4 ms·
'If I can consume the same service with no ads I will' is my stance I think. I'm way more likely to donate to a channel I like than I am to put up with loud an
by OJFord 3y ago
'If I can consume the same service with no ads I will' is my stance I think.
I'm way more likely to donate to a channel I like than I am to put up with loud annoying obnoxious ads for things I'm never going to buy anyway if I don't have to.
There's one I like, or at least used to, King's Fine Woodworking, that.. I don't know he clearly has some setting enabled that others don't, that means his channel is plastered in text link ads that just make it look crap, and you have to scroll way down to get to 'Uploads' (vs playlists of old videos you've seen before). Ads cheapen every channel they touch, the more there are the worse it is. 'Creators' are better off focussing on direct monetisation imo. Or sponsored unbiased content, product reviews etc. where it is actually related to the channel. Not like VPNs or backup battery systems are everywhere.
- maximus-decimus 3y agoYou're not answering the question. Do you think Youtube should just be streaming to everybody for free? Do you think that's a sustainable business model?
- OJFord 3y agoNo I don't, I just mean if the model is ads that's fine, but if it's possible for me to block them I will, because I don't want to see them and it's not illegal. I do understand that means maybe they have to show more to people not blocking them, or start charging, or something. I'm not saying it should be provided free and adless, I'm just saying that doesn't matter, it's not the point, if it's free and can be adless then it will be. It's not my job to make sure it's sustainable by sitting through ads.