It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
All the ones I've seen put a responsibility on the endorsee to promote the endorser's products at every relevant opportunity, and that's a base requirement for the rest of the agreement. Manufacturer-specific clinics and the like will usually be paid appearances, but not interviews and such.
Anyway, regarding the sponsoring issue, I feel Andertons are straying out of their lane here. I'd be more inclined to look at the 85% of the market that they currently cannot monetize by looking into promotion/distribution/licensing/partnership deals in the US/Europe, etc..
The long term goal should be structuring the business so that they are able to compete against the likes of Thomann, Musikhaus and Music Store, not tapping up YouTube viewers for their loose change. It all seems a bit bizarre to me, if not a little egotistical.
Plus Andertons often tie these interviews into masterclass events they hold, so the agreement for paying an artist for one of those events will probably entail an interview as well.
PS Andertons Vai video currently has 352,591 views.
Or did they pay him his fee based on the fact that they calculated that overall he added more value overall than his fee?
One thing you have to bear in mind is that, whilst Steve Vai maybe an Ibanez endorsee, Ibanez is distributed in the UK by Headstock Distribution, therefore they don't have any real deal with him, Ibanez Japan may send him over to do something, but unless it comes from HQ its a deal between Steve Vai and whoever wants his time.
You find some golden ones out there that don't charge, but they are few and far between. Have you ever looked at how much first class flights are from Los Angeles (that is pretty much where they all live) and London?
Its about £6K, no cheapo hotels (approx £400 a night, plus food) and a driver
Hope that helps
If you watch the videos where he talks about it, Lee says quite clearly that the YouTube channel isn't there to make money, but to foster a community (much like we've done here, except he's been orders of magnitude more successful at it). This whole thing basically says to me that he's decided that he's tired of it being a loss-leader and wants it to break even - much as we decided fairly early on. We asked for donations from our members (the people who are invested in the service that we provide); that's no different to what he's doing here, in asking his subscribers (coincidentally, the people who are invested in the service he provides).
I find it vaguely amusing that most people on this thread seem to think that they know more about the music business and YouTube channels than he does, when the entire industry (ie the businesses) look to him for guidance on how to build a successful channel (in terms of popularity and coverage) to accompany their businesses and take them into the modern online world, and not this forum.
And yet...everyone here thinks they're an expert on his business, his costs, how he should be running his channel and even how much it costs to get celebrities on it.
You guys don't half make me fucking laugh sometimes...
It is far far easier and much less effort to criticise someone else and their business model than it is to develop and run your own.
That doesn't stop people questioning whether it's the right thing to do, just because it's profitable.
This forum needs to break even because it's not subsidised nor does it directly generate business for another area, but in the case of Andertons, if the YouTube stuff doesn't break even, then it's still contributing to brand awareness and image, it is landing them sales. Some aspect of their YouTube venture is marketing; your marketing department doesn't break even or make a profit directly, so why should part of Andertons?
If Fender came out out and said that the YouTube aspect of their business wasn't making any money, so they want to run a patreon for it, people would just say they're taking the piss, that they should run it at a loss on an individual basis because of what it brings to the business overall.
So...even though there's an industry-standard way to cover those costs (I'm talking about the online content production industry) by giving regular viewers more content that they're interested in, you're saying that Andertons shouldn't do it because...what, exactly? Some outdated notion that marketing should always cost money and never directly cover its costs?
I think the part that a lot of people are finding hard to understand is that there are a lot of people who see value in the content on the Andertons channel in an entirely separate sense from the shop. Whether that's because they're fans of the people on the shows, or because there's useful information there, or they find the content useful when deciding to buy from somewhere else, or whatever. There are roughly 427,000 of those people, and you'd have to be utterly insane not to offer those people the opportunity to voluntarily support the channel.
Besides that, if we start paying £4.95 a month for one YouTube channel, then taken to it's logical conclusion it means we should be paying for every website, and every YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat account that gives us enjoyment and pleasure.
It takes five minutes to criticise in an internet post. Hardly any effort at all. But it can take years to build a successful business, or become an international footballer.
No longer criticise? Not at all. Anyone can criticise as much as they like. However, in the internet age it seems to be a given that any opinion posted is as accurate/knowledgable or indeed valid as any other.