Work as in, "are effective at advertising a product"

Showing "regular" people solving common recurring issues like, "what clothes should I wear, what tool will simplify this task, what products are effective at a good value, what software/hardware can accomplish the goals I have set" are the only effective advertising for many people.

Sure, with kids you can show them a cool toy that other kids are playing with, inspiring desire.

You can show adults and teens a sexy girl or a hot guy somehow attached to the product so that by association your product is hot or sexy, but those are the low handing fruit and only work on specific demographics.

However, if you can clearly identify your target audience and then put a product that matches that audience in front of them while showing how the product is being used, thats it. Everyone who would purchase that type of product will buy it.

I think the two existing replies to this question already answered this mostly, but I would define a "working" sponsorship as one that makes me consider buying it. Sponsorships that are basically just an add I don't even see thanks to SponsorBlock for example. So those are "not working" for me.

But for the LTT screwdriver or the bamboo labs 3D printers where I see how they can be used I actually consider buying them or have already done so. One factor for this is obviously that they can't be skipped, but the bigger one is that they are obviously more relevant for me as I am already interested in the video's topic and therefore the products used in it.

> Or that they’re the only ones that can’t be easily avoided even if the viewer wants to?

Surely this one given what they wrote.

> which you can't skip

In theory I agree with you, but apparently most people fall for it.

I'd probably be OK if all the content which doesn't get made without sponsorship wouldn't get made at all, and the people who work as content creators stopped doing so. There is an overabundance of new content, having 10x less content would be perfectly fine, and in pretty much every niche there are amateur enthusiasts who clearly (based on their amount of viewers) are giving their time away, and their content is in many ways preferable and "more real" than the professionals - so I'd be OK if all the professionals stop and these awkward amateur enthusiasts are all that remain.

The same applies to web and blogs; the ability to monetize them by ads (and I do remember the "old web" before it was the case) increased the content but drowned out viewership for the true enthusiasts running things in their spare time, which IMHO were more valuable and I think that regime was better; again, losing 90% or 99% of the content wouldn't be bad in my mind, there still would be more than enough for anyone to ever "consume".

> You can make content without monetization in mind. But it's like giving your time away.

Sure, but then how is this any different from TV? Eg I’ve seen a few videos dramatically overblowing the certainty of life on Mars lately, presumably for views. If I wanted half truths based on lack of context, I could just flip on the news.

> Content which doesn't get made without sponsorship wouldn't get made even if sponsorships didn't exist.

Sponsorships raise the money invested into videos, which raises viewer expectations, suppressing the likelihood these videos would ever be seen. You basically need sponsors for your videos to go anywhere these days because people expect professional editing/lighting/etc. The “I watched a Premier tutorial and filmed on a cellphone” approach won’t cut it anymore.

> People want to get rewarded for they work, you know. Do you also want your plumber to work for free?

I don’t want it to be work, I would prefer it was done by hobbyists. There are tons of thriving hobby communities full of people only getting personal satisfaction.

>You can make content without monetization in mind. But it's like giving your time away.

You're missing the point entirely, the content I refer to as more interesting is stuff people made for fun or on principle not because of financial incentive

Imagine if people only commented on hn because they were expecting a paycheck for it

It can be argued whether it is better to have creators who make it their income to constantly produce content or to have a revolving door of amateurs who cut their teeth on video production in youtube and move on.