How should v2 ultimately create revenue, and what mistakes should it avoid?

V2 is resharing Vine with the world, so how about we call it, “Revine” for the lolz? Jk. It doesn’t fit the V in V2.

2 Likes

I think capping free posts for all users would just make it a pay to grow platform so yeah i agree that’s a bad idea. The 10cents a post was just an arbitrary number(I think), the real amount can be calculated/decided by the v2 development team.
However, I agree with you on the capping sponsored posts idea as bigger users might just start to post tons of sponsored content using their free posts to earn easy money.

3 Likes

Yeah, with the attention span of many users only those who find interest will actually take time to slow down long enough to give hoot. The rest will see it and keep scrolling. No love lost.

2 Likes

“Pay to grow”.
You know what? That is a good way of putting it, because that’s sort of how it would likely be used by those with the means to do so. Puts the rest of us at a bit of a disadvantage. Glad you caught that, I missed the chance to make that point. Good eye.

4 Likes

A possibility is a merchandise program. What I mean by this, is not only v2 merchandise, but v2 could act as a middleman for v2 sponsored creator merchandise. This is a very common way to generate revenue across the board.

2 Likes

Posted it as a thread (woops, I’m sorry for the spam) but posting it here now:

I got inspiration from this post by spencerros and a comment in reply to it by @ash .

He mentioned adding stabilization to your video, @ash then said that it might be a tricky & advanced feature… unless people pay… So here’s my idea:

How about such features, but then as feature that has to be payed for? (don’t have a heart-attack, please, I’m not talking large sums :sweat_smile: :joy: )
But then there are quite a few questions to ask within the field of ‘pay-for-feature’ such as:

  • Is it a 1-time purchase?
    • If so, will it be bound to 1 single account? Or can the same e-mail/phone number use it on all their owned accounts?
  • Is it a small fee (ranging from a few cents (10 - 20 or so) to a dollar) per use?
    • Maybe include an option: “Try out this feature for the first time!” with a very low price (like up to 10 cents, maybe even less)
  • Is it a small fee for a certain amount of uses (for instance: pay //insert price// and get //x amount// of uses)
    • “Uses” only applies once the clip is posted , removing or editing the clip would not restore the use to your remaining uses. This avoids even more complexity in creating this feature.
  • Is it more like a subscription? (1/3/6/9/12 months or 1/2/3 weeks of unlimited use)

p.s. I just read that @dom had an idea for a cent per comment, so I guess this is also relates to that? Feedback would be great!

OH ALSO – With these “pay-for-use-features” I don’t mean every single feature, I mean things that you can use to flesh out your content more, etc. Such as @spencerross his idea of video stabilization :hugs:

3 Likes

The best way to make money is to have advertisements, period. There’s no other way you can get such a large pool of income, companies have more money than they know what to deal with. If we can figure out a way to get companies interested in promoting their stuff on V2 while keeping the ads as minimally-intrusive as possible, we win.

I like the 6-second ad idea mentioned earlier by a few people, something similar to that would be great. As long as they aren’t so intrusive, but twitter disperses it pretty nicely.

I’m not a fan of the user-tax idea, that feels a bit backward as the app should be free similar to other social media apps.

5 Likes

not sure if this was said already, but what if there was some sort of “ad bar” somewhere on the screen as you scroll through “Loops”.

Almost like a break in between videos… and either its locked in a position for a small amount of time and you can still scroll around it. Or, the ad bar isn’t in a locked position on the screen and you can just scroll past it to the next video.

just a thought.

2 Likes

A good way to start off is with Advertisements on vines that have been watched X amount of times. Later down the line if vine has “partnerships” with artists I think they should incorporate subscriptions or even donations/ in app currency to give the artist revenue.

3 Likes

Did artists from v1 get payed? if so, I believe v2 artists might be payed the same way. I just don’t know how v1 did it.

2 Likes

The most important issue will be whether or not the ads are not blocking access to content. I think having a promoted page where sponsored content that v2 is making money from can be shown could be good. The sponsored content could be accessed through normal means as well be this promoted page could be incentivized based on a users watch time. For example, a user who spends 3 hours in a week watching promoted/sponsored content would reach one level of v2 partnership. This would be a low level form of partnership but I think that having some sort of goal that can be reached by watching content that will make v2 money will drive people to spend more time with it.

1 Like

It’s dumb to pay in any social media if it does end up that way then they better pay us alot of money for putting content

1 Like

people can have a stream which only shows people there following. Ad’s can show there which are in the same format (looks like videos) through out. Everyone who appears in that stream gets a little portion of money from each ad that appears If ur monitization is enabled

it’s an idea, who Likes it? I feel like it benefits both large and small creators

1 Like

Alright I just had this idea. What if all advertising goes through V2? I was looking through Instagram and realized that a few posts of people I follow say “paid sponsorship with ______” so why not do something similar? Each advertiser could look for an artist or be helped to find one through some app curator so that we get ads (that would be sponsored in the feed) that don’t suck. I hope you know what I’m talking about because I don’t think I’m doing a good job at explaining this

3 Likes

Agree with @Logic here, any sort of ads would ruin the experience. It is my understanding that IG and other platforms charge for the magic blue check (Verified). Now i’m not saying charging a huge fee, but the developers could look at charging monthly retainers (depending on the size of the artist) but these influencers will be getting alot more through sponsors so they’ll happily pay. This way everyone wins.

The people who are starting don’t pay, people who are getting paid for sponsors only got to pay a monthly fee (The verification will bring them money alone through sponsors and exposure/verification). On the developers’ end, they just need to implement verification and they will get a recurring income from influencers.

1 Like

@jack you make good points…as I’ve send before…when V2 gets a healthy user percentage, like Vine used to have, I don’t think that users will mind paying a buck a year to use the platform…so imagine how that in a year or two V2 has 50M users…just that would bring in 50M dollars of revenue & as user growth expands so does the revenue. I sent this solution to Jack Dorsey various times, but the Twitter shareholders just wanted to stop the loss of capital & the 22 Viners holding Vine for ransom didn’t help. One of the points you made, about making V2 the middle man & connecting brands & creators I think could have legs to stand on, could also be a way to make extra revenue, a kind of YT system of sorts. Above all @dom as his team need to be very conscious about who they back & boost, because those 22 Vine stars, that became famous because of Vine & started to make a lot of money because of Vine, didn’t treat Vine very well when it needed them. They basically bit the hand that fed them, which certainly in their case showed their true colors. I think that V2’s verification & popular page criteria, should also be looked at and not just back the ones your backing, but open horizons new creators with REAL talents & not just goofy C class actors doing stupid & prankster stuff. I’m not saying that that’s all Vine backed at the time, obviously Vine invested in these people to make their app popular, I get it…but you need to broaden your support, don’t just keep it on the same few, as they did. Anywho, that’s it for me tonight. :+1:

3 Likes

The ads could be similar to ones on a typical Instagram feed

2 Likes

I personally believe that we should have small banner ads, and every 15 or 30 seconds or so counts as an impression. ad revenue can be split(whatever margin) btw the V2 staff and Artists. I don’t care too much about monetization, but if @dom said so, I think this might work!

2 Likes

I think v2 should take a portion of the sponsorship money, maybe 5-10%… because without v2 some people will never make it… so I don’t see an issue with paying your way

2 Likes

the ads should be placed in the following ways: a small banner over a video of an artist with 10k + followers (banners only in videos that appear in the feed)
and another way is to place a normal video of 6.5 seconds of the company that wants to advertise in the middle of the videos in the artist profile with 10k + followers, and another way to make money is normal users can make donations for artists with 10k + followers and for those artists to withdraw the money they would have to pay a 25% fee for v2 .
but please, the idea of ​​charging 10 cents for an artist to post a single video is completely horrible.

2 Likes