5 ms·

I find clearly marked sponsored content on YouTube a non-issue. Yeah there are scummy or questionable sponsors but overall I get why they exist and in compariso

I find clearly marked sponsored content on YouTube a non-issue. Yeah there are scummy or questionable sponsors but overall I get why they exist and in comparison to the alternative I think its an acceptable solution. There's people and companies on YouTube that produce outstanding content and I have no issue supporting them (YouTube Premium). I get that's not an option for a lot of people though so barring the invasive tracking for ads on YouTube, this is the next best thing.

debian3 3y ago
Could say the same about ads on a website, yet most people that I know use an ad blocker. For sponsor, I use SponsorBlock. I would say it's my second most favourite extension after Ublock Origin. I'm always amazed when it just skip over those section. For low quality video, it even start the video at the conclusion/recap, so you get all the info you need without spending too much time.
- juujian 3y ago
  Interesting, I feel there is a difference, but I cannot quite put my finger on it. Ads on most websites feel more obtrusive. Maybe it's because on websites, there is a spatial separation, but in videos it is temporal? I can look at the video without the sponsored content constantly trying to grab my attention. It is just a certain window of time, where the content also does not continue, so it is relatively easy to tune out? Never mind the fact that I can skip over it if it is terrible sponsored content?
  - notahacker 3y ago
    Seems an odd way of looking at it. The "sponsored content" typically aims to monopolise your attention for 30 seconds of your life. The ad is typically just a box a few hundred pixels wide which either sits in a column I'm not actually reading or is easily scrolled past. "Ad blindness" is a thing It's like I don't get upset by crappy stock photos or navigation bars, but would give up on a website that took 30 seconds to load...
- mschild 3y ago
  The problem I have with most ads is the tracking. I'd compare sponsor messages with print ads in magazine. Theyre probably somewhat relevant to the target audience of the channel but everyone sees the same one.
- jameshart 3y ago
  There’s a fundamental difference between a sponsor segment and most in-page web advertising (or indeed YouTube ads). A sponsor segment is an advertiser targeting the whole audience of a video by directly working with the video creator. Trustworthy creators will select sponsors which make sense for their audience and don’t detract from their credibility or brand. An ad, though, is a break in the content where the host basically takes each of their audiencemembers, and separately auctions off the right to talk to them to a shady back room full of random hawkers. Each audience member gets a random ad which the content creator has no control over or awareness of, nor any relationship with other than financial.
rpastuszak 3y ago
What do I mind is that the consent is usually implied a-priori, and when it's not, the UX of opting out is an unnecessary nuissance. Advertising is not about informing users, but creating a need before we're able to say no. I'm driving a car and can't access my phone, YT plays a recommended video with sponsored content I hear before I have the choice to switch it off. That's just a tiny example, but these things add up. (Speaking as someone with experience in psychology, publishing and ad tech here, so that's my primary focus/perspective.) Here's my personal ideal for a platform like YT: - Take a service fee cut (e.g. 30%) - allocate the remaining 70% of money to the people I watched (optional) let me allocate some of my budget to a random pool of other creators so I can support their growth/someone else's free access to content. This can work. An example would be Guardian relying on donations, where many people pay so others can access their content. (look for their case studies to learn more)
- mschild 3y ago
  I'd argue the consent is you clicking on the video to watch it. Sponsor spots are the norm, especially for large well-known channels. The fee is charged to users if I understand it correctly? So essentially YouTube premium? That can work, but not everyone can afford to spend money on a subscription and if you block access to the platform it's arguably you will be able to grow to the size and diversity YouTube has. Floatplane is an alternative where you can directly subscribe to creators but that's not cheap if you watch a wide variety.
  - rpastuszak 3y ago
    > Sponsor spots are the norm It is the norm, but whether the norm is good is a different question. If you speak with the creators, big or small (say a single person vs. a huge publisher), the would very much prefer not to rely on ads or sponsorships. They're forced to do so. Speaking from personal experience working with publishers and creators here. Ironically, the biggest obstacle for me pushing the alternatives were the publishers' sales teams: people with decent salaries, with mortgages to pay, whose life depended on ads or sponsorships. Even the adtech companies I worked with were happy to pay for my work, esp. during the cookiegeddon times (2019). > I'd argue the consent is you clicking on the video to watch it. Fair argument but in practice, given the amount of UX work done so I do watch the sponsored content, it takes a toll on you. The only solution would be to stop using YT at all.

debian3 3y ago

Could say the same about ads on a website, yet most people that I know use an ad blocker. For sponsor, I use SponsorBlock. I would say it's my second most favourite extension after Ublock Origin. I'm always amazed when it just skip over those section. For low quality video, it even start the video at the conclusion/recap, so you get all the info you need without spending too much time.

juujian 3y ago
Interesting, I feel there is a difference, but I cannot quite put my finger on it. Ads on most websites feel more obtrusive. Maybe it's because on websites, there is a spatial separation, but in videos it is temporal? I can look at the video without the sponsored content constantly trying to grab my attention. It is just a certain window of time, where the content also does not continue, so it is relatively easy to tune out? Never mind the fact that I can skip over it if it is terrible sponsored content?
- notahacker 3y ago
  Seems an odd way of looking at it. The "sponsored content" typically aims to monopolise your attention for 30 seconds of your life. The ad is typically just a box a few hundred pixels wide which either sits in a column I'm not actually reading or is easily scrolled past. "Ad blindness" is a thing It's like I don't get upset by crappy stock photos or navigation bars, but would give up on a website that took 30 seconds to load...
mschild 3y ago
The problem I have with most ads is the tracking. I'd compare sponsor messages with print ads in magazine. Theyre probably somewhat relevant to the target audience of the channel but everyone sees the same one.
jameshart 3y ago
There’s a fundamental difference between a sponsor segment and most in-page web advertising (or indeed YouTube ads). A sponsor segment is an advertiser targeting the whole audience of a video by directly working with the video creator. Trustworthy creators will select sponsors which make sense for their audience and don’t detract from their credibility or brand. An ad, though, is a break in the content where the host basically takes each of their audiencemembers, and separately auctions off the right to talk to them to a shady back room full of random hawkers. Each audience member gets a random ad which the content creator has no control over or awareness of, nor any relationship with other than financial.

rpastuszak 3y ago

What do I mind is that the consent is usually implied a-priori, and when it's not, the UX of opting out is an unnecessary nuissance. Advertising is not about informing users, but creating a need before we're able to say no. I'm driving a car and can't access my phone, YT plays a recommended video with sponsored content I hear before I have the choice to switch it off. That's just a tiny example, but these things add up. (Speaking as someone with experience in psychology, publishing and ad tech here, so that's my primary focus/perspective.) Here's my personal ideal for a platform like YT: - Take a service fee cut (e.g. 30%) - allocate the remaining 70% of money to the people I watched (optional) let me allocate some of my budget to a random pool of other creators so I can support their growth/someone else's free access to content. This can work. An example would be Guardian relying on donations, where many people pay so others can access their content. (look for their case studies to learn more)

mschild 3y ago
I'd argue the consent is you clicking on the video to watch it. Sponsor spots are the norm, especially for large well-known channels. The fee is charged to users if I understand it correctly? So essentially YouTube premium? That can work, but not everyone can afford to spend money on a subscription and if you block access to the platform it's arguably you will be able to grow to the size and diversity YouTube has. Floatplane is an alternative where you can directly subscribe to creators but that's not cheap if you watch a wide variety.
- rpastuszak 3y ago
  > Sponsor spots are the norm It is the norm, but whether the norm is good is a different question. If you speak with the creators, big or small (say a single person vs. a huge publisher), the would very much prefer not to rely on ads or sponsorships. They're forced to do so. Speaking from personal experience working with publishers and creators here. Ironically, the biggest obstacle for me pushing the alternatives were the publishers' sales teams: people with decent salaries, with mortgages to pay, whose life depended on ads or sponsorships. Even the adtech companies I worked with were happy to pay for my work, esp. during the cookiegeddon times (2019). > I'd argue the consent is you clicking on the video to watch it. Fair argument but in practice, given the amount of UX work done so I do watch the sponsored content, it takes a toll on you. The only solution would be to stop using YT at all.