Are these Vloggers just a scam? SOL or Shmee etc???????

[Beefmeister]

technodup said:

Beanbob said:

I have Adblock for Youtube installed. I haven't seen an advert on Youtube for months!

Innit. Who the fk actually watches YT adverts?

Yeah, how dare they take 20 or 30 seconds of your time before giving you 10-15 minutes of FREE F**KING CONTENT.

So typical of people these days, choose to watch things that they get for free and then complain about it.

[anonymous-user]

w8pmc said:

A good point. It's more the thousands of kids now who appear to have i guess seen this as a way to get rich quick. Perhaps that's just my pessimistic view point, but every event involving Supercars at Brunters, their must be at least 100 youngsters armed with GoPro's parked up at the entrance.

This.

And that's why some of us feel the way the majority of the succesful crop under discussion portary themselves is somewhat disingenuous. Nonetless doesnt detract from their efforts or whether one does or doesn't enjoy the content

[anonymous-user]

Beefmeister said:

Yeah, how dare they take 20 or 30 seconds of your time before giving you 10-15 minutes of FREE F**KING CONTENT.

So typical of people these days, choose to watch things that they get for free and then complain about it.

On this we are fully agreed.

[AyBee]

Shmee said:

One of the main things that I have said before in this thread, is that for me this pure Google AdSense income through YouTube actually only represents something like 1/4 or 1/3 of my Shmee150 income stream, and as important as it is; if it loses 10-20% or so that is not huge in the bigger picture as we look to expand other avenues to continuing growing.

Feel free not to respond to this, but are the other 2/3-3/4 of your revenue still advertising related, i.e. products/endorsements, or are they completely different to YT, i.e. sourcing cars for others?

[Petrolhead95]

RSK21 said:

Beefmeister said:

Yeah, how dare they take 20 or 30 seconds of your time before giving you 10-15 minutes of FREE F**KING CONTENT.

So typical of people these days, choose to watch things that they get for free and then complain about it.

On this we are fully agreed.

Does that still count for the ads that you can skip? Not sure how it all works on YouTube with advertising.

[InitialDave]

Petrolhead95 said:

Does that still count for the ads that you can skip? Not sure how it all works on YouTube with advertising.

Generally, if my understanding is correct, is that a view is a view in terms of adverts. While audience retention is a metric for videos etc, the adverts pat you for having them put in front of you. Whether you skip them or close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, it's all the same.

However, I don't know if there's a difference in payment for skippable vs unskippable ads, or for front-loaded ads as opposed to interstitial ones.

Someone clicking through an advert to whoever it is, or making a purchase through the link, can bolster your payment, I believe.

[technodup]

Beefmeister said:

technodup said:

Beanbob said:

I have Adblock for Youtube installed. I haven't seen an advert on Youtube for months!

Innit. Who the fk actually watches YT adverts?

Yeah, how dare they take 20 or 30 seconds of your time before giving you 10-15 minutes of FREE F**KING CONTENT.

Shout all you like, I for one simply couldn't give a fk.

I didn't ask for them to make 'content', free or otherwise. I have little interest in said content, even less in the ads. And there are other ways to monetise such content, which they all admit or allude to being the primary source of income anyway.

I'm not a regular viewer and I've seen enough Dub Customs placements/promotions/adverts to last me a lifetime. And to ensure, by dint of the type of bawbag who is impressed by such association that I'd never use them anyway.

There are reasons things are free. They are either of little value (tick) or because actually you are the product, rather than the content (tick). No thanks.

[CityS]

AyBee said:

Feel free not to respond to this, but are the other 2/3-3/4 of your revenue still advertising related, i.e. products/endorsements, or are they completely different to YT, i.e. sourcing cars for others?

He has said something about it. Facebook/Instagram is a significant source of revenue that competes with Google platform. Still I haven't figured out how to monetize Facebook & Instagram though.

Then there is promotions and sponsored content like Trading212 etc.

Lately I prefer to watch Misha's vlogs rather than Tim's videos. Easier to figure out their business models and activities plus some mod & track action.

There are also many new car youtubers that started within the last 2 years and they upload way better content (imo) than Tim, SOL, STG & Seb (very repetitive content this year) but their views are like 2k-10k per video (and therefore they don't pop up easily in the recommended videos section.)

[AOK]

InitialDave said:

Generally, if my understanding is correct, is that a view is a view in terms of adverts. While audience retention is a metric for videos etc, the adverts pat you for having them put in front of you. Whether you skip them or close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, it's all the same.

However, I don't know if there's a difference in payment for skippable vs unskippable ads, or for front-loaded ads as opposed to interstitial ones.

I'd be interested to find out a definitive answer to this, as I often find myself purposefully choosing not to skip through skippable adverts if I like the YouTuber and thus want them to earn.

If skipping makes zero difference then I'll probably correct this habit!

[SuperchargedVR6]

benjijames28 said:

All i know is every other fking YouTube video has a advert at the start. It's starting to do my head in to the point that i might stop using YouTube.

Apparently Americans can pay for a service that makes their account as free. If this service comes to the UK i will sign up.

I don't find adverts that annoying on YouTube - I can just look away from the screen - but adverts on music streaming services like Soundcloud are harder to ignore. Bloody annoying when listening to mates' DJ sets on a playlist, and there's adverts for windows and feckin doors, or landscaping services after every track. But for a mere £9.99 a month, you can turn them off.

£120 a year just to turn adverts off. It smacks of a Bond villain putting something in free water for years, and then suddenly selling us the antidote for £9.99 a month.

Double sigh and c'est la vie. Everyone is just a cash cow at the end of the day, and all these once-free cloud services will be tugging good and hard on our udders soon. No wonder these dodgy channels acquired through 'Kodi' boxes are gaining popularity.

[Purso]

ha, I do the same

[anonymous-user]

SuperchargedVR6 said:

I don't find adverts that annoying on YouTube - I can just look away from the screen - but adverts on music streaming services like Soundcloud are harder to ignore. Bloody annoying when listening to mates' DJ sets on a playlist, and there's adverts for windows and feckin doors, or landscaping services after every track. But for a mere £9.99 a month, you can turn them off.

£120 a year just to turn adverts off. It smacks of a Bond villain putting something in free water for years, and then suddenly selling us the antidote for £9.99 a month.

Double sigh and c'est la vie. Everyone is just a cash cow at the end of the day, and all these once-free cloud services will be tugging good and hard on our udders soon. No wonder these dodgy channels acquired through 'Kodi' boxes are gaining popularity.

I just don't understand that train of thought.

Whether it's your mate's dj set or not something has to fund the infrastructure that affords you the opportunity to listen.

[technodup]

I see Spotify as completely different. The ad every half hour is fine with me. It's actually interesting to me to see who is using it as a medium.

The basic point though is that clearly I value the content more highly than boring vloggers droning on about carbon this and that.

[VGTICE]

I wouldn't mind paying for a subscription to youtube. I'm getting 1000000x more out of it than what I get out of the brainwashing machine called the telly for which I pay 150 quid every year.

[SuperchargedVR6]

RSK21 said:

SuperchargedVR6 said:

I don't find adverts that annoying on YouTube - I can just look away from the screen - but adverts on music streaming services like Soundcloud are harder to ignore. Bloody annoying when listening to mates' DJ sets on a playlist, and there's adverts for windows and feckin doors, or landscaping services after every track. But for a mere £9.99 a month, you can turn them off.

£120 a year just to turn adverts off. It smacks of a Bond villain putting something in free water for years, and then suddenly selling us the antidote for £9.99 a month.

Double sigh and c'est la vie. Everyone is just a cash cow at the end of the day, and all these once-free cloud services will be tugging good and hard on our udders soon. No wonder these dodgy channels acquired through 'Kodi' boxes are gaining popularity.

I just don't understand that train of thought.

Whether it's your mate's dj set or not something has to fund the infrastructure that affords you the opportunity to listen.

I get what you're saying, and £5 month is fair enough, but a tenner? Soundcloud was free for years, so why all of a sudden throw adverts up and the antidote advert dumping for £9.99 a month? New management wanting a slice of the Youtube action?

[MDL111]

technodup said:

Beefmeister said:

technodup said:

Beanbob said:

I have Adblock for Youtube installed. I haven't seen an advert on Youtube for months!

Innit. Who the fk actually watches YT adverts?

Yeah, how dare they take 20 or 30 seconds of your time before giving you 10-15 minutes of FREE F**KING CONTENT.

Shout all you like, I for one simply couldn't give a fk.

I didn't ask for them to make 'content', free or otherwise. I have little interest in said content, even less in the ads. And there are other ways to monetise such content, which they all admit or allude to being the primary source of income anyway.

I'm not a regular viewer and I've seen enough Dub Customs placements/promotions/adverts to last me a lifetime. And to ensure, by dint of the type of bawbag who is impressed by such association that I'd never use them anyway.

There are reasons things are free. They are either of little value (tick) or because actually you are the product, rather than the content (tick). No thanks.

Well you still want to watch the content though - I assume you don't watch stuff you don't want to watch - so for them to actually make money of sth that interests you seems only fair ...

I assume you are being paid for the work you do and don't work for free

[DonkeyApple]

SuperchargedVR6 said:

RSK21 said:

SuperchargedVR6 said:

I don't find adverts that annoying on YouTube - I can just look away from the screen - but adverts on music streaming services like Soundcloud are harder to ignore. Bloody annoying when listening to mates' DJ sets on a playlist, and there's adverts for windows and feckin doors, or landscaping services after every track. But for a mere £9.99 a month, you can turn them off.

£120 a year just to turn adverts off. It smacks of a Bond villain putting something in free water for years, and then suddenly selling us the antidote for £9.99 a month.

Double sigh and c'est la vie. Everyone is just a cash cow at the end of the day, and all these once-free cloud services will be tugging good and hard on our udders soon. No wonder these dodgy channels acquired through 'Kodi' boxes are gaining popularity.

I just don't understand that train of thought.

Whether it's your mate's dj set or not something has to fund the infrastructure that affords you the opportunity to listen.

I get what you're saying, and £5 month is fair enough, but a tenner? Soundcloud was free for years, so why all of a sudden throw adverts up and the antidote advert dumping for £9.99 a month? New management wanting a slice of the Youtube action?

Usually these enterprises work along the lines of the pretty standard Silicon Valley business model. They will burn through investors' cash to acquire a big enough user base to then get bought out by one of the FANGS. If that buyout doesn't appear then they start losing their ability to raise funds and ultimately switch to one of the regular fee models.

A really good business to look at for one of these models is PhotoBucket. They actually use the advertising model to push users into paying to be rid of a highly intrusive system or leave. This highlights that not all advertising is done to raise revenue from actual advertising but to steer people into either becoming customers or moving on.

Ultimately the fundamental problem of the public internet is that there is no standardised payment system so firms are all scrabbling around trying to find the system that works.

[technodup]

MDL111 said:

Well you still want to watch the content though - I assume you don't watch stuff you don't want to watch - so for them to actually make money of sth that interests you seems only fair ...

To you maybe. Like millions of other Adblock users I don't care. Make content, don't make content, I'll survive just fine.

It's not limited to car vlogs or YT either btw. I switched Adblock off the other day and the web is pretty much unusable. There are better ways of generating revenue online than intrusive ads.

[Shmee]

InitialDave said:

As for finding out what you need to do to "play the game" going forward, do you have a method for that? Try and analyse which videos have really killed it in terms of views, and what factors they have in common?

Once you hit a certain size, is it worth contracting someone to crunch that kind of data for you?

It's a vast amount of trial and error, there simply doesn't seem to be much logic behind the changes regularly! I've recently seen this which touched interestingly on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky9aNneumIk

If the right person came along who seemed like they knew what was going on, I'd consider hiring them to help on the topic but I'm not sure anybody can really understand the detail behind the scenes outside of those who run channels themselves and spend significant time on it.

benjijames28 said:

Apparently Americans can pay for a service that makes their account as free. If this service comes to the UK i will sign up.

That's YouTube Red; it pays the content creator more per view than they get on regular adverts and comes at a reasonable price for users too. I wish we had it here and I would personally be using it too.

Truckosaurus said:

I think it is still possible for a newcomer to 'break through' if they can offer something new/different/interesting to make themselves stand out from the crowd.

This is a hugely interesting topic; and I very much like how you summed it up. The challenge for somebody trying to do so is that to get to the 'same level' not only does the growth have to match that of current channels but it actually needs to substantially exceed to even get close to catching up one day.

The latest channel that has done well in the supercar sphere is MrJWW; he started approximately 18 months ago and now sits at 230k subs, receiving around 3m views a month. James is brilliant on camera, great at the creativity side, and he's an all around nice guy - but the way he has done this isn't something that just anybody could duplicate, and that would be assuming they started 18 months ago when it was technically easier to do than it would be now. James had the successful background allowing him to have access to the lifestyle and the cars, he had contacts and friends in the field already such as myself and SeenThroughGlass, but most importantly his existing contact list has been critical to the access he has had and ability to create amazing and unique videos. I think his network was greater before he even started than mine at the time.

w8pmc said:

A good point. It's more the thousands of kids now who appear to have i guess seen this as a way to get rich quick. Perhaps that's just my pessimistic view point, but every event involving Supercars at Brunters, their must be at least 100 youngsters armed with GoPro's parked up at the entrance.

Thank you for your kind words before.

I don't quite understand the misconception that making a YouTube channel is a 'get rich quick' scheme, or at least why PH perceives it that way. I don't think the youngsters posting photos or videos on social media are even remotely impacted by the financial side, they are doing it for the fun of growing an audience, interacting with people, and sharing the love of cars. I'm sure there are a few after the cash in the back pocket but I don't think anybody who did it purely with that angle has got anywhere because they wouldn't have the enthusiasm to do it all day, 365 days a year.

Not specifically at your comment at all, but in general because it comes up a lot; I certainly believe in my case I have been very clear in all of my Q&A videos since the beginning of time with this that I got into nice cars (S5 Cab and V8 Vantage) when I worked in a serious office job. Then combining YouTube and the growth of everything connected to it I have upgraded consistently since. I'm not going to lie and pretend the cars come from somewhere else because literally the value of my garage increases in direct correlation to my Shmee150 income - hence why it's booming right now because things are going well. The Vanquish for example was a spontaneous decision after a good start to the year.

eric twinge said:

anyway, I watched the David Brown Mini vid the other night, the first Shmee content I watched all the way through and thoroughly enjoyed it. Looked good fun but cannot imagine buying one, even if I had the financial clout to do so.
So a good video and I am sure I will check out a few more.

Thank you, I really like that car and what it stands for - just a shame it's so expensive.

AyBee said:

Feel free not to respond to this, but are the other 2/3-3/4 of your revenue still advertising related, i.e. products/endorsements, or are they completely different to YT, i.e. sourcing cars for others?

On the whole the entire model is advertising, endorsement or affiliate based and a quick but not fully exhaustive list includes: other AdSense sites, content licensing, merchandise, book sales, branded content, affiliate links on social, personal introductions/affiliates, sponsorships, social promotions, social advisory, event marketing, appearances, etc

InitialDave said:

Generally, if my understanding is correct, is that a view is a view in terms of adverts. While audience retention is a metric for videos etc, the adverts pat you for having them put in front of you. Whether you skip them or close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, it's all the same.

However, I don't know if there's a difference in payment for skippable vs unskippable ads, or for front-loaded ads as opposed to interstitial ones.

Someone clicking through an advert to whoever it is, or making a purchase through the link, can bolster your payment, I believe.

The system that calculates what a view is worth is exceedingly complicated; and it is hugely impacted by whether the ad is clicked, just watched in full, or skipped at various stages. If an ad is skipped at 5 seconds or soon after then the advertiser is not charged for that ad showing at all.

It actually gets more complicated before even that stage because the advert you see is chosen through then live AdSense auction based on who it thinks is viewing the video in the first place (YouTube history, browsing history in general, the content you're watching etc).

Unskippable ads pay out at a huge rate vs skippable - it is many multiples but most ad campaigns running these are limited in total impressions per given time period.

[thecremeegg]

I'm waiting on any of these youtubers to say that a car they drive isn't "Amazing" or similar - not sure I've heard any of them ever say ANYTHING bad about a car just in case the manufacturers stop paying for them to go on jaunts