Every camera launch day on YouTube

[Andrew Reid]

 

[Andrew Reid]

Remember the EOS R5 is fixed now.

Go out and use it for paid work in 4K HQ!

[Andrew Reid]

The sheer ego of it.

[fuzzynormal]

I bounce on and off YT.  Never followed anyone, probably never will.  I know channels exist with lots of info relevant to whatever you may like, but paying close attention to any of them seems like a chore.  Besides, it's a destination, on the popular side, mostly for those that are easily influenced.  The ones pulling cash on the platform are not called "influencers" for nothing.  

Pop culture is never as interesting as it pretends to be.  It's not designed to be that way.  And exceptions tend to prove the rule.

[Andrew Reid]

It's not about YouTube. Some great stuff on the platform.

It's about the sick consumerist culture and the sheer ego of social media influencers. It isn't about a technological platform, it's about the culture - especially American culture.

And the bullshit.

Look beyond the "YouTube" part and look deeper, especially about what it reflects in our current western culture. The dumbing down, the greed and all that stuff.

I like MKBHD's channel for instance - and he was very critical of the bullshit marketing machine that roped him into this

In the end, people need to make the choice for themselves about what they believe on the internet and who they follow.

And the content they consume.

I think we could be healthier.

To put it mildly!

And read more, but watch less.

[MrSMW]

My rule of thumb for YouTube is if it has any of the following in the title/thumbnail, I will not click:

A stupid faked shocked face.

A clickbait title.

Anything that calls a; campervan, motorhome, caravan, van, car or shed, a ‘Tiny House’. Any of these can be homes, but none of them are houses.

The ‘problem’ with YouTube is that whilst the quality levels and content of some channels is exceptional, the sea of utter dross gets ever bigger.

 

[Mr. Freeze]

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

A stupid faked shocked face.

A clickbait title.

The ‘problem’ with YouTube is that whilst the quality levels and content of some channels is exceptional, the sea of utter dross gets ever bigger.

I try to exclude those channels from my youtube-account the best I can. 

The titles and clickbait is one thing, but the studid shocked-faces is something I can´t stand. Even if something would be of interest for me, I won´t watch it once some of those factors come into play. 

Basically, as long as users/consumers continue to watch content without reflecting on it, its producer(s) and what its goal is, this stuff will continue to be made. Sure, some of the channels are pure marketing/advertisements and there is nothing wrong with it (as long as it is presented for what it really is), but pseudo-objective unboxings, sponsorings etc. is bothering me. 

I do watch a lot on youtube, from different genres. From music to camera-equipment, movie-stuff and diy-videos. But a lot of them I will not watch because of certain rules I set for myself. 

[MrSMW]

The self-regulation goes for everything in life I suppose that we consume and YouTube is just another ‘channel’.

[kye]

I think that what people think of YT says more about that person than it does about YT.

Plenty of channels out there delivering great content and with no ad breaks either.  Admittedly, most of the channels I watch have a Patreon, but typically those aren't promoted very hard.

Judging the quality of content via the thumbnail is like judging the quality of the lighting in a film by the graphic art on the DVD case, back when we had them.   Marketing is marketing and content is content.  Just because someone is selling something doesn't mean what's being sold is rubbish.  Every product that you ever loved was sold at one point with marketing.

and when you say you don't like "clickbait" what you're really saying is you don't like "marketing".

[John Matthews]

1 hour ago, kye said:

and when you say you don't like "clickbait" what you're really saying is you don't like "marketing".

I will challenge you on this, Kye. Clickbait is a specific form of marketing. Not all marketing is clickbait. Clickbait is a much more perverse form of marketing and I would say could be achieved by other means. Almost every time I click on clickbait, I'm let down by the content. I would also say that many of these Youtube "influencers" didn't start with clickbait. It was gradual and now so many are doing it, the experience has become crap. Clickbait is usually just a crutch for poor content IMO.

[Mr. Freeze]

16 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

Clickbait is a specific form of marketing. Not all marketing is clickbait. Clickbait is a much more perverse form of marketing and I would say could be achieved by other means. Almost every time I click on clickbait, I'm let down by the content. I would also say that many of these Youtube "influencers" didn't start with clickbait. It was gradual and now so many are doing it, the experience has become crap. Clickbait is usually just a crutch for poor content IMO.

Yeah, I´d say for me clickbait can be something that promises to be XY and the only delivering a small percentage of that or even nothing at all.

If something is marketed in a grand way and then delivering on it, I wouldn´t call it clickbait. 

[Andrew Reid]

2 hours ago, kye said:

I think that what people think of YT says more about that person than it does about YT.

In a bad way or a good way? 🙂

2 hours ago, kye said:

Plenty of channels out there delivering great content and with no ad breaks either.

I am not denying it.

2 hours ago, kye said:

and when you say you don't like "clickbait" what you're really saying is you don't like "marketing".

Too simplistic. Clickbait isn't the same. It is a shock and awe tactic to get views and clicks. Marketing is about targeting a product at an audience and making it appealing. You could say that clickbait is selling themselves. But actually there's more to it - the shrill tone, the deception, and the tackiness of it - and to be frank, the sheer ego of it makes it one of the cultural pillars of a collapsing civilisation. We are literally facing a situation where people's selfishness is spreading a virus in a second wave that will bankrupt countries and destroy people's lives in the winter, so none of the selfishness and dumbness that I see on YouTube surprises me because YouTube has always held a mirror up to culture and society.

[BTM_Pix]

There is a massive difference between marketing and unregulated marketing.

Not just in terms of the accountability for accuracy but also, in the case of marketing content posing as editorial, for the disclosure of its funding source and so by extension its impartiality.

A very alarming trend from the UK Government over the past year is to "market" its message through newspaper's websites such as The Daily Mail with articles such as this one that support its position on an issue (in this case sending kids back to school) and on the face of it these would appear to be genuine news stories.

Its been shared 271 times from this source alone - which would mean its exponential reach is many multiples of that by now- and I would be willing to bet that those sharing it or those having it shared to have either not noticed the small "Sponsored" tag or chosen not to care because it supports this position too.

Now, I think its absolutely horrendous, though not surprising given the cast of characters, that the actual Government is using advertorial practices like this to push its messages.

However, despite it being deeply unpalatable, it is nonetheless still subject to real enforceable regulation so the "Sponsored" tag has to appear on the link to the "story" and the funding source stated in the introduction to the piece itself.

 

So, when YouTube videos are regulated in the same way and that regulation is as rigidly enforced as it would be with traditional media then we can talk about it being marketing in the same way but not until then, however well meaning and seemingly "transparent" some content providers are about it.

If you put up some content on YouTube with copyrighted music then you'll know about it before its even finished processing because there is a direct financial interest involved in policing that and it can be automated.

With, at the last time I checked, somewhere in the order of 400-500 hours of new content being uploaded to YouTube every minute there just isn't the technology or manpower available to interpret what is and isn't sponsored content so it relies on an honesty system from the creator and a policing system driven by users reporting it.

Considering the whole aim of advertorial is to make an advert look exactly like editorial, then its not difficult to see how an unscrupulous  creator could exploit the system and as the unwritten rule of advertorial is on some level to dupe the consumer of it why no viewers would have known it had happened and therefore report it.

I don't think people have any problem whatsoever with watching content that has an ad break in it.

The real problem is when people are unaware that they're watching an ad that has a content break in it.

 

[Andrew Reid]

Lots of parallels there between the sponsored government content and YouTube. Most people see journalists as independent so when a government message is dressed up as an independent news article by a reporter, it's a confidence trick really. You are having people believe one thing about the source of the info, when the small print actually reveals something else very different.

Like with Fro Knows Promo and his marketing units from Canon USA, new firmware pre-installed. It is a sponsored message by Canon pulling the strings, but we're led to believe it's an independent photographer with expert hair.

Technically it isn't sponsored so he can get away with no regulation.

But the mechanics of it are the same. Close contact between the source and the messenger. Collaborative effort on content. Goods changing hands behind the scenes (or in the Daily Mail's case actual hard cash most likely) and an overall objective to define the message to achieve certain ends - in Fro's case to assure people that overheating is fixed and to make the controversy go away, and to make it seem like Canon has been listening to customers.

The thing that pisses me off the most about the Canon / YouTuber stuff is that now the overheating times are so all over the place due to the added variable of measuring the ambient air temperature at unknown points and using it to influence the cripple clock timer in unknown ways - Canon haven't been able to pin down even rough estimated recording times and so haven't put out the new memo. Instead they chose to get the memo out via multiple YouTube shills who all report different numbers to muddy the waters and confuse critics. The classic Dominic Cummings tactic of the OODA loop.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/brexit-strategy-dominic-cummings-ooda-loop-1-6339099

It stands for Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act.

"OODA loop - an idea created in the US military by former Air Force colonel John Boyd as a means of thinking about decision-making in combat - is one of the favourite concepts of everyone's favourite chief strategist, Dominic Cummings.

"The concept behind the loop - as detailed over tens of thousands of words in Cummings' extensive blogs - relates to the cycle of decision-making made in combat, but also in politics and other situations. They are Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act (O-O-D-A, or OODA). Each step of the process informs and modifies the others - hence 'loop' - and shapes the next course of action.

"The idea for a fighter pilot is based on taking the information you know, the training you have, what your instruments are telling you about the enemy, and feeding all of that into your next manoeuvre.

"The faster and less predictable you are, the more you disrupt your opponent's decision-making - their experience is worth less, they have less time to take in information, they don't know how to act. This is what is described as getting "inside their OODA loop" and is supposedly a key to victory."

But most importantly Canon are using YouTuber's to get the message out about the new firmware, because the know the drive for clicks and clickbait hype will come ahead of proper testing and scientific analysis, with Fro claiming FIXED with a big SHOCKED FACE when actually the real performance is far from fixed and very variable.

[kye]

I just looked up the definition of clickbait, and wikipedia (at least) says that it's marketing that has some kind of deceptive element to it.  That wasn't my original thought process, I was thinking of clickbait as simply that - bait for clicks.

I guess to me the idea that it involves deception is kind of simplistic in a way, and perhaps the crux of what we're talking about.

So let's say that clickbait is deceptive marketing, which I'm happy to do if that's the definition that is broadly used.  The trick is then telling deceptive marketing from the marketing that delivers.

ie, if someone posted a video and had the title "We broke up" and had a sad faced person on the thumbnail, and the crying emoji, is that clickbait?

Well the answer is - you can't tell until you watch the video.  Maybe it is, but maybe it's not.  Without having watched the video, all you can see is that it's sensationalist marketing, but you can't tell if it's clickbait.

What this means is that it is logically impossible to not watch clickbait videos.  Even a video that has a picture of a chair on it and the title "How to build a chair" might be clickbait - maybe the video isn't about how to make a chair, or maybe it's about how to make a chair but the quality of instruction is too poor to actually be instructive.

I could go one step further then, and say that by saying "I don't click on clickbait thumbnails or titles" means that clickbait cannot be defined as deceptive, because by definition you can't tell if the video will deliver or not, and so in that sense, the use of the word in that kind of sentence must apply only to the style of the thumbnail and title, rather than how accurately they describe the content of the video.

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

I will challenge you on this, Kye. Clickbait is a specific form of marketing. Not all marketing is clickbait. Clickbait is a much more perverse form of marketing and I would say could be achieved by other means. Almost every time I click on clickbait, I'm let down by the content. I would also say that many of these Youtube "influencers" didn't start with clickbait. It was gradual and now so many are doing it, the experience has become crap. Clickbait is usually just a crutch for poor content IMO.

Id' suggest that if you're normally let down by videos that have that kind of appearance then you're particularly susceptible to whatever it is that they're pushing.

I click on videos all the time that make claims in the title that could easily be left unfulfilled, but typically aren't.

Here are the last few videos I watched as of right now - none were clickbait, but all claimed some kind of content:

• "how I created my youtube channel"
• "Pulp Fiction cinematography breakdowns | Part 2"
• "Slip and slide WITH A LOOP!! (World Record)"
• "It's yacht vacation time"
• "DIY porch swing frame"
• "Vietnam: the economy of the next decade?"

All of these were phrased in such a way that made me click on them, and all of them had the potential to fail to deliver.  

54 minutes ago, Mr. Freeze said:

Yeah, I´d say for me clickbait can be something that promises to be XY and the only delivering a small percentage of that or even nothing at all.

If something is marketed in a grand way and then delivering on it, I wouldn´t call it clickbait. 

agreed 🙂 

40 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

In a bad way or a good way? 🙂

I am not denying it.

Too simplistic. Clickbait isn't the same. It is a shock and awe tactic to get views and clicks. Marketing is about targeting a product at an audience and making it appealing. You could say that clickbait is selling themselves. But actually there's more to it - the shrill tone, the deception, and the tackiness of it - and to be frank, the sheer ego of it makes it one of the cultural pillars of a collapsing civilisation. We are literally facing a situation where people's selfishness is spreading a virus in a second wave that will bankrupt countries and destroy people's lives in the winter, so none of the selfishness and dumbness that I see on YouTube surprises me because YouTube has always held a mirror up to culture and society.

In either way 🙂 

I agree that it holds up a mirror to culture and society - absolutely.  That same sense is what I was referring to when I said it speaks about the individual - it holds a mirror up the the individual as well.  

I'll admit that camera and videography channels seem to be particularly bad for sensationalist and deceptive titles and thumbnails, but the YT drama genre is probably way worse - I would imagine that all the typical human dramas that soap operas are made of make pretty good sensationalist titles.

Mind you, I've watched my fair share of other genre videos that had more exciting titles than the content actually delivered, and vice versa.  If I could find it, I'd link to the video of the machinist channel This Old Tony where he talks about machining in his home hobby shop, but managed to make drink come out my nose because of the various time travel references, in-jokes about other machinist channels and you tubers, and various other jokes of an extremely nerdy nature.  It had the kind of title that would put a librarian to sleep.

Maybe by having a boring title and not preparing me for a nasal-passage-related-incident then that video was also clickbait?

[BTM_Pix]

23 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The classic Dominic Cummings tactic of the OODA loop.

 

In his case, after his Barnard Castle escapade, it should probably stand for Observable Ophthalmic Deficiency Analysis.

 

[John Matthews]

39 minutes ago, kye said:

Id' suggest that if you're normally let down by videos that have that kind of appearance then you're particularly susceptible to whatever it is that they're pushing.

I click on videos all the time that make claims in the title that could easily be left unfulfilled, but typically aren't.

Here are the last few videos I watched as of right now - none were clickbait, but all claimed some kind of content:

• "how I created my youtube channel"
• "Pulp Fiction cinematography breakdowns | Part 2"
• "Slip and slide WITH A LOOP!! (World Record)"
• "It's yacht vacation time"
• "DIY porch swing frame"
• "Vietnam: the economy of the next decade?"

All of these were phrased in such a way that made me click on them, and all of them had the potential to fail to deliver.  

Hmm... I don't know how to respond to this, Kye. Saying that I'm "susceptible" to such marketing would indicate that I'm not aware of it in the first place, making me an internet noob. I have been surfing and developing websites since 1993; so, I've seen it evolve quite a bit. Personally, I'd say that I really noticed the rise of clickbait with the rise of Digg, buzzfeed, and reddit. It all started with titles like: "10 ways to improve your sex life" or something stupid like that. It's safe to say we've moved passed that now. It's sensationalist stuff like: "Micro four thirds is dead" (from the Toneh), money-making headlines only that really don't offer anything we don't know other than some (non)expert's opinion.

"Clickbait" a derogatory meaning in marketing. The marketing I grew up with was a higher quality, often more subtle- they were trying to sell me a product and when I pay for it or talk about it to someone, the marketing works. With clickbait, the goal is to take my limited time and effort on this planet for ad revenue (which is also clickbait); sometimes, they get more money if I use an affiliate. It's a vicious circle with clickbait feeding more and more clickbait. IMO, the end result will be an exploding marketing balloon into an ether of nonsensical human effort, lacking any substantive result other than a colossal WASTE OF TIME.

In the end, clickbait sells and that's why they do it. The only anti-clickbait response is to ignore it (harder for some than others and I'm also guilty of it). As I said earlier, many youtubers weren't using these tactics in the beginning, but now many are now they have a million subs. Sadly, more and more people are getting duped by this. I can only hope the end is near and we can get back to a more "convince me to buy your product" type of marketing. It's more sain. Maybe Youtube should consider completely stopping all revenue to "content" creators because it's completely broken. Just a thought.

[kye]

8 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Hmm... I don't know how to respond to this, Kye. Saying that I'm "susceptible" to such marketing would indicate that I'm not aware of it in the first place, making me an internet noob. I have been surfing and developing websites since 1993; so, I've seen it evolve quite a bit. Personally, I'd say that I really noticed the rise of clickbait with the rise of Digg, buzzfeed, and reddit. It all started with titles like: "10 ways to improve your sex life" or something stupid like that. It's safe to say we've moved passed that now. It's sensationalist stuff like: "Micro four thirds is dead" (from the Toneh), money-making headlines only that really don't offer anything we don't know other than some (non)expert's opinion.

"Clickbait" a derogatory meaning in marketing. The marketing I grew up with was a higher quality, often more subtle- they were trying to sell me a product and when I pay for it or talk about it to someone, the marketing works. With clickbait, the goal is to take my limited time and effort on this planet for ad revenue (which is also clickbait); sometimes, they get more money if I use an affiliate. It's a vicious circle with clickbait feeding more and more clickbait. IMO, the end result will be an exploding marketing balloon into an ether of nonsensical human effort, lacking any substantive result other than a colossal WASTE OF TIME.

In the end, clickbait sells and that's why they do it. The only anti-clickbait response is to ignore it (harder for some than others and I'm also guilty of it). As I said earlier, many youtubers weren't using these tactics in the beginning, but now many are now they have a million subs. Sadly, more and more people are getting duped by this. I can only hope the end is near and we can get back to a more "convince me to buy your product" type of marketing. It's more sain. Maybe Youtube should consider completely stopping all revenue to "content" creators because it's completely broken. Just a thought.

I find that one of the worst words that a person can use, both for their own wellbeing as well as the wellbeing of others around them, is the word "should".

We should all just get along.  We should all do X, Y, Z.  

I find it to be problematic for two main reasons:

• It is the opposite of acceptance.  So you found that some people like Tony Northrup - are you going to relax and accept that?  No, you'll hang onto the idea that the world should be different.  Holding onto how things should be in the face of what is is equivalent to that saying about resentment and how holding onto resentment is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.
  You can't possibly think that what you say here in this thread is somehow going to change, literally, anything about what you're talking about, right?
• It is pure hubris.  So you find yourself at odds with someone else, a group of people, a way of thinking, the world, the laws of nature, whatever it is.  Should is the idea that somehow you are more qualified, knowledgable, intelligent, caring, virtuous, or whatever, than they are and so somehow your ideas are more worthy of shaping the world than the ones you don't agree with.
  I'm not going to pass judgement on this, maybe you are right, I'm not going to fall into the same trap and take the line that I know better than you about how much should-ed-ness you would benefit from.  However, a good thing to contemplate when you go to say should is to think about what you're really saying.

I have found that when I've backed away from the judgements of should then the fight seems to lessen in my life.  I no longer have the friction with people that I used to over certain issues, and even YT seems to calm down.

It's not that I don't see clickbait-style titles or thumbnails any more, although they're much less, but what I find is that I'm not emotionally triggered about them - they're just the same as an ad on TV telling me to buy Joe's Paint Stripper.  I don't care about Paint Stripper, I don't automatically think that Joes is somehow the better paint stripper, but I'm neither going to eliminate Joes as a company I would buy, nor fire-bomb their headquarters in protest of being told what to do.

[Oliver Daniel]

Interesting topic. 

Most product marketing sells off the “transformation”. Basically, how much better will your life be when you buy that product? Will you be as handsome as Brad Pitt if you buy that cologne? Will you have the ultimate family life by going on that holiday? Will you have a glossy filmmaking career if you watch Peter McKinnon videos? 

Also what life do you DEFINITELY NOT want? Simply, we don’t want to fail. Our instinct is to survive and form tribes with those we feel will help us survive. We give more time to people or things we believe will help our survival. If Peter McKinnon or other Youfluencers show they can survive and thrive in this crazy world, we should listen and believe every. word. they. say. 

Clickbait works because it tricks our brain into thinking that we need to know this exclusive information, because knowledge is survival. We cannot bear not to know it, even if it’s irrelevant. We must know it for our survival. The funny thing is, the brain will throwaway this new information almost instantly if it isn’t relevant towards our survival. 

So many things contribute to our survival, and being as part of a tribe is one of the most significant. It’s why you buy someone a coffee, as opposed to someone else. This is why we get fanboys and a cult like user base around RED owners. It’s why glossy YouTube channels of pretend filmmakers get followed. It’s why we read newspaper headlines and get our heads in a spin. Everything is biased, because of survival. Always. 

Youfluencers survive because brands give them free stuff. They do a stupid face thumbnail, get clicks and boom. Win! If that brand helps them survive, they will have bias towards them no matter what you do. It’s not really their fault. The problem is with the brand, as they have the power to help you survive. Canon helps Peter McKinnon survive. His fans help him survive. Why would he suddenly change? It ain’t going to happen. His brain wouldn’t let him. 

For what’s it’s worth, check out this guys YouTube channel. It’s not sexy, but it’s genuine and just totally spot on content - if gaffer stuff floats your boat... 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOgN351K45vTrozaadFPXlA

 

[John Matthews]

5 hours ago, kye said:

I find that one of the worst words that a person can use, both for their own wellbeing as well as the wellbeing of others around them, is the word "should".

We should all just get along.  We should all do X, Y, Z.  

I find it to be problematic for two main reasons:

• It is the opposite of acceptance.  So you found that some people like Tony Northrup - are you going to relax and accept that?  No, you'll hang onto the idea that the world should be different.  Holding onto how things should be in the face of what is is equivalent to that saying about resentment and how holding onto resentment is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.
  You can't possibly think that what you say here in this thread is somehow going to change, literally, anything about what you're talking about, right?
• It is pure hubris.  So you find yourself at odds with someone else, a group of people, a way of thinking, the world, the laws of nature, whatever it is.  Should is the idea that somehow you are more qualified, knowledgable, intelligent, caring, virtuous, or whatever, than they are and so somehow your ideas are more worthy of shaping the world than the ones you don't agree with.
  I'm not going to pass judgement on this, maybe you are right, I'm not going to fall into the same trap and take the line that I know better than you about how much should-ed-ness you would benefit from.  However, a good thing to contemplate when you go to say should is to think about what you're really saying.

I have found that when I've backed away from the judgements of should then the fight seems to lessen in my life.  I no longer have the friction with people that I used to over certain issues, and even YT seems to calm down.

It's not that I don't see clickbait-style titles or thumbnails any more, although they're much less, but what I find is that I'm not emotionally triggered about them - they're just the same as an ad on TV telling me to buy Joe's Paint Stripper.  I don't care about Paint Stripper, I don't automatically think that Joes is somehow the better paint stripper, but I'm neither going to eliminate Joes as a company I would buy, nor fire-bomb their headquarters in protest of being told what to do.

"Everything is the best in the best of all possible worlds." It's all good. Liberty and freedom "should" reign and everyone "should" deal with it because if you disagree and think the world "should" be different, you must be dealing with your own issues anyway.

Kye, our discussion has plunged into semantics, the bastion of all war.

Since this is a forum and we're meant to talk, I propose we have the right to make some generalizations and have some freedom of opinion. In other terms, I believe clickbait should go away because I don't like it. I would prefer to be manipulated differently.

As a participant on the internet, I have the right to say what ought to be. I want change because the world sucks for so many reasons. Sure, in capitalism, we have the right to vote with our wallets, but I'm not going to stop there because I think the world should be different and that's o.k. as long as I don't infringe on other people's freedom to do the same. Should Canon, Toneh, Fro, Sony, etc. be called out for who they really are? A resounding YES. And we should have the right to say how things should be different.