"pay per lie"

This morning I checked the smh website and was shocked to see my friend and fellow vlogger Hugh Thomas as the feature story. When reading the article I was further shocked to see the way he had been portrayed.

Most vloggers are rather guarded when it comes to talking to other forms of media and this is exactly why.

The article reads, "Amateur video maker Hugh Thomas, 26, from Bondi, said he was asked by a mystery third party to create a video blog on Lie To Me and publish it on his popular YouTube channel, in return for payment from 20th Century Fox" and continues to note "companies, such as Fox, appear to be more wary of conducting deceptive viral marketing campaigns and have instead tried to tap into the established audiences and personal brands of prominent YouTube users."


Youtubers who make a few thousand hits are really receiving very, very little money. I can also tell you that the campaign went through a third party which means these guys would have received nothing significant at all.

I'm not sure why they're running a story on such a small time campaign and making it appear a lot more "deceptive" than it is. The main complaint I've been hearing is that if you're accepting payment, it should be noted that you're receiving payment. At the end of the day, any youtuber who knows what's going on knows that footage used by any partner has to be obtained with permission suggesting that there is already some type of agreement standing. Most youtubers also know that sponsorship has been on the site for years now. I'm neither for nor against accepting sponsorship, however it should be noted that youtubers see their channels as something they have created. What are the rules and when should they say 'no'?

Got a Click?

When I hear about online campaigns, it's always interesting to hear how they plan on measuring their success. What are they presenting to the client as proof that their campaign has achieved what it set out to? Of course, the answer most common is "clicks" because everybody wants something to go viral.

At the moment, I do not think the focus on obtaining as many clicks as possible within a set time frame is the most successful way to measure an online campaign. The range of clicks I receive per day on my own material can range from 200,000 to a few million though I would never look at the clicks as an indicator of success.

Clicks on the internet can always be arranged but what then of the drop out rate? How can you compare a click that stays for three seconds to one that takes the time to takes the time to browse your content and then interact with it? For me, personally, I have found that the internet is an entirely different game to what people have taken it for.

Indicators for a good day on the internet, for me, include the level of interaction. How many people have bothered to do what is the hardest thing to get people to do on the internet- interact?
This can vary depending on the platform content is presented however ultimately, and this is what creates a viral video in my mind. To get somebody to click that link, to get somebody to stay rather than click 'back', to get somebody to comment, rate, subscribe, browse, or recommend, that is what I ultimately work towards.

Most of my time is spent studying statistics, listening to feedback, and constantly working with the community that I have access to, trying to better tailor my videos for the people who will watch, who will take the time to interact, who will hopefully come back.

This is only my first post so I'll leave it at that. I guess I just wanted to get off my chest that it's not the clicks. Clicks can always be accessed. Content needs to be specifically tailored for an audience and if it's an audience you think may be interested in more material to come in the future, you need to offer them a reason to stay. The internet is a distracting place and every man and his dog has a website he'd like you to visit.