The ‘skip as’ button often has a timer on it. For ex: a 5 second ‘unskippable’ ad, followed by a couple of minutes of skippable ones. Sometimes the unskippable timer is up to 30 sec or a minute.
Further, some ads are, say a minute long but will let you skip after 10 sec. But if it goes to the NEXT ad, there’s another 10 sec ‘no skip’ window.
There’s also the problem of mid roll ads that just get thrown into the middle of whatever you’re watching. If that’s a concert or comedy special or longer form video, it often just hits in the middle of a song/joke/point and blows the flow of the piece out of the water.
There’s also the problem of ‘slightly’ longer vids, say, a live version of “Low Spark of High Heeled Boys” that runs 15 minutes, that is just long enough for YT to want to drop a mid roll ad into it.
In theory, the posters of such videos can mark if, or where such ads show up, but random folks just uploading their favorite clips vs someone trying the be a ‘content creator’ might not know, care, or have the ability to to make those calls.
2 Likes
NO, @ipsedixit - the change in June 2024 means that the SkipAds button doesn’t exist for many videos. And the ads are much longer. Have you not yet experienced this?
Alphabet is a commercial organization - why do you think they should make anybody’s life as easy and comfortable as possible. Of course they add mid role adds to “convince” you to pay for YT. It’s strange to see everywhere that people think everything should be for free. A lot of musicians we know can’t afford any longer to have a full time career in music but have to have additional jobs because of that free for all mindset.
Well, sure. We know WHY they do it. No one is shocked that people want to get paid.
I mean, I’m not surprised that, say, restaurants want to load up ‘service charges’ so they effectively raise prices without SEEMING to do so, thereby getting more customers in the door.
That doesn’t mean we have to like it, or that we can’t bitch about it.
Alphabet wants more money. Ok. They will make the viewing experience worse in order to get more $ out of me to ‘fix’ it. Ok. And at some point it will be bad enough that rather than pay Alphabet, I’ll subscribe to nebula or throw a couple bucks at someone’s Patreon and won’t watch those things on YT anymore. And then they’ll get zero of my ad views.
Thus is the way of the world.
1 Like
I really do not understand this mentality.
What exactly is wrong with someone – be it YouTube, content creators, GOOG, etc. – making money?
Or conversely, what is wrong with paying for a service (or good) that you (not “you” specifically, but you generally) enjoy or need?
Taking YouTube specifically. Do people realize what a great service it is for the end-user (i.e., you)? Be it “free” with ads, or the Premium paid version?
A person can learn just about how to do anything, including cooking food, that apparently a lot of HO
denizens enjoy doing (and eating). A parent can probably home school their child using YouTube, you can get college degrees on YouTube, and it allows for all sorts of content creators to not only show their wares and talents but to make a viable living.
Given all of the benefits of YouTube, I really do not understand why there is all the resistance to paying for the service (either in terms of “views” of ads or in actual $$)? Or more precisely the entitlement that this service should be free?
If someone told me 25 years ago that there was going to be thing called YouTube where you could literally watch and learn anything you want for free, and all I would have to do is watch an ad that’s anywhere from 5 seconds to 2 minutes in length, I would literally have been “where do I sign?”.
1 Like
I do remember watching one youtuber (car guy) but he added way too many mid-roll adds. 2 minutes of content, then an add, then maybe 3 minutes and another add, etc. etc.
His video(s) became unwatchable (at least for me). I do think there is a limit to how many mid-roll adds one should be forced to watch.
I also have a problem with having to watch a 90 second unskippable add for a 2 minute video. If the video is under 5 minutes, the add should not exceed 30 seconds.
I had heard some youtubers would pad their videos with extra fluff to get to a certain time (it used to be 10 minutes), so they could add mid-roll adds. They repeat stuff over and over again, before actually getting to the answer or completing the task, so they can add some mid-roll adds.
And don’t even get me started on the whole “Please like and subscribe” request by every single youtuber. We get it already… stop asking.
3 Likes
@ipsedixit Straw man argument. I don’t think anyone in this discussion has said the service should be free. Nor that creators / hosts aren’t welcome to make money.
We are, however, having a discussion about the cost-benefit decision for viewers. A 30-second ad? OK. A 3-minute ad? NOT OK. And the “value” of YouTube for education goes way down when the process of finding the great “how to” videos requires searching/sampling many terrible ones. The entertainment/enjoyment value of a cooking show doesn’t outweigh the waste of larger portions my time watching ads for items of no interest (how to repair cars using a specialty product is big in my ad sequence right now).
I’d guess that most of us do pay for a number of entertainment subscriptions. Most of which have ads now, too, that can be skipped through or fast-forwarded.
5 Likes
So which business model which benefit also content creators and Alphabet (or similar organizations) would you recommend, e.g. easily skipable ads aren’t really any option as they don’t generate enough revenue)
Nah. The whole reason streaming video came about was to pay for an ad free service.
Now its holding that same service for ransom…feeding an insatiable beast of profits and shareholder equity.
1 Like
You should reread this thread.
There certainly are those that believe the service should be free.
Alas, that magic incantation
“pleaselikeadnsubscriberingthebellfornotifications!”
is the baseline for most all content creators. Like advertising generally, they wouldn’t do it at all of it didn’t work. Likes/views/subscribers are DIRECTLY related to how much $ they make. The line MUST go up, so you’ll be encouraged to make that happen, regardless of whether it’s the first time you’re watching this particular channel or your already a long time viewer.
I’ve seen folks that generally refuse this ‘call to action’ Adam Ragusea is one who ever went for it, but he also made his nut has gone into ‘semi-retirement’, which, good for him! Dan Olsen of ‘Folding Ideas’ used to make fun of it by making it a semi-religious-sounding Gregorian chant. But mostly, everyone from the high schooler reviewing the latest anime series to folks with serious money and experience behind them (Claire Saffitz for ex) always hit it at least once for every video.
2 Likes
I just did, and recommend that you do the same, then provide a link to who here you think advocated “the service shoud be free”.
1 Like
I used to watch “Cord Cutter News” as the presenter did have some interesting (free) channels that I added to my ROKU menu. He was also talking about a “LOCAST” (local channel streaming service that was shut down by the networks) substitute, at one point.
But while asking for you to like, subscribe and ring the bell, he goes into how it helps him and his family. He comes just short of saying “like and subscribe” or else I can’t feed my family. For me, this was a HUGE turn off and I stopped watching his channel.
If you can’t feed your family with your youtube income, go get a job… stop begging.
OK… rant over (for me).
Howabout platforms where you pay for a subscription and then you have to pay more to block ads?
Advertising. Marketing. Commerce. They ruin everything.
1 Like
Anyone advocating using an adblocker is ostensibly advocating the service should be “free”.
2 Likes
Not all the money is going to creators. A lot of it is just shoving ads down our throats because they can. It makes me think that maybe the platforms could pay people instead of taking advantage of viewers and content creators.
1 Like
No, of course it isn’t.
Nor should it.
Do you think there’s no cost to provide a platform like YouTube?
Just the cost for the storage space for all the content on YouTube is probably in the billions (yes, with a “b”) annually. And that’s just the hosting costs, to say nothing of the employees that work for YouTube, or the office buildings or the computer hardware and software.
And, again, I go back to my earlier point, what’s so inherently wrong with anyone, YouTube or otherwise, to make money?
After all, whatever profit that YouTube (or GOOG) makes from ads, subscription fees, or both, most likely goes back to the end-user hoi polloi, at least if one owns stocks or any type of indexed fund which most do.
1 Like
