4 ms·

If you're reliant on ads, you tend to optimize your content to attract more advertisers and eyeballs. If you're reliant on donations, you tend to optimize your

by Jagat 8y ago

If you're reliant on ads, you tend to optimize your content to attract more advertisers and eyeballs. If you're reliant on donations, you tend to optimize your content to cater to the richer (or upper middle class) segment of society with disposable income. I'm pointing out the widespread belief among the techies that the second option is inherently more noble than the first. If I create content that caters to the local population of, say, Mombasa, am I more likely to produce more if I rely on donations, or if I rely on google displaying ads of Mombasa businesses? Would you, a techie in the USA/Western-Europe with disposable income, even hear about my channel? (edit: That said, I don't like brand promotion from the creator within the video either since that introduces a huge bias. But I'm all for algorithmically generated ads where the creator has little control)

Barrin92 8y ago
most independent content creation does not seem to be paywalled, so people who do not have the means to support the content can still enjoy it, while the people who can back it financially. This seems like a pretty reasonable solution to me. I'm also not sure that producing ad-driven content for business in Mombasa necessarily aligns with the content the people of Mombasa want to see any more then it does here. The big benefit of independent funding is that the creator is solely responsible for her audience, and not beholden to third parties.
- Jagat 8y ago
  >> most independent content creation does not seem to be paywalled, so people who do not have the means to support the content can still enjoy it Another hypothetical scenario: I make videos of mobile phone reviews, and I'm an amazing reviewer. And I rely on donations. I start with the noble intent of not biasing towards expensive phones, and treat all phones the same, because I've a noble intent of catering to all segments of society. I'm also reliant on the donations for my livelihood because I hate ads. Over time, I notice that I get more donations (Say $12) whenever I review some feature of iPhone, or Samsung Galaxy. It doesn't even have to be about a new phone - just a tiny feature. When I review a $10 phone that folks in Mombasa use, I get none. I have finite time, and I need money. But I'm completely against ads, algorithmic or otherwise. So I now talk more about mundane iPhone features than I do about that $10 chinese phone. Choice 2: I rely on google's targeted ads. It's learnt to show pre-roll Mercedes ads on my channel when someone in Manhattan views it, and a local business ad when someone in Mombasa views it. I make $11 from Manhattan ads and $1 from Mombasa ads. I still don't get as much money as I do with donations. But if it's noble purpose we're talking about, my latter choice seems more noble than the former to me.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > I still don't get as much money as I do with donations. But if it's noble purpose we're talking about, my latter choice seems more noble than the former to me. It's still the same incentive structure. If you review iPhones then you get visitors from Manhattan and make $11. If you review $10 phones you get visitors with no money that advertisers won't pay anything for. If they have nothing to donate to you then they have nothing to buy the advertiser's product with. Doing work for people with no money is charity. And charity is great, but if you're expecting it to maximize profits, you're doing it wrong.
jonreem 8y ago
In your analysis you shouldn’t forget that advertisers don’t consider all eyeballs equal either, and are willing to pay far more for ads shown to high income users. The difference in effect might not be as large as you’re making it out to be.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  There is sufficient differentiation in advertising strategies that this can be generally true but also be misleading. You want people who you're targeting to switch from non-spending to spending. So if you've got a new brand of diapers, you're less likely to be targeting Mr. Rich Dude than you are pregnant mum with only minor income category stuff. That's fairly different from where only people with disposable income get to see things because only they are able to pay for them. If a lower-middle-class recent mother can view a maths video after viewing an ad for a specific brand of diapers (that sets out to get her to switch from a different brand), that's a better outcome than if she can't because she's not a middle- or upper-middle-class person. I suspect the difference is actually fairly high in practice. Judging by some ad campaigns that are facilitated through our middle-ware, it's not all Maseratis and fancy wines. Quite a bit is for the bottom 80%.
- kjeetgill 8y ago
  Have you worked in advertising? It's nothing nearly so simplistic, but not so complicated either. It's not about capturing the highest income audience its capturing the largest audience in the income demographic of your product. Think something like (amount a customer will spend) * (% of demo willing to spend at all) * (size of income demo). Naturally more people are less rich and the first two terms are highly product dependent. Stereotyping a bit, McDonalds isn't going to be making big inroads showing all of their ads in opera houses and Lamborghini is not making any sales advertising at Goodwill.
  - retsibsi 8y ago
    This still implies that higher-income eyeballs will be more valuable, doesn't it? McDonald's might not value rich people so highly, but Lamborghini will be willing to pay 10,000x more per customer gained. Of course the details could confound this (supply and demand for each category of consumer, conversion rates, etc.), but it seems like a reasonable default assumption.
dyarosla 8y ago
The second option is not just about "noble-ness". There's a second, possibly larger, aspect to it : far more control over the aesthetics of your product. If you have algorithmically generated ads, by definition you will have little control for how they fit visually around/within your content. Bias be damned, but if I want my product to look a certain way, ads are a non-starter.
everdev 8y ago
If you're trying to make money (for profit or not), your actions will most likely need to be palatable and understood by those willing to give you money as you mentioned. I'm not sure there's a way around that, but I do think that not all revenue sources are created equal. I think the danger with advertisers is that they seem focused on increasing consumption. Not all consumption is bad and it's up to the consumer to decide, but there are certainly aspects of it that are wasteful or dishonest. With donors, at least some are probably helping because they genuinely believe in the cause or have visions of improving life beyond their own generation. Not all donors are better than all for-profit companies, but if I'm throwing darts at who is going to have nobler intentions, I'm picking donors.

by Jagat 8y ago

Barrin92 8y ago

most independent content creation does not seem to be paywalled, so people who do not have the means to support the content can still enjoy it, while the people who can back it financially. This seems like a pretty reasonable solution to me. I'm also not sure that producing ad-driven content for business in Mombasa necessarily aligns with the content the people of Mombasa want to see any more then it does here. The big benefit of independent funding is that the creator is solely responsible for her audience, and not beholden to third parties.

Jagat 8y ago
>> most independent content creation does not seem to be paywalled, so people who do not have the means to support the content can still enjoy it Another hypothetical scenario: I make videos of mobile phone reviews, and I'm an amazing reviewer. And I rely on donations. I start with the noble intent of not biasing towards expensive phones, and treat all phones the same, because I've a noble intent of catering to all segments of society. I'm also reliant on the donations for my livelihood because I hate ads. Over time, I notice that I get more donations (Say $12) whenever I review some feature of iPhone, or Samsung Galaxy. It doesn't even have to be about a new phone - just a tiny feature. When I review a $10 phone that folks in Mombasa use, I get none. I have finite time, and I need money. But I'm completely against ads, algorithmic or otherwise. So I now talk more about mundane iPhone features than I do about that $10 chinese phone. Choice 2: I rely on google's targeted ads. It's learnt to show pre-roll Mercedes ads on my channel when someone in Manhattan views it, and a local business ad when someone in Mombasa views it. I make $11 from Manhattan ads and $1 from Mombasa ads. I still don't get as much money as I do with donations. But if it's noble purpose we're talking about, my latter choice seems more noble than the former to me.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > I still don't get as much money as I do with donations. But if it's noble purpose we're talking about, my latter choice seems more noble than the former to me. It's still the same incentive structure. If you review iPhones then you get visitors from Manhattan and make $11. If you review $10 phones you get visitors with no money that advertisers won't pay anything for. If they have nothing to donate to you then they have nothing to buy the advertiser's product with. Doing work for people with no money is charity. And charity is great, but if you're expecting it to maximize profits, you're doing it wrong.

jonreem 8y ago

In your analysis you shouldn’t forget that advertisers don’t consider all eyeballs equal either, and are willing to pay far more for ads shown to high income users. The difference in effect might not be as large as you’re making it out to be.

scarejunba 8y ago
There is sufficient differentiation in advertising strategies that this can be generally true but also be misleading. You want people who you're targeting to switch from non-spending to spending. So if you've got a new brand of diapers, you're less likely to be targeting Mr. Rich Dude than you are pregnant mum with only minor income category stuff. That's fairly different from where only people with disposable income get to see things because only they are able to pay for them. If a lower-middle-class recent mother can view a maths video after viewing an ad for a specific brand of diapers (that sets out to get her to switch from a different brand), that's a better outcome than if she can't because she's not a middle- or upper-middle-class person. I suspect the difference is actually fairly high in practice. Judging by some ad campaigns that are facilitated through our middle-ware, it's not all Maseratis and fancy wines. Quite a bit is for the bottom 80%.
kjeetgill 8y ago
Have you worked in advertising? It's nothing nearly so simplistic, but not so complicated either. It's not about capturing the highest income audience its capturing the largest audience in the income demographic of your product. Think something like (amount a customer will spend) * (% of demo willing to spend at all) * (size of income demo). Naturally more people are less rich and the first two terms are highly product dependent. Stereotyping a bit, McDonalds isn't going to be making big inroads showing all of their ads in opera houses and Lamborghini is not making any sales advertising at Goodwill.
- retsibsi 8y ago
  This still implies that higher-income eyeballs will be more valuable, doesn't it? McDonald's might not value rich people so highly, but Lamborghini will be willing to pay 10,000x more per customer gained. Of course the details could confound this (supply and demand for each category of consumer, conversion rates, etc.), but it seems like a reasonable default assumption.

dyarosla 8y ago

The second option is not just about "noble-ness". There's a second, possibly larger, aspect to it : far more control over the aesthetics of your product. If you have algorithmically generated ads, by definition you will have little control for how they fit visually around/within your content. Bias be damned, but if I want my product to look a certain way, ads are a non-starter.

everdev 8y ago

If you're trying to make money (for profit or not), your actions will most likely need to be palatable and understood by those willing to give you money as you mentioned. I'm not sure there's a way around that, but I do think that not all revenue sources are created equal. I think the danger with advertisers is that they seem focused on increasing consumption. Not all consumption is bad and it's up to the consumer to decide, but there are certainly aspects of it that are wasteful or dishonest. With donors, at least some are probably helping because they genuinely believe in the cause or have visions of improving life beyond their own generation. Not all donors are better than all for-profit companies, but if I'm throwing darts at who is going to have nobler intentions, I'm picking donors.