3 ms·

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

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.

addaon 4y ago
Sponsors don't pay a fixed amount to creators. They pay for (estimated) views. What I'm proposing is exactly, 100% symmetric to how advertisers who pay Google for YouTube ad placement are already treated -- they pay for views, and YouTube can and does choose to not show those ads to some users, those who pay for Premium. Is that unfair for the ad buyers? Sure, if you squint right… but they're not being deprived something they paid for, they're just not being offered the option to put in ads in front of that particular market. Before Youtube Premium, I would have said the same thing about blocking first-party ads in YouTube. It was weird they didn't do that thing. And then they did it. So now it's not weird I guess?
- concerned_user 4y ago
  > Sponsors don't pay a fixed amount to creators. They pay for (estimated) views. This can't be right, I've seen many videos from creators that say the opposite, it is a fixed amount per contract which can be one or more videos. Maybe it is different with creators that have more than 1M subscribers.
  - addaon 4y ago
    The estimation is on the front end of the contract, not the back end -- the amount offered to a creator whose videos average 10M views is 10x than what is offered to one whose videos average 1M views, in general. If you think about it from the advertiser's point of view, this is the only sane way to manage the risk of a video going viral and exceeding expected number of views, while still providing a reasonably constant valuation of a view event.
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    You're correct, for at least a large fraction of the sponsored videos I've ever seen.

addaon 4y ago

Sponsors don't pay a fixed amount to creators. They pay for (estimated) views. What I'm proposing is exactly, 100% symmetric to how advertisers who pay Google for YouTube ad placement are already treated -- they pay for views, and YouTube can and does choose to not show those ads to some users, those who pay for Premium. Is that unfair for the ad buyers? Sure, if you squint right… but they're not being deprived something they paid for, they're just not being offered the option to put in ads in front of that particular market. Before Youtube Premium, I would have said the same thing about blocking first-party ads in YouTube. It was weird they didn't do that thing. And then they did it. So now it's not weird I guess?

concerned_user 4y ago
> Sponsors don't pay a fixed amount to creators. They pay for (estimated) views. This can't be right, I've seen many videos from creators that say the opposite, it is a fixed amount per contract which can be one or more videos. Maybe it is different with creators that have more than 1M subscribers.
- addaon 4y ago
  The estimation is on the front end of the contract, not the back end -- the amount offered to a creator whose videos average 10M views is 10x than what is offered to one whose videos average 1M views, in general. If you think about it from the advertiser's point of view, this is the only sane way to manage the risk of a video going viral and exceeding expected number of views, while still providing a reasonably constant valuation of a view event.
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  You're correct, for at least a large fraction of the sponsored videos I've ever seen.