There have been some very interesting video sessions to which some of the member have linked.
Perhaps you youngsters could help me understand a couple of things:
- Do the people who formulate them make (or hope to make) money by posting these videos or is it strictly for the love of the Packers?
- If so, how do they make it?
- If one subscribes to their webcasts, do they hope to get advertisers? (of the ones I have viewed, there do not seem to have ads)
- If so, how do they seek out advertisers and how much do they get paid?
- Is it by click to an ad? Or is it per view?
- When they post NFL game footage, aren't they violating a copyright?
Thanks,
Martha
Originally Posted by: Martha Careful
1. Yes. And notice, no ads on this website. Why? Strictly for the love baby!!
2. They use metrics to lure advertisers to pay them to promote their product/service. Either the video will contain injected ads, or the author will do a product read during the video to promote a service/product.
3. There are multiple ways to subscribe. YouTube it is free to subscribe. This is one of the aforementioned metrics used to lure advertisers. "Look at my subscriber count!" on Facebook it's "look at my friends count" and on Twitter it's "look at my follower count" and so on and so on. There is also something called engagements that is leveraged to entice advertisers. And engagement is basically someone sharing the media (video, tweet, status) or replying to it, or other such interactions. It's essentially a way for an advertiser to know their product will be viewed by more than just the "subscriber" count. Another way to subscribe is the paid version and this one generally limits the ads you see, or removes them completely.
4. Kind of covered above. I'll add this though. You'll see a lot of people saying controversial things for the sake of engagements/interactions. When you see polls or questions being asked, generally, the author is hoping it's a lightning rod of controversy to snare a plethora of attention. Rarely do you see people asking a question generally because they want to know the census answer. It's almost always to see how many sheep and rats they can hurdle up into their scheme of "give me engagements for my advertisers". And this is why Kevin hates the system. 😀
5. This is where it gets complicated. Both are true. Click an ad, view an ad. Generally speaking, these can be both equal credit to the author as it is not their fault he ad was crap and not clicked. It's up to the marketing team of the ad to generate ads that people click, and then follow through with a sale. The author (person who created the video that has ads injected) will probably get more credit for a click, than just a view. It could even be a credit for a view, AND a credit for a click. Basically, all of this information gets analyzed for what is working and what is not working. The marketing team might be like ok why are injecting our knitting ads into a NFL highlights? It's not working, we need to pivot. The whole thing is quite fascinating and if you dig into it, you can really leverage the system to make a lot of money very easily. Of course, that is providing you have a worthwhile product/service to market.
6. Yes, unless they bought rights to display the footage. I believe YouTube has agreements with NFL where if NFL content is shown, then YouTube will inject an ad and the revenue will go to NFL. I've had a few Packers highlight videos with that scenario done. Where it was told to me I was in violation, however, NFL will put ads and I am not allowed to make money off the video.