3 ms·

Also, on monetized channels, it's the content creator who has put that many ads in there. They can choose to not do that, see e.g. Asmongold's channel[0] with z

by yreg 3y ago

Also, on monetized channels, it's the content creator who has put that many ads in there. They can choose to not do that, see e.g. Asmongold's channel[0] with zero ads. (To be fair, this option is not available to the smallest non-monetized channels.) But somehow people are angry at YouTube instead of their beloved content creators. (I use uBlock to block ads.) [0] https://www.youtube.com/@AsmonTV https://www.youtube.com/@AsmonTV

EduardoBautista 3y ago
YouTube fills the role of the scapegoat. Creators are never blamed for choosing the path that pays them the most. Artists playing at venues that use Ticketmaster is a similar situation. Sure, some of these artists can _choose_ not to perform at these venues, just like the YouTube creators can _choose_ not to upload videos to YouTube. Scapegoat as a service.
3D30497420 3y ago
My understanding is most smaller channels earn peanuts from YouTube. Some channels I subscribe to occasionally break out their finances and direct YouTube payments are usually pretty small and irregular. This makes direct sponsorships almost a necessity for full-time creators. In any event, I don't mind these since they are easy to skip and at least the creator is getting the vast majority of the money.
- otteromkram 3y ago
  Unpopular opinion: YouTube shouldn't be a career. "Creators" include what? People reacting to other videos? People pulling dumb/dangerous pranks? All for likes and subscribers? Those using the platform to show off a handmade knife that's available for purchase or demo some animation they made, will continue to do well. Those relying on ad-based revenue for money are not. I'm okay with that.
  - piva00 3y ago
    Creators also include a lot of educational content, why shouldn't it be a career if it's financially viable? What a strange take on what should or shouldn't be a career. There's lots of dumb content on YouTube but there was already a lot of dumb content on TV before that (reality shows, stupid History Channel "documentaries", gossip news programs, etc.).
- yreg 3y ago
  If they are getting peanuts anyway, they are free to stop running ads.

by yreg 3y ago

EduardoBautista 3y ago

YouTube fills the role of the scapegoat. Creators are never blamed for choosing the path that pays them the most. Artists playing at venues that use Ticketmaster is a similar situation. Sure, some of these artists can _choose_ not to perform at these venues, just like the YouTube creators can _choose_ not to upload videos to YouTube. Scapegoat as a service.

3D30497420 3y ago

My understanding is most smaller channels earn peanuts from YouTube. Some channels I subscribe to occasionally break out their finances and direct YouTube payments are usually pretty small and irregular. This makes direct sponsorships almost a necessity for full-time creators. In any event, I don't mind these since they are easy to skip and at least the creator is getting the vast majority of the money.

otteromkram 3y ago
Unpopular opinion: YouTube shouldn't be a career. "Creators" include what? People reacting to other videos? People pulling dumb/dangerous pranks? All for likes and subscribers? Those using the platform to show off a handmade knife that's available for purchase or demo some animation they made, will continue to do well. Those relying on ad-based revenue for money are not. I'm okay with that.
- piva00 3y ago
  Creators also include a lot of educational content, why shouldn't it be a career if it's financially viable? What a strange take on what should or shouldn't be a career. There's lots of dumb content on YouTube but there was already a lot of dumb content on TV before that (reality shows, stupid History Channel "documentaries", gossip news programs, etc.).
yreg 3y ago
If they are getting peanuts anyway, they are free to stop running ads.