Are these Vloggers just a scam? SOL or Shmee etc???????
Discussion
ZesPak said:
treetops said:
Believe me it's a jolly jape, brands are absolute suckers for digital. Did you know a video view on Facebook is 2 seconds, yup it's 2 seconds and you won't even get sound. On YouTube a video view is anywhere between 10 and 25 seconds no one is too sure and YouTube won't say. On Twitter a video view is counted as appearing on your screen! If that's not scam my I don't know what is. Advertisers get told this that and the other, they pay the money. I could go on, have a look at "ad contrarian" - Google it, or look up videos by a guy called Mark Ritson. Digital is really not all it purports to be.
Before that, you paid the publisher per magazine sold.
Think about it.
treetops said:
At least you knew the advert would have a better chance of your ad being seen and the figures could be justified.
I thought you were being a bit of a luddite but now I see you're just taking the piss 
.You had me going there for a moment.
The story stays the same. You have very little control and very little feeling. What is a "sale"?
The only way to go at this is by seeing, where possible, if an ad campaign works.
Also, Facebook and Google's task is not to show your ad as much as possible. It's to show it to the right people at the right time.
I can honestly say, using a lot of google products, that ads don't affect me much. I don't think I've ever bought something because of an online ad.
Except... trailers. If I get shown a movie trailer that interests me, there's a good chance I go see the movie. Even for google that's hard to check but not out of their scope I'd say. Then the next day, if I would be shown the ad to a movie I've just seen, that's not a good view. If they know I've already seen it, show me another movie,...
I used to read magazines like National Geographic, it was filled with very expensive watches for example. Now who reads this? Kids interested in nature, maybe some treehuggers. How many of the readers can afford a 15k watch?
I honestly don't think there's much difference between how it used to be in magazines. In fact, I even think businesses now have more control and can do more with a lower budget. Not because the times their ad is displayed, but because it's displayed at the right time. This is not because Google is the "good guy", no, it benefits everyone.
Your ad gets shown less, but more effectively.
Google can distribute it's "air time", generating more clicks per ad shown.
The viewer gets shown ads that interest them.
It's a win win win.
Edited by ZesPak on Wednesday 3rd August 10:10
Shmee said:
It's a balance of quality versus quantity
When Chris Harris was doing his Chris Harris on Cars vids on Youtube they were fantastic. Great cars, great footage and production by Neil Carey but because they took so long to make and edit they were quite infrequent. There is just no way you could do stuff of that quality every week and a lot of people were moaning about his lack of content.In contrast it's quite easy for Shmee to park his car somewhere quiet, get his handicam out and talk into it for ten minutes. Sometimes interesting but not what anyone would call high quality but I suppose at least he can get stuff on line quickly and regularly to keep people interested.
Some of the facebook stuff posted though is just quantity and no quality at all. Post a pic of 2 cars 'which do you prefer, left or right?'. Post a pic of a Barry'd up 458 'What do you think of this Novo Liberty-Walk Rosso Mansory Kahn Largo 458MC2?' Real crap click bait stuff for the kids but all getting views I suppose.
ZesPak said:
treetops said:
At least you knew the advert would have a better chance of your ad being seen and the figures could be justified.
I thought you were being a bit of a luddite but now I see you're just taking the piss .You had me going there for a moment.
The story stays the same. You have very little control and very little feeling. What is a "sale"?
The only way to go at this is by seeing, where possible, if an ad campaign works.
Also, Facebook and Google's task is not to show your ad as much as possible. It's to show it to the right people at the right time.
I can honestly say, using a lot of google products, that ads don't affect me much. I don't think I've ever bought something because of an online ad.
Except... trailers. If I get shown a movie trailer that interests me, there's a good chance I go see the movie. Even for google that's hard to check but not out of their scope I'd say. Then the next day, if I would be shown the ad to a movie I've just seen, that's not a good view. If they know I've already seen it, show me another movie,...
I used to read magazines like National Geographic, it was filled with very expensive watches for example. Now who reads this? Kids interested in nature, maybe some treehuggers. How many of the readers can afford a 15k watch?
I honestly don't think there's much difference between how it used to be in magazines. In fact, I even think businesses now have more control and can do more with a lower budget. Not because the times their ad is displayed, but because it's displayed at the right time. This is not because Google is the "good guy", no, it benefits everyone.
Your ad gets shown less, but more effectively.
Google can distribute it's "air time", generating more clicks per ad shown.
The viewer gets shown ads that interest them.
It's a win win win.
Edited by ZesPak on Wednesday 3rd August 10:10
The issue is that for the vast majority of the time the ads we are served are wasted on us, a fraction might be relevant but as you point out you like most people don't click most of them.
Online advertising is annoying, intrusive and is wrecking our online experience. It's not just me saying it, hugely well known and experienced industry figures are as well.
The sooner people open their eyes the better.
treetops said:
You just know when someone says luddite that they are writing off traditional advertising. NO great brands were built on a social or digital strategy. Except perhaps Oreos but that's a one off.
I'm not here to defend online as for the most part I agree with you, but you're thinking of offline brands. I don't remember Facebook, Youtube or Twitter doing much in the way of traditional above the line stuff.Davey S2 said:
Some of the facebook stuff posted though is just quantity and no quality at all. Post a pic of 2 cars 'which do you prefer, left or right?'. Post a pic of a Barry'd up 458 'What do you think of this Novo Liberty-Walk Rosso Mansory Kahn Largo 458MC2?' Real crap click bait stuff for the kids but all getting views I suppose.
I follow Shmee's YouTube channel but unliked the Facebook page because it just became full of crap usually copied from elsewhere that was clogging up my feed.evenflow said:
treetops said:
NO great brands were built on a social or digital strategy. Except perhaps Oreos but that's a one off.
Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Pokemon Go...Look around your supermarket nothing in there was built by a social or digital strategy.
No car makers were built on it.
Virtually nothing you can buy was built on one.
But the fact is brands spend stupid amounts of money on digital to achieve what? It's totally over blown.
Facebook video never ceases to amaze me that a view can be counted as 2 seconds without even sound, these numbers are being added up and used as a sales tool to sell more video, it's just laughable!
treetops said:
I'm talking about goods you can buy, not search engines, or social platforms.
Look around your supermarket nothing in there was built by a social or digital strategy.
No car makers were built on it.
Virtually nothing you can buy was built on one.
But the fact is brands spend stupid amounts of money on digital to achieve what? It's totally over blown.
Facebook video never ceases to amaze me that a view can be counted as 2 seconds without even sound, these numbers are being added up and used as a sales tool to sell more video, it's just laughable!
apple, their whole empire has been built on the back of itunes and later on messaging and facetime (messaging is getting a huge boost in iOS10)Look around your supermarket nothing in there was built by a social or digital strategy.
No car makers were built on it.
Virtually nothing you can buy was built on one.
But the fact is brands spend stupid amounts of money on digital to achieve what? It's totally over blown.
Facebook video never ceases to amaze me that a view can be counted as 2 seconds without even sound, these numbers are being added up and used as a sales tool to sell more video, it's just laughable!
car makers are dinosaurs running 5 - 10 years behind 'current tech' but there is a big move socially away from TV and printed media with a lot of people actively avoiding advertising (I stopped watching traditional TV 3 years ago) so they try to go where they think the customers are
Dave Hedgehog said:
Butter Face said:
Oh Shmee, those T Shirts.
Car looks ace. T Shirts, errrrrr not so much.
your an out of touch old fogey, limited run T's of questionable designs offer a nice boost to revenue streams and have been popular for a long time especially on twitch Car looks ace. T Shirts, errrrrr not so much.
Davey S2 said:
When Chris Harris was doing his Chris Harris on Cars vids on Youtube they were fantastic. Great cars, great footage and production by Neil Carey but because they took so long to make and edit they were quite infrequent. There is just no way you could do stuff of that quality every week and a lot of people were moaning about his lack of content.
In contrast it's quite easy for Shmee to park his car somewhere quiet, get his handicam out and talk into it for ten minutes. Sometimes interesting but not what anyone would call high quality but I suppose at least he can get stuff on line quickly and regularly to keep people interested.
Some of the facebook stuff posted though is just quantity and no quality at all. Post a pic of 2 cars 'which do you prefer, left or right?'. Post a pic of a Barry'd up 458 'What do you think of this Novo Liberty-Walk Rosso Mansory Kahn Largo 458MC2?' Real crap click bait stuff for the kids but all getting views I suppose.
I always thought Chris should have done a weekly one take video like the Smoking Tire and a weekly/monthly news video, but as he has moved onto bigger and better things he was obviously doing something right.In contrast it's quite easy for Shmee to park his car somewhere quiet, get his handicam out and talk into it for ten minutes. Sometimes interesting but not what anyone would call high quality but I suppose at least he can get stuff on line quickly and regularly to keep people interested.
Some of the facebook stuff posted though is just quantity and no quality at all. Post a pic of 2 cars 'which do you prefer, left or right?'. Post a pic of a Barry'd up 458 'What do you think of this Novo Liberty-Walk Rosso Mansory Kahn Largo 458MC2?' Real crap click bait stuff for the kids but all getting views I suppose.
treetops said:
I'm talking about goods you can buy, not search engines, or social platforms.
Look around your supermarket nothing in there was built by a social or digital strategy.
No car makers were built on it.
Virtually nothing you can buy was built on one.
But the fact is brands spend stupid amounts of money on digital to achieve what? It's totally over blown.
Facebook video never ceases to amaze me that a view can be counted as 2 seconds without even sound, these numbers are being added up and used as a sales tool to sell more video, it's just laughable!
Tesla? Most of their reach has to have come from online presence. Granted they are small compared to say VW, but they are rapidly growing.Look around your supermarket nothing in there was built by a social or digital strategy.
No car makers were built on it.
Virtually nothing you can buy was built on one.
But the fact is brands spend stupid amounts of money on digital to achieve what? It's totally over blown.
Facebook video never ceases to amaze me that a view can be counted as 2 seconds without even sound, these numbers are being added up and used as a sales tool to sell more video, it's just laughable!
Dave Hedgehog said:
treetops said:
I'm talking about goods you can buy, not search engines, or social platforms.
Look around your supermarket nothing in there was built by a social or digital strategy.
No car makers were built on it.
Virtually nothing you can buy was built on one.
But the fact is brands spend stupid amounts of money on digital to achieve what? It's totally over blown.
Facebook video never ceases to amaze me that a view can be counted as 2 seconds without even sound, these numbers are being added up and used as a sales tool to sell more video, it's just laughable!
apple, their whole empire has been built on the back of itunes and later on messaging and facetime (messaging is getting a huge boost in iOS10)Look around your supermarket nothing in there was built by a social or digital strategy.
No car makers were built on it.
Virtually nothing you can buy was built on one.
But the fact is brands spend stupid amounts of money on digital to achieve what? It's totally over blown.
Facebook video never ceases to amaze me that a view can be counted as 2 seconds without even sound, these numbers are being added up and used as a sales tool to sell more video, it's just laughable!
car makers are dinosaurs running 5 - 10 years behind 'current tech' but there is a big move socially away from TV and printed media with a lot of people actively avoiding advertising (I stopped watching traditional TV 3 years ago) so they try to go where they think the customers are
Also as of 2014 Apple had virtually no presence on either Facebook or Twitter.
They didn't need it as their fans did it for them, and they had a decent product. They never used social media to build anything, nor much advertising either.
Dave Hedgehog said:
apple, their whole empire has been built on the back of itunes and later on messaging and facetime (messaging is getting a huge boost in iOS10)
car makers are dinosaurs running 5 - 10 years behind 'current tech' but there is a big move socially away from TV and printed media with a lot of people actively avoiding advertising (I stopped watching traditional TV 3 years ago) so they try to go where they think the customers are
Surely a really large part of the target market is blocking ads on pretty much any device? OK, I work in the technology industry, but everyone I know runs an ad blocker, of varying levels of capability. My company blocks ads on the corporate network. I would also guess that the use of ad blockers is skewed towards the younger and more affluent generations, which are precisely the people advertisers presumably want to target. 20% of people in the UK block ads (2015 data) and the growth rate was 82% (2015 data). car makers are dinosaurs running 5 - 10 years behind 'current tech' but there is a big move socially away from TV and printed media with a lot of people actively avoiding advertising (I stopped watching traditional TV 3 years ago) so they try to go where they think the customers are
The stated reasons for ad blocking should be incredibly alarming for advertisers and companies. #1 is surprisingly not "I don't want to look at ads". It is "I don't trust you with my personal data". In other words, the more you target me, the more you personalise the ads to me .... the more you add to my concerns. Oh dear.
I've seen quite a bit of industry commentary about how the ad blocking blockers will regain control, indeed some commentators claiming that it is inevitable that publishers will win this particular arms race - unfortunately for them, it took me about 5 minutes to sketch out a provably undetectable approach to blocking, and there are some much smarter people in this business than me.
If I pick up a car magazine, with a printed ad in it for Ford, I will see the ad, I may not read it, but presumably it will register. Ford may be advertising to me right now on my laptop - I literally have no idea if they are or not.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff