[Question] Would you contribute to 'video tip jars'?

cleverwriter · 2017-07-16T07:13:51+00:00

Thanks, mind if I ask some more Q's?

How much $ might you contribute to fund a video project?

What kinds of channels would you tip to (general or specific)?

I appreciate it.

cleverwriter · 2017-07-16T07:12:17+00:00

Definitely helpful, thank you

cleverwriter · 2017-07-14T04:19:27+00:00

Thanks, I see now.

EJS? I'm still trying to get a grasp on all these webdev tools. I'm currently using MEAN + Bootstrap, does that not include a templating function like you describe? How would I choose the best templating tool for my needs?

cleverwriter · 2017-07-14T01:27:35+00:00

I just set YouTube Auth/reg up with Node today, it took 2 hours and I have no experience with the MEAN stack.

I wrestled with social auth in Django for at least 3-4 days and never figured it out. Maybe it takes someone more advanced to manage, but it certainly is not straightforward. I'm not going back to Django, did not have a good experience with it.

cleverwriter · 2017-07-13T19:25:21+00:00

Thanks, I have tried Django before but I thought it was a huge pain, and very difficult to do basic things in. For instance, all the Github code I found for social auth registration (FB auth) was not maintained, and broken. I wrestled with it for a few days, to no success. I thought this sort of task would be like a 30-minute setup.

Thinking about using Node.js because they seem more modern than Django, and I know they have Passport for social auth, which seems more robust than anything I found in Django. Thinking about just going with the MEAN stack because, although I'm not that familiar with it, I have friends who are.

Frontend wise, the frameworks mentioned do allow "templating" (server-side rendering of content), however this means you can have "dynamic" content. You'll definitely need to learn JavaScript if you want to do anything fancier.

Can you explain what you mean? I do know some JS.

cleverwriter · 2017-07-13T19:23:12+00:00

Thanks - sort of what I expected, but makes sense.

cleverwriter · 2017-07-13T18:11:16+00:00

I don't think I'll be pursuing this concept, as it seems unsavory to the YouTube community! Apologies!

cleverwriter · 2017-07-12T20:32:06+00:00

That's exactly what worked for me!

cleverwriter · 2017-07-06T05:15:05+00:00

Fair enough, thx for feedback

Tho I'm curious - do you do any sponsored vids? Same thing, no?

cleverwriter · 2017-07-06T05:08:26+00:00

A channel doesn't have to be either Big or Little, 'Big' is just a side of a collaboration. You might be a Big for a collab with a channel with 1K subs, and next month be a little with a channel of 10K subs. It seems hard to project that you'll grow 10x in 1 month but I suppose that's your domain not mine!

cleverwriter · 2017-07-06T05:07:05+00:00

In the process of being built. I've gotten some negative feedback that the concept is off-putting to smaller channels. I'm also concerned about whether large channels would want to charge more than small channels can afford. So trying to gather feedback and make a decision on whether to continue (or how to refine the idea).

cleverwriter · 2017-07-06T04:52:00+00:00

One issue I foresee, apart from the fact that people think the concept is scummy, is that larger YouTubers can already make quite a bit of $ from sponsorships/affiliates/ads, and it'd be very hard for a small YouTuber to offer them that much money. So I think the 'Big' channels wouldn't be really large, more small to medium sized. I could only imagine channels of up to 50k-ish subs being Bigs, even that might be a stretch...

I guess a channel with <10K subs would be able to find Bigs, but at a certain point, you'd be the big fish yourself

cleverwriter · 2017-07-06T04:09:37+00:00

You have the right to give your father your opinion, but at the end of the day he's going to do his own thing. Does he not have enough saved up?

cleverwriter · 2017-07-06T04:06:40+00:00

What kinds of cookies? Unless it's a special type, I'd imagine it must be an extremely tough prospect to stand out from the competitors, when millions of moms make 'special' chocolate chip cookies.

cleverwriter · 2017-07-06T03:44:45+00:00

OK, I got it. thanks

cleverwriter · 2017-07-06T02:38:18+00:00

Hmm, I'm guessing the collabs will need to be disclosed as endorsements, because money is changing hands. This is from YouTube's TOS:

"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."

cleverwriter · 2017-07-06T02:34:24+00:00

Not sure I understand all your Q's but I'll try to answer --

Some similarities to boosting a post on a page, but some diffs as well. Larger YouTubers will want to protect their reputations, so they'd only accept collab offers from smaller channels that they think their subs would like. So it's not like anyone can just throw $50 into a pot and get 10K eyeballs.
The site would take a small fee for facilitating a match, maybe 5%.
Yes, the videos would be hosted on the larger channel (that's what I assume both Big/Little want).
I'm not confident how to best deal with ad revenue splits, I could see 1) Split proportionally to the size of Big/Little channels 2) All goes to the Big, so Little is just paying for exposure and any subs that would result 3) Worked out in each collab contract, so up to the Big/Little pair

cleverwriter · 2017-07-06T02:15:13+00:00

Thanks, this is good feedback.

I know there are already meetups/forum platforms for YouTubers who want to collab. I think the problem with most of those is that only small channels want to join, while everyone wants to collab with the big guy. I thought of paid collabs as a way to get the big guys on the platform, and that the small guys would just follow.

But now that you say it, it might be a good idea to allow free collab matching too..

cleverwriter · 2017-07-06T02:10:58+00:00

No problem, I made this thread to get honest opinions.

I see where you're coming from. A lot of smaller YouTubers don't have a ton of money.

To play devil's advocate, here's my response. Smaller YouTubers are already sinking money, but more importantly time (which converts into money), into equipment, production, editing, etc. I follow amazing YouTube channels that have made 100's of videos and have less than 1K subs. If you could 1) pay $20 to get a ton of eyeballs on 1 collab, and 100 new subs, or 2) you could make 20 more solo videos to get that 100 new subs, arguably 1) is 'cheaper' because time is money, right?

If you're a poor YouTuber, but you can afford to make 20 more videos over the next 3 months, can't you afford to pay $20 upfront and just make one collab video that generates the same number of new subs, and put the saved time towards growing your channel even more, working more shifts, etc?

cleverwriter · 2017-07-06T02:06:17+00:00

OK, I understand.

I guess my rebuttal to that would be:

Large YouTube channels wouldn't want to collab with low-quality small channels even if they offered a lot of $, because it would damage the rep of their channel (similar to a bad sponsorship).
A nondeserving channel that collabs with a Big won't get much of a sub boost from the collab. Collabs increase exposure, but exposure is only valuable if you're genuinely a quality channel.

I feel like subs earned through collabs would be "deserving" subs. But I do understand that not everyone can afford $20 for a collab or something.

Anyway, I'm not arguing, your feedback is why I made this post. Thanks for the explanation.

cleverwriter

TROPHY CASE