←back to thread

SponsorBlock – skip sponsor segments on YouTube

(sponsor.ajay.app)
661 points anotherhue | 5 comments | 12 Aug 24 09:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.008s | source
Show context
noone_youknow ◴[13 Aug 24 02:41 UTC] No.41231674[source]▶
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.

replies(25): >>41232437 #>>41232581 #>>41232707 #>>41233038 #>>41234040 #>>41234084 #>>41234999 #>>41235001 #>>41236793 #>>41238030 #>>41238280 #>>41238298 #>>41238611 #>>41239066 #>>41239394 #>>41239637 #>>41239654 #>>41239960 #>>41240838 #>>41240845 #>>41241269 #>>41241757 #>>41243225 #>>41243783 #>>41247631 #
erklik ◴[13 Aug 24 05:37 UTC] No.41232581[source]▶
> 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.

replies(6): >>41233013 #>>41233478 #>>41233501 #>>41234540 #>>41238244 #>>41241740 #
noone_youknow ◴[13 Aug 24 07:00 UTC] No.41233013[source]▶
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.

replies(4): >>41234082 #>>41234517 #>>41235636 #>>41238335 #
manuelmoreale ◴[13 Aug 24 11:51 UTC] No.41234517[source]▶
Aren’t you, as a YouTuber, in the same position as many creators that do the same on other mediums? There are people out there who write amazing blog posts but now the traditional advertising world is basically dead and people have to figure out other ways to make it work.

Or they have to accept that what they do is not a full time job but rather a hobby and they need to find other ways to earn a living.

Writing is no longer viable for many. I don’t see why YouTube should be this special case.

replies(1): >>41241939 #
1. johnnyanmac ◴[14 Aug 24 02:18 UTC] No.41241939[source]▶
>Writing is no longer viable for many. I don’t see why YouTube should be this special case.

>Writing is no longer viable for many. I don’t see why YouTube should be this special case.

because Youtube is owned by a trillion dollar corporation but mostly powered by content creators. Substack isn't.

It's really that simple. most wringing isn't viable because there's no money in it, literally. There still is money in video ads.

replies(1): >>41242656 #
2. manuelmoreale ◴[14 Aug 24 04:50 UTC] No.41242656[source]▶
I’m not asking why it is. I’m asking why it should be.
replies(1): >>41243675 #
3. johnnyanmac ◴[14 Aug 24 07:55 UTC] No.41243675[source]▶
Why what should be? Why platforms with money pay people with no money? Why platforms with no money shut down?

It's not a very fun answer. Google gets a lot of ads to pay then to shove ads down the consumer's throats, and they can do this with no risk of users migrating. They "should" get more money because they more effectly do this than news websites, which have failed to appeal to advertisers effectively enough.

I don't really know what to do with that answer, though. Accept I'm the minority that will subscribe to paid avenues to support creators (or even care about other creator's well beings?) and move on?

replies(1): >>41244577 #
4. manuelmoreale ◴[14 Aug 24 10:35 UTC] No.41244577{3}[source]▶
No I’m asking why we should look at people who make video on YouTube differently than any other type of creator who publish elsewhere.

The original post I was replying to said:

> 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.

And my answer was that this is no different than any other type of creator online.

replies(1): >>41247250 #
5. johnnyanmac ◴[14 Aug 24 15:31 UTC] No.41247250{4}[source]▶
> I’m asking why we should look at people who make video on YouTube differently than any other type of creator who publish elsewhere.

I don't know who's "we" here. But that's simply psychological. You will look at [person who make lots of money] differently from [person who can barely cover rent], if only because the latter may need more help you may be able to give.

There's no "should" here. And influencers aren't limited to YouTube. all my answers come down to "because they are backed by a trillion dollar corporation"

>And my answer was that this is no different than any other type of creator online.

Maybe instead of "but no one else makes money" to drag down, we should change the lens to "let's reward other mediums for being high quality and throrougly researched" to boost up other mediums of creation.

Especially in a time where we are already getting so much slop and misinformation (and we're not even close to the worst of the storm). I'm sure you seen enough of the internet to know most people will just accept the slop and at best take years of introspection before they realize why quality matters (others never do).