# I had some complicated thoughts on Youtubers and honesty



## ManchesterMusic

Recently, a plugin company approached me to be a part of their affiliate program, which seemed like a great idea at the time. However, when I weighed their offer against all of the pressure with growing a channel, being first and production stress..things got complicated. Anyway, I made a video and I'm wondering if any creators here have weighed similar issues


----------



## doctoremmet

I’m pretty sure @Cory Pelizzari has.


----------



## easyrider

ManchesterMusic said:


> Recently, a plugin company approached me to be a part of their affiliate program, which seemed like a great idea at the time. However, when I weighed their offer against all of the pressure with growing a channel, being first and production stress..things got complicated. Anyway, I made a video and I'm wondering if any creators here have weighed similar issues



Subbed 👍


----------



## Mike Greene

I don't think I'd do it either, mostly because I imagine you started this channel mostly for fun, but monetizing it in a way that's directly related to how many products you sell would radically change that vibe. I don't fault people who do go that route, mind you, but it's not something I'd want.

It's an interesting situation, though. You've made your choice and I agree with it, but it seems to me that at 24k subscribers, you're legitimately an "influencer." As a developer, it does make me think for a minute about why wasn't it _me_ who made you that offer! 

To be clear, I've never extended (or received) offers to anyone to plug my stuff, and I don't see myself doing that now, either. It does make me wonder, though ... wouldn't that be something a _smart_ businessperson would do? _"Dear Daniel. I'm really, really, reeeeally sorry about that whole banning thing ..."_


----------



## Polkasound

When someone offers you a library and affiliate link money in exchange for a review, do they ask for an honest review, or do they come right out and ask for a positive one? If I were an influencer, I'd have no problem accepting a freebie as long as the developer understood it would not influence my review. I wouldn't put the kid gloves on and hold back any warranted criticism.



Mike Greene said:


> It does make me wonder, though ... wouldn't that be something a _smart_ businessperson would do?


Yes.

_This reply has been brought to you by RealiTone! RealiTone, makers of fine Kontakt sample libraries. Get your RealiTone library and start making music today! RealiTone!_


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

Great topic Geoff. As far as I can remember, I've had 2 inquires about reviews and joining their affiliate programs, both of which I turned down because I wasn't very excited about the product itself. Hence, it would be dishonest of me to share a positive review of something I wasn't passionate about, even for monetary gain.


----------



## CeDur

Most YT so called 'reviews' should actually be called 'showcases'. When I start to follow some youtuber and see that after a few videos not a single word of critique is given towards the product I usually unsubscribe. It's obvious they are either paid or want to get more stuff for free.

What should you do? In a brutal business world, you don't have to be honest (participating in such 'affiliate programs' at least partially discredits honesty) to succeed in short-term. If you think long-term, as much as naive it sounds, you made a good decision.


----------



## Polkasound

Henrik B. Jensen said:


> If they pay you for doing a review, they don’t actually have to _say_ they want a positive review, do they?


I've never been asked to write a VI library review, so I don't know how that works. But anyone who asked me to write a review would get an honest review whether they gave me nothing or paid me a million dollars. And I would be up-front about that with the developer beforehand.

A few years ago, for a brief time, I was a Top 1,000 Amazon reviewer. I was ranked something like 827th out of around 30 million. One day, along with an item I had ordered came a generous incentive to leave a five-star review. I tossed it out and left a four-star review, because the product had a negative design issue that I felt consumers needed to know about.

If I were a social media influencer and not 100% up front with information I felt was important to consumers, I'd feel like I scam artist.


----------



## Mike Greene

Polkasound said:


> When someone offers you a library and affiliate link money in exchange for a review, do they ask for an honest review, or do they come right out and ask for a positive one?


With an affiliate deal (as opposed to a flat fee for posting a video), the "reviewer" is already motivated to be positive, even without the company asking him to be, since he only makes money if the product sells. He's essentially transformed into a salesman working on commission, which is what makes the whole thing kinda icky. (IMO)


----------



## Double Helix

Mike Greene said:


> [. . .] *He's essentially transformed into a salesman working on commission*, which is what makes the whole thing kinda icky. (IMO)


^^Yep^^

". . . Thanks for listening to my little rant" -- I guess I am still waiting for the "rant" to begin.
It was a measured and thoughtful comment on the state of "YouTubers and honesty." It gives me insight into ALL reviews, even the ones I happen to agree with and posted by those I respect.

As Polonius says to his son Laertes, "And this above all, to thine own self be true."
(Hard to get into trouble following that advice)


----------



## ManchesterMusic

Mike Greene said:


> With an affiliate deal (as opposed to a flat fee for posting a video), the "reviewer" is already motivated to be positive, even without the company asking him to be, since he only makes money if the product sells. He's essentially transformed into a salesman working on commission, which is what makes the whole thing kinda icky. (IMO)


100%. My heart goes out to people who are full time creators with no steady income + benefits. Certainly there's freedom in being your own boss but the hustle and work ethic required to stay ahead and constantly grow amid thousands of creators would inevitably lead to burn out.


----------



## gordinho

The best business model I find works for independence is either reviewing things you are excited about and paid yourself or having an independent source of income like patreon that allows you to purchase items. Even better is when when patrons enter a raffle to win the product after it's been reviewed so there is no ulterior motive to picking what gets reviewed. This doesn't work well in the VI realm unless you can transfer the license.


----------



## rgames

It depends on what you want your social media presence to be.

If your channel is a gear porn channel then reviews, flattering or otherwise, are expected and I think most people don't care whether they're sponsored or not. They're smart enough to know when they're being given a pitch with positive spin.

If your channel is not gear porn then it doesn't matter: you're not pitching anything other than your music.

So, bottom line, I think it doesn't matter how you make money from a gear porn channel. So you might as well do whatever you need to in order to monetize a gear porn channel.

Not maximizing revenues from a gear porn channel doesn't seem to make sense.

I strongly suspect that maximizing revenue on such a channel involves paid sponsorships. The amount of revenue lost from the few people who care is vastly outweighed by the revenue gained from a sponsorship (I suspect).

I've been approached a few times to do reviews but have refused them because I'm trying to avoid branding my channel as gear porn. I'm certain I would have made significantly more money had I taken the offers, and if my goal was to make money from a gear porn channel then why wouldn't I?

There's nothing dishonest about it. Making a buck is fine. If you're making money then that means people approve.

rgames


----------



## ManchesterMusic

Double Helix said:


> ". . . Thanks for listening to my little rant" -- I guess I am still waiting for the "rant" to begin.
> It was a measured and thoughtful comment on the state of "YouTubers and honesty." It gives me insight into ALL reviews, even the ones I happen to agree with and posted by those I respect.


Cheers, and yeah it probably wasn't even close to a 'rant', but


CeDur said:


> Most YT so called 'reviews' should actually be called 'showcases'.


+1 on this. In fact, I rarely ever put the word "Review" in the title because I have too much respect for the word. To me, a review is something akin to what Sound On Sound does: sit with a product for a few months and then essentially write a piece that's equiv to a scientific journal entry on its merits. Trouble is, people have a hard time waiting. Creators don't want to wait to post, and developers want reviews they can share early, to help stir demand. Getting a 80GB sample library a few days before launch, or even at launch meant 'reviewing' was a non-starter, at least for me. If you watch my older vids on sample libraries I always tried to write a cue in the video so you could hear the library in action, in a real world scenario. I wanted to make the video more than just a preset playthrough or 'first impressions'. Nothing wrong with those other video formats but to me, you have to take the car through mud, rain and snow to say you truly test-drove it.


----------



## Cory Pelizzari

Mike Greene said:


> With an affiliate deal (as opposed to a flat fee for posting a video), the "reviewer" is already motivated to be positive, even without the company asking him to be, since he only makes money if the product sells. He's essentially transformed into a salesman working on commission, which is what makes the whole thing kinda icky. (IMO)


It's always good to hear something honest and unbiased from a business owner. Keep keeping it real Mike.


----------



## Reid Rosefelt

As probably the most well-known affiliate marketer on this forum who is also an unsuccessful YouTuber, I feel like I could contribute a little to this thread.

First, unless the likes of Spitfire or Orchestral Tools or VSL are offering you 25% of the action you aren't going to make much from music software affiliate marketing. But I doubt they are, because they don't have affiliate plans. 95% of music developers don't have them. Only two of my videos were for a company I have an affiliated relationship with, ujam. They've been up for awhile. Current profits are zero cents. 

Now if you are a YouTube camera expert or makeup artist with a massive following, you can put 20 links under every video listing all your recommended products. What would be the same thing for you? Would you list two dozen pieces of music software that you say are awesome under all your videos? All affiliates? Would that work? People would think you were insane and you'd lose subscribers.

The only way I can do affiliated links on my Tiger the Frog Black Friday post is through stores like Plugin Boutique. I have no relationships with the developers that sell there. So let's say you buy a copy of a Ben Osterhouse library and post a Plugin Boutique link on your video. Ben doesn't know about you. It doesn't matter what kind of video you do. If people get intrigued by it and click on the links, then you may make a few bucks. But we are talking pocket change from a video on one product. Look at all the links on my TTF sale post. I've had days with zero dollars from all of them and days with three dollars. It will get better, but I'm not going to get rich off of it. But try and imagine you with a single link. Musicians are a wary lot and they don't like to click on affiliate links.

The reason I said "buy" a Ben Osterhouse library is because, whether or not you do a positive or negative video, getting a product for free does make things more complicated than when you pay for it. 

That's the issue of free stuff that @Cory Pelizzari talks about. Almost all the videos I did involved software I bought. But at one point I did think that maybe I could make the videos pay off for me with free software, but I eventually came to the same conclusion Cory did--it made everything like a job and no fun. I'm not going to be as strict as him and say I'll never take free software for videos but I'm working out my own way of dealing with it. But I would say that for the most part, like him, I will pay for the stuff I make videos on. I also won't be doing anything like a review.

In terms of integrity... I don't think it comes from whether or not you make money from affiliate links (ha!) or whether you make your money off the ads in your videos or a Patreon or anything else. It's about who you are, and you are clearly a person who engenders trust. That kind of thing is earned over the long term and you have it. So does Cory.


----------



## ka00

rgames said:


> It depends on what you want your social media presence to be.
> 
> If your channel is a gear porn channel then reviews, flattering or otherwise, are expected and I think most people don't care whether they're sponsored or not.


Except, for ethical reasons, you must state whether the videos are sponsored or not.



rgames said:


> They're smart enough to know when they're being given a pitch with positive spin.



Choosing to watch a "gear porn" channel is not something only people who are "smart enough" to know this do. It must be at least implied in some way, like stating if the video is sponsored or not.



rgames said:


> If your channel is not gear porn then it doesn't matter: you're not pitching anything other than your music.



Why are these the only two possible scenarios? I.e. either pitching music OR "gear porn" where making money is your only concern?



rgames said:


> So, bottom line, I think it doesn't matter how you make money from a gear porn channel. So you might as well do whatever you need to in order to monetize a gear porn channel.



Why does it not matter? Why are ethical choices not a part of this equation?



rgames said:


> Not maximizing revenues from a gear porn channel doesn't seem to make sense.



If you value making money over anything else, sure. If you would rather be helpful to your viewers by only recommending products you believe in, then that seems like a good reason.



rgames said:


> Making a buck is fine. If you're making money then that means people approve.
> 
> rgames


If you're making a buck from making paid advertisements for products you don't think are any good, then the fact that you are making money only means you were persuasive in your salesmanship.

The real indication of whether "people approve" could only possibly come from whether a person who purchased based on your recommendation can determine, after taking possession, that you didn't falsely misrepresent how good the product was.


----------



## rgames

ka00 said:


> Why are these the only two possible scenarios?


Because they're totally different audiences. One is driven away by content for the other, so if you mix them then you're limiting your audience with both. Better to create separate brands if you want to do that.

Does Adele have gear porn videos on her YouTube channel? I don't know but I doubt it. Because her audience doesn't care about what gear she uses. They're there for the music. The people who care about the gear are an entirely different audience.

Regarding honesty - I've made many bucks from productions I didn't think were any good, especially back when I was doing indie films. I didn't like some of them, but other people did. So fine - I provided value to them even though I thought the product was total crap. There's nothing wrong with getting paid to support someone else's vision even if you don't share it. You offer a service, you provide it, you get paid.

Or, if enough people are averse to it, it's not economically viable and you don't get paid.

Does an electrician show up and make sure he approves of the value judgements of the person he's providing a service to? Does the barber do that? No, they give you the service you need and you pay them. Thanks. Have a nice day.

That's the great thing about capitalism: it goes hand-in-hand with democracy and peaceful societies. It prevents people from forcing their value judgements on others who think differently. As long as there's no exploitation then let people do what they want. Activity in capitalist economies improves tolerance and fosters diversity without conflict.

Take the Facebook example: there was outrage, OUTRAGE I say, when people finally understood how that company makes money by storing and manipulating personal information.

And then... nothing. The truth is that almost nobody cares. So fine, let them do their thing. Or maybe enough people do care and in 10 years Facebook will go away (I doubt it). But either way, it doesn't matter. Let them do their thing.

But I digress... too much time waiting on delayed flights today, I suppose.

rgames


----------



## JohnG

Personally, if I compliment or recommend a company that has given me free stuff, I disclose that I got — free stuff.

I reason that, if I’m reading someone’s opinion on a library or keyboard, it’s useful to know whether the review is potentially influenced to lean more charitably toward a product or company because of freebies.

At least a couple of people complained that I did that, but I think it’s the right approach.

I think it’s also important to disclose if you’re a competitor, or have a head-to-head product of your own that competes with the one you’re reviewing. WE’ve all seen epic slag-offs by reviewers with potentially competitive motivations. I’ve even seen at least one post denigrating a product and later learned the reviewer was mad they didn’t get a free copy.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

rgames said:


> Because they're totally different audiences. One is driven away by content for the other, so if you mix them then you're limiting your audience with both. Better to create separate brands if you want to do that.
> 
> Does Adele have gear porn videos on her YouTube channel? I don't know but I doubt it. Because her audience doesn't care about what gear she uses. They're there for the music. The people who care about the gear are an entirely different audience.
> 
> Regarding honesty - I've made many bucks from productions I didn't think were any good, especially back when I was doing indie films. I didn't like some of them, but other people did. So fine - I provided value to them even though I thought the product was total crap. There's nothing wrong with getting paid to support someone else's vision even if you don't share it. You offer a service, you provide it, you get paid.
> 
> Or, if enough people are averse to it, it's not economically viable and you don't get paid.
> 
> Does an electrician show up and make sure he approves of the value judgements of the person he's providing a service to? Does the barber do that? No, they give you the service you need and you pay them. Thanks. Have a nice day.
> 
> That's the great thing about capitalism: it goes hand-in-hand with democracy and peaceful societies. It prevents people from forcing their value judgements on others who think differently. As long as there's no exploitation then let people do what they want. Activity in capitalist economies improves tolerance and fosters diversity without conflict.
> 
> Take the Facebook example: there was outrage, OUTRAGE I say, when people finally understood how that company makes money by storing and manipulating personal information.
> 
> And then... nothing. The truth is that almost nobody cares. So fine, let them do their thing. Or maybe enough people do care and in 10 years Facebook will go away (I doubt it). But either way, it doesn't matter. Let them do their thing.
> 
> But I digress... too much time waiting on delayed flights today, I suppose.
> 
> rgames


100% you were typing this with 1 hand and saluting the American flag with the other. 

Also your examples are so far off base you might want to revisit them.


----------



## QuiteAlright

This is really interesting - I just started another thread about a somewhat adjacent topic, where I asked for recommendations of reviewers who weren't afraid of sharing negative opinions of products. 

Part of this comes down to the fact that sample libraries are really difficult for buyers to compare realistically before purchasing. A demo track can hide a lot of flaws, and there's usually no free trials for sample libraries. So a lot of people depend on reviews to help guide them, or just see what other people here on VIC think. 

And while I see tons of negative comments about different libraries here on the forums, it's a lot more rare in reviews. The disparity there is somewhat telling - personally, if a reviewer has at least a few videos where they advise people _not to _buy a product, it makes me trust them a lot more.


----------



## GtrString

Here’s news for you, when listening to a review I don’t actually care about what the reviewer says, only the sounds on display. So, you might as well use the affiliate link, as I will click on it if I like what I hear from the library, regardless of the review..


----------



## Macrawn

Polkasound said:


> When someone offers you a library and affiliate link money in exchange for a review, do they ask for an honest review, or do they come right out and ask for a positive one? If I were an influencer, I'd have no problem accepting a freebie as long as the developer understood it would not influence my review. I wouldn't put the kid gloves on and hold back any warranted criticism.
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> _This reply has been brought to you by RealiTone! RealiTone, makers of fine Kontakt sample libraries. Get your RealiTone library and start making music today! RealiTone!_


But I think the problem is we are not immune to the psychological and subconscious influences getting something free has on us. I think Cory pointed out that kind of thing was weighing on him. 

Humans are literally wired for reciprocity. It's not a social convention, it's in our dna and psyche as a survival instinct. When someone does something for you, you feel obligated to provide something in return whether you want to or not. We can pretend that this has no influence on us but unless you literally have something wrong with your brain wiring like psychopaths do, you cannot escape this influence. 

It's even worse when people rationalize away this reciprocity instinct and think they are immune to it. They think they can consciously get around it. I think that's what Cory's video is really about. Getting free stuff puts a lot of psychological pressure on you to be positive, or gloss over some of the negatives. Eventually that wears you down. 

What most people do now is if they get a free plugin they don't like, they just won't do the review. That's another kind of problem too. In a way they get paid off to be silent which isn't a bad thing for the developer. Probably worth giving out the free plugin to avoid getting a negative review. That's also a kind of disservice to the audience.


----------



## dcoscina

As a reviewer for Film Score Monthly Online, I only cover products that interest me. The tenor of my reviews is to focus on what the library does well, not what it does not. Only twice did I contact a developer and tell them I couldn't find anything really positive to say and I don't like trashing someone's hard work unnecessarily. People can ascertain the use of the library based on the things I laud.

I pretty much review products that I feel would be helpful tools for a film or media composer. I also stay away from loop-based libraries. My personal philosophy is that a library which has some arpeggiated or phrases as extra material are okay but if it's something like The Orchestra, sorry, that's not composing IMO.


----------



## Reid Rosefelt

GtrString said:


> Here’s news for you, when listening to a review I don’t actually care about what the reviewer says, only the sounds on display. So, you might as well use the affiliate link, as I will click on it if I like what I hear from the library, regardless of the review..


Exactly. I watch a lot of extremely positive videos that convince me not to buy a library. 

Clicking on an affiliate link should be in support of your appreciation of what the video maker does and the labor involved.


----------



## Polkasound

Macrawn said:


> We can pretend that this has no influence on us but unless you literally have something wrong with your brain wiring like psychopaths do, you cannot escape this influence.


You can choose to turn the valve of influence completely off if you have an obligation to be objective and honest, and you were willing to accept the consequences of that honesty. For example...

When I receive an NFR copy of a library out of good will, I refrain from saying anything negative about it on message boards like this one. I'll chime in with something positive to say and leave the criticism up to others. So in this case, I am willingly allowing the freebie to influence what I choose to say. But, if the developer were to ask me to write a review, I would forewarn them that my review would be my uncompromising opinion and give them the opportunity to take back the NFR copy.

The consequence of my ability to write an uninfluenced review would likely be that developers would stop asking for my reviews.


----------



## river angler

ChrisSiuMusic said:


> Great topic Geoff. As far as I can remember, I've had 2 inquires about reviews and joining their affiliate programs, both of which I turned down because I wasn't very excited about the product itself. Hence, it would be dishonest of me to share a positive review of something I wasn't passionate about, even for monetary gain.


TC-Helicon gave me a free hardware upgrade for the only product review I've ever done a few years ago! I too wouldn't dream of reviewing a product I wasn't enthusiastic about myself especially as being an "influencer" or bonefied "Youtuber" is certainly not my vocation!


----------



## Nico5

I often wonder, if the effective hourly revenue is even worth it for the majority of individuals doing reviews, showcases, lists of sales and such.

And the "hourly revenue" calculation would presumably include a monetary value for *only* those NFR products that those individuals then *utilize in other things* they do and exclude the things that aren't useful to them in any other way. And it would include the actual selling value for things that can be sold. And of course it would include affiliate link revenue and other real money.

And if the effective hourly revenue is ridiculously low, the question does arise why bother with revenue generation at all?

And if it's purely a hobby, then I wonder why individuals doing these things go though the constant stress of having their objectivity questioned and/or the extra hassle to divulge disclaimers?


----------



## river angler

Nico5 said:


> I often wonder, if the effective hourly revenue is even worth it for the majority of individuals doing reviews, showcases, lists of sales and such.
> 
> And the "hourly revenue" calculation would presumably include a monetary value for *only* those NFR products that those individuals then *utilize in other things* they do and exclude the things that aren't useful to them in any other way. And it would include the actual selling value for things that can be sold. And of course it would include affiliate link revenue and other real money.
> 
> And if the effective hourly revenue is ridiculously low, the question does arise why bother with revenue generation at all?
> 
> And if it's purely a hobby, then I wonder why individuals doing these things go though the constant stress of having their objectivity questioned and/or the extra hassle to divulge disclaimers?


From watching reviews myself and having gone through what it actually takes to produce a half decent one I'm glad it's not the way I make my living!

It takes a lot of prep which even though I'm sure becomes a quicker process the more you do it I suspect only those dedicated enough to keep at it succeed in possibly making a small supplementary income. There are others of course who keep putting them out as it generates subscribers to their brand/name/main business and hence feel the time and effort of making them worth while.


----------



## TonalDynamics

ManchesterMusic said:


> Recently, a plugin company approached me to be a part of their affiliate program, which seemed like a great idea at the time. However, when I weighed their offer against all of the pressure with growing a channel, being first and production stress..things got complicated. Anyway, I made a video and I'm wondering if any creators here have weighed similar issues



I dare say that 'selling out' (or not) is one of the most common decisions any up-and-comer has to make to some degree every day they wake up.

But it isn't black and white, rather an issue of degrees.

One just has to be careful not to allow the small concessions to turn into gaping compromises of one's own integrity (the 'Breaking Bad' phenomenon).

In my book, if you don't cross the line of being a 'generally less-than-honest' typical person, and stop short of becoming an absolute shill or corporate lackey (of which there are legion in today's content creators, producers and performers), you're doing pretty well in terms of integrity in this business, or any type of media/entertainment industry in particular.

A little Ad or plug here and there never hurt anyone.

But losing objectivity always does.


----------



## TonalDynamics

Macrawn said:


> But I think the problem is we are not immune to the psychological and subconscious influences getting something free has on us. I think Cory pointed out that kind of thing was weighing on him.
> 
> Humans are literally wired for reciprocity. It's not a social convention, it's in our dna and psyche as a survival instinct. When someone does something for you, you feel obligated to provide something in return whether you want to or not. We can pretend that this has no influence on us but unless you literally have something wrong with your brain wiring like psychopaths do, you cannot escape this influence.


Ingrained psychological behaviors, regardless of whether they are a result of nature or nurture can be consciously overriden through a sound process of reasoning and logic.

This is essentially what clinical psychologists do and get paid for (very handsomely so by the high-energy movers and shakers and billionaires among us).

So while I completely agree that reciprocity is hard-wired (which is a good thing!) and is a general aspect of human decency, I don't agree that it completely nullifies your ability to be objective and rational after receiving such a gift for instance.

And think about it, especially not when you know that the 'gift' (sample lib, programs, etc) are costing the developers essentially nothing to send to you, being completely digital in nature and having no atomic footprint.

So their 'downside' is minimal to non-existent, but their UPSIDE is comparatively enormous, if they are hoping to use the good name and popularity of your channel to get good publicity.

Cheers


----------



## Nico5

TonalDynamics said:


> Ingrained psychological behaviors, regardless of whether they are a result of nature or nurture can be consciously overriden through a sound process of reasoning and logic.



*"... sound process of reasoning and logic."*


----------



## TonalDynamics

Nico5 said:


> *"... sound process of reasoning and logic."*



THanks for reminding me that I desperately need to watch this movie again 😌


----------



## Reid Rosefelt

I would really like it if this thread could be kept open for an ongoing and nuanced discussion of the issues surrounding money and YouTube videos. Is it always okay to ask companies for free stuff? Is affiliate marketing wrong? What about Patreon, etc.

Is it unfortunate to be focused on feeding the algorithm by asking people to subscribe and like and comment all the time? If they use YouTube, don't they know the deal? If they are interested in regularly getting somebody's content, they'll just know, it seems to me--they shouldn't have to be asked during every video. If they have something to say... they'll say it. If they have a question... they'll ask it. And if they don't use YouTube enough to understand subscribing, honestly who cares? Their "subscribe" is meaningless if they don't go to YouTube. We should be interested in real things, like whether people like what we do--not making a computer algorithm happy. Or even our desire to express ourselves without worrying about what people think. Where the value and the satisfaction is in the doing. I have literally gone back to some of my old videos and removed some of my more annoying and desperate requests to get subscribers when I was starting out. 

I relate very much to @Cory Pelizzari saying he doesn't want to get free stuff anymore. It sounds _exactly_ like my own words, the things I say all the time to my friends. Getting free stuff can drain all the fun out of doing the videos. It puts a responsibility on your shoulders. As it often takes me four weeks or more to make a video, I can get behind with making the "sponsored" videos, and that puts the videos I actually want to make far in the future. Maybe if I was the kind of person who could make videos quickly I would feel differently, but that's not who I am. And that means I have to care a lot before I take on any video. It's too much work otherwise. Cory did a video about how he makes his videos, and he works _hard._

Rather than try to settle any of these issues in a general way, I would like to be able to pose questions to the group about things I'm considering doing, and getting a range of opinions. I hope that others will do the same. Because I don't really know the answers.


----------



## Mike Greene

Reid Rosefelt said:


> Is it always okay to ask companies for free stuff?


I can't speak for other developers (although I think almost all would agree with me on this), but for me, it's definitely okay. In fact, I'm happy to get those requests.



Reid Rosefelt said:


> Is it unfortunate to be focused on feeding the algorithm by asking people to subscribe and like and comment all the time? If they use YouTube, don't they know the deal? If they are interested in regularly getting somebody's content, they'll just know, it seems to me--they shouldn't have to be asked during every video. If they have something to say... they'll say it. If they have a question... they'll ask it. And if they don't use YouTube enough to understand subscribing, honestly who cares?


I'm a believer in "call to action." It's why I usually end my walkthrough videos with _"So head on down to Realitone.com and pick up a copy."_ People already know they can do that, of course, but my belief is that by actually saying it, it increases the odds that they'll actually do it.

So I think many YouTubers subscribe to the same theory, and in extreme cases, like Davie504, it's paid off with huge subscriber numbers and Likes.



Reid Rosefelt said:


> Cory did a video about how he makes his videos, and he works _hard._


I believe it. "'Avin a Look" videos are fun (I love DJ's videos), and they certainly have their place, but once you decide to create a carefully edited and concise video, it's a whole different world and the hours add up fast. (Or more accurately, the hours add up slowly.) My RealiBanjo walkthrough took a day and a half for a 10 minute video. It's hard to even believe that myself, but really, a day and a half, and I _already knew_ every nook and cranny of the library. (The extra time needed to make a video where you first have to _learn_ the library would be significant.)

Creating a video that a) covers all the important features, b) demonstrates features with _useful_ examples, c) flows from topic to topic in a logical and easy order, and perhaps most difficult d) is as short as practically possible, takes a lot of planning, as well as takes and retakes, and then editing. My hat's off to Cory and complete respect for his philosophy.


----------



## Reid Rosefelt

These are questions everybody has to answer for themselves. 

The issues are very different for me, because I've taken a break and am not in a state of constant production like I once was. I'm working on one now (or will be again when my TTF sales post ends). It's ambitious and I have no idea how long it will take me to do. 

But I like that the only time I'll do a music video is because I want to learn something by doing the video. I am simply not smart enough to be able to review anything, unless I have a passion for it, like world music. I would never touch anything orchestral. But for example, I did a video on where to find free sound fx on the web. During the few weeks I spent researching the video, I learned a lot and I use those results practically every day. Very few people watched the video but it served its purpose for me.


----------



## Polkasound

Reid Rosefelt said:


> ...asking people to subscribe and like and comment all the time? If they use YouTube, don't they know the deal?


In another thread, someone used the term "boilerplate", which I think nails it on the head. YouTubers think that if you want to be taken as a seriously, you HAVE to beg for subscriptions, likes, and comments. There was probably a time several years ago when the request had a professional-sounding edge to it — a call to action, as Mike put it — on the same innocuous level as, "If you see this person, call our Crime Stoppers Hotline at..." But in my opinion, the like/comment/subscribe beg is now so unnecessarily overused on YouTube it's the equivalent of saying, "And in case you didn't know, if you stick your hand in a bucket of ice, your hand will get cold."



Reid Rosefelt said:


> Getting free stuff can drain all the fun out of doing the videos.


This is completely understandable. When you buy the libraries, you're under no obligation, which means you can review any of them or none of them, and at whatever pace is comfortable. But when there's a freebie and a review request involved, you've been "paid" for your services so now you're on an implied timetable.

One of the reasons I have no interest in pursuing music creation as a career is because pressure and music have never mixed for me. Nothing saps more enjoyment out of music for me than a deadline. I suspect that if I were a YouTuber, I'd feel the same way about creating review videos.


----------



## Nico5

I don't understand: When there's only a tiny amount of money in it, why bother with the money part at all?

If making videos therefore is mostly a hobby, why not leave it at that, and get rid of all of the negative stress and extra time and effort like begging for subscriptions, defending affiliate links, angling for free products and such? i.e. get rid of the inconsequential money part? -- Hobbies should be fun, not sources of stress 

Adding financial considerations would seem to make more sense, if one is the 1 in 1000 (figuratively) YouTubers that has started to attract high enough view minutes.

So why not bolt on the financials only after that kind of growth, where at least the additional hours and stress of doing the money part has a decent hourly wage?


----------



## Tralen

Nico5 said:


> I don't understand: When there's only a tiny amount of money in it, why bother with the money part at all?


The revenue might be small, but I believe the added cost of the given libraries is not tiny.


----------



## Cory Pelizzari

Tralen said:


> The revenue might be small, but I believe the added cost of the given libraries is not tiny.


That's one of the things that got to me - over time you look back and realise thousands of dollars of libraries are at your feet, so the pressure builds up. Then when you get to the point where you've bitten off a bit too much, the guilt and regret sets in and it starts up a deadly cycle of feeling useless (especially if you have a mental illness). Then there's the fear of "I got given -expensive library name here-, should I be totally neutral or at least be a little biased?" and other situations like that.


----------



## Evans

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I think that's just where some transparency helps. "I bought this with my own money" or "thanks to ___ for the copy."

Heck, when I have a customer in my tech job speak for us in a case study, it's almost exclusively nice things. But come on, everyone knows that they're pissed at the same bugs and slow roadmap as everyone else. And for some of our customer verticals, these engagements are millions of dollars of investment per year. Yet, yeah, everyone in the audience understands that when someone is up on a stage or in a webinar that they're not exactly going to shit on us.

I also think it's fine for videos to not be a "review" but instead be like, "look what I did with this... maybe I had to fiddle a bit, but here is an actual thing it can do." And that's where I hope my customers are comfortable engaging for our case studies. They did a thing. It's real. So you can do it, too. Just don't expect it to fart rainbows.

In other words, I'm happy if what YouTubers provide are showcases, and the "bug" report type of concerns can stay within the forums. This is, of course, under the assumption that the library isn't exceptionally janky. If it's beautiful but unusable because of CPU spikes, then yes, I think there's cause to at least withhold video or speak to that.

For conversations like this, finally, I also think about that user here, JohnG, who makes sure we know about his Strezov freebies anytime he mentions George. He shouldn't have to, because we should all be responsible enough to read all possible feedback, listen to examples, and make our own decisions. But it's nice that he does.


----------



## Nico5

Tralen said:


> The revenue might be small, but I believe the added cost of the given libraries is not tiny.


But the really usable value to the reviewer becomes marginally smaller for each library or synth of the same type. Since generally they seem to be not-for-resale copies, you can’t even monetize them in the second hand market. 

And many libraries, instruments or effects would only cost the reviewer $50 - $100, if bought judiciously. Spending 10 hours to create a video means that even an very useful library or software has made the reviewer work for $5 to $10 per hour. And that‘s not even minimum wage in many countries.

I can understand that value proposition better for reviewers living in countries where incomes are much lower, but I just haven‘t seen many reviewers getting free stuff fitting that profile.


----------



## thesteelydane

I give out free review copies to youtubers that I like and who I think may enjoy my libraries. However, I never ask for a positive review or give out affiliate links to anyone. That would be dishonest, I think and I have enough confidence in the quality of my products that I trust I won’t get a catastrophically bad review. The honest reviews are helpful for me too, as I learn more about what people like and dislike in a library.


----------



## thesteelydane

Polkasound said:


> The consequence of my ability to write an uninfluenced review would likely be that developers would stop asking for my reviews.


I would like you to review my products.


----------



## GeorgeThatMusicGuy

I enjoy doing reviews, as I like beta testing and writing demos. Not only because it helps the developer, but also because it is an extra challenge. When I do my reviews, a lot of the time I get in touch with the library developer to see if I can have a copy of the library/plugin sent so that I can check it out. However, I only do this with libraries/plugins I am unsure about (no other reviews exist out there) or that I would not be able to review in any other way, due to financial restrictions etc. 

Even so, I always disclose if I get sent a library, because I hate being dishonest, and quite frankly, I don't understand why you wouldn't. I also disclaim that I do try to be as unbiased as possible, and I do. It can be hard though at times, though I do think overall, I am able to stay as neutral as possible. 

Recently, I was sent RX9 to review, and I feel terrible that I haven't even recorded anything for it yet. I sometimes find it really hard to do reviews of things, because I don't know how to format them. Though I will do my review at some point, every day I don't do something towards doing it, I feel really really terrible. I can understand why Cory has stopped doing reviews for libraries sent to him. 

I will, however, never ever accept money for doing a review. Not because it would impact my neutrality, but just due to the fact I think it is stupid to accept money to do reviews. The reason I do reviews is because I have a passion for it, not because of a check. And I feel that is the way it should be. Though saying that, I do not believe there is anything wrong with monetising a review, whether that be through adverts on youtube, or Patreon etc. They do take a lot of time, for example, I normally spend around a day on each of my reviews. 

This thread has been really interesting to read through, and I will have to check out the video Manchester Music posted!


----------



## jononotbono

To the OP, I like your videos man. You're one of the few that doesn't look and sound like a slippery Eel trying to constantly sell me stuff. 😂


----------



## Soundbed

Wow what a great thread and great topic!

tl;dr 

Conflicted is a good word. Personally, I try to be positive; to and see and show SOLUTIONS more often than I try to show PROBLEMS. This approach is life choice, for me. I spent years getting paid to show PROBLEMS to software developers, and I'm glad that's no longer my full time job. As a father, I also try to show my kids how to become solution-minded rather than problem-centric.

~

Full on blog-style post:

I just read the whole thread this morning, and want to respond to about half the posts with my own thoughts ... of course that would be impractical. "Conflicted" is a great word for this state of mind.

This past 28 days (which is the measure YouTube uses for their analytics) I had 145 new subscribers to my YouTube Channel. As content creators we feel the "weight" on both sides of this equation:

*The first for me is: What do my subscribers / audience want?*

Speaking for content creators, if you're watching our channels, we assume you obviously don't want to be lied to or deceived.

But there's much more subtle things going on when it comes to pointing out perceived flaws and being critical.

Questions come up for me, like:


How do I phrase my critical thoughts? How do I explain the issue(s)? How do I demonstrate the issue(s)?
Did I miss something? i.e., Are my criticisms "valid" or user error?
How much time (proportionally) should my criticisms take up within the video?
Is my video actually USEFUL if I spend time making criticisms that aren't thoroughly researched, demonstrated, explained and given some sort of value judgement (especially when the product also has a number of positives and great features)?

Being critical takes probably more effort than being positive, for me personally, because of the above questions I ask myself while preparing content.

Add on to that the other side of the equation:

*Will I "burn bridges" or have other consequences if I'm overly negative?*

When is a product "all bad"?

Almost never, right?

Usually it has some good sides and some bad sides.

Even if I do get a product for free, I tend to want to focus on the positive aspects because those are generally going to be the most positive contribution to the world, in my view. I don't want to go around spreading negativity — it hurts my soul. I want to be an enthusiastic person. I want to encourage good developers to do better.

In fact, as some of you know, I was a Quality Assurance tester for a music software company for 8 years, and continued in QA for more years at an eCommerce company before I realized it was destroying my life to have that occupation. Here is what I learned to do ... really well:


Notice an issue; stop.
Reproduce the issue.
Reproduce the issue over and over; well enough to describe the issue to a developer.
Work with the developer to test and retest that and related issues.
Always look for more issues.
Repeat.
Notice never once in that cycle do I ever SOLVE any issues.

This "cycle" began to affect my personal relationships and relationship with my family. I started noticing issues, describing issues, describing how issues happened and how to reproduce the issues. It got a little "toxic" to use a buzzword (even though that buzzword was not fashionable yet). My mom also has a psychology degree, so you can see how things might have gone....

Following a mild career change, I worked to cultivate a kind of active curiosity, which in some respects manifests for me in a bit of intentional naïveté. Meaning: I prefer trying to act a little innocent and trust others and their intentions first. This can result in my video content being a bit on the positive side, which is an intentional "life choice" of mine, coming out of some negative consequences from focusing too much on being critical of everything in my path.

Does this make me less trustworthy? I don't think so: I have tried (in the last 6 months especially) to figure out how to shift my content toward: "how could I make use of this tool"? Which, for me implies pushing through the issues and seeing what you can DO with a thing. This intention means — yes — glossing over some perceived difficulties along the way. Do I go out of my way pointing out the difficulties? Usually only in passing. I try not to dwell on the difficulties and try to focus on the solutions. There are clear examples of this in my recent videos ... you'll see me gloss over issues and push toward how to solve problems. And this is me trying to model my overall approach to *life*.

This approach results in my videos still being a bit messy behind the scenes, because a lot of my time gets spent sorting things out in the background, and then the resulting content makes things look a little easy, but who wants to watch me struggle to find a button on a GUI or wonder if a feature does such and such? No one. It's (generally) horrible content. It's boring and no one wants to see it. Not the devs and certainly not most viewers.

Yet, if I can find an issue and use my QA skills to concisely demo an issue or a potential issue I will. In fact I might put a video out there showing the issue in gory detail. Which is what I did with a few MSS legato 1.0 features with the help of others on this forum. And AudioBro promptly got to work on updates and reworked their product in an update. I bought MSS. But I did get a different totally unexpected gift NFR license (free product) from AudioBro, which I still haven't reviewed —

— due to many of the reasons in this thread!

It's so weird to feel pressured to make positive content on something you got for free (or might benefit from in some way). That said, someday I'll review it. And I'll probably be mostly positive, and mostly gloss over "issues" or perceived issues, because I think people are smart enough to decide for themselves and because that is the kind of channel I want to have.

One thing I actually like is YouTube's new checkbox we have to check (well, _should_ check) in order to indicate if we got something of value for the video. If you see one of my videos and there's a message from YouTube in the upper left at the beginning saying it "Includes Paid Promotion" it means I probably got the product for free. (Unless it's a paid gig, in which case I don't upload it to my channel; the company that paid me uploads it to their channel.)

Here's what that checkbox looks like for content creators:





On topic, this idea of affiliate marketing for YouTube is a bit new to me. I'm too small to have been approached for this type of deal. I have posted links to my favorite headphones on Drop (formerly Massdrop) around the Internet in the past, but as @Reid Rosefelt said, it's so so so difficult to actually earn much of anything from affiliate links (I haven't actually GAINED anything from those Drop "affiliate" links I posted, because I'd have to buy something with the credits I earned and I've never bought anything from Drop for years and the credits eventually expire ... so ... and in fact (!) others probably got 10% off when they joined Drop, so, it benefited them more than me in the end lol) ... anyways ... affiliate links are probably not the best way to actually earn money. But of course I encourage others to be on the lookout for them and go in "eyes wide open".

Sometimes affiliate links also include some sort of discount that is hard to find elsewhere (don't they?) so I like using them myself. For instance a science channel YouTuber had a link to a discount on some educational kits for kids, which I was happy to use when I bought that product.

So, I don't think affiliate links would be _all_ bad, even if they were in play (personally).

This has been a super long post, I should probably put it on my blog.

Let me know if you have any questions or feedback. I'm still relatively new to YouTube and learning every week what "works" as well as what I personally feel comfortable posting on my channel.

Cheers!


----------



## GeorgeThatMusicGuy

Soundbed said:


> Wow what a great thread and great topic!
> 
> tl;dr
> 
> Conflicted is a good word. Personally, I try to be positive; to and see and show SOLUTIONS more often than I try to show PROBLEMS. This approach is life choice, for me. I spent years getting paid to show PROBLEMS to software developers, and I'm glad that's no longer my full time job. As a father, I also try to show my kids how to become solution-minded rather than problem-centric.
> 
> ~
> 
> Full on blog-style post:
> 
> I just read the whole thread this morning, and want to respond to about half the posts with my own thoughts ... of course that would be impractical. "Conflicted" is a great word for this state of mind.
> 
> This past 28 days (which is the measure YouTube uses for their analytics) I had 145 new subscribers to my YouTube Channel. As content creators we feel the "weight" on both sides of this equation:
> 
> *The first for me is: What do my subscribers / audience want?*
> 
> Speaking for content creators, if you're watching our channels, we assume you obviously don't want to be lied to or deceived.
> 
> But there's much more subtle things going on when it comes to pointing out perceived flaws and being critical.
> 
> Questions come up for me, like:
> 
> 
> How do I phrase my critical thoughts? How do I explain the issue(s)? How do I demonstrate the issue(s)?
> Did I miss something? i.e., Are my criticisms "valid" or user error?
> How much time (proportionally) should my criticisms take up within the video?
> Is my video actually USEFUL if I spend time making criticisms that aren't thoroughly researched, demonstrated, explained and given some sort of value judgement (especially when the product also has a number of positives and great features)?
> 
> Being critical takes probably more effort than being positive, for me personally, because of the above questions I ask myself while preparing content.
> 
> Add on to that the other side of the equation:
> 
> *Will I "burn bridges" or have other consequences if I'm overly negative?*
> 
> When is a product "all bad"?
> 
> Almost never, right?
> 
> Usually it has some good sides and some bad sides.
> 
> Even if I do get a product for free, I tend to want to focus on the positive aspects because those are generally going to be the most positive contribution to the world, in my view. I don't want to go around spreading negativity — it hurts my soul. I want to be an enthusiastic person. I want to encourage good developers to do better.
> 
> In fact, as some of you know, I was a Quality Assurance tester for a music software company for 8 years, and continued in QA for more years at an eCommerce company before I realized it was destroying my life to have that occupation. Here is what I learned to do ... really well:
> 
> 
> Notice an issue; stop.
> Reproduce the issue.
> Reproduce the issue over and over; well enough to describe the issue to a developer.
> Work with the developer to test and retest that and related issues.
> Always look for more issues.
> Repeat.
> Notice never once in that cycle do I ever SOLVE any issues.
> 
> This "cycle" began to affect my personal relationships and relationship with my family. I started noticing issues, describing issues, describing how issues happened and how to reproduce the issues. It got a little "toxic" to use a buzzword (even though that buzzword was not fashionable yet). My mom also has a psychology degree, so you can see how things might have gone....
> 
> Following a mild career change, I worked to cultivate a kind of active curiosity, which in some respects manifests for me in a bit of intentional naïveté. Meaning: I prefer trying to act a little innocent and trust others and their intentions first. This can result in my video content being a bit on the positive side, which is an intentional "life choice" of mine, coming out of some negative consequences from focusing too much on being critical of everything in my path.
> 
> Does this make me less trustworthy? I don't think so: I have tried (in the last 6 months especially) to figure out how to shift my content toward: "how could I make use of this tool"? Which, for me implies pushing through the issues and seeing what you can DO with a thing. This intention means — yes — glossing over some perceived difficulties along the way. Do I go out of my way pointing out the difficulties? Usually only in passing. I try not to dwell on the difficulties and try to focus on the solutions. There are clear examples of this in my recent videos ... you'll see me gloss over issues and push toward how to solve problems. And this is me trying to model my overall approach to *life*.
> 
> This approach results in my videos still being a bit messy behind the scenes, because a lot of my time gets spent sorting things out in the background, and then the resulting content makes things look a little easy, but who wants to watch me struggle to find a button on a GUI or wonder if a feature does such and such? No one. It's (generally) horrible content. It's boring and no one wants to see it. Not the devs and certainly not most viewers.
> 
> Yet, if I can find an issue and use my QA skills to concisely demo an issue or a potential issue I will. In fact I might put a video out there showing the issue in gory detail. Which is what I did with a few MSS legato 1.0 features with the help of others on this forum. And AudioBro promptly got to work on updates and reworked their product in an update. I bought MSS. But I did get a different totally unexpected gift NFR license (free product) from AudioBro, which I still haven't reviewed —
> 
> — due to many of the reasons in this thread!
> 
> It's so weird to feel pressured to make positive content on something you got for free (or might benefit from in some way). That said, someday I'll review it. And I'll probably be mostly positive, and mostly gloss over "issues" or perceived issues, because I think people are smart enough to decide for themselves and because that is the kind of channel I want to have.
> 
> One thing I actually like is YouTube's new checkbox we have to check (well, _should_ check) in order to indicate if we got something of value for the video. If you see one of my videos and there's a message from YouTube in the upper left at the beginning saying it "Includes Paid Promotion" it means I probably got the product for free. (Unless it's a paid gig, in which case I don't upload it to my channel; the company that paid me uploads it to their channel.)
> 
> Here's what that checkbox looks like for content creators:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On topic, this idea of affiliate marketing for YouTube is a bit new to me. I'm too small to have been approached for this type of deal. I have posted links to my favorite headphones on Drop (formerly Massdrop) around the Internet in the past, but as @Reid Rosefelt said, it's so so so difficult to actually earn much of anything from affiliate links (I haven't actually GAINED anything from those Drop "affiliate" links I posted, because I'd have to buy something with the credits I earned and I've never bought anything from Drop for years and the credits eventually expire ... so ... and in fact (!) others probably got 10% off when they joined Drop, so, it benefited them more than me in the end lol) ... anyways ... affiliate links are probably not the best way to actually earn money. But of course I encourage others to be on the lookout for them and go in "eyes wide open".
> 
> Sometimes affiliate links also include some sort of discount that is hard to find elsewhere (don't they?) so I like using them myself. For instance a science channel YouTuber had a link to a discount on some educational kits for kids, which I was happy to use when I bought that product.
> 
> So, I don't think affiliate links would be _all_ bad, even if they were in play (personally).
> 
> This has been a super long post, I should probably put it on my blog.
> 
> Let me know if you have any questions or feedback. I'm still relatively new to YouTube and learning every week what "works" as well as what I personally feel comfortable posting on my channel.
> 
> Cheers!


A very great read!


----------



## Mike Greene

Cory Pelizzari said:


> That's one of the things that got to me - over time you look back and realise thousands of dollars of libraries are at your feet, so the pressure builds up.


I can totally understand how you (or anyone in similar shoes) would feel that pressure. Someone sends you something, you feel like you owe them. It's that giving nature we musicians seem to all have. We're cursed! 

One thing any reviewer should know, though - It's actually zero dollars of libraries that are at your feet. If I send someone a review copy, it costs me nothing. Even for KPlayer libraries, NI doesn't charge me for the NFR licenses. So I send out NFR copies to pretty much anyone who asks for them, and maybe half the time will it result in a review or anything posted about it.

Maybe they didn't like the library and didn't want to post something negative. Or maybe they didn't have as much time as they thought they would. All fine by me. Don't get me wrong, I wish I could get reviews from everyone. (Especially a Cory Pelizzari review!) But reviewers don't "owe" me a damn thing. Even at a 50% review rate, I still spent $0, so I'm coming out way ahead.

More to the point - From an advertising perspective, I would pay at least a grand (plus the free library) if I could get someone like Cory to do a Sunset Strings video. _At least_ a grand. I've never made such an offer, but I spell this out to hammer home the point that exchanging NFRs for reviews is essentially _free_ advertising. Advertising that we would gladly pay for if it were an option.

So to anyone feeling pressure or guilt just because they got an NFR ... don't.


----------



## Soundbed

Mike Greene said:


> I can totally understand how you (or anyone in similar shoes) would feel that pressure. Someone sends you something, you feel like you owe them. It's that giving nature we musicians seem to all have. We're cursed!
> 
> One thing any reviewer should know, though - It's actually zero dollars of libraries that are at your feet. If I send someone a review copy, it costs me nothing. Even for KPlayer libraries, NI doesn't charge me for the NFR licenses. So I send out NFR copies to pretty much anyone who asks for them, and maybe half the time will it result in a review or anything posted about it.
> 
> Maybe they didn't like the library and didn't want to post something negative. Or maybe they didn't have as much time as they thought they would. All fine by me. Don't get me wrong, I wish I could get reviews from everyone. (Especially a Cory Pelizzari review!) But reviewers don't "owe" me a damn thing. Even at a 50% review rate, I still spent $0, so I'm coming out way ahead.
> 
> More to the point - From an advertising perspective, I would pay at least a grand (plus the free library) if I could get someone like Cory to do a Sunset Strings video. _At least_ a grand. I've never made such an offer, but I spell this out to hammer home the point that exchanging NFRs for reviews is essentially _free_ advertising. Advertising that we would gladly pay for if it were an option.
> 
> So to anyone feeling pressure or guilt, just because they got an NFR ... don't.


wow I never thought of it that way!


----------



## Nico5

Soundbed said:


> This has been a super long post, I should probably put it on my blog.


Yes, you should, not because it's long, but because it's a delightfully thoughtful post and therefore should have a bit more of a permanent home than a discussion thread that will fade into obscurity rather sooner than later.


----------



## Polkasound

Mike Greene said:


> I would pay at least a grand (plus the free library) if I could get someone like Cory to do a Sunset Strings video. _At least_ a grand.


hey mike i do the reveiw for you i good reveiwer

i am honest and i know strings libraries very good.... i know legarto, stissimo, spacatto, short and long sustained, mercato, keylargo, flaundo, sardinio, and i know the bigger violins like the ones on the floor.

U send me sunset strings and thousand dollar i make a coprehansive review i have it done in 30 minutes and post. U will make million dollars i promise i am for real i have much following


----------



## Soundbed

Polkasound said:


> keylargo


Made my day


----------



## chocobitz825

I don’t trust the honesty of YouTubers whether they have affiliate programs or not because they’re almost always slaves to the algorithm. While I love the vast range of YouTube content, I feel like it’s worse than network television because not only are people calculating video-to-video how to game the algorithm, but they also spend more time than any other industry making content complaints about their own platform, hardships, and other creators.

I can’t think of many YouTubers I’ve seen who don’t make at least one video about how hard it is to make money, how hard the algorithm is, or explaining why they have to use clickbaity titles to get viewers. We’re constantly being pulled behind the curtain of their content because they feel the need to appeal to us about how difficult it is and why they need more support.

I think for library reviews, just as easy as it is to feel influenced to give a positive review because of affiliates, it’s just as easy to be unnecessarily critical of libraries and content for the sake of views.

I take all videos as simple entertainment with questionable honesty from the start.


----------



## Mike Fox

Warning: long rant below.

I pretty much stopped (or at least slowed down) doing reviews for a couple reasons.

1. Sometimes it’s just not worth it. (And this is the main reason)

Creating a review in exchange for an NFR copy (especially a popular and expensive one) is really exciting….at first. Then reality kicks in and you begin to realize the amount of work required to make something presentable and worth people’s time.

I personally take days, weeks, sometimes even months to create my reviews, mainly because of the format my reviews are in (i take full responsibility for this).

And by the time I’m done, I’m exhausted, and actually pretty sick of the library (temporarily). This isn’t a knock against the developer or the library itself, but just think about eating the same kind of food every night for days on end. Remember, I spend A LOT of time getting to know the library, and it’s the only library I’ll touch until the review is finished. It get old.

But moving on…

2. The criticism can suck!

This is the ironic part about being a reviewer that a lot of people seem to miss, and here’s the paradox:

If you love and praise a library, then you’re called a dishonest shill.

But if you criticize a library and point out its flaws, your opinion is deemed “wrong”, and I’m not just talking about people disagreeing with your opinion (that’s totally OK). I’m talking about people flat out saying your opinion is wrong and unfair.

The reality is that I sometimes just don’t have anything bad to say about a library, or there are times where the criticism is so minimal that it’s not even worth mentioning. 

Unfortunately, some people tend to speculate and make assumptions about reviewers that just aren’t true. I’ve seen the comments and I KNOW the reviewers those comments are aimed at, and people get it wrong quite often. Some reviewers have even quit because of this. Regardless, it’s all a part of being a reviewer that you just have to accept. You HAVE to have thick skin.

So there ya go. Hopefully that provides some insight to anyone thinking about becoming a reviewer, or anyone who was curious about it. It’s not all glitz, glamour and free libraries. It’s a lot of hard work, and sometimes I wish I had just bought the library as opposed to spending countless hours on making the review.

And even though I TOTALLY get what @Cory Pelizzari is saying, it really isn’t thousands of dollars worth of libraries at your feet. You WORK for it. And just like @Mike Greene said, It’s free for the developer to hand over a NFR copy (I honestly didn’t know this).

This is exactly why I’ve slowed down the amount of reviews i do, and why I’m thinking about either changing the format so it’s not so time consuming (there’s a reason a lot of reviewers just improv everything), or just quitting reviews altogether.

Don’t get me wrong, being a reviewer can be a lot of fun. Overall, people give you props for creating good reviews and you become friends with developers along the way, but as this thread shows, it does have its downsides.

End rant.


----------



## chocobitz825

Mike Fox said:


> Warning: long rant below.
> 
> I pretty much stopped (or at least slowed down) doing reviews for a couple reasons.
> 
> 1. Sometimes it’s just not worth it. (And this is the main reason)
> 
> Creating a review in exchange for an NFR copy (especially a popular and expensive one) is really exciting….at first. Then reality kicks in and you begin to realize the amount of work required to make something presentable and worth people’s time.
> 
> I personally take days, weeks, sometimes even months to create my reviews, mainly because of the format my reviews are in (i take full responsibility for this).
> 
> And by the time I’m done, I’m exhausted, and actually pretty sick of the library (temporarily). This isn’t a knock against the developer or the library itself, but just think about eating the same kind of food every night for days on end. Remember, I spend A LOT of time getting to know the library, and it’s the only library I’ll touch until the review is finished. It get old.
> 
> But moving on…
> 
> 2. The criticism can suck!
> 
> This is the ironic part about being a reviewer that a lot of people seem to miss, and here’s the paradox:
> 
> If you love and praise a library, then you’re called a dishonest shill.
> 
> But if you criticize a library and point out its flaws, your opinion is deemed “wrong”, and I’m not just talking about people disagreeing with your opinion (that’s totally OK). I’m talking about people flat out saying your opinion is wrong and unfair.
> 
> The reality is that I sometimes just don’t have anything bad to say about a library, and i get knocked for it. And trust me, getting this kind of shit from people is most certainly not worth a free library.
> 
> Unfortunately, some people tend to speculate and make assumptions about reviewers that just aren’t true. I’ve seen the comments and I KNOW the reviewers those comments are aimed at, and people get it wrong quite often. Some reviewers have even quit because of this. Regardless, it’s all a part of being a reviewer that you just have to accept. You HAVE to have thick skin.
> 
> So there ya go. Hopefully that provides some insight to anyone thinking about becoming a reviewer, or anyone who was curious about it. It’s not all glitz, glamour and free libraries. It’s a lot of hard work, and sometimes I wish I had just bought the library as opposed to spending countless hours on making the review.
> 
> And even though I TOTALLY get what @Cory Pelizzari is saying, it really isn’t thousands of dollars worth of libraries at your feet. You WORK for it. And just like @Mike Greene said, It’s free for the developer to hand over a NFR copy (I honestly didn’t know this).
> 
> This is exactly why I’ve slowed down the amount of reviews i do, and why I’m thinking about either changing the format so it’s not so time consuming (there’s a reason a lot of reviewers just improv everything), or just quitting reviews altogether.
> 
> Don’t get me wrong, being a reviewer can be a lot of fun. Overall, people give you props for creating good reviews and you become friends with developers along the way, but as this thread shows, it does have its downsides.
> 
> End rant.


I'll agree it's an unfair damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. I think of Kevin smith with his film reviews which are most often positive and how much crap he gets for just liking things. Honestly I don’t need deep criticism in a library review. Just hearing experiences is enough.

You bring up a point i think is the other unspoken part of the equation. Viewers/consumsers are entitled brats quite often. They want a guarantee that the product fits their exact needs and almost demand that they never be disappointed by anything. Consumers and viewers often don’t know what they want, beyond knowing that they simply “want”.

Cory was one of my favorite youtube reviewers to watch because no matter the product or conditions of reviewing the product, he always felt fair about the idea that his experience was his own and not some condemnation of products based on their inability to please all his needs. I wish the culture was not so feverish about consumption and expansion. Then maybe we’d all have a bit more fun just enjoying what we have and what we could have.


----------



## Mike Fox

chocobitz825 said:


> I'll agree it's an unfair damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. I think of Kevin smith with his film reviews which are most often positive and how much crap he gets for just liking things. Honestly I don’t need deep criticism in a library review. Just hearing experiences is enough.
> 
> You bring up a point i think is the other unspoken part of the equation. Viewers/consumsers are entitled brats quite often. They want a guarantee that the product fits their exact needs and almost demand that they never be disappointed by anything. Consumers and viewers often don’t know what they want, beyond knowing that they simply “want”.
> 
> Cory was one of my favorite youtube reviewers to watch because no matter the product or conditions of reviewing the product, he always felt fair about the idea that his experience was his own and not some condemnation of products based on their inability to please all his needs. I wish the culture was not so feverish about consumption and expansion. Then maybe we’d all have a bit more fun just enjoying what we have and what we could have.


That’s also why i love Cory’s reviews. Not only is he a damn good composer, he’s also as honest as they get. He too puts a lot of time into his reviews and it clearly shows. Mad props!

I think you bring up a damn good point about the consumer and their expectations from the reviewer (as if they’re the developer themselves). It’s incredibly important for the viewer to remember that what might be important to them isn’t always import to the one reviewing the library. There’s usually a lot of aspects to any given library, and not everything everyone wants to be mentioned will be mentioned.


----------



## jononotbono

I just wanna see someone that gets drunk, that's hugely knowledgable about the things they say, and most importantly; honest about everything they do say. I don't want much!
Maybe a free midi pack?


----------



## ManchesterMusic

Aw thanks dude.


----------



## LamaRose

It's all going to hell in a hand basket, so you might as well hitch a ride with ol' Scratch... whore yourself out to whomever, whenever, whatever... extort what you can and give it all to your favorite charity... ol' Scratch will feel cheated and hate you all the more for it... Angels will sing... nations will fall... life will go on... and when God hands you that final customer satisfaction survey card to fill out, be honest and don't cut him/her/them any slack!


----------



## Jish

LamaRose said:


> It's all going to hell in a hand basket, so you might as well hitch a ride with ol' Scratch... whore yourself out to whomever, whenever, whatever... extort what you can and give it all to your favorite charity... ol' Scratch will feel cheated and hate you all the more for it... Angels will sing... nations will fall... life will go on... and when God hands you that final customer satisfaction survey card to fill out, be honest and don't cut him/her/them any slack!


I can almost hear Donald Fagen 'sing' a melody just above moody chord changes while reading this...love it!


----------



## LamaRose

Jish said:


> I can almost hear Donald Fagen 'sing' a melody just above moody chord changes while reading this...love it!


That would be cool to hear... love _the Dan_! I was just riffing to keep the mind/vocabulary sharp... for some reason, VI-C seems to inspire these outbursts.


----------

