4 ms·

The ads haven’t stayed gone, though. I would pay a substantial premium for an option to filter promotions out of videos. I would even pay to just never get pro

by addaon 4y ago

The ads haven’t stayed gone, though. I would pay a substantial premium for an option to filter promotions out of videos. I would even pay to just never get promoted videos in my steam. The option to pay for no ads doesn’t exist, today, although it would be easy to ad. Instead, you get to pay to remove one advertiser, and not all the others.

VikingCoder 4y ago
What? I don't see any ads unless they're embedded in the video by the creator...?
- munk-a 4y ago
  Those are still ads and there are solutions to filter them out that Youtube could be more proactive about surfacing to premium users.
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    I think you're being ridiculous. Like, would you want YouTube to skip over this entire scene in the Wayne's World movie? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lgLYGBbDNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lgLYGBbDNs Should it not let me see a product review if it was sponsored by the company that makes the product? Or only if the reviewers didn't have full editorial control? Wherever you would want to draw the line, someone else would tell you that you drew it wrong.
    - addaon 4y ago
      I think you're being unnecessarily adversarial here. Sponsored ads in videos are everywhere, and well delineated. Third party tools exist to skip them already -- and YouTube already has the data on where they start and end. They even show them on the timeline, although they call "end of sponsored advertisement" "most replayed"… presumedly because of everyone skipping the ad, losing their place, and then having to step back to try to find where the content begins again. Here's how this could work. I would pay an additional $10/month for YouTube Scarlet. Content creators would have three options -- declare that their videos have no sources of revenue outside of YouTube revenue; provide start and end time stamps for any external-revenue-generating segments; or do nothing. For my $10/month, videos in the second category would skip their promotion. In exchange, some portion of my $10/month would go to the video creator, just like ad/Premium revenue does today, and the metrics on number of videos where this segment was skipped would be made available in analytics for sharing with sponsors. Finally, I'd have access to a user preference to suppress videos in the third category for appearing in recommendations, ever. Does this deal with every case? No. Would it make YouTube more pleasant for me and potentially others who share my values, without impacting current regular and Premium users, and with a neutral or positive impact on content creators? I assert yes.
      - VikingCoder 4y ago
        Would it have a negative impact on the businesses who promote those videos? Yes. If it's a negative impact on the businesses who promote videos, how can you say your idea doesn't impact content creators?
        addaon 4y ago
        Why would it have a negative impact on either the promoted businesses or the content creators? Promoted businesses currently pay based on (an estimate of) the number of views that the video will get. This would trivially adjust to paying based on the number of views that the sponsorship within the video gets -- that's why I mentioned the requirement to make this available through analytics. If the cost per view stays the same for sponsors, they're now paying for a self-selecting audience of people who are not actively bothered by their ads. (I doubt I'm the only person who, if I as going to pay money for a VPN, would choose literally anything other than Nord VPN just as petty "revenge" for how much of my life they've wasted.) If this slightly-reduced audience does not sufficiently eat their marketing budget, they can find new creators to sponsor. For the content creators, presumedly the target amount paid directly per skipped ad would be chosen to slightly exceed the expected payout of showing the ad. This is the same conceptual model Premium uses today. So even though the sponsor may be paying them for a 9.5 M view video instead of a 10 M view video -- the payout should more than cover the difference. I agree that these marginal wins run into systematic concerns if more than, say, 5% or so of users start opting out of embedded advertising this way. But besides being incredibly unlikely -- what would it say about the business model of embedded advertising if 5% of YouTube customers were willing to pay to avoid it!?
        VikingCoder 4y ago
        So, you appear to dismiss my concerns completely, demand a feature, and then insist... that hardly anyone will use it? And that because hardly anyone will use it, that means promoters are safe... unless they're not, in which case, they had it coming? A sponsor pays $10,000 to a content creator. And then, they get zero views of their embedded ad in the video. They got literally nothing for their $10,000 investment. And let's say, for the sake of argument, that YouTube does not pay $10,000 for the same video, or ones like it. Now, the content creator gets less money than they would have before. It's almost like content creators have already done this calculus, and concluded that the best way to create content is to promote things. It's funny to me when someone is like, "Why doesn't YouTube do X," and then they answer their own question, but then they still act like it's weird that YouTube doesn't do that thing.
lolinder 4y ago
A sponsorship in a video paid directly to the YouTuber is very different from a targeted ad that YouTube runs. It doesn't interrupt the content in unexpected ways (only ways planned by the creator), it's targeted based on content rather than data mining, and the creator usually tries to add a bit of personality to it. Not to mention you can skip them using the regular scrubbing controls rather than being forced to watch at least 5 seconds.
- addaon 4y ago
  Yes. It is a somewhat-less-bad form of even more advertising. If you think paying to avoid some advertising is reasonable, why is paying more to avoid more advertising unreasonable?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lolinder 4y ago
    It's unreasonable to expect YouTube Premium to filter out content inserted by the video creator when that's not the terms either you or the creator were given. I pay for Nebula and don't see any ads or sponsorships there, but I don't begrudge the sponsorships on regular YouTube. If the sponsorships bug you that much, use sponsorblock.
    - addaon 4y ago
      Yes, I agree that it is unreasonable to expect this of Youtube Premium, as that is not the value proposition of that product. The original comment was proposing a new product, at a higher price point to reflect its higher costs, that /does/ cater to this expectation.
    - mLuby 4y ago
      It's totally reasonable: users would be happier, YouTube can charge more for it (YT Premium+?), and YT analytics can detect when a sponsor segment (which many videos already label, and which are known to be about 60s long) is skipped and pass those metrics on to the content creator so the sponsor isn't being cheated. Everybody wins. (Yes this doesn't work for heavily integrated sponsorships but it'd still get most of them.)
f1refly 4y ago
Sponsorblock is a thing that exists if in-video ads annoy you.
- addaon 4y ago
  I don’t believe there’s a way to run it on AppleTV, though I would love to be wrong.
  - lymph 4y ago
    https://github.com/ajayyy/SponsorBlock/wiki/3rd-Party-Ports#apple-tv https://github.com/ajayyy/SponsorBlock/wiki/3rd-Party-Ports#...
stiltzkin 4y ago
That's why i'm happy with SmartTubeNext with Sponsorblock on Android TV.
joegahona 4y ago
I don’t mind the promotional/sponsorship content in the Youtube channels I follow. Some people make them funny, and others are smaller so I don’t mind supporting them. Also, they’re always 100% skippable simply by scrubbing forward past them (which isn’t always the case with Youtube-injected preroll ads). That said, I don’t know how offensive these are across the entire Youtube landscape, and I could see them being a nuisance.
tincholio 4y ago
Have you tried SponsorBlock? It basically allows auto-skipping of all that fluff.

by addaon 4y ago

VikingCoder 4y ago

What? I don't see any ads unless they're embedded in the video by the creator...?

munk-a 4y ago
Those are still ads and there are solutions to filter them out that Youtube could be more proactive about surfacing to premium users.
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  I think you're being ridiculous. Like, would you want YouTube to skip over this entire scene in the Wayne's World movie? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lgLYGBbDNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lgLYGBbDNs Should it not let me see a product review if it was sponsored by the company that makes the product? Or only if the reviewers didn't have full editorial control? Wherever you would want to draw the line, someone else would tell you that you drew it wrong.
  - addaon 4y ago
    I think you're being unnecessarily adversarial here. Sponsored ads in videos are everywhere, and well delineated. Third party tools exist to skip them already -- and YouTube already has the data on where they start and end. They even show them on the timeline, although they call "end of sponsored advertisement" "most replayed"… presumedly because of everyone skipping the ad, losing their place, and then having to step back to try to find where the content begins again. Here's how this could work. I would pay an additional $10/month for YouTube Scarlet. Content creators would have three options -- declare that their videos have no sources of revenue outside of YouTube revenue; provide start and end time stamps for any external-revenue-generating segments; or do nothing. For my $10/month, videos in the second category would skip their promotion. In exchange, some portion of my $10/month would go to the video creator, just like ad/Premium revenue does today, and the metrics on number of videos where this segment was skipped would be made available in analytics for sharing with sponsors. Finally, I'd have access to a user preference to suppress videos in the third category for appearing in recommendations, ever. Does this deal with every case? No. Would it make YouTube more pleasant for me and potentially others who share my values, without impacting current regular and Premium users, and with a neutral or positive impact on content creators? I assert yes.
    - VikingCoder 4y ago
      Would it have a negative impact on the businesses who promote those videos? Yes. If it's a negative impact on the businesses who promote videos, how can you say your idea doesn't impact content creators?
      - addaon 4y ago
        Why would it have a negative impact on either the promoted businesses or the content creators? Promoted businesses currently pay based on (an estimate of) the number of views that the video will get. This would trivially adjust to paying based on the number of views that the sponsorship within the video gets -- that's why I mentioned the requirement to make this available through analytics. If the cost per view stays the same for sponsors, they're now paying for a self-selecting audience of people who are not actively bothered by their ads. (I doubt I'm the only person who, if I as going to pay money for a VPN, would choose literally anything other than Nord VPN just as petty "revenge" for how much of my life they've wasted.) If this slightly-reduced audience does not sufficiently eat their marketing budget, they can find new creators to sponsor. For the content creators, presumedly the target amount paid directly per skipped ad would be chosen to slightly exceed the expected payout of showing the ad. This is the same conceptual model Premium uses today. So even though the sponsor may be paying them for a 9.5 M view video instead of a 10 M view video -- the payout should more than cover the difference. I agree that these marginal wins run into systematic concerns if more than, say, 5% or so of users start opting out of embedded advertising this way. But besides being incredibly unlikely -- what would it say about the business model of embedded advertising if 5% of YouTube customers were willing to pay to avoid it!?
        VikingCoder 4y ago
        So, you appear to dismiss my concerns completely, demand a feature, and then insist... that hardly anyone will use it? And that because hardly anyone will use it, that means promoters are safe... unless they're not, in which case, they had it coming? A sponsor pays $10,000 to a content creator. And then, they get zero views of their embedded ad in the video. They got literally nothing for their $10,000 investment. And let's say, for the sake of argument, that YouTube does not pay $10,000 for the same video, or ones like it. Now, the content creator gets less money than they would have before. It's almost like content creators have already done this calculus, and concluded that the best way to create content is to promote things. It's funny to me when someone is like, "Why doesn't YouTube do X," and then they answer their own question, but then they still act like it's weird that YouTube doesn't do that thing.

lolinder 4y ago

A sponsorship in a video paid directly to the YouTuber is very different from a targeted ad that YouTube runs. It doesn't interrupt the content in unexpected ways (only ways planned by the creator), it's targeted based on content rather than data mining, and the creator usually tries to add a bit of personality to it. Not to mention you can skip them using the regular scrubbing controls rather than being forced to watch at least 5 seconds.

addaon 4y ago
Yes. It is a somewhat-less-bad form of even more advertising. If you think paying to avoid some advertising is reasonable, why is paying more to avoid more advertising unreasonable?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lolinder 4y ago
  It's unreasonable to expect YouTube Premium to filter out content inserted by the video creator when that's not the terms either you or the creator were given. I pay for Nebula and don't see any ads or sponsorships there, but I don't begrudge the sponsorships on regular YouTube. If the sponsorships bug you that much, use sponsorblock.
  - addaon 4y ago
    Yes, I agree that it is unreasonable to expect this of Youtube Premium, as that is not the value proposition of that product. The original comment was proposing a new product, at a higher price point to reflect its higher costs, that /does/ cater to this expectation.
  - mLuby 4y ago
    It's totally reasonable: users would be happier, YouTube can charge more for it (YT Premium+?), and YT analytics can detect when a sponsor segment (which many videos already label, and which are known to be about 60s long) is skipped and pass those metrics on to the content creator so the sponsor isn't being cheated. Everybody wins. (Yes this doesn't work for heavily integrated sponsorships but it'd still get most of them.)

f1refly 4y ago

Sponsorblock is a thing that exists if in-video ads annoy you.

addaon 4y ago
I don’t believe there’s a way to run it on AppleTV, though I would love to be wrong.
- lymph 4y ago
  https://github.com/ajayyy/SponsorBlock/wiki/3rd-Party-Ports#apple-tv https://github.com/ajayyy/SponsorBlock/wiki/3rd-Party-Ports#...

stiltzkin 4y ago

That's why i'm happy with SmartTubeNext with Sponsorblock on Android TV.

joegahona 4y ago

I don’t mind the promotional/sponsorship content in the Youtube channels I follow. Some people make them funny, and others are smaller so I don’t mind supporting them. Also, they’re always 100% skippable simply by scrubbing forward past them (which isn’t always the case with Youtube-injected preroll ads). That said, I don’t know how offensive these are across the entire Youtube landscape, and I could see them being a nuisance.

tincholio 4y ago

Have you tried SponsorBlock? It basically allows auto-skipping of all that fluff.