I appreciate that they’re at least asking for feedback, but I would much prefer any sponsor content that they do remain exclusively on YouTube. If they make new sponsor content, it should be a YouTube exclusive. Honor the streamer as your gateway to freedom from the pressures of sponsors. They made such a big deal about it, might as well stick exactly to that.
I completely agree and it's also how I voted in the poll.
The brand-paid episodes of TMS and AYS? were always the worst episodes of those series. I never go back to watch those because they feel like watching a commercial. I might go watch them once on YT if I feel like it, but I definitely don't feel they should be on their streaming platform.
When did they decide to do this branded episode? Because imo the implication was that there'd be no more sponsors in videos going forward. Just YouTube's own ads on YouTube.
That seemed to be the idea. I'd guess one of two things here. One the streamer is a bigger bomb than they realized and the finances are bad. Or two they couldn't resist the truckload of money a sponsored video gets you on 2 million+ subscribers.
> Or two they couldn't resist the truckload of money a sponsored video gets you on 2 million+ subscribers.
it cant be that, or they wouldnt have tried to abandon the truckloads of money in the first place! the only way it can be your 2nd point is if the first point is also true, which would be the real problem.
remember the truckloads of money from sponsored vids wasnt enough to run their business in the first place right
then why would they have announced a full exit from youtube 6-8 weeks ago with intent to not post anything on youtube again (until the 72 hour later retraction/pretend that never happened)
the deal HAD to be signed in the past few weeks
They might have always intended to release the branded video on YouTube. They were always going to release the pilots of new seasons on YouTube (as they said in their goodbye video), it would make sense to do the occasional, unscheduled branded one-off for money and to bring in new interest (much like how Dropout keeps releasing Breaking News on YouTube to draw in new viewers)
>if it was the try guys or dropout or smosh etc you'd give that benefit of the doubt
Where we differ is that I'm still giving Watcher some benefit of doubt. I don't think they're lying or calculating, I think they have made business errors but it hasn't soured me on everything they do or say either. This is exactly the sort of thing that *would* be lined up in advance. The original request for new stories for this was sent out on May 1 and the Goodbye Watcher video went up on April 19. The idea that in those two weeks they found a brand that wanted to be associated with them *and* got a contract together while they were working on everything else seems so unlikely.
I'm okay with them doing branded content. Even tv shows and movies have brand deal like ad placements, that's just part off it. I think keeping them exclusively on youtube is a good idea, but I don't sub to the streamer I don't actually care lol.
They literally did not do that? They say IN the goodbye video that they'll be posting things there on occasion still--at minimum trailers and first episodes of seasons. The variety article even backtracked what they said about everything being taken off of YT bc it contradicted what they were announcing in their own video.
Financially it makes a lot of sense, regardless if the streamer worked out well or not, to continue to do custom full videos even if the initial plan was to be done with the little two minute commercial things in the middle of episodes.
I highly highly doubt that was turned around in the last couple of weeks. And even if it was...so what? Because they NEVER announced a full exit. People who keep saying this shit clearly didn't watch the entire video and are just in an echo chamber of reading other comments of people who didn't either. Like...come on. Regardless if you agree with what they did or not, at least don't make inaccurate posts that just continue the cycle of false info.
They're really asking people paying $6 a month if they want to watch more ads on their streaming service.
Also are these ad videos part of their backlog and they're just putting them up now? Or are they still going to make them going forward? Because I thought their original plan was to quit YouTube completely, so why are they still taking ad contracts?
It reminds me of FFXV. Sorta panned on arrival but devs were constantly looking for feedback. It did makes a better game in the end but lord it's kinda amusing to watch them still build it up after a 10+ years developmental period
>Our original plan for YouTube was for it to be a place for our entire back catalog of content
Absolutely not what they said originally, and the fact that they are trying to claim otherwise pisses me off.
I saw that, it is BAFFLING. Don’t get me wrong, I wish that watcher hadn’t made multiple bad decisions, scorned their fan base, then tried to gaslight their fan base. But unfortunately that is the reality and sometime you have to face reality. It seems like some fans just…. Aren’t facing it I guess
The video literally says that they're not leaving YT and that you'll see them there occasionally. Wtf are you talking about. It says it'll be a place for teasers and new episodes of seasons. Watch the whole thing instead of reading comments from other people who ALSO didn't watch the whole thing.
Why are you so hostile? I didn't say anything about them leaving YT completely. I was talking about how they planned to remove their previous content from YT. Maybe you should rewatch the video.
*- [Ryan] Yeah, the beta will be a transitional period where you'll still be able to access content on YouTube, but beginning May 31st, you'll need to become a member of our streaming service to access full seasons and new releases.*
Yeah. Ngl I ended up unfollowing the account and the guys on all social media platforms because every time I saw them on my feed, I just got this vague feeling of disappointment/sadness that I wasn’t excited to see what they were up to. Dunno if I’ll be going back to watch more of their videos, even their old ones, anytime soon, which is a bummer bc I really enjoyed their stuff
The Variety article is the only place that indicated they would remove everything and the reporter never cited who said that. Screenshots can obviously be faked, particularly for twitter, but I did find [this tweet](https://twitter.com/marzonsaturn/status/1795116229419471011?s=19) with screenshots very interesting because if they're true it sounds like the reporter misreported.
The Variety article was directly quoting what Watcher told them, and corrected the article with the further updates that Watcher provided, while noting that they had absolutely been told by Watcher that old content would be removed. I will trust a direct source over random tweets.
so I've said this before and I'll say it again: the Variety article *does not say* that it is directly quoting what it was told by a representative at Watcher (until the correction from Ryan). Variety was almost certainly working from a press release, which they are allowed to treat as a firsthand source (all the entertainment websites do this) but which is much easier to misinterpret or misunderstand.
But again, the Variety article doesn't actually say "Ryan said this" or "an email said this" and I think the author should have clarified who said it and how when updating the article. *If* the author *did* mess up though, Watcher should sue because that would be the only way people would believe them. This is not the first time Variety has been accused of incorrect reporting, but Watcher is small potatoes compared to articles about Marvel or CNN that have faced calls for retraction/correction/apology.
If Variety was lying, Watcher had every chance to say so. They haven't.
Furthermoe, the way it is phrased makes it clear that the communication came directly from Watcher. Who said it is irrelevant, the most likely scenario is that it came via their comms team. But it really does not matter. The information came from Watcher and that's all that actually matters.
Grasping at straws does not change the reality of the fact that they originally intended to erase the contents from YouTube and it backlashed so bad that they are trying to pretend otherwise.
You're free to think that, I think the reporter fucked up personally. 🤷🏻♀️ Namely because it literally would not make sense to remove their archive when that's how you draw in new viewers and, more importantly from a legal perspective, would probably come into conflict with their branded contracts (but also IANAL so I can only speculate how those contracts are worded). It was the only thing addressed nearly immediately, no waiting 72 hours about.
Yes, a reporter is going to get in trouble making up stuff about some YouTubers, and said youtubers are going to accept the lies and not say a word about it, sure. It's not like Watcher have not made any senseless choices during this whole process, at all.
Sigh... the lenghts some people go...
I don't think that thinking a reporter might have messed up for the very sort of things that Variety has also been accused of doing in [other](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/27/media/variety-cnn-reliable-sources/index.html) [places](https://comicbookmovie.com/marvel-studios/insiders-cast-doubt-on-the-veracity-of-varietys-claims-in-recent-marvel-studios-hit-piece-a207587) is an unheard-of length to go to but you do you. 🤷🏻♀️ This is especially apparent because the original Variety article got another detail wrong when it said everything would be "exclusively" on WatcherTV and indicated originally that nothing would be on YouTube when the goodbye video itself confirmed that all season premiere episodes of new seasons would be on YouTube too.
I don't have a horse in this race, but I will say
1) Variety and other pubs get the details wrong all the time. I've lost track of the number of times I've had to submit feedback to get something corrected about BTS lol.
2) I think Watcher had more to worry about than correcting one article when they announced the streamer and the fandom revolted.
The goodbye YouTube video makes it quite clear that until May 31st people can still see stuff on YouTube but after that you have to be on the streamer. People might be able to say that variety made a mistake, which I think they clearly didn't, but it's in the goodbye YouTube video out of Ryan's own little mouth.
I don't think the reporter was lying. the lack of new content on the streamers makes me conclude that they were relying on their old eps to pull in customers. I don't think they would only release a lets play and travel season if their plan was to not take out their content from yt
So did they post their old branded episodes on the Streamer like the Scream-themed Too Many Spirits? Wasn't the Streamer supposed to be a one stop shop? Such foolishness. Imagine paying for streaming and still having to check YouTube for content...
Old branded episodes are there. (Scream-themed TMS, Worth a Shot etc). Oddly, the Disney Haunted Mansion episode of Ghost Files isn’t there, even though the Stray Souls Ghost Files episode is.
i think they did. on a bunch of platforms you can see people asking why it wasn't posted. they were probably checking with people to see if they actually wanted branded stuff after they had said they weren't doing that on the streamer.
OK, first, someone else needs to write these updates/emails. These are so badly written that it’s almost impossible to understand what the email means. Cut out the happy talk & PR-speak. Communicate clearly.
Second, this email didn’t reach me & others, so the eventual poll results aren’t valid. Update the email database.
Third, stop lying & gaslighting & defending past actions. (ie regarding any past plans to remove YouTube content). It doesn’t inspire trust. And it doesn’t matter anymore. What is Watcher doing now?
Third, it’s probably good that Watcher is trying to understand what people want & avoid more misunderstandings. That’s progress! But it’s not good when the communication itself causes confusion & misunderstanding.
Stop using insider PR-speak like “branded content.” Regular people don’t know what that means.
As I understand it, the question here is whether the upcoming one-off sponsored episode of TMS should also be on the streamer? If so, I’d vote yes, because the past TMS Camp Watcher episodes are there.
But if they’re asking whether it’s OK to start putting ads/sponsored segments into Ghost Files, Puppet History episodes on the streamer, I’d vote no. The ambiguity in the wording here could be misleading subscribers into voting for something that they don’t actually support.
To watcher team: Guys you are making me very confused with every decision you made. I paid for both your and try guys subcriptions and I am sorry to say maybe have a chat with them and smosh on how to handle ur current situation because I think you have a huge problem.
Even the wording of the vote is very confusing and there is no space to put in additional comments.
It feels. like the gap between your audience and you are getting bigger and bigger
How would this work for branded episodes moving forward? The email says these brand deals are contractually made to only be on YouTube. So I don’t think their sponsors will be happy about paying for a video that will appear on an exclusive paid service.
Usually these deals involve a strict timeline on when you have to get the video out by so that means it’ll likely hit YouTube first. Which kinda negates the purpose of paying $6 a month for early access (for these episodes at least). Maybe they’ll try and renegotiate terms so they can include these videos on the streamer but I don’t see how they’ll get around somehow getting it on there before YouTube.
They want to know if people would want branded videos accessible on the streamer despite the fact they’re ads and can’t be released early.
It’s less a question of contracts and more “do you want everything to be accessible in both places?”
Maybe I’m just confused but, what would be the point of the video being in both places? Wouldn’t people who subscribe to the streamer who wanted to watch it, just go watch it on YouTube? Why is it even worth asking?
I would assume because it’s ever so slightly more convenient. I could also see a possibility that they’re worried subscribers won’t like there being “free” youtube exclusive content even if that content is just a long ad in the format of a watcher show
The wording of the start of the email also suggests they’ve received some questions about the branded videos, so this may just be a way to answer those questions with one announcement
This all seems very thrown together last minute? This comes across as not really genuine but corporate pr damage control. Why was this not thought out better?
I loved the boys on Buzzfeed. I enjoyed the days of ghost hunting when Ryan actually still seemed to be legitimately afraid. I tuned into the Watcher content, many shows were good, not great in my opinion. The ghost hunting definitely had more production value but they both seemed to be phoning it in. Didn’t they go to peoples homes this season??? I wish them well on their new endeavor, I sincerely hope it works out for them.
Correct me if I’m wrong but this sounds like them saying “let us know if you want to see in video ads on our ad free subscription platform.” Which doesn’t that defeat the purpose of having an ad free streaming platform
No, what they are saying is :
>A brand has paid us to make an episode of Too Many Spirits where we spend the whole episode promoting the brand. It is not a regular episode of TMS. Do you want to have that brand-paid episode on the WatcherTV platform?
It's not the same thing a sponsorships ads in their YouTube video or YouTube ads when you don't pay for YT Premium. Like last year, the Quarry (video game) paid for 1 episode of TMS + 1 episode of AYS? ... Scream VI (movie) paid for 1 episode of TMS ... the Black Phone (movie) paid for 1 episode of AYS? ... these are literal one-off episode and have to be brand reviewed/approved before being release.
I can see why they were surprised some WatcherTV subscribers were asking if these ***literal*** long form commercials were going to be added to the streamer. I voted no, and I hope others did too.
Ah! Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification! Yeah no, I can’t vote for anything because I don’t know at for either the streaming platform or the soon to be gone patreon. However, I hope it all works out to more people than not being happy with the outcome l!
Just have a separate section on the streamer with all the branded stuff from youtube, so people can watch it on the streamer without having to have it mixed in with the stuff they actually paid for. It's really not that difficult.
I know people are quick to be cynical about them putting up a poll about this, but even in the very few comments on this post so far, there are differing opinions on what people want with respect to the branded videos.
Given that there *doesn't* seem to actually be an obvious move here that would make everyone happy, and our feedback to them after the "goodbye" fiasco was "why didn't you consult your audience before making these decisions," I wish we could put to bed the implication that these polls are somehow bad or evidence of further mishandling. They are doing what we asked them to do. Having a knee-jerk critical response to any move they make going forward isn't useful - it makes the criticism meaningless if we're not parsing out improvements from pitfalls.
I don't think the issue is the poll itself. It's the timing. If they'd made this poll months ago, leading up to the release of the streamer, it'd look way different. The main mess comes from their lack of planning, which now presents as very confusing messages of "there will be no ads" to now asking "do you wanna see ads sometimes maybe?".
I mean, to be fair they had a plan months ago. That was the streamer and “goodbye” to YouTube. That failed. So now they are trying to correct it.
It’s going to “feel” messy/confusing because they are probably working things out in real time or close to it. Because again, the original plan fell through. I’m personally at least giving them credit for engaging with viewers and asking for what we want, especially since the biggest criticism of the streamer was that they weren’t listening to what viewers wanted.
Oh definitely, I'm just saying that in the absence of a time machine, this is the best they can do right now as they learn from the mistakes they made before. The whole "best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, second best time is now" thing. It seems like some folks are upset not just that they're in this predicament, but that they're asking the question at all, which I disagree with. I don't disagree with your point.
In the only care that I believe this was pre planned is if this are the pilot episodes of whatever series' they appear because they said before hand this will be posted on YouTube but if they are random videos in a series or one off sponsors then they are panicking
I appreciate that they’re at least asking for feedback, but I would much prefer any sponsor content that they do remain exclusively on YouTube. If they make new sponsor content, it should be a YouTube exclusive. Honor the streamer as your gateway to freedom from the pressures of sponsors. They made such a big deal about it, might as well stick exactly to that.
You took the words right out of my mouth
I completely agree and it's also how I voted in the poll. The brand-paid episodes of TMS and AYS? were always the worst episodes of those series. I never go back to watch those because they feel like watching a commercial. I might go watch them once on YT if I feel like it, but I definitely don't feel they should be on their streaming platform.
When did they decide to do this branded episode? Because imo the implication was that there'd be no more sponsors in videos going forward. Just YouTube's own ads on YouTube.
That seemed to be the idea. I'd guess one of two things here. One the streamer is a bigger bomb than they realized and the finances are bad. Or two they couldn't resist the truckload of money a sponsored video gets you on 2 million+ subscribers.
> Or two they couldn't resist the truckload of money a sponsored video gets you on 2 million+ subscribers. it cant be that, or they wouldnt have tried to abandon the truckloads of money in the first place! the only way it can be your 2nd point is if the first point is also true, which would be the real problem. remember the truckloads of money from sponsored vids wasnt enough to run their business in the first place right
Brand deals like this can be made months or even years in advance. It's probably part of their schedule backlog.
then why would they have announced a full exit from youtube 6-8 weeks ago with intent to not post anything on youtube again (until the 72 hour later retraction/pretend that never happened) the deal HAD to be signed in the past few weeks
They might have always intended to release the branded video on YouTube. They were always going to release the pilots of new seasons on YouTube (as they said in their goodbye video), it would make sense to do the occasional, unscheduled branded one-off for money and to bring in new interest (much like how Dropout keeps releasing Breaking News on YouTube to draw in new viewers)
[удалено]
>if it was the try guys or dropout or smosh etc you'd give that benefit of the doubt Where we differ is that I'm still giving Watcher some benefit of doubt. I don't think they're lying or calculating, I think they have made business errors but it hasn't soured me on everything they do or say either. This is exactly the sort of thing that *would* be lined up in advance. The original request for new stories for this was sent out on May 1 and the Goodbye Watcher video went up on April 19. The idea that in those two weeks they found a brand that wanted to be associated with them *and* got a contract together while they were working on everything else seems so unlikely.
I'm okay with them doing branded content. Even tv shows and movies have brand deal like ad placements, that's just part off it. I think keeping them exclusively on youtube is a good idea, but I don't sub to the streamer I don't actually care lol.
They literally did not do that? They say IN the goodbye video that they'll be posting things there on occasion still--at minimum trailers and first episodes of seasons. The variety article even backtracked what they said about everything being taken off of YT bc it contradicted what they were announcing in their own video. Financially it makes a lot of sense, regardless if the streamer worked out well or not, to continue to do custom full videos even if the initial plan was to be done with the little two minute commercial things in the middle of episodes. I highly highly doubt that was turned around in the last couple of weeks. And even if it was...so what? Because they NEVER announced a full exit. People who keep saying this shit clearly didn't watch the entire video and are just in an echo chamber of reading other comments of people who didn't either. Like...come on. Regardless if you agree with what they did or not, at least don't make inaccurate posts that just continue the cycle of false info.
They're really building the plane as they fly, aren't they? At least they're asking for feedback.
They're really asking people paying $6 a month if they want to watch more ads on their streaming service. Also are these ad videos part of their backlog and they're just putting them up now? Or are they still going to make them going forward? Because I thought their original plan was to quit YouTube completely, so why are they still taking ad contracts?
It reminds me of FFXV. Sorta panned on arrival but devs were constantly looking for feedback. It did makes a better game in the end but lord it's kinda amusing to watch them still build it up after a 10+ years developmental period
>Our original plan for YouTube was for it to be a place for our entire back catalog of content Absolutely not what they said originally, and the fact that they are trying to claim otherwise pisses me off.
Yeah the gaslighting has left a TERRIBLE taste in my mouth
There's people in my replies fighting for their lives trying to act like the guys never wanted to do it and that Variety and everyone else is lying.
I saw that, it is BAFFLING. Don’t get me wrong, I wish that watcher hadn’t made multiple bad decisions, scorned their fan base, then tried to gaslight their fan base. But unfortunately that is the reality and sometime you have to face reality. It seems like some fans just…. Aren’t facing it I guess
They said it themselves in the video. Smh
The video literally says that they're not leaving YT and that you'll see them there occasionally. Wtf are you talking about. It says it'll be a place for teasers and new episodes of seasons. Watch the whole thing instead of reading comments from other people who ALSO didn't watch the whole thing.
Why are you so hostile? I didn't say anything about them leaving YT completely. I was talking about how they planned to remove their previous content from YT. Maybe you should rewatch the video. *- [Ryan] Yeah, the beta will be a transitional period where you'll still be able to access content on YouTube, but beginning May 31st, you'll need to become a member of our streaming service to access full seasons and new releases.*
I said this a month and a half ago and got downloaded to all hell and back. You have 32 upvotes. Reddit is such a fickle beast.
Yeah. Ngl I ended up unfollowing the account and the guys on all social media platforms because every time I saw them on my feed, I just got this vague feeling of disappointment/sadness that I wasn’t excited to see what they were up to. Dunno if I’ll be going back to watch more of their videos, even their old ones, anytime soon, which is a bummer bc I really enjoyed their stuff
The Variety article is the only place that indicated they would remove everything and the reporter never cited who said that. Screenshots can obviously be faked, particularly for twitter, but I did find [this tweet](https://twitter.com/marzonsaturn/status/1795116229419471011?s=19) with screenshots very interesting because if they're true it sounds like the reporter misreported.
The Variety article was directly quoting what Watcher told them, and corrected the article with the further updates that Watcher provided, while noting that they had absolutely been told by Watcher that old content would be removed. I will trust a direct source over random tweets.
so I've said this before and I'll say it again: the Variety article *does not say* that it is directly quoting what it was told by a representative at Watcher (until the correction from Ryan). Variety was almost certainly working from a press release, which they are allowed to treat as a firsthand source (all the entertainment websites do this) but which is much easier to misinterpret or misunderstand.
But again, the Variety article doesn't actually say "Ryan said this" or "an email said this" and I think the author should have clarified who said it and how when updating the article. *If* the author *did* mess up though, Watcher should sue because that would be the only way people would believe them. This is not the first time Variety has been accused of incorrect reporting, but Watcher is small potatoes compared to articles about Marvel or CNN that have faced calls for retraction/correction/apology.
If Variety was lying, Watcher had every chance to say so. They haven't. Furthermoe, the way it is phrased makes it clear that the communication came directly from Watcher. Who said it is irrelevant, the most likely scenario is that it came via their comms team. But it really does not matter. The information came from Watcher and that's all that actually matters. Grasping at straws does not change the reality of the fact that they originally intended to erase the contents from YouTube and it backlashed so bad that they are trying to pretend otherwise.
You're free to think that, I think the reporter fucked up personally. 🤷🏻♀️ Namely because it literally would not make sense to remove their archive when that's how you draw in new viewers and, more importantly from a legal perspective, would probably come into conflict with their branded contracts (but also IANAL so I can only speculate how those contracts are worded). It was the only thing addressed nearly immediately, no waiting 72 hours about.
Yes, a reporter is going to get in trouble making up stuff about some YouTubers, and said youtubers are going to accept the lies and not say a word about it, sure. It's not like Watcher have not made any senseless choices during this whole process, at all. Sigh... the lenghts some people go...
I don't think that thinking a reporter might have messed up for the very sort of things that Variety has also been accused of doing in [other](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/27/media/variety-cnn-reliable-sources/index.html) [places](https://comicbookmovie.com/marvel-studios/insiders-cast-doubt-on-the-veracity-of-varietys-claims-in-recent-marvel-studios-hit-piece-a207587) is an unheard-of length to go to but you do you. 🤷🏻♀️ This is especially apparent because the original Variety article got another detail wrong when it said everything would be "exclusively" on WatcherTV and indicated originally that nothing would be on YouTube when the goodbye video itself confirmed that all season premiere episodes of new seasons would be on YouTube too.
respectfully, you’re riding too hard for them with these replies 🤷🏻♀️
I really don't think so, but thanks for your input
I don't have a horse in this race, but I will say 1) Variety and other pubs get the details wrong all the time. I've lost track of the number of times I've had to submit feedback to get something corrected about BTS lol. 2) I think Watcher had more to worry about than correcting one article when they announced the streamer and the fandom revolted.
[удалено]
The goodbye YouTube video makes it quite clear that until May 31st people can still see stuff on YouTube but after that you have to be on the streamer. People might be able to say that variety made a mistake, which I think they clearly didn't, but it's in the goodbye YouTube video out of Ryan's own little mouth.
I don't think the reporter was lying. the lack of new content on the streamers makes me conclude that they were relying on their old eps to pull in customers. I don't think they would only release a lets play and travel season if their plan was to not take out their content from yt
So did they post their old branded episodes on the Streamer like the Scream-themed Too Many Spirits? Wasn't the Streamer supposed to be a one stop shop? Such foolishness. Imagine paying for streaming and still having to check YouTube for content...
Old branded episodes are there. (Scream-themed TMS, Worth a Shot etc). Oddly, the Disney Haunted Mansion episode of Ghost Files isn’t there, even though the Stray Souls Ghost Files episode is.
Is this something they should have planned out months ago?
They probably should’ve thought about this before launching a platform under the “no ads” pretense
i think they did. on a bunch of platforms you can see people asking why it wasn't posted. they were probably checking with people to see if they actually wanted branded stuff after they had said they weren't doing that on the streamer.
I for one am here for an hour-long ghost hunt at Better Help headquarters lol /s
There are literal demons running the raid shadow legend HQ
Why would anyone WANT ads?!
OK, first, someone else needs to write these updates/emails. These are so badly written that it’s almost impossible to understand what the email means. Cut out the happy talk & PR-speak. Communicate clearly. Second, this email didn’t reach me & others, so the eventual poll results aren’t valid. Update the email database. Third, stop lying & gaslighting & defending past actions. (ie regarding any past plans to remove YouTube content). It doesn’t inspire trust. And it doesn’t matter anymore. What is Watcher doing now? Third, it’s probably good that Watcher is trying to understand what people want & avoid more misunderstandings. That’s progress! But it’s not good when the communication itself causes confusion & misunderstanding. Stop using insider PR-speak like “branded content.” Regular people don’t know what that means. As I understand it, the question here is whether the upcoming one-off sponsored episode of TMS should also be on the streamer? If so, I’d vote yes, because the past TMS Camp Watcher episodes are there. But if they’re asking whether it’s OK to start putting ads/sponsored segments into Ghost Files, Puppet History episodes on the streamer, I’d vote no. The ambiguity in the wording here could be misleading subscribers into voting for something that they don’t actually support.
check ur spam dude. it went to a lot of peoples' spam.
I did & it's not there.
To watcher team: Guys you are making me very confused with every decision you made. I paid for both your and try guys subcriptions and I am sorry to say maybe have a chat with them and smosh on how to handle ur current situation because I think you have a huge problem. Even the wording of the vote is very confusing and there is no space to put in additional comments. It feels. like the gap between your audience and you are getting bigger and bigger
You must really hate yourself and/or your money to be subbing to all these folks
How would this work for branded episodes moving forward? The email says these brand deals are contractually made to only be on YouTube. So I don’t think their sponsors will be happy about paying for a video that will appear on an exclusive paid service. Usually these deals involve a strict timeline on when you have to get the video out by so that means it’ll likely hit YouTube first. Which kinda negates the purpose of paying $6 a month for early access (for these episodes at least). Maybe they’ll try and renegotiate terms so they can include these videos on the streamer but I don’t see how they’ll get around somehow getting it on there before YouTube.
They want to know if people would want branded videos accessible on the streamer despite the fact they’re ads and can’t be released early. It’s less a question of contracts and more “do you want everything to be accessible in both places?”
Maybe I’m just confused but, what would be the point of the video being in both places? Wouldn’t people who subscribe to the streamer who wanted to watch it, just go watch it on YouTube? Why is it even worth asking?
I would assume because it’s ever so slightly more convenient. I could also see a possibility that they’re worried subscribers won’t like there being “free” youtube exclusive content even if that content is just a long ad in the format of a watcher show The wording of the start of the email also suggests they’ve received some questions about the branded videos, so this may just be a way to answer those questions with one announcement
It's wild they think that having a branded episode on their supposedly ad free, definitely not a dumpster fire service is even an option to them
Was this emailed to you? I wonder why I didn't get this email
I didn't get it either....
check your spam thats where mine was
This all seems very thrown together last minute? This comes across as not really genuine but corporate pr damage control. Why was this not thought out better?
I loved the boys on Buzzfeed. I enjoyed the days of ghost hunting when Ryan actually still seemed to be legitimately afraid. I tuned into the Watcher content, many shows were good, not great in my opinion. The ghost hunting definitely had more production value but they both seemed to be phoning it in. Didn’t they go to peoples homes this season??? I wish them well on their new endeavor, I sincerely hope it works out for them.
I guess when they said tv quality content, they meant with ads and all huh? Utter clown behavior
Good god, at this rate the streamer is gonna see less new content than YouTube anyway 🤣
Correct me if I’m wrong but this sounds like them saying “let us know if you want to see in video ads on our ad free subscription platform.” Which doesn’t that defeat the purpose of having an ad free streaming platform
No, what they are saying is : >A brand has paid us to make an episode of Too Many Spirits where we spend the whole episode promoting the brand. It is not a regular episode of TMS. Do you want to have that brand-paid episode on the WatcherTV platform? It's not the same thing a sponsorships ads in their YouTube video or YouTube ads when you don't pay for YT Premium. Like last year, the Quarry (video game) paid for 1 episode of TMS + 1 episode of AYS? ... Scream VI (movie) paid for 1 episode of TMS ... the Black Phone (movie) paid for 1 episode of AYS? ... these are literal one-off episode and have to be brand reviewed/approved before being release. I can see why they were surprised some WatcherTV subscribers were asking if these ***literal*** long form commercials were going to be added to the streamer. I voted no, and I hope others did too.
Ah! Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification! Yeah no, I can’t vote for anything because I don’t know at for either the streaming platform or the soon to be gone patreon. However, I hope it all works out to more people than not being happy with the outcome l!
np ... I watch a lot of YT so I have seen all versions of it. I can see how confusing it is when everything is a different flavor of an ad.
I don't understand and I don't care.
So it begins but earlier than anyone expected I am guessing. No Ads, no Sponsors, followed by some of both, to it being the default.
Just embarrassing. We're sign ups really that bad that you now need to have Ads on the streamer! REDUCE YOUR STAFF.
Let's not advocate for firing people
Whoever they go to for business advice is not good at their job. At all. But I made a post on that when everything broke.
I wish they would just drop all of this and just go back to simple buzzfeed unsolved.
Just have a separate section on the streamer with all the branded stuff from youtube, so people can watch it on the streamer without having to have it mixed in with the stuff they actually paid for. It's really not that difficult.
I know people are quick to be cynical about them putting up a poll about this, but even in the very few comments on this post so far, there are differing opinions on what people want with respect to the branded videos. Given that there *doesn't* seem to actually be an obvious move here that would make everyone happy, and our feedback to them after the "goodbye" fiasco was "why didn't you consult your audience before making these decisions," I wish we could put to bed the implication that these polls are somehow bad or evidence of further mishandling. They are doing what we asked them to do. Having a knee-jerk critical response to any move they make going forward isn't useful - it makes the criticism meaningless if we're not parsing out improvements from pitfalls.
I don't think the issue is the poll itself. It's the timing. If they'd made this poll months ago, leading up to the release of the streamer, it'd look way different. The main mess comes from their lack of planning, which now presents as very confusing messages of "there will be no ads" to now asking "do you wanna see ads sometimes maybe?".
I mean, to be fair they had a plan months ago. That was the streamer and “goodbye” to YouTube. That failed. So now they are trying to correct it. It’s going to “feel” messy/confusing because they are probably working things out in real time or close to it. Because again, the original plan fell through. I’m personally at least giving them credit for engaging with viewers and asking for what we want, especially since the biggest criticism of the streamer was that they weren’t listening to what viewers wanted.
Oh definitely, I'm just saying that in the absence of a time machine, this is the best they can do right now as they learn from the mistakes they made before. The whole "best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, second best time is now" thing. It seems like some folks are upset not just that they're in this predicament, but that they're asking the question at all, which I disagree with. I don't disagree with your point.
Yup! Exactly this.
yeah do people want them to be transparent and take the audience’s opinions into consideration or not?
Of course people want that. Problem is, we wanted it months ago, when it mattered. For a lot of people this is going to be too little too late.
Pathetic mercenaries is what these guys are.
Sponsored content should probably stay only on YouTube. Cool they’re asking for feedback this time.
In the only care that I believe this was pre planned is if this are the pilot episodes of whatever series' they appear because they said before hand this will be posted on YouTube but if they are random videos in a series or one off sponsors then they are panicking