Thread: Hand planes, worth watching

Originally Posted by Cgcc

Sorry a bit obscure, intended to reply to DW commenting on the schtick of some Youtube woodworkers.

Those phrases seem to be fairly common.

You hit the nail on the head. There's holes in the argument so to speak - no display of doing average work quickly or fine work at any pace, and when he lands on something you know well (sharpening goods and methods for me), he speaks in a way that's not convincing and sells high margin chinese made goods as his "recommendation", along with ancillary gadgets. I actually like the advent of imported goods, but not when they cost more than american made stuff (where I am, in the USA) and at lower spec.

I rode that train when I started, but am bag deep in toolmaking, so none of it is relevant to me at all now, but I don't like the model. I refer to it as farming, except the presenters use the term "friends" and fail to disclose the financial gain in any specific terms, so you really don't know their motive.

(other than what I can say is that large channels will often get several thousand dollars to recommend a product, then get link-through revenue when units are purchased and also get ad revenue just as a matter of running the video. The message is curated by the sponsor, or if the video isn't sponsored and amazon link-through revenue or coupon-link revenue is the point, then ad copy is relied on for specifications.).

I guess it's a weird world to me when someone sells something, collects link revenue and then boasts over and over that it's "not sponsored". No, it's just profitable for a different reason - who needs a sponsor if you can collect four figures of link through revenue.

not a fan, and I've seen several references lately to "stumpy numbs says this is good" (and you go to find that there's a custom reference back to him to make sure that he gets a cut for his reference - often above and beyond amazon link revenue).

Let’s be blunt - while it may appear to be a front for selling tools, what “Stumpy Nubs” is selling is viewership numbers. These in turn generate an income. As well as I can recall, James Hamilton is/was in advertising. He began making a few videos on jigs and has parlayed this into quite a business, complete with books, videos and more. The topics he churns out are not original and aimed at beginners. He has worked to create an image of being an experienced woodworker. Recent videos show a workshop complete with upmarket machines and several woodworkers at work to fill orders. Go to his early videos a few years ago, and none of this is evident. His tools there were the stuff of beginners.

Having said all this, he does now produce some useful material. My beef is that he does not credit where the material originated.

Regards from Perth

Derek

This dude made a video on his YouTube income... How much money my channel made in 2020 // with 100,000 subs - YouTube

Illuminating.

Evan, the REAL income generators are those channels where they put together a bunch of snippets from interesting videos (made by others), add an enticing name, and sit back as millions tune in to watch. Literally millions of viewers. Not a lot of effort involved for an income in the 6 figures p a. By contrast, my channel pulls in a few hundred (at most) viewers ... mostly my mum re-watching the shows before bed (the videos are cheaper than Melatonin for insomnia).

Regards from Perth

Derek

I don't know the economics with ad blockers, but ad blocker viewers don't generate revenue. Here's an example of the typical video from stumpy numbs.

How a bucket and a donut changed my dust collector - YouTube

If everyone was *not* using an ad blocker, the typical USD revenue is around 5-10 bucks per thousand views. A couple of sites suggest close to 80% on desktop computers, but most people are watching on devices so overall 30-40% are ad blocking. There are fits here and there on youtube where you don't get ad revenue or it picks up slow, so figure something like 50% (or in some cases, people start a video and just don't watch it).

Assume $8 US. There are 139k views so far - $556 is what that would work out to (139*8*.5)

This particular video is sponsored. I recall someone exposing negotiations with a similar sized audio channel that provides "reviews" (professional studio audio, not home stereo stuff) and the details worked out to 1 video for $3K plus 10% of link through sales.

Not every video is going to be a straight up ad through and through like this one (note that there is a redirect token for wynn filters, so anything that originates from the video sends revenue back to numbs. Probably at least as favorable as amazon.

...so what's amazon? 4% for general items and 3% for DIY (I looked it up).

I'm guessing all points of the revenue stream are important, but would also guess that off-ad revenue is greater than ad revenue. This is different than a decade ago or a little more when google first started and the CPM revenue was about $25 and most viewers didn't have ad blockers (if you figure 80% at that rate, the view revenue from this video would be $2780 - a way different prospect.

At one point after click per thousand revenue was at $25, there was an ad revolt and it dropped to $3 or $4 (two things happened - the public learned to protest advertisers when their videos showed up on unsavory material, and facebook and others - probably youtube and google -were caught inflating click through prices and advertising tanked). That was about when all of the videos changed to e-begging, sponsors and amazon link-through (the latter was never that uncommon because nobody needs to approve anything - you or I could set that up and use it).

I have a distaste for all of this stuff because it doesn't just generate the revenue for the video makers, but it completely changes what's shared and promoted. Not because I have any interest in personal gain (youtube now puts ads on all channels, even when you have them turned off like I do - they just put ads on and you don't get paid for them, which hopefully means that they won't promote any of my videos heavily because none are made to a standard where they'd be promoted - too many views become a burden if they're not what you're looking for).

I nearly forgot - matthias wandel early on used youtube both for ad revenue and also to direct people toward his site to sell plans, etc (I have no distaste for this - he's promoting his original material and selling his original goods - pretty smart, not just copying other peoples' videos and reading ad copy). At one point, he accepted a bundle promotion offer from dewalt (which he disclosed the compensation for - it was something like $3K plus link revenue but he had to do a project and make several videos. Unfortunately, he found out that they wanted to dictate what he said in the videos so he posted a follow-up video about it as his store revenue halved when he did that. He came to the wrong conclusion about why people stopped going to his store - they stopped going because they were offended that he took an offer to make shill videos. Numbs' audience is curated to think that he's offering advice, but Matthias's whole channel is built on not spending much or buying expensive tools. It's clear it's his original material.

Which leads us back to the numbs of the world. Videos like this come up "11 dust collector mistakes". I'm guessing that a lot of his viewers think he comes up with all of these lists of things. When the video is sponsored, I'd bet it's more likely that the sponsor or link revenue link in the description writes the material or edits it heavily.

11 common workshop dust collection mistakes - YouTube

You or I or anyone else could make videos like this - you just have to be comfortable with the all hat no cattle thing, and be comfortable shilling things bloviating hot air. And you have to be willing to make videos every day for a couple of years to build a subscriber base and keep with the ads, as youtube will generally not promote a given channel indefinitely unless it's an ad placement channel like this (if they can get a well curated audience who is buying things, it's more helpful for targeted ads).

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Evan, the REAL income generators are those channels where they put together a bunch of snippets from interesting videos (made by others),
Derek

Things have changed for those (there's a reason you see less of them and they seem to originate from places where people don't speak english). What's changed? If you are alerted to someone using your material in a video, you can apply to receive a share of the ad revenue. What happens is that someone who is in 2% of the video claims 10% of the ad revenue (and if you don't want to do that, there are companies who will do it for you if they get a share of the share you're claiming - they're pretty much without ethics and will try to claim all of the ad revenue for someone they're representing).

Eons ago, someone tried to claim my channel by direct copy (they just copied and relisted all of my videos). This hasn't happened since, but it took a while of applying for copyright and stating that the videos were mine - there was no way to do it for the whole channel. This was a stupid move on the first part - my videos don't get many views - but someone did it, anyway. After contesting several dozen videos, someone or something at youtube got the point and the whole channel was removed. It's not as if all of these changes have happened due to the diligence and generosity of youtube (making the old content theft less common), they've happened to keep youtube from ending up in court or losing in court. The real point of the bigger channels now is to grow a viewers market and then direct them elsewhere as the $550 of ad revenue mentioned as above is not enough to satisfy most channel makers.

A very good point -we think we're the consumer of the media, but we're the product. The consumer is the advertisers. We make ourselves a targeted uncompensated product when participating in groups like that and signing up for "offers", etc.

I've given up on the privacy thing, but I guess it's probably worth going another round just to offer *some* resistance.

It's naive on my part to believe that a video platform like youtube would actually exist and stay as it was 12 years ago or whatever. Every large business goes the same way - offer something really attractive to grow market share and eventually change the attractiveness from the original users to the payers (without making it instantly obvious at a point and turning off the users being farmed).

I'm sorry I started this thread, the intent was to garner some background on planes, perhaps a separate thread for the technicalities and morals of you tube would be more appropriate and just stay on topic with the idiosyncrasies of planes, their history and pro's and cons.

Originally Posted by rwbuild

I'm sorry I started this thread, the intent was to garner some background on planes, perhaps a separate thread for the technicalities and morals of you tube would be more appropriate and just stay on topic with the idiosyncrasies of planes, their history and pro's and cons.

Ray

Your intent is still there and I for one thank you. The ulterior motives are another subject for discussion, arguably elsewhere. If we are cynically concerned, we should stop surfing the internet. Period.

SWMBO was for ever complaining about commercials on TV. I pointed out that she should thank the advertisers every day, because without them. there would be no TV or else viewers would be charged a sum of money for the pleasure. I have to say this was not well received and still to this day she rails against advertising. Virtually all the information on the internet comes either directly or indirectly from advertising or promotion. Take this Forum, for example. We call the advertisers "sponsors," but it comes to the same thing.

If we derive a benefit from a You Tube video, all so well and good. If the proponent also derives a benefit that is OK too. It is up to us to decide. Personally I was quite happy to just marvel at the collection and took consolation that there might be others out there with obsessions..

So I look forward to the next little You tube gem you find for us. (It saves me wasting more time on the net and incurring the wrath of SWMBO, who says I already spend too much time there.)

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by rwbuild

I'm sorry I started this thread, the intent was to garner some background on planes, perhaps a separate thread for the technicalities and morals of you tube would be more appropriate and just stay on topic with the idiosyncrasies of planes, their history and pro's and cons.

The thread simply got slightly hijacked; I’m glad you started it because I’ve always liked the look of Stumpy’s wall and it probably would have taken me a year or so to stumble over it.

Like most things on You Tube I regard Stumpy’s site as mainly for entertainment. He is entertaining!

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Evan, the REAL income generators are those channels where they put together a bunch of snippets from interesting videos (made by others), add an enticing name, and sit back as millions tune in to watch. Literally millions of viewers. Not a lot of effort involved for an income in the 6 figures p a. By contrast, my channel pulls in a few hundred (at most) viewers ... mostly my mum re-watching the shows before bed (the videos are cheaper than Melatonin for insomnia).

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek, interestingly I have some experience with this. A family member inadvertently took a phone video of a very funny / surprisingly incident involving a chicken. It went on Youtube and scored millions of views. He was contacted by a mob that buys the rights to these, and then they take the clip and try and market it around, get even more views etc. They pocket the revenue and pay a royalty to him.

It seems to work well - they do things your average Joe can't do at scale and as a business - he gets a regular cut that was freely bargained for.

One thing that we noticed was that plenty of copyright infringers pinched the video and re-posted it under other accounts et cetera. What it emerges happens is the purchaser of the rights get onto it, contact Youtube, and if they agree the video stays up but all revenue is diverted to the true owner. I don't know the details although assume the owner could also elect to have it shut down - but why not leave it up if it's just for clicks and ads, and they get the dough.

The outcome is that there are plenty of knock-off versions of the clip, including in compilations, but the revenue is policed and where detected goes back to the owner. If you came across the clip in its many locations you'd think the owner is getting ripped off but in truth (as in so many things in life when non-trivial or easily obtained money is involved) it's more complicated.

I only mention that because, since then, I have been far more relaxed when I've noticed stolen/copied videos.

Hi Ray I am sorry for any negativity I might have generated. I had only intended to be a little "eye-rolling" on one aspect of the channel in question. I certainly did not mean for this to cause even mild upset to a forum colleague and apologise.

Originally Posted by Cgcc

Derek, interestingly I have some experience with this. A family member inadvertently took a phone video of a very funny / surprisingly incident involving a chicken. It went on Youtube and scored millions of views. He was contacted by a mob that buys the rights to these, and then they take the clip and try and market it around, get even more views etc. They pocket the revenue and pay a royalty to him.

It seems to work well - they do things your average Joe can't do at scale and as a business - he gets a regular cut that was freely bargained for.

One thing that we noticed was that plenty of copyright infringers pinched the video and re-posted it under other accounts et cetera. What it emerges happens is the purchaser of the rights get onto it, contact Youtube, and if they agree the video stays up but all revenue is diverted to the true owner. I don't know the details although assume the owner could also elect to have it shut down - but why not leave it up if it's just for clicks and ads, and they get the dough.

The outcome is that there are plenty of knock-off versions of the clip, including in compilations, but the revenue is policed and where detected goes back to the owner. If you came across the clip in its many locations you'd think the owner is getting ripped off but in truth (as in so many things in life when non-trivial or easily obtained money is involved) it's more complicated.

I only mention that because, since then, I have been far more relaxed when I've noticed stolen/copied videos.

this is the part that's changed over time. There are some (don henley that I can recall) who opt for removal of even a few notes of any song - I could have him mixed up with someone else. For most other videos, it's more popular for a record company firm or subcontractor to search for videos (and I think youtube actually has algorithms that inspect audio and video at upload now) and claim income. That's all ad revenue based and different from the link referencing and other revenue generating.

the ad revenue stuff is probably nice for the person with an accidental viral post because there are so many ways to collect.

....Rick Beato comes to mind as someone who intentionally infringes on videos to draw views but his real sales are the stuff in his subject line. But he blurts out over and over "I don't make money on the videos, I let them infringe intentionally, I make money on what's in the subject line".

The copyright holder can force the video down or just claim the revenue (the former is something he doesn't like because he's using the video to draw attention to his education/instruction stuff). When he has a video removed, then he has a negative reaction video, and I'd go so far as to guess that he doesn't really mind that as that also draws views and still directs people to his real income generation. Except that he constantly states where he makes money, which is vastly different than something like stumpy numbs droning away about "not being sponsored" and then posting a revenue link to whatever he's talking about. The attempt is to imply that he's impartially offering discussion of something he likes but doesn't gain from, but it's really more like keyword spamming - find something you can sell on amazon and then come up with something to say about it.

This seems to have turned off some folks on here who think it's like TV advertisements - which is fine - but that's not correct. TV advertisements don't make themselves out to be information - they're forthright about being ads.

Originally Posted by D.W.

this is the part that's changed over time. There are some (don henley that I can recall) who opt for removal of even a few notes of any song - I could have him mixed up with someone else. For most other videos, it's more popular for a record company firm or subcontractor to search for videos (and I think youtube actually has algorithms that inspect audio and video at upload now) and claim income. That's all ad revenue based and different from the link referencing and other revenue generating.

the ad revenue stuff is probably nice for the person with an accidental viral post because there are so many ways to collect.

....Rick Beato comes to mind as someone who intentionally infringes on videos to draw views but his real sales are the stuff in his subject line. But he blurts out over and over "I don't make money on the videos, I let them infringe intentionally, I make money on what's in the subject line".

The copyright holder can force the video down or just claim the revenue (the former is something he doesn't like because he's using the video to draw attention to his education/instruction stuff). When he has a video removed, then he has a negative reaction video, and I'd go so far as to guess that he doesn't really mind that as that also draws views and still directs people to his real income generation. Except that he constantly states where he makes money, which is vastly different than something like stumpy numbs droning away about "not being sponsored" and then posting a revenue link to whatever he's talking about. The attempt is to imply that he's impartially offering discussion of something he likes but doesn't gain from, but it's really more like keyword spamming - find something you can sell on amazon and then come up with something to say about it.

This seems to have turned off some folks on here who think it's like TV advertisements - which is fine - but that's not correct. TV advertisements don't make themselves out to be information - they're forthright about being ads.

You're right, David

(The video in question is a sneezing chicken.)

I think discussion about Youtubers generally should perhaps move to a new thread though given the OP has made clear it hasn't gone off-topic in a way I can understand he wouldn't have intended.

Chris