Not a deal: YouTube reviews are *€@*"!

[Nick Blanc]

See the video below. It is rare when a  plugintube YouTuber comes around and admits it's all bullshit, but he did it. I appreciate the honesty where he says it was just for the money and that he has quit the whole show. 

Also where he says the YouTube algorithm is **** for these things. It's all about pumping out as much content as you can. Retention is always bad, so the only way to mitigate that is more and more content. Weaver Beats says the same thing, he makes daily videos because views drop after 1-2 days. I notice this myself on my jams (only after typing this Paul mentions him as an example). 

It's a no brainer but great someone finally said it, that they intentionally leave obvious stuff out of of review so people will comment which will push the algorithm.

It's a long one, but very ontopic for this part of the forum. Mods, please relocate if not appropriate.

[antler]

Paul always did seem like one of the more honest ones.

[PavlovsCat]

The motivation for influencers is foundationally about money and free stuff--from YouTube and  developers for this industry,  as well as the ego aspects of it. They are solopreneurs. It's a business. It's not about charity or a mission to help others.

I'd put in the realm of a grift.  An influencer works to build up trust and confidence in their integrity with their followers for the specific purposes of selling that trust to brands for money and products. They're really just salespeople for hire pretending to be journalist reviewers to gain and then sell people's trust and confidence in them;  some are fairly entertaining and, I think,  as long as you understand that it's a grift, that they're not going to be honest about what they're doing that there can be a level of value to what they do. That is, we can hear them demonstrate plugins and sample libraries like a salesperson would do in a demonstration. That is, what they're really doing. A sales presentation,  an infomercial disguised as an unbiased review. 

I think if they just followed regulatory bodies guidelines,  like the FTC in the US,  and gave an upfront full disclosure of their relationship with the companies making the products that  they're discussing it would make things much better. That is, more honest. 

For example, imagine if a popular influencer started their video with, "Today,  I'm going to be reviewing XYZ''s Smushtopia Compressor.  XYZ provided me with a free license for this compressor and 2,500  USD worth of their plugins and $5,000 in cash compensation for making this review video."

That is legally what American influencers are supposed to be doing. But virtually none of them do it. Why? Because they realize that if they tell the truth they'll lose credibility with their followers.  So they pretend to be unbiased. It's unquestionably dishonest. But it's the norm.  

Even nano influencers are looking for both free products and cash and getting it. I don't want to say his name,  I like the guy, but one of the most popular influencers in this space was asking around 5k USD to do review videos 5 years ago and now his rates are a multiple of that. Small ones generally will work for free product with the hopes of making cash for doing  paid walkthough videos for devs of products they "review. " So there's an incredible amount of bias to the point where you can literally call influencers freelance product promoters. That is exactly what the business is about. 

Edited March 5 by PavlovsCat

[Carl Ewing]

This is a problem with convincing people that music / audio production is a science and not an artform. It ain't just music either. This is the problem in graphic design, animation, videography, photography, etc. as well.

These industries are about selling you gear. Everything centers around this objective.

I would love to see a video where a review for an overpriced or redundant piece of music / audio gear was "You don't need this. What you DO need is to go outside and have life experiences. Then you'll actually have something to say using the gear you already own."

[Lamia6]

Yeah too much "salesperson speak". You'd think by now everyone would see past that pretentious fake talk. We all obviously have computers and seen descriptions on the screen. Don't need anyone to reiterate what we already looked at. Only conclusion of that should be ...

 

[Fleer]

And those ads. THOSE ADS!

[Promidi]

42 minutes ago, Fleer said:

And those ads. THOSE ADS!

I don't see any ads on YouTube thanks to uBlock Origin.

[audioschmaudio]

Never ever trust influencers. But I like to read the comments on their videos because sometimes you'll find an honest opinion there.

[craigb]

3 hours ago, Fleer said:

And those ads. THOSE ADS!

AdBlock Plus.  It's free and I haven't had an ad since I added the extension years ago!

[Nick Blanc]

8 hours ago, antler said:

Paul always did seem like one of the more honest ones.

Indeed, that's why it always struck me as odd that he did those reviews. It's nice that someone from the actual 'scene' finally comes out to say it so bluntly (notice how further he gets in the video, the more f bombs are dropped in true Scottish fashion*).

 

* I was in Edinburgh once and the amounts of f's they are able to cram in one sentence is close to miraculous.

[PavlovsCat]

6 hours ago, Nick Blanc said:

Indeed, that's why it always struck me as odd that he did those reviews. It's nice that someone from the actual 'scene' finally comes out to say it so bluntly (notice how further he gets in the video, the more f bombs are dropped in true Scottish fashion*).

 

* I was in Edinburgh once and the amounts of f's they are able to cram in one sentence is close to miraculous.

I love the Scottish sense of humor. I think this guy's videos are much more informative than a lot of the the YouTube influencers in this space. Although stretching this video out for so long is purely done for financial and algorithm reasons on YouTube.  It's kind of twisted irony when the guy is telling you the video is all about shooting straight that he's stretching out the time because watch time is gold for YouTubers, as it's rewarded with cash and YouTube better presence on YouTube, which translates into more cash (the logic of the algorithm is founded in is to reward YouTubers who can engage users for long time periods,  as that means more ads,  which of course,  means more revenue for YouTube and the influencer; consequently,  YouTube will reward them with better placement). 

If anyone here is interested why YouTubers love making hour long videos, you might be interested in this study: 

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/11/07/many-turn-to-youtube-for-childrens-content-news-how-to-lessons/?utm_source=AdaptiveMailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=11-6-18 Youtube content&org=982&lvl=100&ite=3395&lea=786973&ctr=0&par=1&trk=

Edited March 4 by PavlovsCat

[jude77]

His take on AI produced videos on YT (at 46:53) was both interesting and a bit frightening.  It makes me wonder what will happen as that aspect of YT (or all media for that matter) grows.  

[PavlovsCat]

4 hours ago, jude77 said:

His take on AI produced videos on YT (at 46:53) was both interesting and a bit frightening.  It makes me wonder what will happen as that aspect of YT (or all media for that matter) grows.  

I recently wrote a couple of articles on AI and its impact on marketing jobs.  More than two thirds of marketing professionals at companies are using it and 89% of them are worried about their jobs. I couldn't help but connect that with a major study of heads of marketing who late last year 25% said they plan on layoffs in 2024 because of AI. It's impact is huge for online content. Everyone is at least using it to optimize content for rankings, some are using it to create content,  or at least use AI as a co-writer. 

I've found it incredibly helpful to my own business.  It's sped up the time it takes to produce content at least 10x and content is a major part of my business. It also has resulted in increasing the competition we have in search results by 10x. AI use has resulted in a proliferation of content -- much of it, not great. Youtubers are using AI in a variety of ways,  including to help them gain greater visibility  and revenue on YouTube by using AI tools for script writing, topic ideas, and trying to optimizing for YouTube's recommendation algorithm -- the reason Paul's video was more than 50 minutes and he urged people  to stay through all of it (believe it or not, just saying that can improve results with viewers). 

From my knowledge of the plugin and sample library space,  I find AI is largely beneficial to us as consumers. I think we're only beginning to see it impact content in this space. The quality of content is not necessarily improving.  To give you an example of what's going on in the non video space,  more and more, content is not only being produced with the aid of AI. I use AI for research.  But then I also use it for analysis to determine how content is likely to rank.

Last week I wrote an article I was thought would likely rank well in Google for targeted terms (keywords). Why? Google looks at the Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (EEAT) of the author/website/source and we've earned high marks, so our reputation with Google, our site's authority and  the reputation of the author in the space (after that, there's a bunch of simpler technical things to nail down). Google's algorithm is smart enough to consider the reputation of the source, not just the article alone. I used AI to analyze the top 10 Google search results and tell me what was missing from my article. It came back with an analysis.  I made some tweaks and within a short while, my article was number one to three on target keywords, the featured snippet on Google and the result in Google's GenAI for a targeted keyword search. Although, unlike YouTube, the reward at Google isn't instant cash, it's awareness of your website and visits. YouTubers use lengthy videos and techniques that get comments to get more attention, time, presence and finally more cash from the platform. Both YouTube and Google are incredibly competitive, but YouTube rewards the winners with cash. Consider that a popular YouTuber in this space will pull in 6 figures or more from YouTube and can easily command 4-5 figures from a developer for their "reviews" as well as lots of free products.  Why? It's more effective and less costly than advertising to get that same impact. 

I can tell you -- to a certain point, because I have NDAs -- that I'm personally aware of influencer relationships for reviews that brands have paid upwards of 50k USD for and were viewed by most of the public as legitimate,  unbiased reviews. You can probably discern that I'm not in love with influencer marketing and see it as an ethically problematic industry.  But the unfortunate reality is that it's a part of business.  Thankfully,  my business doesn't use influencers as part of our promotional strategies. 

Edited March 4 by PavlovsCat

[Byron Dickens]

Well, if you've had at least intro to philosophy and intro to psychology class you should know there is no such thing as "unbiased." Honest people who are attempting objectivity will acknowledge their biases and try to account for them.

I have much more faith in what someone says who admits to being biased than someone who pretends not to be.

Edited March 4 by Byron Dickens

[PavlovsCat]

2 hours ago, Byron Dickens said:

Well, if you've had at least intro to philosophy and intro to psychology class you should know there is no such thing as "unbiased." Honest people who are attempting objectivity will acknowledge their biases and try to account for them.

I have much more faith in what someone says who admits to being biased than someone who pretends not to be.

Yes,  everyone has bias, but I think we should give credit when a YouTuber does a full and honest disclosure, not for doing videos like this which, if we're going to be candid about, aren't really just about what they appear to be. If you're looking for integrity, I don't think that this common YouTuber video category is it (yes, this video specifically follows a common type of YouTuber video that is pretty successful). I think what would reflect integrity is a full disclosure of financial relationships with the makers of the products being discussed in each "review" video.  That would at least mean the influencer was honest or transparent enough to disclose the relationship with the company whose products are being "reviewed" so that viewers/followers would understand those facts and be able to make an informed judgment about the opinions being presented. 

As long as YouTubers hide the true nature and details of their financial relationship with the makers of the products they feature / "review" -- including products provided for free, sponsorship money for their channel in return for "reviews" and direct cash compensation for "reviews" -- what's going on is certainly in the realm of deception. And that's not just my opinion,  that is pretty much how every developed nation's regulatory bodies see it. Still, YouTubers almost unanimously ignore these regulations and don't do full disclosures because they realize that if they do disclose their compensation arrangement with the companies whose products they "review" that it will undermine the credibility and trust that is the foundation of their value to companies whose products they promote -- er, "review." This influencer believed -- rightly -- that this video wouldn't damage his credibility, but result in people thinking he's more honest than most YouTubers because he's being more candid about his selectively disclosed bias. But even this video isn't that straightforward or sincere.  The video follows a YouTuber template -- a category of videos that has proven successful. It's literally done for the express purpose of strengthening your perception that this YouTuber is trustworthy.  That may seem like reverse psychology,  and it definitely has elements of that.  But your statement is exactly what was desired. Specifically this statement you wrote is exactly what YouTubers are attempting to do to their followers' opinions: 

"I have much more faith in what someone says who admits to being biased than someone who pretends not to be."

This video is actually a common type of video done by influencers that many do because they tend to get a lot of shares and they get viewers watching for long periods of time, which is gold for YouTubers in terms of cash compensation and the recommendation algorithm (YouTube rewards YouTubers that can get viewers to watch for longer periods and sell more ads). It's also important to note that some of what drives YouTubers to do some of these techniques is speculation about the algorithm,  not fact. But popular YouTubers generally try to go after longer videos, frequent releases, and videos that inspire sharing and comments. A video like this checks those boxes and to be completely frank,  your reaction is exactly the desired reaction the YouTuber hoped for. 

To people not in the industry, what I wrote could easily be misinterpreted as cynical.  But to YouTubers and the marketing and PR professionals that use them, this is common knowledge.  

Edited March 4 by PavlovsCat

[Eusebio Rufian-Zilbermann]

You can get unbiased reviews from a professional reviewer if you pay the reviewer and make it a viable business for him/her. An example would be "Snake oil" White Sea Studios who gets funding from Patreon and YouTube memberships (I'm one of his Patreon supporters). He occasionally gets some "perks" from a manufacturer, like a review version not accessible to the public, but he discloses it when that's the case (and notes that he is not getting the videos "vetted" by the company)

https://www.youtube.com/@Whiteseastudio/videos

[craigb]

3 hours ago, Byron Dickens said:

Well, if you've had at least intro to philosophy and intro to psychology class you should know there is no such thing as "unbiased." Honest people who are attempting objectivity will acknowledge their biases and try to account for them.

I have much more faith in what someone says who admits to being biased than someone who pretends not to be.

Side-plug! 😁

I'm going to use your quote Byron and start a separate thread in the Coffee House.  Don't want to pollute "Larry's" 😂 area more than normal!

[PavlovsCat]

22 hours ago, Eusebio Rufian-Zilbermann said:

You can get unbiased reviews from a professional reviewer if you pay the reviewer and make it a viable business for him/her. An example would be "Snake oil" White Sea Studios who gets funding from Patreon and YouTube memberships (I'm one of his Patreon supporters). He occasionally gets some "perks" from a manufacturer, like a review version not accessible to the public, but he discloses it when that's the case (and notes that he is not getting the videos "vetted" by the company)

https://www.youtube.com/@Whiteseastudio/videos

I watch and like his videos. And I definitely agree with your premise on the revenue model.  You're exactly right. If this is ever going to work, the compensation for these folks needs to come from the buying public, not the seller of the products being "reviewed"developer. I salute you for putting your money where your mouth is. 

Even so, the problem still exists that we're merely relying on the word and blind trust of the influencer that they're not accepting compensation and gifts from the companies who make the products that they review when they have no clear standards they're held to and no oversight in place. Whereas journalist reviewers of esteemed publications follow journalism principles and ethics  standards and have an editor who ensures accountability. I suppose I might be open to sponsoring a reviewer IF s/he he would sign an agreement with rules that s/he promised to abide by, such as not accepting anything of value from a company with a product being reviewed; that the even the review copy was not his/her property after the review was finished; that s/he fully abide by all government regulations; that there will be no discussions of potential future financial relationships or gifts with any of developers whose products are reviewed; and that any personal relationships with a developer or an employee of a developer must be fully and clearly disclosed (e.g., I'm dating the marketing manager). But even that takes blind trust that the influencer will abide by the agreement. Still, it beats where we're at today. 

Edited March 5 by PavlovsCat

[Paul P]

I've been on the net since before the beginning and only recently has google search become just about useless.

It's still possible to reach some usefull info / discussions if you put "forum" in with the search terms, but even that is now getting squeezed out.

I now spend more time scrolling through the junk google throws at me than finding useful links to follow.

And the only stuff useful to me on youtube is to watch someone tear apart their air conditioner before I tear apart mine.

Thank god for adblockers.  If they were to become non functional I'd probably drop the net altogether.

 

[Kirean]

2 hours ago, Paul P said:

I've been on the net since before the beginning and only recently has google search become just about useless.

 Yeah, Google is quite terrible. I usually try "+Reddit" as well in search, but I think that is getting useless with each passing day too.

Then there's the problem & shame that Discord/social media also killed a lot of theme specific forums (Discord is useless for trying to see previous discussion and those Facebook groups are dead & gone now too.)