Me watching their video with the ads open up a whole lot of other revenue opportunities to them as opposed to just handing them out money. They are not a charity case.
Me watching their video with the ads open up a whole lot of other revenue opportunities to them as opposed to just handing them out money. They are not a charity case.
Uh, which one? I can't work out what this refers to.
> If your friend opens a shop and knows their monetization model is sales, are you implying if you want to support them you are just going to hand out cash to them?
I don't understand how this analogy is supposed to work. In a shop, you exchange money for things. On youtube, you enjoy videos and..the creator gets paid somehow, you seem to be suggesting, by my watching ads, which is nowhere near acceptable to me[0], but since they want money, I suggested paying them money, which is a win-win, no?
> Me watching their video with the ads open up a whole lot of other revenue opportunities to them
Could you spell out what this means? What "other revenue opportunities"? Thanks.
> They are not a charity case.
I don't get the reference to charity. As if being made (against your will) to watch ads is somehow loftier than paying people who make stuff you like? but I'm sure I misunderstand your point.
[0] Well, before I had an adblocker in the last few years, I never found myself on a channel that showed ads. None of my favourite channels had ads. Hmm.
They also no longer have a choice whether or not ads run on their channels due to policy changes.
Also, I think your supposition is invalid as you are comparing digital entertainment to physical food
I've never not blocked online advertisements.