You can now 'sponsor' the Andertons Youtube channel...apparently. EDIT - Now retracted for Patreon..

What's Hot
1456810

Comments

  • digitalscreamdigitalscream Frets: 26452

    I'm not a 'blues' player as such, but one of the guys I like, who genuinely seems to be very knowledgable, is 'intheblues'.

    He has built a fanbase, and I've never donated money, but it seems more like this is his career along with his band, and he never seems to go on about money...and just comes across very genuine.

    This appears to be a very British hangup - the idea that asking for money is somehow an underhand or morally corrupt practice (apologies if I've missed your point there).

    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.
    <space for hire>
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 4reaction image Wisdom
  • Jack_Jack_ Frets: 3175

    I'm not a 'blues' player as such, but one of the guys I like, who genuinely seems to be very knowledgable, is 'intheblues'.

    He has built a fanbase, and I've never donated money, but it seems more like this is his career along with his band, and he never seems to go on about money...and just comes across very genuine.

    This appears to be a very British hangup - the idea that asking for money is somehow an underhand or morally corrupt practice (apologies if I've missed your point there).

    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.
    Except in this instance the band makes a good living selling their music but they're asking you to become a patreon because their live DVDs don't break even.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • darthed1981darthed1981 Frets: 11670
    Like I’ve said before, nobody is obliged to agree with my POV. 

    However, that said, regarding the whole house thing, my personal thought process would have gone something like this:

    So I’m gonna buy a house to do the whole YouTube thing. So overheads are going to be massive. Is it affordable? Can I prove a business case for it? Does it work on a business plan?

    If any of the answers to those questions are no, then you need to ask yourself the validity of going ahead with it. 

    Aha! I hear you say, but what if the business plan included said subscription/sponsor service via YouTube?

    Then its a risky business plan as how can you forecast what your subscription uptake will be, and the fact that you’ve factored your subscribers into your business plan paying for the effing house is a bit of a wtf from my perspective. 

    Still, for all my waffle the guy has much more business acumen than me so my opinion is worth zip. But while other businesses are looking to cut costs and reduce overheads, from my point of view, Anderton’s seem to have a nonchalant attitude if the purchase of a house is necessary to churn out a few YouTube vids. 

    Maybe there’s some good tax breaks to be had, I don’t know?

    Again, just my own view, nobody is obliged to agree. 

    Yes, but presumably you only posted your point of view because you were happy to discuss it, which is all we are doing?

    All the stuff about overheads etc. is Lee's problem and his alone.  If he wants to open another income stream with a "premium" tier then he can, nobody is obligated to pay it.

    EVERY business takes advantage of tax breaks, is that bad?

    I thought your earlier post was interesting because you had a problem with "sponsored", so is your issue partly that the business move is sort of phrased as a friendly "come help us cover our costs like a trooper" rather than anything about the decision to use the youtube "sponsorship" mechanism in itself?
    We have to be so very careful, what we believe in...
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • digitalscreamdigitalscream Frets: 26452
    Haych said:

    Aha! I hear you say, but what if the business plan included said subscription/sponsor service via YouTube?

    Then its a risky business plan as how can you forecast what your subscription uptake will be, and the fact that you’ve factored your subscribers into your business plan paying for the effing house is a bit of a wtf from my perspective. 
    Out of curiosity, how many business plans do you suppose are risk-free?
    <space for hire>
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • digitalscreamdigitalscream Frets: 26452
    Jack_ said:

    I'm not a 'blues' player as such, but one of the guys I like, who genuinely seems to be very knowledgable, is 'intheblues'.

    He has built a fanbase, and I've never donated money, but it seems more like this is his career along with his band, and he never seems to go on about money...and just comes across very genuine.

    This appears to be a very British hangup - the idea that asking for money is somehow an underhand or morally corrupt practice (apologies if I've missed your point there).

    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.
    Except in this instance the band makes a good living selling their music but they're asking you to become a patreon because their live DVDs don't break even.
    And what would be wrong with that? If they can see a customer requirement to continue making those DVDs, then offering the outtakes in return for a small extra payment to make it more viable seems...quite sensible to me.
    <space for hire>
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • soma1975soma1975 Frets: 6627
    edited June 2018
    vale said:
    soma1975 said:
    Youtube pretty much only works because it is 'free to air'. I believe people have a concern about this being the thin end of the wedge and if there is tiered youtube service for those with money and those without then that raises some issues.

    I agree with the poster who said Andertons would be far better off scaling back instead of trying to saturate and corner the market and ask for sponsorship, but that's just my opinion. 

    i think the problem is that they are in a nowhere land of trying to define (on the hoof) who they are & what they are trying to do, and to & for whom, and all the while they are flailing around the clock is ticking & the costs are piling up (a microcosm for this whole country atm, but another thread...).

    they used to be a demo channel for a shop. then they tried to be a comedy skit channel (top gear with guitars), now there's a forum & merch.

    my fav youtube channels are either the 'one person in a bedroom talking to camera' kind. they are really the heart & soul & core of what i think makes that medium great. so don't need acces to big resources.
    & then there's educational stuff to do with my science & space interests (conferences & explainers of theories & discoveries). either institutions publishing material or free access tv companies (PBS etc) with little youtube spin offs. so already have acces to big resources.

    the idea of a 'kind of but not' tv company run by 'kind of but not' employees tacked onto a big shop that 'kind of is & yet isn't' benefitting from the whole venture... sounds 'kind of' half-baked.
    Absolutely, and while everyone is talking up Andertons' production values that is only in relation to the guy in his bedroom using his iphone. They are not a TV company and aside from the fact it is a subject we are all interested in, it's not made even to QVC standards and so if they were serious they'd need to invest in people to really help shape the content and have a proper director and camera team. 


    My Trade Feedback Thread is here

    Been uploading old tracks I recorded ages ago and hopefully some new noodles here.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Musicman20Musicman20 Frets: 2296
    edited June 2018

    I'm not a 'blues' player as such, but one of the guys I like, who genuinely seems to be very knowledgable, is 'intheblues'.

    He has built a fanbase, and I've never donated money, but it seems more like this is his career along with his band, and he never seems to go on about money...and just comes across very genuine.

    This appears to be a very British hangup - the idea that asking for money is somehow an underhand or morally corrupt practice (apologies if I've missed your point there).

    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.


    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!

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • guitarfishbayguitarfishbay Frets: 7953
    I don't see what is wrong with this business model.  If anything it's pretty honest and transparent.  It may well end up being the 'sustainable' future of anything arts related.

    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?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Musicman20Musicman20 Frets: 2296

    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.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • EricTheWearyEricTheWeary Frets: 16253
    A lot of you tubers have Patreon or Ko-fi,etc, TSP have a merchandise store. If earning money through YouTube is part of your business then asking for money for additional content seems to be a reasonable part of that - wether the overall content would cease without it or it just pays for Lee Anderton’s holiday villa I guess we may never really know.

    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. 
    Tipton is a small fishing village in the borough of Sandwell. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • guitarfishbayguitarfishbay Frets: 7953

    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.


    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.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • soma1975soma1975 Frets: 6627
    I don't see what is wrong with this business model.  If anything it's pretty honest and transparent. 

    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!




    My Trade Feedback Thread is here

    Been uploading old tracks I recorded ages ago and hopefully some new noodles here.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • guitarfishbayguitarfishbay Frets: 7953
    soma1975 said:
    I don't see what is wrong with this business model.  If anything it's pretty honest and transparent. 

    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!

    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.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Musicman20Musicman20 Frets: 2296
    soma1975 said:
    I don't see what is wrong with this business model.  If anything it's pretty honest and transparent.

    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!




    An interesting take on it...I'd never thought of it that way!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • guitarfishbayguitarfishbay Frets: 7953
    soma1975 said:
    I don't see what is wrong with this business model.  If anything it's pretty honest and transparent.

    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!




    An interesting take on it...I'd never thought of it that way!

    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.

    Please be aware that laws that apply to you may define paid product placements and endorsements differently. Creators and brands are responsible for understanding and fully complying with legal obligations to disclose Paid Promotion in their content according to their jurisdiction, including when and how to disclose and to whom to disclose."

    Yes. As has always been the case, you must notify YouTube by ticking the 'video contains paid promotion' box under 'Content declaration' in your Advanced Settings, using these instructions:
    1. On a computer, sign in to YouTube.
    2. Go to your Video Manager by clicking your account icon > Creator Studio > Video Manager.
    3. Next to the video, select Edit.
    4. Under the video, select the Advanced Settings tab. 
    5. Go to the 'Content declaration' section and tick the box for This video contains paid promotion such as paid product placement, sponsorships or endorsement.

    For information on why you need to notify YouTube, refer to the 'What happens when I tick the 'Content declaration' box?' section."

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • TA22GTTA22GT Frets: 362
    For myself it's hard to know where a line is crossed between advertising your business and wanting to be a celebrity through your business. They are far from alone. It's just about how I can personally accept it.

    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.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • guitarfishbayguitarfishbay Frets: 7953
    Though if I understand this correctly, it would mean telling your viewers would be required depending on where you post it?  So it would need to be a UK change to force it in law?  

    You may need to. Different jurisdictions have various requirements for creators and brands involved in Paid Promotion. 
    Where your content does include Paid Promotion, some jurisdictions and brand partners require you to inform viewers about any commercial relationship that might have influenced or contributed to your content – be that editorially or financially. It's your responsibility to check and comply with laws and regulations around Paid Promotion content that apply to you. See additional resources below."

    ---

    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.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • HaychHaych Frets: 5594
    edited June 2018
    Like I’ve said before, nobody is obliged to agree with my POV. 

    However, that said, regarding the whole house thing, my personal thought process would have gone something like this:

    So I’m gonna buy a house to do the whole YouTube thing. So overheads are going to be massive. Is it affordable? Can I prove a business case for it? Does it work on a business plan?

    If any of the answers to those questions are no, then you need to ask yourself the validity of going ahead with it. 

    Aha! I hear you say, but what if the business plan included said subscription/sponsor service via YouTube?

    Then its a risky business plan as how can you forecast what your subscription uptake will be, and the fact that you’ve factored your subscribers into your business plan paying for the effing house is a bit of a wtf from my perspective. 

    Still, for all my waffle the guy has much more business acumen than me so my opinion is worth zip. But while other businesses are looking to cut costs and reduce overheads, from my point of view, Anderton’s seem to have a nonchalant attitude if the purchase of a house is necessary to churn out a few YouTube vids. 

    Maybe there’s some good tax breaks to be had, I don’t know?

    Again, just my own view, nobody is obliged to agree. 

    Yes, but presumably you only posted your point of view because you were happy to discuss it, which is all we are doing?

    All the stuff about overheads etc. is Lee's problem and his alone.  If he wants to open another income stream with a "premium" tier then he can, nobody is obligated to pay it.

    EVERY business takes advantage of tax breaks, is that bad?

    I thought your earlier post was interesting because you had a problem with "sponsored", so is your issue partly that the business move is sort of phrased as a friendly "come help us cover our costs like a trooper" rather than anything about the decision to use the youtube "sponsorship" mechanism in itself?

    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.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • CirrusCirrus Frets: 8481
    I’ve also just seen a recent ‘Instagram’ musician who is, and I’ll be polite, average but getting better, be sponsored by a big company. 

    No real band, no years of practice and writing songs, no slogging it at gigs etc. 

    But, the lady has struck gold. She will no doubt improve, but, and I hate to say it, the ‘like’ brigade is mainly men. The less I say the better, but I think you can see what I mean. Presentation over pure talent. A disappointing way music has gone.
    In a shocking twist, someone on the Fretboard uses a thread to complain about a woman who's more successful than he is in a post barely related to the topic at hand.  :# :3
    3reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • soma1975soma1975 Frets: 6627
    edited June 2018
    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 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?   
    My Trade Feedback Thread is here

    Been uploading old tracks I recorded ages ago and hopefully some new noodles here.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.