Are these Vloggers just a scam? SOL or Shmee etc???????
Discussion
Delanney turning up randomly on Tanner Fox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJnbOi77PkM
Brooking10 said:
Yep
He's a piece of work and no mistake.
Old man sells business for many millions and son sets himself up as a trading and property genius complete with "you too can be like me if you just sign up to this course I'm selling" schtick.
I despise people like that.
Interestingly I watched that video and saw the platform he was using was IG.com, yet hes recommending another thats very dishonest to recommend something you dont use.He's a piece of work and no mistake.
Old man sells business for many millions and son sets himself up as a trading and property genius complete with "you too can be like me if you just sign up to this course I'm selling" schtick.
I despise people like that.
SJK said:
Brooking10 said:
Yep
He's a piece of work and no mistake.
Old man sells business for many millions and son sets himself up as a trading and property genius complete with "you too can be like me if you just sign up to this course I'm selling" schtick.
I despise people like that.
Interestingly I watched that video and saw the platform he was using was IG.com, yet hes recommending another thats very dishonest to recommend something you dont use.He's a piece of work and no mistake.
Old man sells business for many millions and son sets himself up as a trading and property genius complete with "you too can be like me if you just sign up to this course I'm selling" schtick.
I despise people like that.
How so many of these so called traders actually make any money.
YouTube as a career? Casey Neistat tells it how it is - https://youtu.be/xyVdZrL3Sbo
Only a short video without the usual stylised cinematography, but he makes some good points.
Create content for the love of the chosen subject, not the perceived financial rewards.
Only a short video without the usual stylised cinematography, but he makes some good points.
Create content for the love of the chosen subject, not the perceived financial rewards.
Edited by S11Steve on Saturday 3rd March 11:04
Beefmeister said:
johnwilliams77 said:
Beefmeister said:
I think the lesson has been learned following the negative feedback. They don't do it any more.
Didn’t think they cared what the PH masses thought since we are such a tiny minority but I seem to remember the entire comments section littered with negativity?I've removed all my videos (well made them private) as I no longer meet the Youtube requirements for monetisation.
I didn't make a lot, few hundred quid a year, but I'm not leaving my content there for Youtube to use with no benefit to myself.
Maybe when I CBA to make some more stuff I'll put it back on but meh.
I didn't make a lot, few hundred quid a year, but I'm not leaving my content there for Youtube to use with no benefit to myself.
Maybe when I CBA to make some more stuff I'll put it back on but meh.
Shmee said:
The topic had been quite an interesting discussion, I likened it to how about 75% of the teams in the Premier League are sponsored by gambling websites which presumably caused as much offense in football forums when it first started. I will add however that I never, ever suggested those under 18 should get involved, not only would that be illegal but also the age statistics of my YouTube audience were around 3% under 18s at the time.
It's a calculation analysis that a business has to do; if £x was the same between two companies and one of them you suspected would have this reaction then obviously you'd go the other way. If one was £x and the other was £10x, you're going to have to think about it. If you always chase the money and are ignorant of your audience's reaction and perception then it will ultimately backfire, but you can calculate a balance behind this and determine on a case by case basis if it's the right choice.
I think the type of advert also makes a difference. The equivalent of a footballer wearing a shirt with a sponsors logo on it would probably be you displaying a small logo in the corner of your video.It's a calculation analysis that a business has to do; if £x was the same between two companies and one of them you suspected would have this reaction then obviously you'd go the other way. If one was £x and the other was £10x, you're going to have to think about it. If you always chase the money and are ignorant of your audience's reaction and perception then it will ultimately backfire, but you can calculate a balance behind this and determine on a case by case basis if it's the right choice.
Those videos really came across as a personal endorsement for the product, not just from you, but also from your friends. They stood out because you don’t typically carry those sort of adverts and the unscripted nature meant it was difficult to tell where the video ended and the advert began.
From an advertisers perspective, I would imagine that they were far more powerful and therefore valuable. I think that’s part of the difference.
If it were legal, and they offered a lot of money, would you accept sponsorship from a tobacco company?
I’m just trying to find out if your personal ethics have a bearing on the decision or whether it’s just a question of the finances and the likely audience reaction.
Edited by AJB1971 on Saturday 3rd March 11:31
Of course personal ethics play a part, but again it's a case by case basis.
Smoking is a pretty unique example, I've never even had a cigarette touch my lips in my life so that's quite a particular thing I wouldn't support. However, when I was a teenager I played with many demo trading sites (before the days of Apps) and learned a lot by doing so - even though I never threw in signifanct money at any point since. I've also been known to place small bets on football matches and experimented with online casinos.
When it comes to public reaction, although it wasn't entirely positive on YouTube, it also wasn't the most negative thing I've seen either. It's a particular audience here on Pistonheads that specifically despised it which gives the perception of a much wider spread issue when in fact its down to these specific demographics (the same general idea as financing a car for example - how could you possibly do that!).
Smoking is a pretty unique example, I've never even had a cigarette touch my lips in my life so that's quite a particular thing I wouldn't support. However, when I was a teenager I played with many demo trading sites (before the days of Apps) and learned a lot by doing so - even though I never threw in signifanct money at any point since. I've also been known to place small bets on football matches and experimented with online casinos.
When it comes to public reaction, although it wasn't entirely positive on YouTube, it also wasn't the most negative thing I've seen either. It's a particular audience here on Pistonheads that specifically despised it which gives the perception of a much wider spread issue when in fact its down to these specific demographics (the same general idea as financing a car for example - how could you possibly do that!).
I think gambling will be the next thing that authorities target. The anti-gambling lobby is growing.
Particularly in football. Next season, you could turn on the TV to watch Stoke City playing Unibet sponsored Aston Villa at the Bet365 stadium in the Sky Bet Championship. The half-time adverts will be dominated by in-game betting promotions.
Gambling firms do seem to dominate advertising at the moment!
Particularly in football. Next season, you could turn on the TV to watch Stoke City playing Unibet sponsored Aston Villa at the Bet365 stadium in the Sky Bet Championship. The half-time adverts will be dominated by in-game betting promotions.
Gambling firms do seem to dominate advertising at the moment!
Do any of the vloggers have an I-Pace video??
Given Mr JWW had a ride in the concept 11 months ago... perhaps jag want their own content out there first before they give it to the influencers...
https://youtu.be/xVahSvWpnyo
Given Mr JWW had a ride in the concept 11 months ago... perhaps jag want their own content out there first before they give it to the influencers...
https://youtu.be/xVahSvWpnyo
Edited by Glade on Saturday 3rd March 12:43
Butter Face said:
I've removed all my videos (well made them private) as I no longer meet the Youtube requirements for monetisation.
I didn't make a lot, few hundred quid a year, but I'm not leaving my content there for Youtube to use with no benefit to myself.
Maybe when I CBA to make some more stuff I'll put it back on but meh.
Isn't that a bit self-defeating? You can only meet the monetisation requirement by people watching and subscribing, so the way to do it is to put up more.I didn't make a lot, few hundred quid a year, but I'm not leaving my content there for Youtube to use with no benefit to myself.
Maybe when I CBA to make some more stuff I'll put it back on but meh.
As for the "not leaving my content there for Youtube to use with no benefit to myself", sorry, that's kind of silly. it's a free-to-use site that allows you to stream HD and 4K video about anything you want to an audience of millions around the world. Again: for free. Letting them make a couple of quid from bunging an advert on it every now and then is an absolute bargain for that.
Make the content you want to make, because you want to make it. If you stick it up on Youtube and if other people want to watch it, you'll get back up above the monetisation plimsoll line.
Youtube are not even close to perfect, and I disagree with a lot of stuff they do, have done, and no doubt a chunk of what they'll do in the future (look at Jon fron Tyre Reviews' situation a few posts back) - but the idea that they owe anyone who uploads anything a chunk of the advertising revenue that pays for the site to exist is unreasonable. I appreciate that going from being in the monetisation scheme to not, even if it wasn't that much money, feels like a bit of an insult, but the best solution is to just shrug and get on with it because you want to make videos.
Shmee said:
Of course personal ethics play a part, but again it's a case by case basis.
Smoking is a pretty unique example, I've never even had a cigarette touch my lips in my life so that's quite a particular thing I wouldn't support. However, when I was a teenager I played with many demo trading sites (before the days of Apps) and learned a lot by doing so - even though I never threw in signifanct money at any point since. I've also been known to place small bets on football matches and experimented with online casinos.
When it comes to public reaction, although it wasn't entirely positive on YouTube, it also wasn't the most negative thing I've seen either. It's a particular audience here on Pistonheads that specifically despised it which gives the perception of a much wider spread issue when in fact its down to these specific demographics (the same general idea as financing a car for example - how could you possibly do that!).
The division is in whether people view it as influencing those who don't know any better, I think.Smoking is a pretty unique example, I've never even had a cigarette touch my lips in my life so that's quite a particular thing I wouldn't support. However, when I was a teenager I played with many demo trading sites (before the days of Apps) and learned a lot by doing so - even though I never threw in signifanct money at any point since. I've also been known to place small bets on football matches and experimented with online casinos.
When it comes to public reaction, although it wasn't entirely positive on YouTube, it also wasn't the most negative thing I've seen either. It's a particular audience here on Pistonheads that specifically despised it which gives the perception of a much wider spread issue when in fact its down to these specific demographics (the same general idea as financing a car for example - how could you possibly do that!).
I'm not bothered about people advertising "trading" apps and the like, because it doesn't really reel me in. I'm a cynical bugger and think that it's a lot more likely to pay for the app developer's new house than it is to turn me into the next Bud Fox, but I do understand the perspective that if you have a large audience of younger people, you could be leading them in a less than wonderful direction.
Not convinced that audience reaction is necessarily the best metric to demonstrate that something is ok. If it's like the situation above, and the people who have a problem with it have a problem specifically because they believe that a large proportion of the audience will be taken in by something that's not in their best interests, saying that a large proportion of the audience were content with that isn't really a counterargument. You'll get a worse reaction on PH - in my opinion - because the audience here are older, more worldly wise, and more cynical. Them saying "ok, this is a bit bloody dodgy" about a trading app is likely a more valid assessment than thousands of people in their teens and twenties being cool with it or having no opinion. Yes, there is also the "shut up, grandad" factor when people here are more likely to be outside the loop on some subjects, but I when it comes to trading apps, I think their poor reaction is the right one.
Choosing who you advertise for (or from the other side, with) is something I'd weight largely on how you feel about the product/service/message. If it's one you're happy to be associated with, crack on.
Remember that the last couple of massive upheavals on Youtube have been as a direct result of brands not liking what videos their products were being advertised against, even though the mechanics of how adverts were selected was more a function of the user profile than the videos themselves. Advertisers knew that, if an ad for Coca Cola preceded a beheading video, a significant number of people would get it in their heads that Coke are endosing murderers, rather than the person watching spent the last ten minutes on Google searching for which supermarkets have a BOGOF on cola. People are really, really stupid, and I think it's sensible to take this into account when deciding if you want to advertise something, because the fact that you know that there's a bit of a grey area doesn't mean you can expect the audience to work this out for themselves.
TL;DR: If you're happy to take the products you put your name against to be seen by people as "Tim says this is a great product, and I should definitely buy it based on what he said", then to me, that's when you're probably doing ok with it.
Shiv_P said:
Nineoneone said:
If Shmee viewers as he claims are only 3% under 16 why does the comment section appear to be 100% from teenagers ?
Because only teenagers comment on youtube videos 
Shmee said:
Of course personal ethics play a part, but again it's a case by case basis.
Smoking is a pretty unique example, I've never even had a cigarette touch my lips in my life so that's quite a particular thing I wouldn't support. However, when I was a teenager I played with many demo trading sites (before the days of Apps) and learned a lot by doing so - even though I never threw in signifanct money at any point since. I've also been known to place small bets on football matches and experimented with online casinos.
When it comes to public reaction, although it wasn't entirely positive on YouTube, it also wasn't the most negative thing I've seen either. It's a particular audience here on Pistonheads that specifically despised it which gives the perception of a much wider spread issue when in fact its down to these specific demographics (the same general idea as financing a car for example - how could you possibly do that!).
Yes, I would also ignore the sanctimonious, miserable old men on here, too.Smoking is a pretty unique example, I've never even had a cigarette touch my lips in my life so that's quite a particular thing I wouldn't support. However, when I was a teenager I played with many demo trading sites (before the days of Apps) and learned a lot by doing so - even though I never threw in signifanct money at any point since. I've also been known to place small bets on football matches and experimented with online casinos.
When it comes to public reaction, although it wasn't entirely positive on YouTube, it also wasn't the most negative thing I've seen either. It's a particular audience here on Pistonheads that specifically despised it which gives the perception of a much wider spread issue when in fact its down to these specific demographics (the same general idea as financing a car for example - how could you possibly do that!).
It is a legal business that delivered some wonga. Job done.
Yipper said:
Shmee said:
Of course personal ethics play a part, but again it's a case by case basis.
Smoking is a pretty unique example, I've never even had a cigarette touch my lips in my life so that's quite a particular thing I wouldn't support. However, when I was a teenager I played with many demo trading sites (before the days of Apps) and learned a lot by doing so - even though I never threw in signifanct money at any point since. I've also been known to place small bets on football matches and experimented with online casinos.
When it comes to public reaction, although it wasn't entirely positive on YouTube, it also wasn't the most negative thing I've seen either. It's a particular audience here on Pistonheads that specifically despised it which gives the perception of a much wider spread issue when in fact its down to these specific demographics (the same general idea as financing a car for example - how could you possibly do that!).
Yes, I would also ignore the sanctimonious, miserable old men on here, too.Smoking is a pretty unique example, I've never even had a cigarette touch my lips in my life so that's quite a particular thing I wouldn't support. However, when I was a teenager I played with many demo trading sites (before the days of Apps) and learned a lot by doing so - even though I never threw in signifanct money at any point since. I've also been known to place small bets on football matches and experimented with online casinos.
When it comes to public reaction, although it wasn't entirely positive on YouTube, it also wasn't the most negative thing I've seen either. It's a particular audience here on Pistonheads that specifically despised it which gives the perception of a much wider spread issue when in fact its down to these specific demographics (the same general idea as financing a car for example - how could you possibly do that!).
It is a legal business that delivered some wonga.
Tim, watched your latest video and I don't think the AV-J is going to be at Geneva. I'm attending the show but flying in next week as a guest of Lamborghini and from what I was told only the HP spyder will be shown, private previews for the AV-J during the summer but fingers crossed they surprise everyone and bring the AV-J to Geneva because supposedly a few owners doing the VIP factory tours have seen the car inside the factory so it's near production ready.
KHK said:
Tim, watched your latest video and I don't think the AV-J is going to be at Geneva. I'm attending the show but flying in next week as a guest of Lamborghini and from what I was told only the HP spyder will be shown, private previews for the AV-J during the summer but fingers crossed they surprise everyone and bring the AV-J to Geneva because supposedly a few owners doing the VIP factory tours have seen the car inside the factory so it's near production ready.
Agreed. Remember it was filmed a week ago, less was known then.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff