Singletrack "pay us if you want your videos published"

Well, this is eye-opening.

suggested that unless Sealskins/Mongoose/Akrigg/Santa Cruz paid them they would not feature

They are adverts though, you do get that, right? They’re nice adverts, for sure, and they’re shot well, and they don’t shout “SELL, SELL, SELL at you, but they’re still adverts, and places like STW are still expected to host them for free to get at us. (STW is the world’s biggest forum for mountainbikers after all)

This is an interesting discussion – one of the key issues is that the very people readers are interested in are supported by brands because of their media image and to a lesser degree race results. You get into the situation of cutting off content flow to make a potential short term financial gain, while at the same time losing “attention”, which longer term, diminishes the value of the publisher.

The same argument could be applied to articles online or in the mag with factory tours, “people being the brand” like Keith aBontrager etc. Pretty much everything connected to a brand puts potential customers into the sales funnel – so where do you draw the line?

The old adage of “content is king” very much applies here.

The world continues to turn and move on. These videos are pretty much what written ‘advertorials’ were, but being a slickly produced video, much more attractive to the target audience. It moves, it’s in HD, probably has fly-by shots, ultra slo-mo, filmed somewhere really beautiful, all things to draw you in. At the end of the day it’s selling a brand and has been funded by that brand. The video has been produced to draw attention to the brand, and that’s advertising. Lets face it, that’s the reason there are sponsored riders – to get your brand out there and sell more bikes/widgets/things.

This is an example of advertising moving on, spotting a new outlet that’s, well, it’s bloody cheap if you don’t have to pay someone to promote it. Hell, monetise it on Youtube and your target audience even generates some more cash for you possibly even paid for by your direct rivals and that’s pretty bloody amazing really.

ST have been pretty revolutionary in bringing print and digital media together, but they also constantly evolve. They clearly love what they are doing and want it to survive. To survive they need to pay the bills, earn a living and have something left over for investing in their future.

I do wonder if the whole video thing is directly impacting advertising sales. Think about it. You can pay for a nice glossy full page ad in the printed mag, or get the very same organisation to stick a video on their website and quite conceivably get more hits on that video in one day than the entire circulation of the printed mag. Why would you do the print advert if you can do that?

I don’t blame the marketing people for this, they are just doing their job and that’s fine, but equally I don’t blame Mark for saying ‘hang on a minute, there’s something not quite right here’. It’s all part of the evolving nature of the business of advertising. I suspect Mark is a bit ahead of the curve on this and can see this being more widespread. At the end of the day, organisations like ST need advertisers and advertisers need organisations like ST. I’m sure there’s a balance that will be reached. It’s the future. Probably!

The same argument could be applied to articles online or in the mag with factory tours, “people being the brand” like Keith aBontrager etc. Pretty much everything connected to a brand puts potential customers into the sales funnel – so where do you draw the line?

Isn’t the difference editorial control, though?

You miss the point. If the “freeloaders” did indeed piss off, this site would be worth a fraction of what it is.

Which is probably true, but without income (either from ads, subscribers or mag sales) there wouldn’t be a site.

FWIW I think Mark is entirely right here – why should STW pay (in bandwidth and overheads) to run someone else’s viral marketing?

And see that little P next to my username, you’re welcome.

I don’t recall thanking you for anything.

I presume you don’t use adblock and don’t complain about advertising on the site

You presume do you?

Have been noticing that the general trend has been premier members have been pro Marks stance and nays have been non prem.

Yay and nay? what have you been smoking?
I am neither yay or nay.
STW can do whatever they want, makes zero difference to me. I can watch videos and read decent reviews on kit, product launches for free on any number of sites and I’ll be advertised to exactly as I am here.
I just thought it was an interesting discussion, which it was before you and junky got all emotional. It’s Marks decision, and one it seems he’s made.

I don’t recall thanking you for anything.

Not only did the freeloader not thank us you think you are a “customer” ZOKES TO THE FORUM 😀

which it was before you and junky got all emotional

Ah the old switcheroo move, bit obvious but you know you gave it a shot 😕

Forgive me for disagree with you obviously I must be very very upset 🙄

Blockade at STW towers this morning? parkings free but a at a premium due to market day.. i m with stw here they provide a platform if the folks are prepared to pay riders producers etc to make the thing the least they can do is pay for its exposure.. i m pretty sure cinemas dont show films for free..

Ah the old switcheroo move, bit obvious but you know you gave it a shot

Nothing remotely personal, sweary or aggressive in my posts so far Junky. That’s because I’m not upset.
How can you freeload a free to use forum?

No you miss the point without folk paying for it there would be **** all for you to see

I thought this sort of site generated revenue from page hits and selling advertising based on this and isn’t the premier thing in the history of STW. Who’s to say how much revenue we do or don’t generate by clicking through adverts and buying kit?
What really winds me up is when Premier members think they have more rights than freeloaders and can sneer at us. It’s a memebership not a share. 😈

i m pretty sure cinemas dont show films for free..

You’re right well almost as they pay to show them.

How can you freeload a free to use forum?

The price of admission, as well you know no doubt, is either a subscription or an agreement to the receiving of advertising. If you’re a non-Premier user actively blocking the advertising content, you’re denying the site both streams of revenue and hence freeloading.

What really winds me up is when Premier members think they have more rights than freeloaders and can sneer at us. It’s a memebership not a share.

Premier users don’t have more rights than advertising-supported free members (and for what it’s worth, don’t get preferential treatment from a moderation standpoint either). But I can readily understand why someone who’s paid their way might get a bit snippy with those who are sat there boasting “what ads?”, I would be a bit miffed also.

I do idly wonder how our most vocal advertising dodgers will feel when their “free” forum goes pop due to lack of funding. Probably just shrug and move on to the next free content site I suppose, rinse and repeat.

Thought this was vaguely relevant.

A few observations…

1. Singletrack does not currently feature many “sick edits” anyway. Have a quick compare of the ST site to Pinkbike’s front page if you doubt this.

2. Mark and his team have built a big audience by offering quality content (and owning a hugely popular forum).

3. Would it be a good idea to risk alienating that audience by delegating a bit of editorial control to whoever is willing to pony up to have their video featured?

4. I severely doubt they’ll be instructing the mods to remove links to video content from the forum, I suspect some of you have added two and two and got six there.

BUT, reading the Bikebiz piece, I think Mark’s stance is more about overall marketing budgets than videos per se – and perhaps its useful to get marketing managers thinking about the matter.

BUT, reading the Bikebiz piece, I think Mark’s stance is more about overall marketing budgets than videos per se – and perhaps its useful to get marketing managers thinking about the matter.

Agreed, the point I was trying to get across earlier was that you have marketing manager for a bike company who wants a bit of advertising. In a simplistic breakdown they can pay for it through
a). Having a sponsored rider (kit and maybe a bit of cash)
b). Bringing in a small media company to do a ‘sick edit’
c). Maybe pony up for some travel expenses

At present that video is then posted to Youtube, Vimeo, Facebook etc to host so they aren’t paying for bandwidth there.
they then may pay for
d). Facebook/twitter advertising rates to promote the story to people who haven’t already liked their page

How about adding in?
e). An advertising fee to websites who can promote it for you and already run your print adverts anyway.

There are some good little videos out there to watch, I liked the Alpkit ones recently and was inspired by them. The Minipips one is great and that kid is awesome and deserved to be showcased.
Is it ultimately an advert? Yes
Do I want them to make more? Yes
Do I buy far too much Alpkit stuff? My bank balance seems to say as much
Should they pay for the dissemination of their advert? Yes
Do they have to? No, they could rely on the forum to hit the potential STW customers or pay a bit and it’s an item on ever pageload for all STW users for a while

I just thought it was an interesting discussion, which it was before you and junky got all emotional.

Just remember that words hurt

I need a hug now

If you are only allowing brands that pay then surely that impacts the little guys most? Take for instance Cotic vs Spesh or SRAM then we know who will have the biggest budgets.

ake for instance Cotic vs Spesh or SRAM then we know who will have the biggest budgets

Or it depends how they value the exposure STW brings, I imagine Cotic would gain more from having a vid featured here than Spesh
Cy has already stated on Twitter that he “totally agrees with Marks argument”

If the small companies – Cotic, Stanton, Alpkit etc (that IMO generally produce the more interesting original vids but maybe get overlooked by the more American/European based sites) are happy to pay a small amount and be featured then I think it will be a good position as they get better exposure and the site maintains some interest

I need a hug now

poor little man. C’mere you.

I’ve always felt that sports/leisure pursuits publications were little more than advertising vehicles anyway, certainly none seem to have existed without extensive adverts within, so I don’t see a problem with a publication demanding a fee for posting videos of the type mentioned here. Bike manufacturers aren’t giving stuff away for free. So to expect the publications that give their products expose, to do that is hypocritical and downright rude.

On the flip side; I notice this website offers branded clothing advertising the magazine/website, which they charge for. I find it quite funny that they might want me to pay for advertising their products, in the context of this discussion! Like so many other labelled clothing etc brands. I’m quite happy for you to pay me to wear something advertising your products, but if you think I’m going to pay you, you’re daft! 😆

As for paying something to help keep this website going; that’s a fair point, but then it’s all about choice. There’s plenty of ‘free’ stuff on the internet for me to exploit; you’d have to offer something well above and beyond for me to want to do so.

chakaping – Member

A few observations…

1. Singletrack does not currently feature many “sick edits” anyway. Have a quick compare of the ST site to Pinkbike’s front page if you doubt this.

4. I severely doubt they’ll be instructing the mods to remove links to video content from the forum, I suspect some of you have added two and two and got six there.

1. No they dont, and most ones that are interesting to the average user here pop up on the forum before they appear as an article on the front page.

4. Id be surprised if they didn’t, as above most videos are on the forum long before they hit the front page, infact the front page is usually quite slow to pick up on things that appear on other forums hours if not days before.

The website seems to be ran as a sub section of the mag, a ‘lite’ version maybe. Certainly the content of articles about industry tend to be brief compared to other sites which delve deeply into technical details or expand on other areas. I suppose that’s more a result of the intended target audience, people who dont prowl around vacuuming up news and bikey facts, but instead just want the broadsheet style headlines and overview at their convenience.

4. I severely doubt they’ll be instructing the mods to remove links to video content from the forum, I suspect some of you have added two and two and got six there.

We’ll see.

The big difference between the forum and, say, the home page is that the vast majority of the engagement and discussion from Joe Public is on the forum. If Akrigg produces a new video, it’s often on the forum before the home page and it’s the forum that I – and I guess most of us – go to to discuss it (and to build up those views). I could be wrong and it’d be interesting to see the stats either way, but the forum is currently very much a “free pass” for the content Singletrack otherwise wants paying for. Unless of course two and two does indeed equal four 😉

EDIT same sentiment^. Beaten to it 🙁

Bike manufacturers aren’t giving stuff away for free.

Except they do to the mags for free publicity and to butter up the jurnos. Maybe if STW were more honest about what they had been given free, then it wouldn’t be so bad.

wrecker – Member

Pursuing guys like cut is a total cop out. The money holders are the manufacturers and distributors.

WTF? The only person talking about pursuing them is YOU!

I was merely pointing out that they are one of the few parties actually getting PAID in this new model of online advertising. Everyone else is expected to help advertise the product for free…

WTF? The only person talking about pursuing them is YOU!

WTF? That’s what this entire thread is about!
STW want to monetise showing other peoples content. Fair enough, but exactly who pays is worthy of discussion and it’s my opinion that going after the guys on time plus for remuneration is unfair when the makers and movers have such deep pockets.

STW want to monetise showing other peoples content adverts.

FTFY. A pretty revolutionary concept eh? When you put it like that.

I wonder if ITV know that they might be able to do this as well? As it stands they just have someone phone up and ask if they could stick their little film on in the middle of Coronation Street. They feel sort of obliged too, as they quite like sofas and supermarkets and cars and stuff.

I’ll let Cougar explain exactly what we’ve told all the moderators in relation to branded content videos appearing on the forum.

FTFY. A pretty revolutionary concept eh? When you put it like that.

Whatever. I did say it was fair enough, but obviously you chose not to quote that bit.

and it’s my opinion that going after the guys on time plus for remuneration is unfair when the makers and movers have such deep pockets.

As far as I can see, you’re the only person who has suggested going after Cut Media. Anyone sensible would expect the original manufacturer, whose product it is, to end up footing the bill……

I don’t see a problem with STW asking for money if they decide that a video is overly branded.

Why should they advertise for free?

They are a business after all.

Seems really quiet a simple concept being made difficult for reasons I don’t understand..

As far as I can see, you’re the only person who has suggested going after Cut Media.

I wasn’t the first person to mention them.
An interesting point would be if Mark could demonstrate that mag/site advertising had gone down from those companies who pay for these vids to demonstrate his point that budgets are being squeezed to make “viral” stuff.

tbh lets see how it pans out.

Personally I would like to see a lovely, well shot probably massively expensive mtb video that is more than likely an advert over the videos that stw produces (no offence like)

if stw doesn’t show them, ill look elsewhere.

if stw doesn’t show them, ill look elsewhere.

Which is a point that’s been made further up; it’s not like STW publishes many sick edits compared with e.g. Pinkbike anyway. What appears to have got Mark’s back up (rightly) is being contacted by people who’ve made what are essentially adverts (paid for from marketing budgets by sponsorship or direct funding) then expect him to run them for nothing.

over the videos that stw produces

They are utter pants aren’t they, definitely at the low end of the production value scale.

videos that stw produces

Some of the expensive/high production value films I find really quite a turn off TBH..

Give me something a little bit grainy and accessible any day over roosting brown pow & tail whips!

I’ll let Cougar explain exactly what we’ve told all the moderators in relation to branded content videos appearing on the forum.

He’s said to ban anyone who complains. (-:

Basically what Mark’s just said is nothing’s changed, it’s business as usual. Posts that fall within the existing T&Cs are still fine.

Maybe if STW were more honest about what they had been given free, then it wouldn’t be so bad

Yeah, they could even put it on a weekly webpage. Maybe call it Free-Stuff Friday, or something.

Posts that fall within the existing T&Cs are still fine.

which are?
would I be allowed to post a wicked sick edit with lots of branding on just because I think it’s cool and I want to share it with others?

+1 with Mark, it’s the whole freetard mentality.

What appears to have got Mark’s back up (rightly) is being contacted by people who’ve made what are essentially adverts (paid for from marketing budgets by sponsorship or direct funding) then expect him to run them for nothing.

STW has spent time, effort & money gaining an audience which someone else wants to make money from whilst paying nothing for it.

Servers (aka the cloud) don’t build, maintain & run themselves despite the efforts marketeers go to give that image.

would I be allowed to post a wicked sick edit with lots of branding on just because I think it’s cool and I want to share it with others?

I would assume yes, assuming that the brand isn’t Jekkyl PLC