Bandcamp sold to Songtradr (not a deal)

[PavlovsCat]

1 hour ago, Nick Blanc said:

If someone's interested, I came across a YouTube channel (well, the almighty algorithm did run it across me, but how did it know I was thinking about this stuff??!!!).

https://youtube.com/@badhairdetective?si=Mp0QKXxva9rZLho0

He makes very bizarre videos, entertaining even and with a lot of effort where he calls out every shill in the business. Worth checking out.

OMG, Nick, this guy is brilliant! And, FTR, I don't mean that in the light, casual way that Brits use the term,  I mean legitimately brilliant.  I wish I did what he did. His video on Benn Jordan is seriously brilliant.  Okay, I only watched a couple of minutes on it, but wow. I remember watching that original Jordan video and finding the guy completely morally bankrupt. 

What the guy who runs this channel is doing is exposing the terrible ethics and the ridiculousness of a shill's argument against the FTC's extremely minimal regulations that, IMO, don't go far enough because sleazy lobbyists have influenced politicians (that's not a guess, I know how this stuff works up close from the industry side -- the side doing the bribes, and million dollar jobs to politician's family members in exchange for passing legislation, softened regulations, trips for legislators  and judges to billionaires islands... -- I've seen it up close, okay through boasting of lobbyists and execs, long before recent times when the public became aware). But the guy running the channel is doing it with a level of creativity and sarcasm that I find brilliant. Granted, not everyone will understand and appreciate what he's doing,  but if you do, this is really great stuff. Thanks for sharing this,  @Nick Blanc. This is a little treasure.  I love it. 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by PavlovsCat

[Nick Blanc]

On 10/6/2023 at 11:07 PM, PavlovsCat said:

OMG, Nick, this guy is brilliant! And, FTR, I don't mean that in the light, casual way that Brits use the term,  I mean legitimately brilliant.  I wish I did what he did. His video on Benn Jordan is seriously brilliant.  Okay, I only watched a couple of minutes on it, but wow. I remember watching that original Jordan video and finding the guy completely morally bankrupt. 

What the guy who runs this channel is doing is exposing the terrible ethics and the ridiculousness of a shill's argument against the FTC's extremely minimal regulations that, IMO, don't go far enough because sleazy lobbyists have influenced politicians (that's not a guess, I know how this stuff works up close from the industry side -- the side doing the bribes, and million dollar jobs to politician's family members in exchange for passing legislation, softened regulations, trips for legislators  and judges to billionaires islands... -- I've seen it up close, okay through boasting of lobbyists and execs, long before recent times when the public became aware). But the guy running the channel is doing it with a level of creativity and sarcasm that I find brilliant. Granted, not everyone will understand and appreciate what he's doing,  but if you do, this is really great stuff. Thanks for sharing this,  @Nick Blanc. This is a little treasure.  I love it. 

 

I haven't really cared a lot until now. I think the whole Behringer thing triggered it for me. There is a whole group of so called synthfluencers (who have made great content which I've enjoyed!) who group together and form a united front against Behringer. And it's not that Behringer is the ethical one here. There's a group of disingenuous people who are in no position to lecture. I'm pretty much at a point where a plugin release which is backed by the usual names will mean an automatic "no" from me.

[antler]

5 minutes ago, Nick Blanc said:

I'm pretty much at a point where a plugin release which is backed by the usual names will mean an automatic "no" from me.

I now see the influencers as a bunch of people who are paid (one way or another) to put on a show to demo plugins. When they say it's the 'best' plugin, is it true? Maybe, though probably not; not saying it's bad, just not necessarily as good as they make it out to be (though there's always that possibility). But, is it useful that they run through the plugin's features and play some presets/demos? I think so, by that's just my take.

I do remember a 'huh?' moment from one video I watched recently. The guy said the usual 'this is not a sponsored video', and followed it up with 'click on the affiliate link to help the channel'... How do you simultaneously have both an affiliate link and a video's that's not in any way sponsored? (rhetorical question)

[antler]

This seems like it might be relevant

 

[PavlovsCat]

44 minutes ago, Nick Blanc said:

I haven't really cared a lot until now. I think the whole Behringer thing triggered it for me. There is a whole group of so called synthfluencers (who have made great content which I've enjoyed!) who group together and form a united front against Behringer. And it's not that Behringer is the ethical one here. There's a group of disingenuous people who are in no position to lecture. I'm pretty much at a point where a plugin release which is backed by the usual names will mean an automatic "no" from me.

Funny enough,  one of my friends just got a couple of Behringer synths and we had a short discussion about the company.  He's a smart guy who works in the gaming software industry and someone I regularly turn to for audio advice, but he attributes all of the awful things that come from Behringer,  like the antisemitic synth made to mock a journalist to the PR dept. But, as I pointed out, an ethical CEO would fire a PR team that engaged in such practices, so in the end, the CEO is where the buck stops. But as far as influencers,  if I'm going to be completely sincere,  they are absolutely shills. I still watch some of them and I think,  like Cory Pelazzari,  there are some that aren't complete tools. But the business model itself is corrupt.

Unrelated, I watched your video with all  those synths and loved it! That's a dream collection/room of synths! Very cool. 

[antler]

4 minutes ago, PavlovsCat said:

But as far as influencers,  if I'm going to be completely sincere,  they are absolutely shills. I still watch some of them and I think,  like Cory Pelazzari,  there are some that aren't complete tools.

In the few videos I've seen, this guy seems fairly honest.

 

[PavlovsCat]

1 hour ago, antler said:

This seems like it might be relevant

 

Yep, I read about about the layoffs and the situation that the YouTuber obviously read as well. Clearly, there are some problems over at BandCamp. 

https://pitchfork.com/news/epic-games-sells-bandcamp-amid-layoffs/

[Nick Blanc]

The plot thickens. The latest Benn Jordan video is down (private). I saw it coming. He was really hammering the point that Behringer was "counterfeiting". I even googled what that meant in a legal context in the US. 

I'm guessing Behringer didn't like being accused of a criminal offence. Benn had to know this. 

[PavlovsCat]

On 10/8/2023 at 11:49 AM, antler said:

I now see the influencers as a bunch of people who are paid (one way or another) to put on a show to demo plugins. When they say it's the 'best' plugin, is it true? Maybe, though probably not; not saying it's bad, just not necessarily as good as they make it out to be (though there's always that possibility). But, is it useful that they run through the plugin's features and play some presets/demos? I think so, by that's just my take.

I do remember a 'huh?' moment from one video I watched recently. The guy said the usual 'this is not a sponsored video', and followed it up with 'click on the affiliate link to help the channel'... How do you simultaneously have both an affiliate link and a video's that's not in any way sponsored? (rhetorical question)

Every major brand that sells to consumers has marketing positions that are focused on managing influencer relationships (putting them in the marketing plan, negotiating compensation and ensuring they're promoting the brand as desired in their communications, etc.)  Influencers are funded by marketing department budgets and specifically funded though marketing and/or PR budgets. I shared a fee study. Not all Influencers are getting paid upfront.  But they are compensated all different ways. Free products, sponsorship, sometimes high value free gifts, direct payment, advertising on their channel, etc. I want to avoid getting sued, but I've held senior level roles at a few major brands and consulted to some major brands. But I'll tell you a not uncommon story that a very popular,  highly regarded tech reviewer blogger was given more than $60,000 USD in gifts to get a brand's products reviewed; that's how it works with major influencers, its all about money, gifts and shilling while pretending to be unbiased. I didn’t approve it. But the person who did was someone I worked with. Now, influencer marketing goes back to Hollywood celebrities. I worked at a very well known tech brand (my expertise is tech marketing) and we had product placement in a lot of major movies.  But we didn't get it through deals with the movie production companies,  we went directly to the stars and they got gifts worth tens of thousands of dollars to use our products in movies, because when the big star says I'm using this product in a scene instead of the prop you wanted,  it happens. Otherwise we'd have to pay half a million or so for the same placement. For big consumer brands, your influencer marketing budget is in the millions. For this space companies aren't that big, so influencers aren't making as much, but its still the same basic operating principles. Okay,  maybe principles is the wrong word, because there really aren't principles in influencer marketing to be perfectly candid. 

Its called influencer marketing for a reason.  Influencers are experts at getting people to trust them and then they sell that to brands to make money. In the plugin and sample library world, an influencer who averages 10,000 or so views on YouTube is likely going to get free product and sponsorship. But s/he may get direct cash from the brand too (of course,  they get a cut of YouTube''s ad revenue and commonly make a sales commission on affiliate linked sales). If you see a brand using that influencer on their site or channel, that's a definite sign they've inked a direct payment deal. But they serially hide and deceive their viewers about all of this. It's the norm. 

I recommend looking at Influencers as shills is the wisest strategy and it's accurate. Ethics are pretty much non existent. They all lie to various degrees. Virtually none of them do the required (by law or regulations) disclosures which are really just basic ethics and below what real ethics demand, IMO.

Why? Because it's a confidence game. 

They have to make you believe they're unbiased to keep you tuning in and to be effective at selling products for brands. If they say, "I'm here to promote ABC's Plugomatic because they paid me $10,000 and I get thousands of dollars in free product and I'm not going to screw it up by saying anything too negative, " would you trust them? They literally are the equivalent of infomercial pitchmen. Some are entertaining. But it's key to understand that they aren't journalists and they aren't even honest with you about what they do. And yeah, I think they've taken marketing to new ethical lows and of course,  it's not like marketing has a great history of being ethical,  but influencer marketing is pretty much, inherently a con job. A shortcut to understand what an influencer is is an independent promoter for brands. Are there exceptions? Yes. But they're very rare for successful influencers,  because it's only when an influencer is successful that they're able to make decent money and it's difficult for people to resist the money and maintaining a good relationship even for those who traffick in shilling for free product is enough incentive itself.  Most influencers starting out are very focused on growth and aspirations of making big money,  so they're almost always focused on building strong relationships with the brands that have the free product and future cash. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by PavlovsCat

[PavlovsCat]

3 hours ago, Nick Blanc said:

The plot thickens. The latest Benn Jordan video is down (private). I saw it coming. He was really hammering the point that Behringer was "counterfeiting". I even googled what that meant in a legal context in the US. 

I'm guessing Behringer didn't like being accused of a criminal offence. Benn had to know this. 

Actually claiming they are counterfeiting is 100% libel -- it's a blatantly defamatory statement.  He can certainly say that they're copycats, that they're just hacks, that they made terrible quality products, but he can't state that they are counterfeiters, that is accusing them of a crime. But to your earlier point, it is ironic that people with no moral integrity attack others with no moral integrity.  I hope that isn't missed by anyone. I'm not a fan of Behringer. Especially after that stuff they did with the journalist (like the antisemitic depiction on a synth). I have a friend that likes Ule or whatever his name is, but any even mraginally ethical CEO, even if not putting out that terrible stuff themselves, would stop it right away. The fact that this guy didn't tells you everything about the way he operates. To me that's a bigger problem than being a hack outfit. 

[Nick Blanc]

6 hours ago, PavlovsCat said:

Actually claiming they are counterfeiting is 100% libel -- it's a blatantly defamatory statement.  He can certainly say that they're copycats, that they're just hacks, that they made terrible quality products, but he can't state that they are counterfeiters, that is accusing them of a crime. But to your earlier point, it is ironic that people with no moral integrity attack others with no moral integrity.  I hope that isn't missed by anyone. I'm not a fan of Behringer. Especially after that stuff they did with the journalist (like the antisemitic depiction on a synth). I have a friend that likes Ule or whatever his name is, but any even mraginally ethical CEO, even if not putting out that terrible stuff themselves, would stop it right away. The fact that this guy didn't tells you everything about the way he operates. To me that's a bigger problem than being a hack outfit. 

Benn is a smart guy and uses his intelligence and creativity to make some awesome content. For example: who has the idea to learn about a speech jamming, explain it technically AND also build the thing?! So it struck me as weird he would frame it like this. He is also very vocal on X about this whole saga.  He probably didn't intend to get pulled down, but he HAD to know that using these words would have some consequences. So that raises suspicion that he did it on purpose to get some conflict/attention going. 

Anyway, my previous remarks are indeed my take on this. It's like watching an argument between a burglar and a car thief about rising income tax. 

Ps: on the so called antisemitic thing. I do believe that was 'just' a f*ck up. The guy depicted isn't even jewish. They designed that guy with a big nose to sniff corks (aka being elitst). The nose would be the only link with a jewish caricature. Now Behringer had no business to attack someone personally, but that accusation was just silly to me.

 

[Nick Blanc]

On 10/6/2023 at 9:44 PM, Nick Blanc said:

If someone's interested, I came across a YouTube channel (well, the almighty algorithm did run it across me, but how did it know I was thinking about this stuff??!!!).

https://youtube.com/@badhairdetective?si=Mp0QKXxva9rZLho0

He makes very bizarre videos, entertaining even and with a lot of effort where he calls out every shill in the business. Worth checking out.

He mentions some guy named Fleer. Our @Fleer?

[Fleer]

46 minutes ago, Nick Blanc said:

He mentions some guy named Fleer. Our @Fleer?

Interesting. 

So I’m a resident of planet Gearspace. 

They wish. 
I’m a resident of Cakewalk. 
Sometimes visiting other planets but always coming back home to Larry. 

[PavlovsCat]

3 hours ago, Nick Blanc said:

He mentions some guy named Fleer. Our @Fleer?

For such a channel with such low subscription and view rates -- and it's so niche, I don't think it has much potential to be very big -- I think whomever is behind thar channel puts a lot into these videos and has a lot of talent. If the market was bigger, one could always theorize that it was an anti influencer who was funded by competitors of developers he goes after. I don't think that, but I could see how other channels like this could be used that way.