this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
400 points (87.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
340 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
YouTube absolutely can see which parts of videos people are actually engaging with. So can creators. And sponsors can request engagement metrics as part of their sponsorship deals.
Advertisers care about impressions and engagement. A person simply watching a sponsored segment is an impression. If people's impression metrics for sponsored segments start dropping, they become less attractive to sponsors as they knew they're going to get fewer impressions as part of the deal.
It may, or may not, be a very small impact but it is an impact nonetheless.
If nobody is watching sponsored segments (which we've established: YouTube itsself, creators, and sponsors can track) then companies don't have any incentive to sponsor videos, and creators no longer get revenue from sponsorships. Sure, this is a very end of the line example, because there's always going to be someone who doesn't have sponsorblock installed and can't be bothered to skip the segment.
Just FYI for all the people who keep repeating this ad-nauseam it doesn't apply to third party apps like Newpipe and grayjay which DO NOT send analytics data. If anyone wants to make arguments against sponsorblock they also can't support apps and front-ends which strip the Analytics from the video because without them you add no watch time or metrics, so it's a hypocritical argument.
I mean, it applies equally here. Using apps that strip metrics and analytics, has a similar effect to using sponsorblock. I don't think I was arguing against sponsorblock I was saying facts about it. I use sponsorblock, I use grayjay, and I pay content creators.
The thread is about grayjay saying that using sponsorblock on grayjay will hurt creators. If grayjay doesn't send metrics, then any metrics sponsorblock might mess up are already messed up by watching on grayjay.
I agree with you that clickthrough rate is a far more useful metric for advertisers, and is probably more widely used in sponsorship deals.
Creators faking impression metrics would be followed by the advertisers seeing weirdly low clickthrough ratios, seeing that somethings up, and the creator losing future deals from that advertiser, so it's not something I would expect creators to do unless they think they're smarter than multi million/billion dollar companies advertising departments.
Where does this assertion come from that people that use sponsorblock are somehow never going to buy products? People keep saying it but I just don't get it. We live in a world where people buy things. Some products are relevant to some people and some aren't to other people. I use sponsorblock and adblock, and if I were to somehow see an advert for a product that seemed like it perfectly fit a need that I had, I'd definitely consider getting the product.
Okay, sure, that's a nice story about yourself, but like, this doesn't address the core of your assertion that people who use sponsorblock won't buy products if they see ads for them. It doesn't seem like the two are actually inherently related at all. (People who don't want to watch adverts) are not necessarily (People who don't buy products).
Why do they have to prove that? You backed up the assertion that sponsorblock hurts creators with the mere unlikely possibility that sponsors might be able to see metrics, how does their single anecdotal bit of evidence that people using sponsorblock are the kinds of people that won't click ads anyway not pass the same muster?
Admittedly they're both bad evidence, so why are we treating yours as better?
I mean, sure, you can say I made a bad argument, I don't entirely disagree given the context was originally about grayjay, but at this point I'm not even making my argument anymore I'm just trying to figure out why it seems to be a shared view. I want to understand, y'know?
And I don't really think it's fair to say my assertion was only backed up by that unlikely possibility, but I don't fully stand behind my original argument in this context anymore anyway
People who use sponsorblock or other kinds of adblock are the kinds of people who get annoyed by watching ads. I suppose it's possible some of those are short because the ads are working and they keep spending money, but in my experience and the experiences I've seen discussed elsewhere, it seems to generally be that they are annoyed because they're not interested in what the ads are selling and wouldn't be sold on them anyway.