Where should channels be required to disclose sponsorship?

I think channels should disclose their affiliations immediately. However, as long as they have it in by the intro, it is ACCEPTABLE in my opinion, depending on the execution. Aule_Mahal is right; Garand Thumb's method is very clear and well defined, as he identifies all his affiliations before any actual content. However, in my experience, most channels seem to try and hook their audience in before telling them the video is sponsored. I disagree with this. The sponsorship statement should come before the topic starts. I don't have any objective proof of this at the moment, but that is just my two cents.

What if the sponsor is a non-profit that wants the channel to cover a particular topic that is in the interest of the sponsoring entity?

The Hated One

Thank you very much for this very useful breakdown. It is definitely applicable to my research.

The Hated One

Here goes my personal opinion. It depends on how close the advertised object is to the topic of the video and how much editorial control the advertiser has. The closer the relationship and the more editorial control they have, the earlier it should be disclosed. An anti hair loss product being advertised on a car channel, for example, doesn’t need to be declared. A review of a product that was supplied at manufacturer’s or distributor’s cost on the other hand should be disclosed very early.

Peter Šurda

For their regular videos - they let you know before the AD starts by saying "and here a message from our sponsor" - the AD is filmed in a different location and sometimes even by a different person making it clear that it is not part of the content - pretty much all of the times the sponsor is not directly connected to the content (eg someone showing you how to self host something and then have linode as a sponsor, or "reviewing" a VPN and having a VPN sponsor, ...) - that's just a trust me bro point but according to them a lot of the time they don't even know who will sponsor a video while filming it For their fully sponsored videos - they say it in the first 30 sec or so "they whole video is sponsored by XYZ" and then they say it at the end again (and sometimes even in the middle) so it is clear that the video is sponsored so anything that is said positively about the brand should be taken with a grain of salt - they don't do sponsored reviews, they make a showcase of a product but they don't go at the end "overall its a great product and you should buy it" - they have sponsored in the title so you know that before even clicking on the video

I think the way Garand Thumd does it is quite well done. For context: he is a gun youtuber and mostly reviews weapons. Most videos start with cinematic footage of him using the gun of the video, followed by a short introduction "what is this video about", sponsors of the video / channel, and than a full disclosure about the relationship to the manufacturer of the firearm/equipment presented. For me personally, that is the way to go. From an editing perspective/ watchtime-"get-hooked"-factor, the YouTube bread and butter, you need to get the audience to stay for the video, get them hyped for the actual content. After that, you don't immediately lose the big chunk of casual viewers, even if you start with sth boring / annoying as sponsors and disclaimers.

Aule_Mahal

What in particular do you like about their approach?

The Hated One

I think the way LTT is doing it is the best I've seen so far.