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

In order for the app itself to make money, there have to be either ads or some sort of payment by its users. The second of which doesn’t sound fun. I think there should be ad banners on the homepage every 10-20 videos or so. Then artists can also have the option to put ad banners on their profile too. A lot of times viewers will go directly to the profiles of their favorite creator to watch their videos, so having a banner at the top of the profile or in between videos would allow the artists to make money as well.

A button on the artist’s profile that allows sponsors to contact them with offers would be helpful as well.
And being able to donate directly to your favorite artists would be great too! Maybe a small portion of the donation could go to V2? @dom

4 Likes

Read the entire writing. I talk about actually possibly making money from viewers. Nobody will pay out of pocket, because they only pay once they are making money.

4 Likes

The payment by users makes sense if it is from larger accounts. If V2 at the same time gives them the opportunity to make money from their uploads and the creators don’t pay out of pocket then it makes sense to charge them to upload.

For example if somebody has 100k followers they would have one free upload every 24 hours and each one after that will cost 10 cents. However, before you start getting taxed to upload content V2 gives you a patreon style platform where viewers can donate to you. That way big accounts don’t spam uploads and V2 makes money without anybody paying out of pocket.

5 Likes

I don’t understand what you said but I think that we should get paid for creating content and we shouldn’t get charged anything

3 Likes

I’m not sure. It’s kind of strange to charge people to upload. No other platform has done that before. But it’s an idea!

4 Likes

I think it would work in that bigger accounts wouldn’t upload as much giving smaller accounts more attention. At the same time some creators could make money if they played their cards right, and V2 wouldn’t need to ruin your feed with ads.

V2 is going to do a lot of things not done before, and maybe this could one of those things.

3 Likes

Charging people to upload would just greaten the gap between small artists and larger ones in my opnion.

5 Likes

Only the large artists pay. And on top of that it isn’t coming out of pocket they have donations from thier viewers.

So for example Bob has 100k followers. Bob now has access to a patreon type page where viewers can donate. He also has one free upload everyday and every post after that costs 10 cents. Bob is encouraged to only upload his best videos so he doesn’t flood the feed and Bob is possibly making money, while also getting V2 revenue.

4 Likes

What would motivate me to become a larger artist if I have to pay? That would completely keep me away from wanting to grow.

7 Likes

I think ads are he best bet. Every few posts in the discover page. Similar to how Facebook has it in the home page. Heck even adding a ad at the end of the page right under a next button would do you wouldn’t see it till you go to the next page or reach the end of a page ultimately making it virtually ad free. There just needs to be a balance between in your face and non existentent. Possibly a discover page like Snapchat where people can pay to promote? I love the sound of that idea because it keeps people who want to pay or view ads away from people who don’t maybe call it like a promotions page something different to make it clear it’s paid and ad promotion.

5 Likes

A) The opportunity to profit off of the app like so many YouTube creators b) The same reason you’d want to get big anyway fame and followers.

The 10 cents you pay isn’t even out of your own pocket, it comes from the viewers that pay you. You lose no money in the transaction at all. Also you are motivated to create better content for the platform.

5 Likes

The problem is that fame doesn’t motivate me nor a lot of other people. Creating good content does. The fact I have to pay for my content to be uploaded after I already work hard to create it almost seems like a insult- that’s just my personal opinion tho!

6 Likes

In another topic I gave the suggestion of paying for customization. Nothing that would give advantage to one user over another, but to give more options with the service. Things like profile themes. Custom themes created by Artists, that you weren’t stock. More editing tools, and even higher tiers of storage.

4 Likes

Maybe the Ad’s can be on bigger creators profiles? Like you see their profile picture, ’their about me, a Vine they put that they think best resembles their content and below that is an Ad that just loops,an ad made from the company, and people can just easily scroll past that 1 add to the creators videos.

2 Likes

This is a problem. One people will probably pay like $20 and gain a million followers and get out of v2.

Let’s say a guy started paying 10 cents and gets 10k followers every time he posts a vine. He will probably continue doing it until he gains a million followers. Done. He goes to YouTube, brings his audience over there, starts to do sponsorships and probably never look back at v2 again.

Personally, I think ads (not like Instagram ones) are the best. But since the Ad-revenue model is declining and brands sponsoring artists with a large voice, v2 should demand “incentives” of the sponsorship amounts,
OR
v2 should place ads like Instagram and pay the artist with [Cost Per 1000 Loops] or [Cost Per Every View] and pay out to content creators which makes income much more consistent and income can be calculated much more fair.

I think both of these thing should be implemented. Please make @dom read this if you’re also interested in seeing this implemented. Thanks in advance.

3 Likes

I think ads (not like Instagram ones) are the best. But since the Ad-revenue model is declining and brands sponsoring artists with a large voice, v2 should demand “incentives” of the sponsorship amounts,
OR
v2 should place ads like Instagram and pay the artist with [Cost Per 1000 Loops] or [Cost Per Every View] and pay out to content creators which makes income much more consistent and income can be calculated much more fair.

I think both of these thing should be implemented. Please make @dom read this if you’re also interested in seeing this implemented. Thanks in advance.

2 Likes

they could intergrate it into the vines e.g if you loop a vine 5 times, a 3 second ad plays, nothing intrusive but something impactful enough to convey what the advertiser wants

5 Likes

I think the tax idea is pretty solid! 10 cents (or some percentage) per upload per 100k followers is more than fair. I also support the idea because it looks like a fair trade. You bring traffic to V2 and V2 further continues to give you that platform. Keeping in mind that the tax comes out of revenue the artist has made.

That + the idea to have a short ad play after a certain number of loops sounds solid too!

When artists reach a certain amount of followers, they can apply for monetization via ads played on their videos after an X amount of loops. Then V2 gets a percentage of the revenue? Maybe V2 can also get a percentage from the advertisers as well?

Could be something like charging advertisers $.30 per 100 plays. $.20 goes to the V2. $.10 goes to the artists. With that example, the artist gets $100 with 100,000 loops and V2 gets $200 (if my math is correct lmfao)

Doesn’t sound too bad!

6 Likes

i completely disagree, the big creators will make the app more popular and will generate an audience for people to use the apps services more frequently. they grow the app’s user fanbase

1 Like

I’m not sure why you posted it twice but you missed a critical component and that is as an audience grows so does the tax per upload. You don’t pay the ten cents (didn’t think I needed to reiterate it is an example I don’t know how much money V2 needs to operate) forever. It was just an arbitrary number to demonstrate my idea. You also ignored how the price increases.

3 Likes