WasatchMan Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 I think it is a fair point. If FDR could make that much off YouTube commercials (that are advertising through YouTube and not Stef as their fundamental product), and through having an Amazon affiliate, I would have no aesthetical issue with this decision. If I remember correctly, FDR has had an Amazon affiliate in the past (maybe still does?). However, I do completely agree with Stef's decision not to monetize FDR through selling ad time through him. I would find this a huge distraction from what, I see, FDR is trying to do here.
dsayers Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 Stef has addressed this before and valid points have been made to the contrary before. I'd rather Stef was beholden to his listeners than advertisers.
J. D. Stembal Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 Stef has addressed this before and valid points have been made to the contrary before. I'd rather Stef was beholden to his listeners than advertisers. Seconding. As soon as I hear the first advertisement, my donation will cease. The listeners should be driving the direction of the show. However, I appreciate book recommendations and the like. I seriously doubt there are any book sales kickbacks, but I could be mistaken.
AustinJames Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 It's a little disconcerting when the creator of this video claims to provide "the numbers," as though Stef has never done a cost-benefit analysis about the merits of advertising. He does not empathize with the notion that charity may be a more viable option for a modern philosophy show. It's also disconcerting to hear him say that an individual gets "nothing in return" for donations, and that the human race has somehow evolved beyond charity. This is a clear example of somebody who knows less, presumptuously lecturing somebody who has DEMONSTRATED a superior knowledge. I feel embarrassed for the gentleman who created this video. 1
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 The numbers Aaron puts forward are startling. However I would hate to see serious and possibly profound discussions bookended with ads for the latest Ninja turtles movie. I would like to see Stef do a video ("Why I don't do advertising"?) were he goes through his reasons one by one and addresses the reasonable objections of people like Aaron. It's a little disconcerting when the creator of this video claims to provide "the numbers," as though Stef has never done a cost-benefit analysis about the merits of advertising. He does not empathize with the notion that charity may be a more viable option for a modern philosophy show. It's also disconcerting to hear him say that an individual gets "nothing in return" for donations, and that the human race has somehow evolved beyond charity. This is a clear example of somebody who knows less, presumptuously lecturing somebody who has DEMONSTRATED a superior knowledge. I feel embarrassed for the gentleman who created this video. I'm pretty sure he meant there's no practical need for charity because the advertising is so effective.
Kevin Beal Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 I'm going to pretend like I know what Stef wants, based on the times I've heard him comment on this issue and make up the rest. What do you want your incentives to be aligned with? Stef wants to get philosophy out to as many people as possible and for it to be for the consumers of the material. It's a freemium model, not charity. There's an important distinction there. You pay for consuming a product. How do you best balance getting it out to as many people as possible and being as listener focused as possible? If you can make that case to him then go for it. A combination of specific donator material and consistent reminders for people to donate what they think it's worth seems to be working out somewhat well. It's not as much as tithing brings in for churches, but enough for 3 employees so far which is pretty damn impressive, I think. Obviously if it were more that would be better. I'm sure they would love more capital to invest in the show. And if you think of a solution which aligns with these incentives and you demonstrate an understanding of how it will work out positively for the show, then I'm sure they'd listen. 1
Pepin Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 From: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/36752-freedomain-radio-affiliate-links/?p=336770 Amazon.comAmazon United States Affiliate Link: http://www.fdrurl.com/AmazonUSAmazon Canada Affiliate Link: http://www.fdrurl.com/AmazonCanadaAmazon United Kingdom Affiliate Link: http://www.fdrurl.com/AmazonUK AudibleLaissez Faire BooksTom Woods Liberty Classroom The Dollar Vigilante Services GoldMoney Skype Subscriptions and Credit Cyberlink PowerDirector 11 Ultra (Freedomain Radio's Video Production Application of Choice) Pamela Call Recorder (The Best Skype Audio Recorder) More to come... Are there any places that you purchase from regularly and with whom you would like us to pursue an affiliate partnership? Just let me know in the thread and I'll see what I can do!
RyanT Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 Can't shake the idea this was little more than a sly dig at Stef and attempt to undermine FDR? Stef could have a whopping $4 million to play with (....over 20 years of course) but because he's being silly or stubborn we the donators have to foot the bill with our hard earned cash...and get 'nothing in return' Indeed he doesn't seem to have listened to any of Stef's arguments beyond the obvious distraction adds would...add Sure Stef's brought it up, as with the fact that if YouTube decided to ban him that'd be catastrophic, 90%+ of the income would be gone...(after all how many people would still bother to donate knowing he was 'making all that money from adds'.) More than anything though the brilliant thing about the donation based model is we who support the show and get the message are the customer, ultimately it's our preferences that matter, and that's where the focus goes, where it belongs. Certainly wouldn't like to think we were playing second fiddle to the guy who just tunes in for 'entertainment value' or just a soothing background noise while he thrashes the Xbox....8 hours a day. 1
MMX2010 Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 Can't shake the idea this was little more than a sly dig at Stef and attempt to undermine FDR? No. I've read Aaron Clarey's blog for over a year, and Aaron has referred to Stefan multiple times, all respectfully. http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/search?q=molyneux I dunno whether he's a member of the forum, but if you give him some pushback, he'll retract / apologize if he's convinced. For example, I know that the YouTube advertisement program works by placing random (and skippable) commercial in each video. So a twenty-minute Stef video would have a skippable commercial at the very beginning. Something like this would be totally fine (in my opinion, and probably Stef's....although I know there are other issues that Stef has considered and spoken about). But a three hour call-in show would have skippable videos at the beginning AND throughout the call-in show itself. So, literally, 70 minutes into the video, some random-stupid-ad would appear. Since Stef can't control where these ads are placed, they could randomly appear right in the middle of a caller's nine-minute-explanation of his childhood, and no one wants ads placed there. 1
jpahmad Posted November 22, 2014 Author Posted November 22, 2014 Sure Stef's brought it up, as with the fact that if YouTube decided to ban him that'd be catastrophic, 90%+ of the income would be gone...(after all how many people would still bother to donate knowing he was 'making all that money from adds'.) Great point!
PatrickC Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 I'm rather less inclined to think this video is a dig at Stefan. You do make a reasonable point though Ryan all the same. Particularly in light of all the recent unsubstantiated criticism coming from certain quarters of the manosphere. That said, Aaron is a self described non philosopher, but he is an accountant, mathematician even. So when he sees figures like this fly by him, he naturally recoils in horror the poor fella. The funny thing is, the figures he quotes were almost the same figures Stefan pointed out in a podcast several months back. And how on earth did he miss the Amazon affiliate link at the bottom of FDR's front page. Give the old chap a pair specs I say. J/K
J. D. Stembal Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 It's a little disconcerting when the creator of this video claims to provide "the numbers," as though Stef has never done a cost-benefit analysis about the merits of advertising. He does not empathize with the notion that charity may be a more viable option for a modern philosophy show. It's also disconcerting to hear him say that an individual gets "nothing in return" for donations, and that the human race has somehow evolved beyond charity. This is a clear example of somebody who knows less, presumptuously lecturing somebody who has DEMONSTRATED a superior knowledge. I feel embarrassed for the gentleman who created this video. Personally, I was a little ticked off that he was parading his infant child in front of the camera as a promoter or sidekick. Your kids aren't video blog cheerleaders. I stopped the video at the very beginning with the impression that the blogger was a terrible douche for exploiting children.
RyanT Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 I'm rather less inclined to think this video is a dig at Stefan. You do make a reasonable point though Ryan all the same. Particularly in light of all the recent unsubstantiated criticism coming from certain quarters of the manosphere. That said, Aaron is a self described non philosopher, but he is an accountant, mathematician even. So when he sees figures like this fly by him, he naturally recoils in horror the poor fella. The funny thing is, the figures he quotes were almost the same figures Stefan pointed out in a podcast several months back. And how on earth did he miss the Amazon affiliate link at the bottom of FDR's front page. Give the old chap a pair specs I say. J/K Quite possibly..if he's assuming FDR = 'Stefan talking to the internet' then what he said does kinda make sense.. Obviously that's just the tip of the iceberg, we are a real community..which like you say has taken quite a slagging recently, Often from people you think should know better, which probably put my guard up a bit.. If people want startling numbers though try this for size, 5000 donators giving $20 a month would be netting $1,200,000 a year, I know we can do that.
David Twyman Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 Personally, I was a little ticked off that he was parading his infant child in front of the camera as a promoter or sidekick. Your kids aren't video blog cheerleaders. I stopped the video at the very beginning with the impression that the blogger was a terrible douche for exploiting children. Exploiting children how? He's more giving the child attention than asking for responses I think. 1
J. D. Stembal Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 Exploiting children how? He's more giving the child attention than asking for responses I think. In all seriousness, it's very irresponsible to upload video and pictures of your kids to the internet, especially against their will. Your children have a right to have a minimal digital presence when they become teens and adults.
shirgall Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 In all seriousness, it's very irresponsible to upload video and pictures of your kids to the internet, especially against their will. Your children have a right to have a minimal digital presence when they become teens and adults. And, after being told this, they'll still fake their age to sign up to Facebook.
Culain Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 In all seriousness, it's very irresponsible to upload video and pictures of your kids to the internet, especially against their will. Your children have a right to have a minimal digital presence when they become teens and adults. I wonder if this should be applied to all the parents who send their children to all the corporate photographers (huggies, fisherprice, etc) to make some cash. I get the shivers just thinking about the possibility of some of these photo shoots being sold on the black market.
shukie Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 I feel the content is delivered honestly and earnestly due to the lack of advertising. It also shows a confidence in the content. 1
Recommended Posts