Hacker News Reader

Comment by pwython | Hacker News Reader

> The difficulty and cost associated with creating video ads is exactly why Youtube is still a hidden gem.

These days many top performing video ads are the ones that are made to look amateur/cheap. And it's not just the guru course ads. The native vlogger-style ad is often more engaging on a platform filled with vloggers. High production value "professional" ads have traditionally been created to lend credibility & authority to the brand. But if their audience now trusts "influencers" more than big brands, what's the harm in testing a TON of simple video creatives with clever scripts.

I've even seen this style now in offline commercials.

View on HN

For anyone that hates "native vlogger-style ads" in youtube videos https://sponsor.ajay.app/ is a godsend.

Do you think it is moral to use that? The creator is trying to make money off the video so they can continue to create. You are essentially stealing from them-taking the content they made without paying for it (watching the ad).

If you don't like "native vlogger-style ads" don't watch those videos.

The same could be said about adblock. Most ads are not the horribly annoying like they used to be, so adblock is just immoral, stealing from the website content creator.

It could be, but "annoying ads" aren't really the problem. Ad-block is self-defense against privacy-invading ad and analytics networks.

When a site serves ads and tracking from its own first-party domain and I can reasonably determine this, I do not block it and often unblock it if it defaults to blocked.

When a site farms out adverts to third parties to share my browsing habits across the web, I default to blocking everything.

If there's a site that decides that it won't show me content because I'm using an adblocker, then I move on. They don't want my eyes, and I don't want their practices - no reason to stick around.

Its nothing like stealing whatsoever, that is a huge distortion of the term.

I think so. I would not buy the product either way, so seeing the ad makes no difference except for wasting my time. I automate things that waste my time (such as skipping ad segments), I don't think it is immoral to do so.

There is no moral imperative that says you are obligated to pay for something you did not voluntarily asked for. Or do you feel forced to give money to every busker on the street or Subway?

> If you don't like "native vlogger-style ads" don't watch those videos

No. If the content creator wants to give access only to the people who can provide them income, then they should make this transaction direct and transparent. It is not on the consumer's job to ensure that the producer is paid.

> There is no moral imperative that says you are obligated to pay for something you did not voluntarily asked for

Is that accurate? If you follow a link to watch a video, is that not asking to watch that video?

VHS and TiVO have already established legal precedent: watching a video does not legally bind you to also watch the commercials.

Making a good video that looks amateur or cheap is still expensive.

Well, making a video "look amateur" is certainly not expensive. But I think you mean making a "good video" isn't necessarily cheap. If you're not a one-man guru, you'll need to pay a creative/writing team. Otherwise, the expense Nick outlined (production value) shouldn't be a hinderance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com