whole video like that, or just an up-front sponsor message.

Youden 4y ago

It's true that monetization has changed things and I can understand that for some folks it's bad but for some I think it's been really good. In the old days the content was only driven by passion, because it wasn't really possible to make a living or fund a production team. These days, you get guys like Colin Furze who are able to do what they're passionate about full-time, with nice equipment and staff to support them. Tom Scott is another good example. He has a production team behind him but his content is still "here's a genuinely interesting thing I wanted to show you", maybe with a short, very obviously marked sponsored segment.

scarab92 4y ago
Tom Scott is perhaps a better example of how hollow monetised content can be. His formula is taking topics that have been covered by other creators, dumbing the content down a bit, adding a sponsor block and a clickbait title. There's no effort expended in contributing new topics, or adding new colour to existing topics because researching that requires too much time and expertise to repeat day after day.