I’ve never had a problem with ads made in this way.
This form of “passive marketing” (I’m making up terms), I.e a poster on the street that you can easily walk past is fine. If your poster catches attention enough that people start sharing it because they liked it, the marketer has done a good job. In the internet space, I’d consider banner ads “passive”. If they actually filter out the scams and malware, and if someone wants to sponsor Rod’s Radical Recipes with a banner ad, who cares.
I do take issue with I’ll call active marketing. This is an ad you’re forced to engage with, like an unmutable gas pumps that’s playing audio, a commercial break or a pre-roll add If I’m getting something for free, then sure an add or two seems reasonable (well, 15 years ago it did), but I’m already paying for the gas, shut the fuck up and let me enjoy my 3 minutes of stress watching the numbers go up without some guy screaming about beef jerky.
Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
Here’s the thing. The reason ads are bad is because almost every single one is for a product that will exploit the user. Mullvad is a product that does the opposite. They ask for money, but don’t force it. They intend to give power of the user’s life back to the user. Thus, some ads are actually okay. Ads about VPNs, self hosted systems, anti-corporate anticapitalist services, software that is for you to use and only ever takes telemetry for software improvement, and then only if you consent first.
Hell, before this garbage, on TV the only ads were products and charities, and everybody grew really sick of the African child ads because its sole purpose was to exploit the viewer’s empathy and get their money. Same with now, except if it’s not money they want it’s data, and data is money to them.
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Related note
I’m a Ublock Origin kinda guy, but not a SponsorBlock one
Because gestures at capitalism is the thing for now:
Sponsorships, when transparent and well-chosen and clearly labeled and clever, are less grating and don’t use anti-privacy targeting methods. That’s a path forward I’m pretty much OK with (remember capitalism is the thing, you & I have to eat like the YouTubers?).
My expectation is not “everyone should do everything for free” or “you’re only allowed to sell merch, without ever mentioning it” or “uploaders must have live shows and sell tickets if they ever want a dollar”. It’s “ewww, ads” and the malware that we’re exposed to alongside them.
Meant to make a post about this but your comment triggered it early :)
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Surpressing sponsors is a perverse incentive too; all the more reason to not disclose who’s paying the creator.
Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 month ago
Are you saying creators should not disclose their sponsors? If so…
I disagree, we need more transparency about finances of companies in the world. If a sponsor can pay somebody like LinusTechTips 40k a video to promote their video, than that means we as a consumer are overpaying for the product.
In a lot of European countries you can just see an annual report of a company which you can use to say filter out dropshippers since they generally spend a lot on ads and marketing.
We aren’t going to be able to stop ads on the web unless we start paying subscriptions for everything and that is a good way to get a lot of people into financial trouble. I also wish we could more easily go back to simple websites with no tracking and barely any ads.
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Wow great point!
btw I’d also thought to mention how I wish it could just be merch or live show tix b/c: did that creator I love REALLY like the new widget that was released or were they financially incentivized?
Which is why I mentioned transparency & labeling. Some will falter and some good people will subconsciously be incentivized, but some will choose sponsors so well they’ll be fine, too.
cole@lemdro.id 2 months ago
I only use SponsorBlock because I do not use adblock. I pay for YT Premium, and YT Premium views are worth far more than ad-driven views. I don’t like paying for something and seeing ads so I skip sponsor spots
Baguette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
You can allowlist certain channels and allow certain types of sponsors (self-promo for example) from what I remember
Not saying you have to get sponsorblock tho
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
I like that
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
i will stop using sponsorblock the day sponsorships stop feeling like those fucking cigarette ads in the flintstones, it’s disgusting and the alternative to sponsorblock is unsubscribing from anyone who does sponsor reads.
Klear@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Nah, the reason ads are bad is because they poison your mind down to the unconscious parts. It doesn’t matter if the company behind it is moral or not, it’s still memetic pollution.
Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
How would anyone be informed of something existing without telling people the product exists
Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
I agree that ads can help people be aware of a product’s existence, but I believe, especially at this stage when I am tired of being spoonfed, that a more organic way is preferable. For example - forums, product reviews (REAL ones ofc), product storefronts including online marketplaces…
When someone needs something, they can go looking for it. A door that grates on a frame for example, may be talked about on a forum, which discusses the products others have found to help. In this case a mouse(shaped) sander. The person can then follow breadcrumbs to the most convenient store that sells it.
This is actually the way I find most things I need. The vast majority of products shown to me, passively on various items in the streets or in video format, are useless to me. I first learned about VPNs when I looked for a solution to a website article having an error page stating that it cannot be viewed in my country.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
that would be valid if ads were just “hello here is our product”, which they almost never are.