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

[jack]

Like all apps and services, v2 will eventually need to generate some sort of revenue. Whether it is to keep the service afloat, get potential investors interested, or of course, to make money. However, striking a balance between a user-focused community and revenue streams is difficult. Mistakes are made consistently by almost every social media company that end up putting brands before users.

Ads are obtrusive and annoying, and are becoming less and less successful. Subscriptions are unlikely to work in this scenario to the extent that they would need to. Sponsorships could work for creators, but v2 wouldn’t be getting anything out of them. v2 could however, connect sponsors to influencers and artists and be the middleman - however this is unlikely to generate enough revenue, especially in the first year or so. Of course, there are many other ways, but few are capable of keeping a service likeable. So how can v2 stay community focused while also creating revenue and hopefully, turning a profit. Let’s discuss!!!

[michaeI]

Ads would be most viable

[heckingheck]

I think there could be balance between ads and sponsorships with v2 acting as the middleman between creators and sponsors. Certain companies could pay to have their v2 “promoted” by v2, however it must follow the format of a standard v2. Users are able to use their “nope” button to disapprove of particular ads but that doesn’t keep them from seeing them at all. And they wouldn’t necessarily be ads, but disguises. Very similar to how instagram promotes certain posts by certain accounts and puts it in your feed even if you don’t follow them. I also believe that v2ers should recognize, if gaining sponsorships not through v2, that the reason for their potential success is because of v2, and that some royalties should go to v2. Potentially in a clause or something could this be arranged. Anywhere past X amount of followers, sponsorships to a creator become subject to v2 approval. After all v2 is the platform, v2 is the power.

I don’t know if any of this makes sense but hey.

[jack]

I see what you mean here, but I feel as though the way Instagram has executed ads has negatively impacted it. It has created a feed that puts brands over people, which is quite the opposite of what was originally intended and why people flocked to it in the first place. The sponsorships could work but are very conditional, if they aren’t working well brands will pull out. This is seen quite a lot with Snapchat. And if the sponsorships are the way to go, there should be guidelines to what is allowed. Ultimately, they should fit the profile of the artist and not just be an ad - that creates an inconsistency in the feed that would make the app harder to enjoy.

[heckingheck]

yes of course, I definitely agree that if artists choose to engage in sponsorships that it should be something that fits their profile/audience.

[jakestudebaker]

Ive been preaching this everywhere, and hopefully @dom will see it, I want there to be a tiny tax for creators who have huge audiences. For example starting at 100k followers you pay V2 10 cents to upload each vine, then at 200k 20 cents and so on and so forth.

That way smaller creators don’t have as much competition as big accounts will be incentivized to not flood the market with trash content opening up space for newer creators. Also those top creators will be pushed to make their very best because if they make a piece of content that is trash they aren’t just wasting time, they are wasting money.

[MrCalebg98]

(((This Vine is brought to you by EGGLANDS BEST)))

[miles]

I think that ads are the easiest way to go. Maybe, if its the same looking interface as Instagram, they should put ads like Instagram does, in between posts on a certain account. Like if your a singing account and your getting paid, in between your vines maybe they could put ads for new popular artists albums coming out or something like that. I dont know, I got the idea off of another person on here I forgot there username

[MrCalebg98]

I can get behind this but what if either
A. A person without a lot of money gets big or
B. V2 doesn’t do anything to support its creators fiscally?

I could see this working for people who want to make content that isn’t quite family friendly but taxing is terrible as is IRL.

[jakestudebaker]

If you have 100k followers and can’t get any of them to donate 10 cents per vine you might have a bigger problem on your hands. And I don’t think Vine should be responisble for it’s creators. You choose to upload content, you can very easily stop if you so choose. V2 shouldn’t be forced to support anybody who makes videos. You are an individual uploading content, upload at your own risk

[jack]

I agree with @MrCalebg98. There has to be a way for artists to monetize their video if the “tax” were to be implemented. And, v2 would have to be the one that offers ways to monetize to artists - leaving them to do it themselves presents an issue that would undermine any community v2 wishes to build.

[MrCalebg98]

Yeah I actually just thought about v2 taxing a creators revenue rather than taking it out of pocket. I think that could work if they choose to add ads or sponsors. Heck, maybe even donations.

[jack]

@mjb012 I do think that in the end ads will be the most efficient way, but I feel as though they should be done differently than most other services you see. There is a way to find a balance that makes sense for all parties, it just isn’t easy.

[jakestudebaker]

a creators revenue rather than taking it out of pocket. I think that could work if they choose to add ads or sponsors. Heck, m

On today’s internet famous people are not just on one app. And heck maybe V2 could create a Patreon type system for bigger accounts, so once they hit that point they are allowed to upload one video that only their followers see talking about the patreon type system they have so that V2 isn’t losing money and the creators still get paid.

[MrCalebg98]

I kinda want the app to be kept fairly simple, maybe being as complex as somewhere between Instagram and YouTube. So that being said, a 10% revenue/sponsor tax would work perfectly. Especially if you can only apply for sponsors at a certain amount of followers (i.e. 10k)

[jack]

I think a Patreon type system is an interesting idea, but we also have to remember that a good portion of Vine’s viewer base were not all adults or teens who could financially support themselves. I think the same will be true for v2, and making some posts pay-only could present a problem for parents and may not make as much as services like Patreon.

[jakestudebaker]

My whole thing is creators really don’t deserve to get paid. I mean you are uploading 6 second videos anybody can do that, it’s not really a skill. But I understand with the tax you need some way to ensure making money, and I think that V2 shouldn’t start taxing you until you have a “Patron”

If you want enough money to support yourself and actually make a living as a creator go to another platform. V2 should not be giving out enough money to financially support creators. At least not until they are sure they aren’t going anywhere for a long time.

[DawnaDarling]

I’m not sure about subscriptions not working. I think people would pay a membership fee. This would also slow down people with multiple accounts.

[satan]

v2 definitely needs to profit, but a tax on posting content? that may reduce popular accounts flooding the market, but that could also reduce smaller accounts wanting to make content. that would feel almost like small accounts have a “free trial” on v2, and once they gain a large following, they have to subscribe. ads are the best and most likely way that v2 will make money.

[jack]

Yes and no. I think having the subscriptions would create a problem where a significant portion of the user base would be unwilling or unable to pay, as children and young teens use the app too.