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
For my part, I'm happy to support the channels I like by using their Patreon (or other means), because I want them to make more content like that. Without money through those services, the people running the channels would have to get a job, and thus make less content that I like; it's no different to supporting bands by giving them money in return for merch or music.
Been uploading old tracks I recorded ages ago and hopefully some new noodles here.
I think the only hangup for some is a large successful business advertising products, then asking for people to sponsor them to do so. So, to some it looks like you are paying for a product to be adverstised to you.
'Intheblues' and many others, as far as I am aware, mostly don't have stores (some may) and aren't really benefitting from spending hours making patches for a Fender digital amp (although some may), for example.
There is literally millions of hours of content for guitar on Youtube now. As I've said, in my opinion it is oversaturated and everyone wants a slice.
In my opinion, paying £15 for a bands vinyl is totally different to paying someone to produce Youtube content. I would get much more pleasure from owning the vinyl as the main reason I watch guitar/bass/music Youtube videos is because I love music, the other parts of it like the geekery around pedals is fun, but it is nowhere as essential, to me, as the music itself.
As a boring pointless piece of background, I have never entered the world of music expecting to make money off it. Ever. I have toured with small DIY punk and hardcore bands, played in decent indie bands, and even gone the covers route, but I never expect to make profit off it. With the covers stuff, eventually you do...once you have paid your costs to get the band ready for playing. But covers really isn't for me.
My friend and I ran a small night that involved bands and ourselves DJing, and we only charged for the band nights. When we dj'ed, it was free entry. We just enjoyed it.
It may be the cliched punk ethic of 'I'm doing this because I absolutely have to and love it' that steers me towards that approach....all of my band members were the same. We lost money, all the time....we didn't care. It was a fun hobby.
But then, at the time I was preparing for my actual paid career, which cost THOUSANDS to train for, and is very rarely funded by anyone but the person who wants to do it.
We all have different views....that's my rather strange one!
Here's X amount of content for free, we'll still make it.
Here's X way to pay if you'd like to, and we'd like to give you additional content for this transaction.
There comes a point where people don't need or want any more physical stuff. Digital stuff still costs money to produce, but by majority most don't want to pay for it. Some however do, so let them.
Then everyone wins. The content creators can have a more stable income and budget, and all the people who don't want to pay still get to enjoy the same stuff for free.
Who is the loser in this scenario?
I do agree with that. No one, ultimately. Although I think £4.99 /$4.99 for one channel, amongst thousands, is a little excessive when you compare it to say Netflix costs. Apparently Youtube set the bar at that price though.
Maybe if £1 went to a music charity, it might get a different reaction.
If I put on an Andertons video I have to sit through the ads and the content has a large element of sales pitch so I feel I am already keeping my side of the financial bargain.I don’t particularly like Andertons in house style and there is a lot of similar content out there on YouTube so it wouldn’t impact greatly on my life if it disappeared. So, no I wouldn't subscribe to their Patreon.
This did make me wonder if in any circumstances I would contribute to someone. There is a chap I follow who lost his YouTube monetisation, it's about low impact living and he always responds to ( sensible) YouTube comments. To help keep him going I'd bung him the odd fiver certainly. Although he hasn't asked.
Yes I agree £4.99 does seem too high to start off, it's probably too steep for some people who would like to donate but find that too much.
I believe flexible is the way to go, let people start from $1/month but allow larger donations if people want to, similarly to how many Patreons work.
I disagree and having come from broadcast where there are all sorts or rules and laws governing infomercials and adverts being dressed up as independent programming I think this absolutely needs hammering home with online distribution methods too.
To use a recent example...
It's not transparent to champion Thomann and their products with the voice of authority and reputation of trustworthyness if you fail to mention that they just took you on an all expenses paid jolly to their HQ where they treated you brilliantly and incentivised you to make videos actively promoting their products.
It's not transparent to make a video to say how amazing this Walrus Booster is (that sounds completely dull and lifeless in every video I saw of it) because you got sent it in the post and told you could keep it, along with 100 other youtube bloggers.
If there was true transparency I'd take no issue with it. Funnily enough my fave Andertons videos are the ones where they are having a sale on something and are actively and openly trying to get you to buy it!
Been uploading old tracks I recorded ages ago and hopefully some new noodles here.
Ok, that is a list of non transparent things, none of which I was addressing in my post.
My argument is entirely relating to providing free content and allowing people to pay if they like.
I honestly believe it's almost certainly the future of the arts, unless you hit truly massive streaming numbers no streaming platform will pay out enough on views alone. Additional funding is necessary, and allowing donations is about as direct as you can get.
I believe Andertons should be free to utilise this income stream if they want. They may be adverts but to some they are purely entertainment and they're never going to buy anything, so why not let them donate if they choose to. Many people watch the videos and buy elsewhere anyway just due to availability, the content they create arguably indirectly benefits their competitors at times.
Furthermore I don't believe truly independent gear reviews are a viable business option anyway.
The amount of cash you'd need to have the turnover of gear to compete on even a weekly level couldn't be regenerated from YouTube ad revenue alone. So that means the options are:
- Self funding at a loss (which isn't really a business)
- Patreon/PayPal/YouTube channel donations (but you'd already need a critical mass of viewers for this to work)
- Involving manufactures (which would be less independent but seemingly is more achievable)
- Monetised views (though it's hard to find exact figures, $1/1thousand views would mean it's not viable anyway for most gear channels who post infrequent videos to relatively small viewer numbers)
It would seem most channels need to mix these income streams until it's possible to do the channel without self funding, and after that point only very large channels could exist on donations and views alone.
The chances of doing it on views alone are I'd expect pretty much zero when it comes to niche things like guitar equipment reviews.
I think people are supposed to say if it's a sponsored video.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/154235?hl=en-GB
"What do we mean when we talk about paid product placements and endorsements?
Paid product placements may be described as pieces of content that are created for a third party in exchange for compensation, and/or where that third party's brand, message or product is integrated directly into the content.
Endorsements may be described as pieces of content created for an advertiser or marketer that contain a message that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs or experiences of the content creator or endorser.
For information on why you need to notify YouTube, refer to the 'What happens when I tick the 'Content declaration' box?' section."
I am aware of Anderton's because I have bought many items from them. If I Google a pedal to buy, invariably they come up in a box advertising that pedal along with others. They usually have good prices and also provide a high standard of service. No complaints there.
Then again, so do other smaller companies I deal with and if their price is in the same ballpark I will often buy from the smaller company, and pay a bit more, to keep them alive because my perception is that because of Andertons full page adverts and very high profile on Youtube that they must be doing alright. I didn't realise they are struggling just as much as the smaller companies I support.
There are lot's of other "reviewers" of gear that I watch that have more in depth reviews of a product and I don't feel that they are trying to sell me it "because we have it in stock on our website" .
It's all freedom of choice as to whether you pay or don't pay so there is no right or wrong. I think a lot of people will support them because they are fans of the people doing it just as they buy albums from their favourite band.
It all comes down to how you personally perceive things.
---
I don't want to spend all day researching this, but I do agree that it should be declared if there's a commercial interest in the video. I have seen many channels stating when it is paid promotion, though I don't know where it is law and where it isn't. But I would agree that it should be declared.
Yes by all means discuss away. On the whole I find theFB a decent place and it’s frequenters a good bunch, so more than happy to discuss, even if I am a tool sometimes.
And yes, take advantage of whatever tax breaks are available if that’s what you want to do. Is it always ethical? I don’t know enough to answer that question, maybe Gary Barlow or Russell Brand could help me out?
If you're asking what my issue is I guess it would be hard to define. If I had to put it into words I’d say it’s a feeling rather than a thought that doesn’t sit right with my own values, nothing more, nothing less. But yeah, I guess maybe it is the way it's been done rather than the decision to do it that sits wrong.
I wouldn't define myself as a true capitalist and some business decisions I personally find don't sit right with my own set of values. I’m not saying that’s how I feel in this case, I’m also not saying I don’t feel that way - or is that bassackwards, I'm sure you know what I mean though.
And when all is said and done, I might just change my opinion. There's a lot of good reason in the to and fro of this thread and given a day or two to mull things over I might think "well actually you know what, it's ok, not really such a big deal after all".
There is no 'H' in Aych, you know that don't you? ~ Wife
Turns out there is an H in Haych! ~ Sporky
Bit of trading feedback here.
Bandcamp
Spotify, Apple et al
I wasn't directly addressing you/Andertons because they are simply one example of many and there are multiple lines being crossed. They should be and ARE free to chase sponsorship if they wish. I am free to tell them to get fucked and that I'm not paying for adverts.
As to the rest of it:
Not everyone/anyone should be able to earn a living out of having a youtube channel. Just like not everyone/anyone should be able to earn a living out of playing the guitar.
Not everyone/anyone should look at having a youtube channel as a way to make money.
If you want to be a paid pedal/guitar/amp demonstrator a la Pete Thorn, Mike Hermans, King Johnny DeMarco then that is brilliant. I love those guys.
If you want to do bedroom demo of pedals in exchange for free stuff then more power to you. As long as I know that I'll watch your video. The tell tale sign here as of 2017-18 for these type of videos is 21 year old guy in a bedsit with a 6 x Suhrs playing into multiple Friedmans.
If you want to be a 'reviewer' then you need to have a basic sense of trustworthyness/ethics. And if you want to genuinely earn money by being a reviewer then you better have a great business model in place.
I earn a lot of my money making stuff for people which ultimately ends up on Youtube but it's never through YT monetisation. Because people I do work for understand the power of the medium is to direct you to people/products/things/places where they can sell you shit.
Allowing donations is great and in theory you'd think would lead to a meritocracy. But if you are promoting the shit out of the multiple channels you now run and you are blanket smothering all the categories of videos with your stuff so nobody else gets a look-in and you have relatively unlimited resources to do so compared to others in this field, tons of potentially great content makers will fall by the wayside practically unseen, let alone unsponsored. There must be a way to make it better, but why would Google bother to do so?
Been uploading old tracks I recorded ages ago and hopefully some new noodles here.