11 ms·

As a YouTuber, I’m conflicted about this. My main channel (non-tech) is small, but is monetised, and YouTube see fit to throw me a _very_ variable amount of mon

As a YouTuber, I’m conflicted about this. My main channel (non-tech) is small, but is monetised, and YouTube see fit to throw me a _very_ variable amount of money every month. CPMs are down right now so revenue has tanked along with it, it’ll pick back up at some point, but the variability is itself the pain point. My videos are relatively expensive and time consuming to make, but people seem to find them useful, and even enjoyable. The occasional (relevant) sponsor read or similar has been a huge help in providing some stability in the past, and I know for many channels it’s the main source of income since YPP revenue share can be so volatile. I do worry that if this takes off it will just result in those sponsors pulling their budgets for this type of advertising, and it’ll be another nail in the coffin for creators. Sure many of us also do patreon etc but that’s never really sat right with me personally (and see also the post on HN just today about Apple coming for a revenue split there for another creator-hostile storm brewing). On the other hand, I totally get the hatred of “the usual suspect” sponsors (VPNs, low-quality learning platforms etc) that get done to death because of their aggressive sponsor budgets and not-unreasonable deals. Those get shoehorned into a ton of videos and it’s a shame, but a blunt instrument like this is likely to kill off sponsorships as a whole, not just those bad ones.

efilife 2y ago
Don't do your videos for money. You are interrupting users that pay for YouTube premium with ads in the middle of your videos. Set up a way to donate to you on YouTube, channel memberships are an option, they display next to the "subscribe button".
- noone_youknow 2y ago
  > Don’t do your videos for money. This is of course a valid suggestion, and there are many, many creators that do this. However I think the world would be a poorer place if we lost all the creators that do need to make _some_ money for their channels to survive, which IMHO is the natural endgame if we remove or block all routes to passive monetisation. I do get the issue with premium, as a premium subscriber myself I too find it annoying to be interrupted by yet another 30-second (or increasingly, more) read for some shady VPN or whatever. Channel memberships, like patreon etc., are an option, but have a vanishingly small rate of uptake, and people expect some sort of value-add in return (early access to videos, a discord, and so on). Without other routes to revenue this just devalues the content itself, which I feel may be part of the problem here - we no longer value attach value to quality content. Rick Beato made a great video on the effects of this (in the music industry) recently, and it’s not great - but it does feel like all media is going a similar way.
  - Sakos 2y ago
    I often pay for Patreon to get uncensored videos. Youtube by itself already devalues videos in various ways and avenues like Patreon let creators provide what they actually want to provide, not just what YouTube allows them to.
    - noone_youknow 2y ago
      That’s great, I’m glad that you’re supporting creators directly and getting value from it too. But unfortunately you’re in the minority in my experience, for every person who does this, there are hundreds who wouldn’t even consider it. For creators making certain kinds of content the “uncensored” and “non-ad-friendly” topics are a great argument for direct sponsorship etc, I definitely agree.
      - Sakos 2y ago
        If by "certain" you mean anybody covering anything from movies to songs to games to whatever else, yes. I mean "those" creators. It's extremely easy to fall afoul of YouTube's Draconian censorship. I'm not talking about sex games. I'm talking about YouTube demonetizing anything they want for arbitrary reasons. I feel you're not recognising the issue and what Patreon solves, and why relying on YouTube for revenue is simply not an option for anybody.
        noone_youknow 2y ago
        Well, what I had in mind by “certain” is probably really “not me”. I’m fully aware how easy it is to fall foul of the ad-friendly guidelines, and have had more than one video demonetised for “reasons” myself. I’m also very aware that tying one’s entire revenue to a single platform isn’t a good strategy in _any_ business, it’s not limited to YouTube (but I can see an argument for it being worse there specifically). I really do recognise the issue, being in it myself. I do have patreon (and others) for other projects and it’s another revenue stream, which is great. But for my YouTube main channel I believe the content itself has value, and having to pour time and resources into building a value-add package devalues it - both in the immediate (since I would now have less time to devote to content creation) and longer term (since it makes it essentially a leader for my value add packages). (Some larger creators I know do manage to carve out some revenue on patreon etc without any “perk package” but I think for that to work it becomes even more of a numbers game, and won’t help small creators just getting started. I’m also putting aside the recent announcements ref. The App Store etc since they’re not directly relevant here).
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  > Don't do your videos for money. You are interrupting users that pay for YouTube premium with ads in the middle of your videos. Set up a way to donate to you on YouTube, channel memberships are an option, they display next to the "subscribe button". You shouldn't work for money either. Just do it for free.
  - krapp 2y ago
    We live in a capitalist society, and most people are forced to work to make ends meet. Being able to choose to put in what amounts to full time hours on a passion project isn't a privilege most people have. You, presumably, wouldn't work for free, why do you insist that artists should entertain you for free?
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      > You, presumably, wouldn't work for free, why do you insist that artists should entertain you for free? You didn't understand my post. I don't insist that artists entertain for free. I was responding to the parent who said "don't make videos for money". I am in fact a full-time content creator.
      - krapp 2y ago
        My mistake then. I encounter that attitude a lot here so I guess I jumped to conclusions.
        vouaobrasil 2y ago
        Yeah, I get that!
  - efilife 2y ago
    YouTube isn't work and I doubt this person creates videos for a living. I assume this is just extra money this person wants, not needs. Many years ago YouTube was about hobbyists, and nobody complained. I'm sick of the attitude to monetize everything. I listed a few non-intrusive options, just don't be hostile to your viewers shoving them sponsored crap in the middle of videos
erklik 2y ago
> blunt instrument like this is likely to kill off sponsorships as a whole That's the dream. Ads are a poison and a blight. Removing them is something many users, including me welcome. If one wants money for their videos, they're welcome to actually allow getting payments i.e. patreon, the "Youtube sponsorship"-thing.
- noone_youknow 2y ago
  Sure, I totally get that. I’m no fan of being advertised to myself and as a premium subscriber I do find sponsor segments - especially poorly-places ones - just as annoying as everyone else when watching YouTube - which is why I said I was conflicted in my earlier comment. However as I mentioned in another reply in this thread, removing routes to monetisation and devaluing content in general (by making it be effectively a loss-leader for value-add sponsorships or memberships) will only have the effect of making YouTube non-viable for many, and especially those who necessarily have higher production values to make better quality (I’m thinking more thoroughly-researched, more interesting, that sort of thing) content.
  - lrvick 2y ago
    Making YouTube non-viable is the entire point. Google should not be the gatekeeper for the world's content, or get to decide who wins and loses in a rat race trying to keep up with algorithms built to keep users addicted to low quality advertizer friendly content. The end game of ad blocking tech is to make ads a non viable source of revenue so creators will move on to ethical platforms like LBRY or peertube where creators are in charge again and users can pay them directly with no corrupt middle-men . I would suggest being an early adopter on alternative platforms building a direct relationship with a more independent donation-motivated audience before everyone else does.
    - eropple 2y ago
      These are platforms with worse availability and worse affordances, ranging to nonfunctional once you're on a mobile device. Adblocking technology isn't going to make them better. Making them better is going to make them better, but the unit economics remain not in their favor. A more likely future is less video rather than people move to PeerTube and shake an upturned hat for donations. Which doesn't bother me much, but is likely to invoke the FAFO gator on a lot of folks.
Refusing23 2y ago
I will either block/skip ads or not use youtube instead of having a "sponsored" segment where you talk about some product (basically an ad) you could just make the whole video about that product, and thus sponsorblock wouldnt really be used - i mean, sorta like product reviews
- noone_youknow 2y ago
  Well, that’s your call, of course. And when it comes to regular YT ads I don’t really blame you, “the algorithm” and the way monetisation works encourages us to set up aggressive mid-roll placements etc that must be incredibly annoying if one doesn’t pay for premium. One of the nice things about sponsor segments is that they don’t involve YouTube, so the creator gets more benefit from the deal, but of course done badly (and I assume this must be the case with many of the generic irrelevant VPN ads for example) they will harm retention and thus limit reach. Your “whole video” suggestion is really “advertise smarter” IMO, which I completely agree with. Personally I’ve never done a “reading a 30-second script about how great product X is” type segment, but I have done videos where I try out “product X” in some way that’s relevant to my audience. It’s more product placement than direct advertising, but I guess even that is unpalatable to some.
  - lrvick 2y ago
    Even sponsor segments mean you are being biased by third parties, which makes it harder for you to criticize them later if they are no longer something you would honestly endorse. I did not click the video to waste time hearing about corpo sponsors you have been paid to shill. At most I will listen to information of non profit causes to donate to. Use the sponsor segments to tell users how to donate to you. Sponsor block categorizes these differently and leaves them by default.
  - chankstein38 2y ago
    Just a heads up, the VPN ads are annoying sure but I think a lot of people would agree the RAID SHADOW LEGENDS ads are the worst lol
- Always42 2y ago
PeterStuer 2y ago
Let me state upfront I do understand the desire to make money from a channel, and much of the YT content I enjoy would not exist if that was not possible. But allow me to make a few hopefully nuanced remarks. First of all it is not just the VPNs. Briliants, RSLs etc. that annoy, it is all sponsor reads. Even those channels that try to be creative with it, there's only so many times you can be funny about it, and then it turns into just another piece of formulaic slop. But another reason why sponsor reads annoy me is that it breaks the youtube premium deal. I pay YT for an ad free experience. YT pays you more for my view than a 'free' watcher, and then you shove in ads anyway. Now I do get your argument that "it's not enough", but that does not change my end of the deal. Idealy ad reads would be autoskipped for premium subscribers. If that meant premium being a bit more expensive, I would be fine with that personally.
- noone_youknow 2y ago
  > But another reason why sponsor reads annoy me is that it breaks the youtube premium deal. I totally get that, and I feel the same way when I see yet another read as a viewer and premium subscriber. I don’t really have an answer (and if I did, I’d be doing it already), but I will say that my (subjective, based on my ad placement strategy and viewer profile) experience is that premium views are worth less than non-premium - although YouTube cleverly don’t actually give me enough data to _know_ that as a fact (and it would go against their stated position, which I guess they would never do).
  - ziml77 2y ago
    Linus Sebastian has said the exact opposite of that whenever he's discussed the breakdown of where the money that Linus Media Group makes comes from. Premium views are worth more than free views.
    - manuelmoreale 2y ago
      Just a guess: maybe it depends by which vertical they’re in? Not all channels earn the same so many be there are cases where non-premium users are more valuable than premium ones?
lrvick 2y ago
I actively support channels and causes by purchasing merch, donating, etc. That said, I refuse to waste a second of my life watching ads of any kind or supporting adtech. Adtech is what has enshittified the entire internet and we must burn it with fire at all costs. I use FreeTube to block all ads and sponsor segments and I teach everyone I know to do the same. The ad model results in creators being restricted in order to be advertised friendly, and encourages mass spying, of which the data is often irresponsibly managed and leaked putting people in danger. This model is fundamentally unethical to participate in from either side. Make some merch, and provide a mix of accessible and anonymous ways to donate to you.
sorenjan 2y ago
> I do worry that if this takes off it will just result in those sponsors pulling their budgets for this type of advertising I think most advertisers track how their ads are doing by looking at how much the personal discount code gets used, or tracking links in the description. I won't ever use any of that, so no advertiser will ever know I didn't have to suffer through the ad read about their product.
belorn 2y ago
The main area that SponsorBlock blocks are the type of sponsor read that typically are recorded separated from the video. Those are never going to be safe again blocking and it likely that most companies that uses that kind of services knows this. They are low quality, low effect, and thus (likely) fairly cheap. At the other end of the spectrum, we got paid content and sponsored gear. He who pays the piper calls the tune. It turns the issue to a balancing act where too much sponsored content will likely ruin the viewer ship (and artistic freedom/integrity/happiness/extra), but in turn it provide an income. SponsorBlock has no effect here, but naturally users may not click on paid content if they feel like it too much like an advertisement. The channel Linus Tech Tips have a few videos on this, and its a fairly common topic on their wan show.
542354234235 2y ago
>Sure many of us also do patreon etc but that’s never really sat right with me personally Patreon is people explicitly and knowingly agreeing to give you money in exchange for a service they want. Why does forcing people to watch ads preferable to that? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean when you say it doesn't sit right with you, because that sounds like you don't like the concept. I can understand if it doesn't bring in enough, but it is by far the most honest transaction between you and your viewers. Whereas with ads, you make the viewer the product and that doesn't sit right with me.
ulyssys 2y ago
I think we need to rethink the whole "advertising as a way to support creators" model. Support comes in many forms, and decoupling knowledge of a thing from being paid for good work would likely result in higher quality outcomes. It's possible there's something to the Nostr model (https://nostr.com/ https://nostr.com/) that could be of use here. A key part of Nostr is the "zap" system. In addition to allowing users to just merely upvote posts, users can also choose to zap a post, which is just a method of sending Bitcoin to the poster's wallet. Think of it like a tip system, as it directly and concretely rewards users for good content, by exchanging a token of direct value (money). With a system like this, advertising is something you do to get recognized, while the zaps are something you receive as a reward for valuable work (by whatever metric your audience appreciates).
- zamadatix 2y ago
  YouTube has something a bit more direct available for partnered channels via the "Super Thanks" comment option. It allows you to tie a dollar amount to your comment on the video.
roboror 2y ago
Obviously these sponsored segments are effective marketing otherwise no one would pay for them, but I'm sure they're far less effective with users who seek out tools like sponsorblock. One thing I've always wondered is do sponsors request watchtime data for their sponsored segments? I'm under the impression that they don't, which is wild to me.
chankstein38 2y ago
The thing that sucks is I pay for YouTube Premium to remove ads then youtubers always have sponsored segments. It makes my $20/mo useless because I'm spending time watching ads still. I don't have a solution I'm just stating my perspective on it. That said, SponsorBlock has been around for years. I've been using it for as long as I can remember. Basically any decent-sized channel's videos already have the sponsored segment skipped. I'm not sure why someone just posted it but we're well beyond SponsorBlock "taking off".
- Reubachi 2y ago
  Same feeling here. It's gotten twice as expensive, which is insane by itself. But worse is the jarring rotation of sponsored advertisers. it's reminiscent of NASCAR. Or, like being a kid forced to watch advertising during TV breaks, wondering why the TV screen istrying to sell me cigarettes. It's maybe a bit social-media-toxic to say that some youtubers are my "favorite people" in that i look forward to their takes on the topics they cover. I lose interest though when that youtuber presents to me an unprompted ad for my testicular health. I have no solution for creators consumers or google :(
  - chankstein38 2y ago
    I always wondered why YouTube themselves didn't start restricting sponsored segments. I don't necessarily agree with the idea (not a big fan of how restrictive youtube already is) but I always thought it was odd they were ok with their premium offering being devalued by sponsored segments.
    - dnissley 2y ago
      They could stop sponsored segments, but they couldn't stop creators and users from going to other platforms where they allow sponsored segments. They have far less control than e.g. Apple with the app store (where they literally can stop other app stores from ever coming into being, barring regulation that changes that).
      - 2y ago
sBqQu3U0wH 2y ago
Never in my life have I been interested in any sponsor mentioned in a YouTube video. It's sad to see creators having to include these humiliation rituals in their videos just to keep their channels alive. To me, such tools are just a noise filter.
- pixxel 2y ago
  It is sad. Early YT was for hobbyists and those that loved to share.
zamadatix 2y ago
I think this is a spot where YouTube fails to give a "fully valid" option as a platform. As a user right now I can have YouTube Premium, be a Patreon, and leave a Super Thanks on a video but still get served a sponsored segment. At the same time on the creator side I have no way to target YouTube Premium users or people paying directly to the channel with different content while keeping it as the same posting on the same platform (i.e. all as one video post on YouTube). As a result, no matter how you slice it, there is no way to have things be "right" even given ideal and fully willing creators and viewers. This leaves the only realistic way for a channel to make reasonable money to be via ads and sponsored segments targeting the majority of non paying users at the expense of the rest.
godshatter 2y ago
>I do worry that if this takes off it will just result in those sponsors pulling their budgets for this type of advertising, and it’ll be another nail in the coffin for creators. I don't think I've ever purchased a product that I have seen advertised by a creator on YT that I hadn't already purchased before seeing it in a sponsored ad. That last bit I added because I used to use ExpressVPN and now I'm seeing some sponsored ads for it. The deal has been made between the creator and the company already, it's been added to their video, so there should not need to be any noticeable affect from running sponsor block for people like myself who don't jump to buy advertised products when seeing them advertised by a creator I follow. Unless there is some kind of feedback that YT is giving the companies about who is viewing their sponsored ads, I guess, but I doubt that's happening. So my use of sponsor block (which I don't actually use - the right arrow button exists) shouldn't have any affect on sponsor finances that I can see. I'm not against creators making money, but I don't want to see ads in videos placed by YT and I don't want to see them in videos by creators, but I understand they would like to make some money. I've given through Patreon to some creators, but I'm not going to do that for all of the dozens of creators I follow. If I could just press a button and tip a small amount to the creator when watching a video I really liked, using a payment method I've already set up, I'd start doing that in a heartbeat. But I don't know if such an animal exists.
null0pointer 2y ago
> Sure many of us also do patreon etc but that’s never really sat right with me personally I'm curious what it is about the Patreon model that doesn't sit right with you? To me it seems like it's both the most respectful monetization strategy to viewers, and provides the creator with a much more stable income than YT ads, YTP shares, or sponsors.
- kelnos 2y ago
  Agreed; I don't get the GP's aversion here. To me, ads -- especially ads embedded in the regular flow of a video -- are one of the most disrespectful things you can do to your audience. Asking for voluntary subscription payments (perhaps with some added perks beyond what you'd get as a free viewer) sounds like the best model possible. People will pay if they find your content valuable and can afford the expense. Sure, there are a lot of people who will freeload, but that's just life. If you don't find that acceptable, then you need to put more of your content behind a paywall. If you can't make enough money to be satisfied with the Patreon model, and that makes you want to create less, maybe that's the correct outcome.
heraldgeezer 2y ago
>I do worry that if this takes off It won't. Honestly, most people use the official apps on their phones/TVs. Desktops and laptops are in a minority now, sadlyu, but good for stuff like this. Some know about ublock origin, but that's still a small % compared to the population.
kelnos 2y ago
I absolutely hate advertising in all forms, and will aggressively block ads whenever I can. I pay for YouTube Premium, though I have no idea how much (if any) of that goes toward creators. If a YouTube channel I enjoy has a Patreon, I'll subscribe. Advertising is psychological manipulation. I get that there aren't many ways for independent creators to get paid for their work, only a selection of sub-optimal choices, but ads are gross.
- NoahKAndrews 2y ago
  I believe YT Premium supports creators better than the ads you would have watched would have.
simonmysun 2y ago
I would rather expect an extension like AdNauseam[1] which automatically play the advertisement muted in background. [1]: https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/
- StableAlkyne 2y ago
  The best part about AdNauseum is it solves the criticism people give ad-blockers: content creators still get paid
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    But viewers do not owe anything to videomakers[1] [1] honestly content creator is a terrible word for what it is, I wish people would stop repeating that non sense.
    - StableAlkyne 2y ago
      I agree completely, but it's easier to build a bridge than it is to redirect a river.
- ivann 2y ago
  But does it really work? I would expect click fraud detection to catch this pretty easily given how big the click fraud arms race is, especially since AdNauseam said their implementation is quite naive.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Honestly the VPNs are probably the most ethical usual suspects. They actually do what's advertised and the affiliate links for deals are decent enough. If it's so much noise that people know what it is already, mission accomplished. But yes, I sympathize. youtubers aren't google, and this will just mean sponsors will push only on the biggest youtubers, wheras the small-medium sized ones need the money the most (where sponsor blocks can be half or more of their income).
AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
Make your sponsored segments worth watching. I watch a bunch of travel vlog channels and for the most part they advertise the same things (If I ever see another athletic greens sponsor segment or a four sigmatic ad I will scream -- I even actually LIKE four sigmatic products) but I have several channels whitelisted in SponsorBlock because the ads they do are hilarious. https://www.youtube.com/user/kingingit365 https://www.youtube.com/user/kingingit365 Watch some of their videos and you will see what I mean. I was watching the channel for a year or more before watching a video while sponsorblock API was down (it's volunteer run so it happens sometimes) and realized I was missing out on a really hilarious and important part of their videos, instant whitelist!
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Sponsored segments always have stipulations on what you need to mention and how. Some may let you add some pizzazz, but that's why they all sound the same. Thats part of the contract. Even that pizzazz is risky though. Sometimes videos get delayed simply because the sponsor comes in last minute and needs to debate the segment.
0x0203 2y ago
If there aren't enough people willing to pay for someone else's work product to make it worth the producers time/effort, then I'd argue that maybe that work product is not actually worth producing in the first place. In the realm of youtube, that may require putting out enough quality content as a loss-leader to gain a following large enough that a percentage is willing to support the creator directly. Many have made this work well. I have many issues with advertising in general, but put simply, it breaks the basic transactional nature of business. When the people benefiting from someone else's work product aren't the ones paying for it, then both the producer and consumer end up being taken advantage of for someone else's profit. The way I see it, tools like Patreon that allow consumers to directly support people they benefit from are just what are needed.
throw10920 2y ago
As a creator - I'd be very interested to know whether a direct microtransaction system (not crypto, imagine something like PayPal) would be appealing to you. (none currently exists, but I want there to be) Your per-video ad revenue is probably under 1c/video, right? If so, I don't think that many consumers would bat an eye at directly paying that cent (or more), assuming a sufficiently well-designed wallet UI (clear indicator of balance, easy refund system (with anti-refund-abuse countermeasures), current spend amount per session and spend rate prominently displayed, one-click content purchase with low latency, etc.). Does that sound plausible, or am I missing something?
cedws 2y ago
Why are you entitled to make money from YouTube though? Monetisation is part of the reason the site has become a low quality content farm. Now it’s just an industrial clickbait and ragebait machine. Even the educational channels just pump out poorly researched crap or convert Wikipedia articles to video format. Back in the days it was just a fun little site for people to upload whatever they felt like and it was great, the content was organic.
- nicbou 2y ago
  Counterpoint: why do you feel entitled to free content? Normally if you don't agree to the price of something, you don't pay for it and you don't get it. With content people feel okay with both getting the content for free _and_ denying the creator any income. Then when the creators dare to bring it up, there's invariably a comment like this downplaying their contribution. It's truly adding insult to injury.
  - cedws 2y ago
    If you hand out free cupcakes and then people take them, you can’t really then complain about people taking the cupcakes without paying. The reason creators monetise their videos on YouTube instead of charging for them on Patreon is because they know people won’t pay for them. Why would they? There are mountains of other videos they can watch for free and if they aren’t inclined to pay, the videos probably aren’t worth paying for. This is the free market at work. If you don’t make the videos for free, someone else will, unless they can’t because the production value is too high.
    - nicbou 2y ago
      In this case the cupcakes are not free. They are explicitly exchanged for a minute of your attention. You use scripts and tools to get the product without paying for it. Kind of like sneaking into a meeting room to eat the cupcakes, then leaving before the meeting begins. If you decided not to watch ad-supported content, it would be the free market at work. In this case you're just stiffing creators.
account42 2y ago
> I do worry that if this takes off it will just result in those sponsors pulling their budgets for this type of advertising, and it’ll be another nail in the coffin for creators. For advertisers masquerading as creators. Not all creators turn their hobby into a hustle and not all that do use abusive methods to extract money out of their viewers. I do support some patreons and have also donated directly to projects I like but I would also be more than happy if payment opportunities for "creators" dried up entirely and we went back to an internet with more genuine content instead of crap designed to be profitable.
barnabee 2y ago
> likely to kill off sponsorships as a whole, not just those bad ones. I’d like to see this. If creators make money it should be from YouTube handouts from Premium and paid subscriptions and/or creators seeking funding directly outside YouTube. Having less “professional” content (and less content in general) is a reasonable price to pay to break our dependence on adtech and the “attention economy”.

efilife 2y ago

Don't do your videos for money. You are interrupting users that pay for YouTube premium with ads in the middle of your videos. Set up a way to donate to you on YouTube, channel memberships are an option, they display next to the "subscribe button".

noone_youknow 2y ago
> Don’t do your videos for money. This is of course a valid suggestion, and there are many, many creators that do this. However I think the world would be a poorer place if we lost all the creators that do need to make _some_ money for their channels to survive, which IMHO is the natural endgame if we remove or block all routes to passive monetisation. I do get the issue with premium, as a premium subscriber myself I too find it annoying to be interrupted by yet another 30-second (or increasingly, more) read for some shady VPN or whatever. Channel memberships, like patreon etc., are an option, but have a vanishingly small rate of uptake, and people expect some sort of value-add in return (early access to videos, a discord, and so on). Without other routes to revenue this just devalues the content itself, which I feel may be part of the problem here - we no longer value attach value to quality content. Rick Beato made a great video on the effects of this (in the music industry) recently, and it’s not great - but it does feel like all media is going a similar way.
- Sakos 2y ago
  I often pay for Patreon to get uncensored videos. Youtube by itself already devalues videos in various ways and avenues like Patreon let creators provide what they actually want to provide, not just what YouTube allows them to.
  - noone_youknow 2y ago
    That’s great, I’m glad that you’re supporting creators directly and getting value from it too. But unfortunately you’re in the minority in my experience, for every person who does this, there are hundreds who wouldn’t even consider it. For creators making certain kinds of content the “uncensored” and “non-ad-friendly” topics are a great argument for direct sponsorship etc, I definitely agree.
    - Sakos 2y ago
      If by "certain" you mean anybody covering anything from movies to songs to games to whatever else, yes. I mean "those" creators. It's extremely easy to fall afoul of YouTube's Draconian censorship. I'm not talking about sex games. I'm talking about YouTube demonetizing anything they want for arbitrary reasons. I feel you're not recognising the issue and what Patreon solves, and why relying on YouTube for revenue is simply not an option for anybody.
      - noone_youknow 2y ago
        Well, what I had in mind by “certain” is probably really “not me”. I’m fully aware how easy it is to fall foul of the ad-friendly guidelines, and have had more than one video demonetised for “reasons” myself. I’m also very aware that tying one’s entire revenue to a single platform isn’t a good strategy in _any_ business, it’s not limited to YouTube (but I can see an argument for it being worse there specifically). I really do recognise the issue, being in it myself. I do have patreon (and others) for other projects and it’s another revenue stream, which is great. But for my YouTube main channel I believe the content itself has value, and having to pour time and resources into building a value-add package devalues it - both in the immediate (since I would now have less time to devote to content creation) and longer term (since it makes it essentially a leader for my value add packages). (Some larger creators I know do manage to carve out some revenue on patreon etc without any “perk package” but I think for that to work it becomes even more of a numbers game, and won’t help small creators just getting started. I’m also putting aside the recent announcements ref. The App Store etc since they’re not directly relevant here).
vouaobrasil 2y ago
> Don't do your videos for money. You are interrupting users that pay for YouTube premium with ads in the middle of your videos. Set up a way to donate to you on YouTube, channel memberships are an option, they display next to the "subscribe button". You shouldn't work for money either. Just do it for free.
- krapp 2y ago
  We live in a capitalist society, and most people are forced to work to make ends meet. Being able to choose to put in what amounts to full time hours on a passion project isn't a privilege most people have. You, presumably, wouldn't work for free, why do you insist that artists should entertain you for free?
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    > You, presumably, wouldn't work for free, why do you insist that artists should entertain you for free? You didn't understand my post. I don't insist that artists entertain for free. I was responding to the parent who said "don't make videos for money". I am in fact a full-time content creator.
    - krapp 2y ago
      My mistake then. I encounter that attitude a lot here so I guess I jumped to conclusions.
      - vouaobrasil 2y ago
        Yeah, I get that!
- efilife 2y ago
  YouTube isn't work and I doubt this person creates videos for a living. I assume this is just extra money this person wants, not needs. Many years ago YouTube was about hobbyists, and nobody complained. I'm sick of the attitude to monetize everything. I listed a few non-intrusive options, just don't be hostile to your viewers shoving them sponsored crap in the middle of videos

erklik 2y ago

> blunt instrument like this is likely to kill off sponsorships as a whole That's the dream. Ads are a poison and a blight. Removing them is something many users, including me welcome. If one wants money for their videos, they're welcome to actually allow getting payments i.e. patreon, the "Youtube sponsorship"-thing.

noone_youknow 2y ago
Sure, I totally get that. I’m no fan of being advertised to myself and as a premium subscriber I do find sponsor segments - especially poorly-places ones - just as annoying as everyone else when watching YouTube - which is why I said I was conflicted in my earlier comment. However as I mentioned in another reply in this thread, removing routes to monetisation and devaluing content in general (by making it be effectively a loss-leader for value-add sponsorships or memberships) will only have the effect of making YouTube non-viable for many, and especially those who necessarily have higher production values to make better quality (I’m thinking more thoroughly-researched, more interesting, that sort of thing) content.
- lrvick 2y ago
  Making YouTube non-viable is the entire point. Google should not be the gatekeeper for the world's content, or get to decide who wins and loses in a rat race trying to keep up with algorithms built to keep users addicted to low quality advertizer friendly content. The end game of ad blocking tech is to make ads a non viable source of revenue so creators will move on to ethical platforms like LBRY or peertube where creators are in charge again and users can pay them directly with no corrupt middle-men . I would suggest being an early adopter on alternative platforms building a direct relationship with a more independent donation-motivated audience before everyone else does.
  - eropple 2y ago
    These are platforms with worse availability and worse affordances, ranging to nonfunctional once you're on a mobile device. Adblocking technology isn't going to make them better. Making them better is going to make them better, but the unit economics remain not in their favor. A more likely future is less video rather than people move to PeerTube and shake an upturned hat for donations. Which doesn't bother me much, but is likely to invoke the FAFO gator on a lot of folks.

Refusing23 2y ago

I will either block/skip ads or not use youtube instead of having a "sponsored" segment where you talk about some product (basically an ad) you could just make the whole video about that product, and thus sponsorblock wouldnt really be used - i mean, sorta like product reviews

noone_youknow 2y ago
Well, that’s your call, of course. And when it comes to regular YT ads I don’t really blame you, “the algorithm” and the way monetisation works encourages us to set up aggressive mid-roll placements etc that must be incredibly annoying if one doesn’t pay for premium. One of the nice things about sponsor segments is that they don’t involve YouTube, so the creator gets more benefit from the deal, but of course done badly (and I assume this must be the case with many of the generic irrelevant VPN ads for example) they will harm retention and thus limit reach. Your “whole video” suggestion is really “advertise smarter” IMO, which I completely agree with. Personally I’ve never done a “reading a 30-second script about how great product X is” type segment, but I have done videos where I try out “product X” in some way that’s relevant to my audience. It’s more product placement than direct advertising, but I guess even that is unpalatable to some.
- lrvick 2y ago
  Even sponsor segments mean you are being biased by third parties, which makes it harder for you to criticize them later if they are no longer something you would honestly endorse. I did not click the video to waste time hearing about corpo sponsors you have been paid to shill. At most I will listen to information of non profit causes to donate to. Use the sponsor segments to tell users how to donate to you. Sponsor block categorizes these differently and leaves them by default.
- chankstein38 2y ago
  Just a heads up, the VPN ads are annoying sure but I think a lot of people would agree the RAID SHADOW LEGENDS ads are the worst lol
Always42 2y ago

PeterStuer 2y ago

Let me state upfront I do understand the desire to make money from a channel, and much of the YT content I enjoy would not exist if that was not possible. But allow me to make a few hopefully nuanced remarks. First of all it is not just the VPNs. Briliants, RSLs etc. that annoy, it is all sponsor reads. Even those channels that try to be creative with it, there's only so many times you can be funny about it, and then it turns into just another piece of formulaic slop. But another reason why sponsor reads annoy me is that it breaks the youtube premium deal. I pay YT for an ad free experience. YT pays you more for my view than a 'free' watcher, and then you shove in ads anyway. Now I do get your argument that "it's not enough", but that does not change my end of the deal. Idealy ad reads would be autoskipped for premium subscribers. If that meant premium being a bit more expensive, I would be fine with that personally.

noone_youknow 2y ago
> But another reason why sponsor reads annoy me is that it breaks the youtube premium deal. I totally get that, and I feel the same way when I see yet another read as a viewer and premium subscriber. I don’t really have an answer (and if I did, I’d be doing it already), but I will say that my (subjective, based on my ad placement strategy and viewer profile) experience is that premium views are worth less than non-premium - although YouTube cleverly don’t actually give me enough data to _know_ that as a fact (and it would go against their stated position, which I guess they would never do).
- ziml77 2y ago
  Linus Sebastian has said the exact opposite of that whenever he's discussed the breakdown of where the money that Linus Media Group makes comes from. Premium views are worth more than free views.
  - manuelmoreale 2y ago
    Just a guess: maybe it depends by which vertical they’re in? Not all channels earn the same so many be there are cases where non-premium users are more valuable than premium ones?

lrvick 2y ago

I actively support channels and causes by purchasing merch, donating, etc. That said, I refuse to waste a second of my life watching ads of any kind or supporting adtech. Adtech is what has enshittified the entire internet and we must burn it with fire at all costs. I use FreeTube to block all ads and sponsor segments and I teach everyone I know to do the same. The ad model results in creators being restricted in order to be advertised friendly, and encourages mass spying, of which the data is often irresponsibly managed and leaked putting people in danger. This model is fundamentally unethical to participate in from either side. Make some merch, and provide a mix of accessible and anonymous ways to donate to you.

sorenjan 2y ago

> I do worry that if this takes off it will just result in those sponsors pulling their budgets for this type of advertising I think most advertisers track how their ads are doing by looking at how much the personal discount code gets used, or tracking links in the description. I won't ever use any of that, so no advertiser will ever know I didn't have to suffer through the ad read about their product.

belorn 2y ago

The main area that SponsorBlock blocks are the type of sponsor read that typically are recorded separated from the video. Those are never going to be safe again blocking and it likely that most companies that uses that kind of services knows this. They are low quality, low effect, and thus (likely) fairly cheap. At the other end of the spectrum, we got paid content and sponsored gear. He who pays the piper calls the tune. It turns the issue to a balancing act where too much sponsored content will likely ruin the viewer ship (and artistic freedom/integrity/happiness/extra), but in turn it provide an income. SponsorBlock has no effect here, but naturally users may not click on paid content if they feel like it too much like an advertisement. The channel Linus Tech Tips have a few videos on this, and its a fairly common topic on their wan show.

542354234235 2y ago

>Sure many of us also do patreon etc but that’s never really sat right with me personally Patreon is people explicitly and knowingly agreeing to give you money in exchange for a service they want. Why does forcing people to watch ads preferable to that? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean when you say it doesn't sit right with you, because that sounds like you don't like the concept. I can understand if it doesn't bring in enough, but it is by far the most honest transaction between you and your viewers. Whereas with ads, you make the viewer the product and that doesn't sit right with me.

ulyssys 2y ago

I think we need to rethink the whole "advertising as a way to support creators" model. Support comes in many forms, and decoupling knowledge of a thing from being paid for good work would likely result in higher quality outcomes. It's possible there's something to the Nostr model (https://nostr.com/ https://nostr.com/) that could be of use here. A key part of Nostr is the "zap" system. In addition to allowing users to just merely upvote posts, users can also choose to zap a post, which is just a method of sending Bitcoin to the poster's wallet. Think of it like a tip system, as it directly and concretely rewards users for good content, by exchanging a token of direct value (money). With a system like this, advertising is something you do to get recognized, while the zaps are something you receive as a reward for valuable work (by whatever metric your audience appreciates).

zamadatix 2y ago
YouTube has something a bit more direct available for partnered channels via the "Super Thanks" comment option. It allows you to tie a dollar amount to your comment on the video.

roboror 2y ago

Obviously these sponsored segments are effective marketing otherwise no one would pay for them, but I'm sure they're far less effective with users who seek out tools like sponsorblock. One thing I've always wondered is do sponsors request watchtime data for their sponsored segments? I'm under the impression that they don't, which is wild to me.

chankstein38 2y ago

The thing that sucks is I pay for YouTube Premium to remove ads then youtubers always have sponsored segments. It makes my $20/mo useless because I'm spending time watching ads still. I don't have a solution I'm just stating my perspective on it. That said, SponsorBlock has been around for years. I've been using it for as long as I can remember. Basically any decent-sized channel's videos already have the sponsored segment skipped. I'm not sure why someone just posted it but we're well beyond SponsorBlock "taking off".

Reubachi 2y ago
Same feeling here. It's gotten twice as expensive, which is insane by itself. But worse is the jarring rotation of sponsored advertisers. it's reminiscent of NASCAR. Or, like being a kid forced to watch advertising during TV breaks, wondering why the TV screen istrying to sell me cigarettes. It's maybe a bit social-media-toxic to say that some youtubers are my "favorite people" in that i look forward to their takes on the topics they cover. I lose interest though when that youtuber presents to me an unprompted ad for my testicular health. I have no solution for creators consumers or google :(
- chankstein38 2y ago
  I always wondered why YouTube themselves didn't start restricting sponsored segments. I don't necessarily agree with the idea (not a big fan of how restrictive youtube already is) but I always thought it was odd they were ok with their premium offering being devalued by sponsored segments.
  - dnissley 2y ago
    They could stop sponsored segments, but they couldn't stop creators and users from going to other platforms where they allow sponsored segments. They have far less control than e.g. Apple with the app store (where they literally can stop other app stores from ever coming into being, barring regulation that changes that).
    - 2y ago

sBqQu3U0wH 2y ago

Never in my life have I been interested in any sponsor mentioned in a YouTube video. It's sad to see creators having to include these humiliation rituals in their videos just to keep their channels alive. To me, such tools are just a noise filter.

pixxel 2y ago
It is sad. Early YT was for hobbyists and those that loved to share.

zamadatix 2y ago

I think this is a spot where YouTube fails to give a "fully valid" option as a platform. As a user right now I can have YouTube Premium, be a Patreon, and leave a Super Thanks on a video but still get served a sponsored segment. At the same time on the creator side I have no way to target YouTube Premium users or people paying directly to the channel with different content while keeping it as the same posting on the same platform (i.e. all as one video post on YouTube). As a result, no matter how you slice it, there is no way to have things be "right" even given ideal and fully willing creators and viewers. This leaves the only realistic way for a channel to make reasonable money to be via ads and sponsored segments targeting the majority of non paying users at the expense of the rest.

godshatter 2y ago

>I do worry that if this takes off it will just result in those sponsors pulling their budgets for this type of advertising, and it’ll be another nail in the coffin for creators. I don't think I've ever purchased a product that I have seen advertised by a creator on YT that I hadn't already purchased before seeing it in a sponsored ad. That last bit I added because I used to use ExpressVPN and now I'm seeing some sponsored ads for it. The deal has been made between the creator and the company already, it's been added to their video, so there should not need to be any noticeable affect from running sponsor block for people like myself who don't jump to buy advertised products when seeing them advertised by a creator I follow. Unless there is some kind of feedback that YT is giving the companies about who is viewing their sponsored ads, I guess, but I doubt that's happening. So my use of sponsor block (which I don't actually use - the right arrow button exists) shouldn't have any affect on sponsor finances that I can see. I'm not against creators making money, but I don't want to see ads in videos placed by YT and I don't want to see them in videos by creators, but I understand they would like to make some money. I've given through Patreon to some creators, but I'm not going to do that for all of the dozens of creators I follow. If I could just press a button and tip a small amount to the creator when watching a video I really liked, using a payment method I've already set up, I'd start doing that in a heartbeat. But I don't know if such an animal exists.

null0pointer 2y ago

> Sure many of us also do patreon etc but that’s never really sat right with me personally I'm curious what it is about the Patreon model that doesn't sit right with you? To me it seems like it's both the most respectful monetization strategy to viewers, and provides the creator with a much more stable income than YT ads, YTP shares, or sponsors.

kelnos 2y ago
Agreed; I don't get the GP's aversion here. To me, ads -- especially ads embedded in the regular flow of a video -- are one of the most disrespectful things you can do to your audience. Asking for voluntary subscription payments (perhaps with some added perks beyond what you'd get as a free viewer) sounds like the best model possible. People will pay if they find your content valuable and can afford the expense. Sure, there are a lot of people who will freeload, but that's just life. If you don't find that acceptable, then you need to put more of your content behind a paywall. If you can't make enough money to be satisfied with the Patreon model, and that makes you want to create less, maybe that's the correct outcome.

heraldgeezer 2y ago

>I do worry that if this takes off It won't. Honestly, most people use the official apps on their phones/TVs. Desktops and laptops are in a minority now, sadlyu, but good for stuff like this. Some know about ublock origin, but that's still a small % compared to the population.

kelnos 2y ago

I absolutely hate advertising in all forms, and will aggressively block ads whenever I can. I pay for YouTube Premium, though I have no idea how much (if any) of that goes toward creators. If a YouTube channel I enjoy has a Patreon, I'll subscribe. Advertising is psychological manipulation. I get that there aren't many ways for independent creators to get paid for their work, only a selection of sub-optimal choices, but ads are gross.

NoahKAndrews 2y ago
I believe YT Premium supports creators better than the ads you would have watched would have.

simonmysun 2y ago

I would rather expect an extension like AdNauseam[1] which automatically play the advertisement muted in background. [1]: https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/

StableAlkyne 2y ago
The best part about AdNauseum is it solves the criticism people give ad-blockers: content creators still get paid
- prmoustache 2y ago
  But viewers do not owe anything to videomakers[1] [1] honestly content creator is a terrible word for what it is, I wish people would stop repeating that non sense.
  - StableAlkyne 2y ago
    I agree completely, but it's easier to build a bridge than it is to redirect a river.
ivann 2y ago
But does it really work? I would expect click fraud detection to catch this pretty easily given how big the click fraud arms race is, especially since AdNauseam said their implementation is quite naive.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

Honestly the VPNs are probably the most ethical usual suspects. They actually do what's advertised and the affiliate links for deals are decent enough. If it's so much noise that people know what it is already, mission accomplished. But yes, I sympathize. youtubers aren't google, and this will just mean sponsors will push only on the biggest youtubers, wheras the small-medium sized ones need the money the most (where sponsor blocks can be half or more of their income).

AdamJacobMuller 2y ago

Make your sponsored segments worth watching. I watch a bunch of travel vlog channels and for the most part they advertise the same things (If I ever see another athletic greens sponsor segment or a four sigmatic ad I will scream -- I even actually LIKE four sigmatic products) but I have several channels whitelisted in SponsorBlock because the ads they do are hilarious. https://www.youtube.com/user/kingingit365 https://www.youtube.com/user/kingingit365 Watch some of their videos and you will see what I mean. I was watching the channel for a year or more before watching a video while sponsorblock API was down (it's volunteer run so it happens sometimes) and realized I was missing out on a really hilarious and important part of their videos, instant whitelist!

johnnyanmac 2y ago
Sponsored segments always have stipulations on what you need to mention and how. Some may let you add some pizzazz, but that's why they all sound the same. Thats part of the contract. Even that pizzazz is risky though. Sometimes videos get delayed simply because the sponsor comes in last minute and needs to debate the segment.

0x0203 2y ago

If there aren't enough people willing to pay for someone else's work product to make it worth the producers time/effort, then I'd argue that maybe that work product is not actually worth producing in the first place. In the realm of youtube, that may require putting out enough quality content as a loss-leader to gain a following large enough that a percentage is willing to support the creator directly. Many have made this work well. I have many issues with advertising in general, but put simply, it breaks the basic transactional nature of business. When the people benefiting from someone else's work product aren't the ones paying for it, then both the producer and consumer end up being taken advantage of for someone else's profit. The way I see it, tools like Patreon that allow consumers to directly support people they benefit from are just what are needed.

throw10920 2y ago

As a creator - I'd be very interested to know whether a direct microtransaction system (not crypto, imagine something like PayPal) would be appealing to you. (none currently exists, but I want there to be) Your per-video ad revenue is probably under 1c/video, right? If so, I don't think that many consumers would bat an eye at directly paying that cent (or more), assuming a sufficiently well-designed wallet UI (clear indicator of balance, easy refund system (with anti-refund-abuse countermeasures), current spend amount per session and spend rate prominently displayed, one-click content purchase with low latency, etc.). Does that sound plausible, or am I missing something?

cedws 2y ago

Why are you entitled to make money from YouTube though? Monetisation is part of the reason the site has become a low quality content farm. Now it’s just an industrial clickbait and ragebait machine. Even the educational channels just pump out poorly researched crap or convert Wikipedia articles to video format. Back in the days it was just a fun little site for people to upload whatever they felt like and it was great, the content was organic.

nicbou 2y ago
Counterpoint: why do you feel entitled to free content? Normally if you don't agree to the price of something, you don't pay for it and you don't get it. With content people feel okay with both getting the content for free _and_ denying the creator any income. Then when the creators dare to bring it up, there's invariably a comment like this downplaying their contribution. It's truly adding insult to injury.
- cedws 2y ago
  If you hand out free cupcakes and then people take them, you can’t really then complain about people taking the cupcakes without paying. The reason creators monetise their videos on YouTube instead of charging for them on Patreon is because they know people won’t pay for them. Why would they? There are mountains of other videos they can watch for free and if they aren’t inclined to pay, the videos probably aren’t worth paying for. This is the free market at work. If you don’t make the videos for free, someone else will, unless they can’t because the production value is too high.
  - nicbou 2y ago
    In this case the cupcakes are not free. They are explicitly exchanged for a minute of your attention. You use scripts and tools to get the product without paying for it. Kind of like sneaking into a meeting room to eat the cupcakes, then leaving before the meeting begins. If you decided not to watch ad-supported content, it would be the free market at work. In this case you're just stiffing creators.

account42 2y ago

> I do worry that if this takes off it will just result in those sponsors pulling their budgets for this type of advertising, and it’ll be another nail in the coffin for creators. For advertisers masquerading as creators. Not all creators turn their hobby into a hustle and not all that do use abusive methods to extract money out of their viewers. I do support some patreons and have also donated directly to projects I like but I would also be more than happy if payment opportunities for "creators" dried up entirely and we went back to an internet with more genuine content instead of crap designed to be profitable.

barnabee 2y ago

> likely to kill off sponsorships as a whole, not just those bad ones. I’d like to see this. If creators make money it should be from YouTube handouts from Premium and paid subscriptions and/or creators seeking funding directly outside YouTube. Having less “professional” content (and less content in general) is a reasonable price to pay to break our dependence on adtech and the “attention economy”.