In the last few days I noticed Firefox sponsoring YouTube videos. Is this new? I don’t remember seeing them as sponsor segments previously.
I think this is nice, hopefully it will help increase adoption and give some competition to Chromium.
What do you think? Did they start doing that because they were losing users to the recent controversy regarding the terms of use?
so does Proton sponsor YouTube channels, what would be wrong exactly with that?
1 Like
No I actually think it is nice.
I’ll edit the original post to not make it sound bad
1 Like
For me it seems odd they have the money to sponsor when their largest source of income is at risk. Or maybe that is why they are?
The topic quoted below has a few reasons:
That is about incentivizing users to invite other people to the service (with referral codes or discounts or actual money), not simply advertising.
2 Likes
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Thunderbird also sponsors a couple YouTube videos. However, in that case they have a more direct way to get financing from their users, through donations.
I always hoped Mozilla Corporation changed their monetization strategy into something along the lines of “donate for browser development”, especially considering how well MZLA Technologies Corporation is doing with Thunderbird, and how much progress Ladybird is able to do with their donations (although Ladybird is different, since they’re entirely non-profit).
Overall, I think it makes sense to have a more direct marketing approach here, and it’s not unprecedented. Hopefully this, along with the news surrounding Pocket and Fakespot, truly mean a renewed focus on Firefox.
Louis Rossmann recently made a video discussing this. In it, he mentions the facts that one of the reason he chose Mullvad VPN as his provider, is precisely because they do not sponsor channels or do any affiliate marketing. It’s something Mullvad is very proud of. And I can understand why.
I pay for Proton, and am happy to pay for it. I also have strong criticisms about some of their practices. If a YouTuber depended on Proton for their income, I could see why they would feel less compelled to criticize them harshly, even though Proton never gave them instructions.
It’s the same for journalists. I remember during the last season of Game of Thrones, some media outlets not owned by Warner Media (HBO’s parent company), were quite reluctant to criticize the show harshly compared to others. Vanity Fair often had access to the writers of the show for interviews, and had access to them for years.
Obviously this is speculation, but I could see how, even though they were given no instructions, they would not want to jeopardize that, especially if they were one of the few outlets with exclusive access the production team.
1 Like