00:00
00:00
Emrox
The Pete Best of internet animation

Age 27, Male

hey!

Joined on 8/23/08

Level:
17
Exp Points:
3,195 / 3,210
Exp Rank:
17,046
Vote Power:
5.94 votes
Art Scouts
10
Rank:
Police Lieutenant
Global Rank:
5,559
Blams:
203
Saves:
1,416
B/P Bonus:
14%
Whistle:
Silver
Trophies:
47
Medals:
3,379
Supporter:
6y 9m 21d
Gear:
3

I have more to say about advertising

Posted by Emrox - August 24th, 2020


A few years ago I made a post about running ads on cartoons and why it's not a very sound business model. I still agree with pretty much everything I said back then, but there's another angle that I only kinda touched on in that post - running ads has a general cheapening effect on the actual content, and it goes beyond ads being invasive and tacky.


Back in like 2014 youtube changed their system for how ad revenue was distributed and it fucked over certain kinds of content, like animation, in favor of easy-to-produce long-form content - podcasts, let's plays, vlogs, and the like. Animators got very outraged by this, and I made the point (not back then but in that post) that by relying on a big corporation's money algorithms, they were ultimately leaving themselves wide open to being screwed. I was thinking about it again today, and now I would go as far as to say it was practically inevitable that they were going to get fucked because their income came primarily from ads, and in this post I'm going to try to explain why.


But first, an experiment - take a second to think of the greatest, most important and personally affecting works of art you've seen - any books, movies, games, shows, etc. that you believe have made a real impact on your life. (For real, think about it.) What was primary source of income there? Were they selling the product itself, a subscription service, taking donations, getting government funding, running ads, or something else?


Here's what I came up with:


A few books I really like - the money comes from selling the actual book.

A few movies I really like - the money probably came from theater screenings mostly

A few video games - all the type that you buy upfront and not the free-to-play microtransaction-y kind

A lot of albums - (before the 2000s there was probably some money in album sales, but in recent years musicians make the bulk of their money through touring, so some of each)

A few lectures - either paid for by a conference or given pro bono

One podcast - has a paywall (ad-free though!)

One comic strip - ran in newspapers back when those existed, so the money came from some mix of newspaper subscriptions, ads, and book sales. Don't know what the predominant source of income was

One show - ran on cable tv, which runs on ads


So at least for me personally, when it comes to "how does great art get funded," advertising is not getting a lot of representation. And yet, a pretty big chunk of the media I consume is ad-driven. What gives?


Generally speaking, why are movies better than tv?

Why are books better than magazines?

Why are albums better than turning on the radio?

Why is netflix better than cable?

Why is nearly everything better than those stupid videos on facebook?

Why does advertising seem to turn everything it touches into a more vapid, cheaper, shittier version of itself?


Unlike some anti-advertising crusaders, I don't think ads are inherently evil or unethical. If you have something important to share with the world - so important that you're willing to drop a few thousand just to shove it in some people's faces, I think you should be able to do that. But the unfortunate reality of ad-based income is that there are just these weird consequences that seem to consistently poison content. Here are the ones that I'm aware of:


1. The more ads you can hit someone with, the more profitable the content is. This is why long-form serial content is more desirable in the eyes of money-people at youtube - quantity is more valuable than quality. The content still has to be good enough to get people to engage with it, but this lends itself to factory-produced, rinse & repeat clickbait-y productions. It doesn't matter if the window is minimized and playing in the background while you go do something else - as long as they can stream ads, youtube is happy. And as a subsidiary of a publicly-traded company, they are probably not about to leave money on the table in the name of "prioritizing quality content." For this reason I think it was inevitable that animators, along with all the other internet filmmakers who choose to do elaborate, thoughtful work would get screwed by youtube. It's like a law of physics that everything will always gravitate towards running as many ads as possible. Short-form content that takes a long time to create just doesn't survive in that sort of system.


If you really want to make it on youtube, you have to tailor your work to their systems, and those change constantly anyway so it is possibly a giant waste of time to begin with.


2. The audience did not pay for it, and therefore the creator is less obligated to deliver a worthwhile experience. If someone pays $60 for a video game and it sucks, they'll feel pretty ripped off, and so there is a whole category of journalism dedicated to telling you whether or not a game is worth paying for. Same thing exists in film, literature, and music. This sort of thing doesn't exist in spaces of free content - save for "likes" there's no culture surrounding the evaluation of quality. Even though there should be! We are paying with our attention and our time, and my time is currently worth 15-19 USD an hour!


I can't say I have any kind of hard evidence for this point, but as someone who has experience creating things, I completely believe that people will care less about their work if there isn't an imperative to fulfill a social contract. Back when I made flash games if someone wrote a bad review saying the game didn't work, I would generally take on an attitude of "hm that sucks, well whatever fuck off I barely know how to program anyway." This would be pretty inappropriate if this was a product I sold to someone on steam, and I would probably genuinely feel bad.


3. Being beholden to advertisers puts limitations on what you can say. In this day and age, saying anything too controversial can get an angry mob reporting you to your advertisers asking them to drop you*, and you also would probably want to play it safe when talking about anything related to the product you're doing your ad reads for. There's a podcast I like where the hosts just constantly shit on web technologies and startup culture and they probably would not be able to do that if they were taking checks from squarespace. You certainly wouldn't be able to say any of what I'm saying here if you were also running ads. (That said, Newgrounds still runs some ads, so go buy a Supporter Upgrade and maybe Tom will forgive me for posting this to the front page of his website)


This would not too big of a deal if we were still getting paid to make cartoons, but I can imagine this has a much more insidious effect on unedited content (aka the exact kind of thing advertisers like, see 1). When people are broadcasting live, or just want to have to do minimal edits to their recording, they have to internalize a sort of self-censorship where they just avoid certain topics completely, and are not interested in pushing social and political boundaries (aka the exact kind of content these media seem to be best suited for).


I think restrictions can inspire some creativity, but when everyone is bound to exactly the same restrictions, it's like putting boundaries on the entirety of an artistic medium and that sort of thing usually sucks.


I was thinking of adding a fourth point about how doing a squarespace read just makes you sound like a shill and how that can subconsciously erode the trust between you and the audience, but there's nothing inherent to advertising that turns you into that sort of liar. There's a correlation between bad content and disingenuous ad reads for sure, but I don't think it's the ads that are causing the content to be worse, so I'll save that one.


Now am I saying that all art has to aspire to be "great, important and personally affecting"?


No... I think there's a place in this world for junk food, but I know there are a lot of young people out there who are aspiring to do really great work, and if they're raised in a bubble of ad-funded content they might not realize how destructive ads are to great art. Further, I think most of the work we're exposed to now is the cheap, ad-driven kind, and it sucks that that's taking up most of the attention-space. There's probably a lot of really great and inspired stuff being made, but we're not seeing it because it's not as profitable as the cheap stuff, and that just sucks for everyone.


Am I saying that creators have to immediately stop running ads on everything?


Also no, but I think it's worth bringing all this up because we don't really have a good alternative yet. It seems like patreon is working out for some people, but it's not perfect. I tried my own thing a while ago but stopped doing that when I got a "real job" that's paid for by ads. I feel pretty shitty about my ad-based livelihood so thank you for not mentioning it. Here's a real pie-in-the-sky idea I had today - what if we had a "premium internet" like how satellite/cable is supposed to be better than antenna TV, and you pay some monthly fee to get a subscription to all the quality-curated websites, and the money is distributed to the ones you actually like or something. Any billionaires want to work with me on this???


If you have any ideas on how to fund content better I'm all ears. If Andrew Yang money ever becomes real then that will solve all of this shit and art will just be unprecedentedly amazing because we could all stop worrying about paying rent. That would be nice.


--


I was channeling this talk for most of this blog post, so if you thought this was interesting maybe you'll like hearing Jon Blow talk about how microtransactions poison video games. I might listen to it again now to make sure I didn't just lift anything from him verbatim.


* I made a point about this on twitter a while ago - most of us seem to be on the same page that big corporations only really do things in their own interest and are generally selfish and evil, and yet we are effectively tattling to coca-cola when someone does something we don't like. Shouldn't they be the last people we trust with the power to make big decisions about ethics and acceptable censorship?

Why do sponsors think it reflects badly on them if their ad plays before some questionable user-uploaded content? Like we know coca-cola is not sponsoring nazis. we know the preroll ad and the actual video are completely separate entities. Why are they so worried???


iu_160270_2559389.png


Tags:

15

Comments

"this unexplainable and sudden urge to consume mcnuggets washes over you"

Agreed. I also want to add on that I don't blame people for making lower quality content in order to get more revenue. People need to make a living. It sucks seeing artists criticized for "selling out" when it's the system incentivizing that which is deserving of the anger. That said, it's really hard coming up with a good system and I'm definitely not smart enough to think of something better :')

Hi Dave!!!!

The "system" is certainly more at fault than the people, but I actually kinda wish the concept of selling out was still something people were very afraid of - I don't hear that kind of call out very much any more, and it seems like top influencer/youtuber type people have this exact opposite idea where it's perfectly okay to do whatever it takes to make a ton of money and you have tons of influential people pedaling some bullshit mobile game or beard oil or whatever. I think it's okay to throw a few stones just to remind people it's okay to be offended by that sort of thing.

I'm not about to dunk on someone who's barely getting by, but I think doing ad reads as a low-level guy is setting yourself up to be the beard oil salesman later once you make it. So I think it's good to plant the idea in people's heads that this stuff is kinda scummy and a last resort instead of just being a normal part of being someone who makes their money on the internet.

I guess that makes me a preachy environmentalist or something - someone who shames individual people for not recycling and wasting water when the real problem is obviously the giant corporations. But at least the whole world kinda knows about climate change and deforestation, whereas the deterioration of arts & culture is not something people seem to be generally aware of, (except for those boomer guys who blame all of society's problems on kids looking at their phones.) I guess you could say I'm "raising awareness" or something. Like people need to at least acknowledge that it sucks or we're never going to get out of this.

(Well, I can't think of a better system in our capitalist world anyway. Let's try more socialism!)

good ass post

These are always really enriching to read!

I feel like so many of these realizations have slumped me into a state of numb apathy towards a lot of systems at play in the online ecosystem, but it's nice to engage again.

Point #2 catches me, specifically the separation of audience/money/creation; you're moreso chasing the algorithm and system that pays you, than considering what impression your cartoon/video/whatever leaves on the people watching it. Granted the audience and algorithm overlap and play into how your video is promoted within the system, but given how rapidly the system can change and dramatically affect your sustainability, I think it's fair to say the people watching don't have as much influence on you as the algorithm does. Which is what's nice about Patreon, despite its flaws it brings a bit more of an intimate dynamic between creator and viewer!

I've been leaning towards the idea that with animation channels, the less ad-driven, repetitive cartoons build an audience that's willing to support the people they like on Patreon, whereas larger channels that pump out formulaic parodies can struggle to do so because their content doesn't resonate as much. I've seen a handful of examples showing this but it's too scattered to state it more boldly.

The 3rd point reminds me of this interesting bit from an interview with Chris Pyronoski; during the production of Super Jail, Adult Swim got an ad buyout from that anti-smoking company doing the 'Truth' campaign, and all their programs had to drop smoking since it sets a weird tone when you're totally pushing ads between a show where everyone smokes, so they agreed to eliminate that from the show and it led to the episode about the prison running out of cigarettes. That at least created SOME sort of interesting plot around the limitation, albeit a short-lived one, but on the wider scale it's a funky inhibitor.

Premium Internet sounds like a fun idea, but I wonder how much more work is necessary to train people's appetites off of junk food content that has been boiled down to a science. It feels like the understanding that ad-less stuff has to get paid for somehow is growing a bit more, but it's still such a divorced notion for free stuff on the larger scale. As far as places that try to curate and recognize stuff that isn't purely cheap junk, I think NG hits the mark on that whenever those things land on the table. It'd be nice if you could grow an audience that would go on to directly support the great art to a higher degree but one day at a time.

I think people are starting to realize the scientifically formulated attention sucking stuff is kinda pointless and lousy. When I was a kid it was common knowledge that watching tv & eating junk food were both "bad for you" so it's probably just a matter of time before all those cheesy facebook videos have a similar reputation to reality tv or whatever.

hey what have you been up to all this time?

Pattern is still mysterious to me. Some artists I’ve talked to really feel a connection with their patrons and it inspires their creativity.

Others mention how incredibly stressful running a patreon account is and how you have to be on the clock 24/7, sharing everything and being on display constantly to show you’re producing. Eventually you hit total burnout.

I think you’re right that the problem is there just isn’t a good solution out there yet. Maybe there never will be. Also @ninjamuffin99 and his nuggets of insight.

Not with that attitude there won't be!

I honestly think the answer might just be waiting for the UBI free money thing.

THE POWER OF A DONATION BUTTON:

PROS:

- Gives the fans the chance to directly financially support their fave content creators.
- Takes the pressure off of content creators who are "chasing the algorithms" for $$$.
- Puts emphasis on quality over quantity again!
- Increased traffic to artists pages/channels, and likely a major spike in traffic for the entire site due to the new Donation button system. Thus an increase in profits for Newgrounds!!

CONS:

@Emrox this is a good point. Maybe the most ethical way to exist under the current system is to do something similar to Tom Scott and reject reading misleading or manipulative ads (I'm remembering he had an episode about the falsehoods in all the VPN ads you see.) So you aren't let off the hook for the stuff you say, ad or otherwise. But anyway you're right, there has to be enough awareness in order to push for more widespread change!

Good post. I ultimately stopped making a living on just games after a few years of doing it. Too risky... happier working in non-creative fields and using that money to fund/produce high quality work. We'll see how that goes, anyway...

It is certainly going to take something completely insane for people en masse to wake up and realize how royally these corporations are fucking our souls. It's easy to get defeatist, but what we have to remember is that the seeds of any successful revolution are planted long before any explosions happen. Not to compare ourselves directly to the civil rights movement, but that whole thing started because a couple people didn't feel like giving up their seats on the bus. And look what transpired from there.

I think the best course of action for us Newgrounders, is to, well, support Newgrounds! I think we can all agree that the main reason anyone still uses this site is exactly because Tom Fulp and his crew are making sure this place stays as independent from the corporate madhouse as possible. This site is literally aiming to be ad-free by the end of the year, that is crazy and we should all chip in. I personally already donated myself.

Any place like Newgrounds we should be supporting as well, obviously. Any sites or even companies that are determined to remain independent and not on the leash of larger corporations. If we're talking the internet, the SCP Foundation for example. Or even companies like Frederator Studios, that give all the power to the writers themselves. And of course we ought to support people like MeatCanyon who are trying their own shows without the intrusion of corporations. Also doing things like calling for Australia's new horrible internet bill to be struck down, that matters too.

Ultimately, creating outlets to voice support for these kidns of things and just getting the word out, is the most we can do right now. Doing everything we can to defend the world of independent content creation is what should be our main focus. Indeed, the stepping stones we have right now are quite small. But as long as our efforts are ernest, and we never give up, I think we have a chance of making a breakthrough. Not a super big breakthrough, but a breakthrough nonetheless.

Defeatism never gets anything done. And it is about damn time that us anti-corporatists, if you will, stop acting defeatist and start taking action. For every second we lay around in a self-pity party, the more control these corporate giants will have over our lives. We may not be able to break the chains for quite some time, but for now we can certainly unhinge those first few bolts.

I remember from an early age I would get home from school and immediately rush to the family computer to enter my favorite websites, and *I* was the one who decided what I got to watch, not any algorithm. Maybe I'm just a crazy, but I would always go out of my way to find what I wanted to watch, never would I watch anything if it was just put in front of me, unless it was the TV of course. If I was on early YT or NG I would type whatever I thought would be awesome to see, whether it was random thought searches like "Pokemon fan animation" or "cool lizard cartoon" or "funny rat animation" or even something more specific, I would always comb thru the sites themselves to find something impactful like a kid digging to the bottom of a toy chest to find the coolest looking toy. Now YT especially tries to do the searching for you, and it never even knows how to appeal to your real tastes because they won't recommend any content that wouldn't be popular because those don't have ads! But how is anything new going to get popular or funded then if it's buried? It is frustrating. A thought I always have is "Are people too lazy to even search for what they want to see?" But I know people browse Netflix for hours to find what appeals to them, so it can't be true! I think a subscription based platform with curated creative content like that really is a solution, other than a non-elderly president. Also, when I look back on Homestar Runner, I think about how a completely independent franchise with its own contained creative world and characters (ones that feel real) could exist solely on a single domain, relying on selling a lot of merchandise and donation. I don't think something like that could be impossible today thru a similar means, but Idk. I like this post man.

Brilliant points made here! Your last point's just a concept, so I'm probably not getting it, but wouldn't Premium Internet end up as another filter for what whoever owns the Premium Internet either agrees with personally, or thinks will motivate more people to pay for it? There's a reason Netflix continually hosts crap TV shows and movies that we're all familar with. Granny will keep paying for as long as Friends is on.

Artists that create something worth creating do so because of their own motivation. Or at least they would if it wasn't for financial/commerical pressures, so the be-all-end-all solution would be to put an end to financial pressure as it is. Sounds stupid and socialist written like that, but 30/40 years ago in the UK you could apparently claim dole money and grow a business secretly until you didn't need to rely on it anymore (and rent control). That's how a lot of guys' first movies/stories etc were started around then. Nowadays it's practically impossible for anyone get past that initial hurdle 'cause you come back from work too exhausted to even do anything just to live.

Also generally, what is it with even Google search filling the whole first page with suggested snippets from other sites, like for fuck's sake let me choose the websites, you know, like a web search? Also Patreon's crap now apparently 'cause of various restrictions and "tiers" for newcomers. Anyway both glad and empathetically sad to see the comments echo chambering. Maybe making one's creative outlet also their career is just a soul-breaking choice in life. Waitering was too physically and mentally stressful though, so forget that.

I think you're just sad Raid Shadow Legends has not approached you yet.

I'm just jealous