https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y...
Sponsorblock works incredibly well at blocking in video sponsored ads.
Presumably the content creators would also be able to designate spaces in their videos for ads to insert for their older videos so YouTube can still make money off them without a retired content producer needing to take them down to avoid being charged for views.
(Plus they can be skipped if you have an adblocker. The only time I see YouTube ads is on my Roku in bed.)
Content creators earn much more money from product placements and ads within their videos than they do from the ad share that YouTube pays out. With a medium-sized German YouTuber, you easily pay 50,000 euros for a 30-second review of the product. And in the video, he talks about several products. To earn 100,000 euros just from views, the video must be clicked millions of times.
Content creators would immediately look for or build another platform if their most important source of revenue was blocked.
Content creators could move to a different platform, but that's also incredibly risky. Unless you're already hugely successful, abandoning YouTube probably isn't a great way to build a following. The same goes for building their own platform, with the added complication of it being prohibitively expensive to make a scalable, relatively ad-free video platform if you aren't a megacorp who generates billions of dollars from other revenue streams.
So I suppose there is a risk, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's a risk that Google would live with if sponsored content was undermining their entire monetization plan for YouTube. I have no idea if they'd care enough to do this or not, but I don't think a scattered collection of content creators have enough leverage to scare Google here.
But if you follow anything DIY, maker, automotive or work related it's difficult to tell the sponsored posts from the non sponsored. Is this guy recommending Metallex because it's a good product, or because he was paid? Did the Mikita drill win this shootout because it's the better drill, or because they are the only manufacturer who supplied a tool free of charge? Are they putting a Garrett turbocharger into the car because that was the vision for the project, or because Garrett sent it to them?
While it would likely be a great boon (think Stripe + legal service + getting paid on time), it would likely end up like PayPal; creators constantly getting their accounts shut down for "suspicious activity" and their money pocketed.
YouTube videos containing ads even if you pay for the service just makes it the same as everydamnthing else.
meanwhile, adverts probably have a much better ROI from working on a person by person basis than making a deal with google to cycle in x times per day. It's a win for everyone except the consumers (and it can be argued as an indirect win, since that 2nd source pushes many YTbers to go full time. So, more and more consistent content).
If they actually use the product too then you are sold. Particularly if they remind you next time you see them.
Some people see their favourite YouTubers more than their friends. They see them as hero-friends.
This is very much the future of advertising, linear TV style adverts are not for every product.
It's like your Cable TV or favorite newspaper charging you for subscription and then filling up the content with ads because they can earn FROM BOTH.
I keep being told this is modern economy working as intended -_-
The advertising cut is not much at all and it's really hard to sustain anything on it.
> It's like your Cable TV or favorite newspaper charging you for subscription and then filling up the content with ads because they can earn FROM BOTH.
It's more like the flip of that, content having ads but you can subscribe too. If video makers had an easy way to disable ads for direct subscribers, I bet almost all of them would do it right away.