Russell Brand.

[Chuk_Chuk]

Monetisation for the likes of you tube yes
But not in regards the likes of C4.

So C4 doesn't play adverts on their channel? Because generally you get paid more if you get more views.

Your claiming both sides would benefit and from my understanding of how the likes of C4 receive their funding they are unlikely to see any noticeable benefit.

Actually I claimed anyone talking about the situation would get a benefit. Minor detail.
So how does C4 get their funding? Since it seems like if they do run ads, it isn't tied to viewership figures, from what you've told me.

The BBC certainly will not receive anything from the "extra clicks"

You go girl. Knock down that strawman.

You brought up the BBC not me. Though you're only half right. You may not know this but the BBC website does display ads to people outside of the country (I know this because my work VPN puts me geographically outside of the UK). So actually yes they do benefit from extra clicks.

 

[jigger]

So C4 doesn't play adverts on their channel? Because generally you get paid more if you get more views.


Actually I claimed anyone talking about the situation would get a benefit. Minor detail.
So how does C4 get their funding? Since it seems like if they do run ads, it isn't tied to viewership figures, from what you've told me.


You go girl. Knock down that strawman.

You brought up the BBC not me. Though you're only half right. You may not know this but the BBC website does display ads to people outside of the country (I know this because my work VPN puts me geographically outside of the UK). So actually yes they do benefit from extra clicks.

So the BBC and Channel 4 should pay Brand for the increase in traffic?

 

[mattx4]

So what we want is to force private companies to keep content providers platformed and monitzed until they are convicted of something. Great doesn't sound overreachy at all

I would imagine YouTube got a bunch of requests from advertisers and ad agencies saying please don't put my stuff against Brand so they decided to protect their clients brand safety (no pun intended although could his next book title) and removed him from the ad pool. It's probably not permanent either otherwise they would have completely banned him.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

So what we want is to force private companies to keep content providers platformed and monitzed until they are convicted of something. Great doesn't sound overreachy at all

I would imagine YouTube got a bunch of requests from advertisers and ad agencies saying please don't put my stuff against Brand so they decided to protect their clients brand safety (no pun intended although could his next book title) and removed him from the ad pool. It's probably not permanent either otherwise they would have completely banned him.

You can guarantee YT received such requests.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Four years of work though. That’s how the press industry has always worked.

So the BBC and Channel 4 should pay Brand for the increase in traffic?

What are you on about?

I ignored your first post because it had nothing to do with the conversation at hand but now I am wondering if you are intentionally trying to derail the thread or get it closed by starting arguments.

 

[jigger]

What are you on about?

I ignored your first post because it had nothing to do with the conversation at hand but now I am wondering if you are intentionally trying to derail the thread or get it closed by starting arguments.

I don’t get your issue with the BBC and Channel 4 making money from news.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

I don’t get your issue with the BBC and Channel 4 making money from news.

Spoiler

You don't get it because it was never a point I made. Troll harder.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

So C4 doesn't play adverts on their channel? Because generally you get paid more if you get more views.


Actually I claimed anyone talking about the situation would get a benefit. Minor detail.
So how does C4 get their funding? Since it seems like if they do run ads, it isn't tied to viewership figures, from what you've told me.


You go girl. Knock down that strawman.

You brought up the BBC not me. Though you're only half right. You may not know this but the BBC website does display ads to people outside of the country (I know this because my work VPN puts me geographically outside of the UK). So actually yes they do benefit from extra clicks.

The difference on way traditional media and the things like you tube work is that the traditional get the majority of theirs via a fixed sum for the advertising.
Teh same as google, you tube, twitter etc when they sell the advertising. It will be partly fixed and may have some variable amount based on supply X clicks, but it will be capped.
THATS how the commercial side of advertising works, not the same as the monetarised version the youtubers etc get.
The BBC clicks will be minor, I have the same at times with mine routed via the NL. But its tiny in comparison to their main sources of income.

You go girl?
How old are you, 6?
I hadn't realised I was debating with someone so immature.
Well when I say debating I mean lets take into context your reaction to being asked to prove what you are claiming. Laughable.

The reality is that the likes of the BBC will see absolutely marginal gains from the traffic, in fact it could be negative. Web hits etc are not free. (Which is why outside the UK they now try to balance the costs against the income).

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

The difference on way traditional media and the things like you tube work is that the traditional get the majority of theirs via a fixed sum for the advertising.
Teh same as google, you tube, twitter etc when they sell the advertising. It will be partly fixed and may have some variable amount based on supply X clicks, but it will be capped.
THATS how the commercial side of advertising works, not the same as the monetarised version the youtubers etc get.

And viewership affects how much money they can command from the advertisement contract. So while they see no immediate benefit it does help in future contract negotiations (The long term contracts).

That also assumes that C4 won't negotiate a separate ad contract for the show. It would be a poor business move for them to use the same contract for their Selling super houses show as they did for their drama farming investigation.

You go girl?
How old are you, 6?

Oh dear I didn't think that such a minor joke would wind you up so much. Calm your ****. Oh wait I can't say that you might get offended again.

I hadn't realised I was debating with someone so immature.

Do all your debates end up with you fighting strawmen?

More importantly what debate? You've been treating this minor discussion on how and who is making money on drama as a debate. Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy.

The BBC clicks will be minor, I have the same at times with mine routed via the NL. But its tiny in comparison to their main sources of income.

The reality is that the likes of the BBC will see absolutely marginal gains from the traffic, in fact it could be negative. Web hits etc are not free. (Which is why outside the UK they now try to balance the costs against the income).

Ignoring the fact that you made a bunch of claims you would struggle to prove as you do not have access to the BBCs numbers. You really are getting your monies worth from that Strawman.

 

[sidimmu]

That also assumes that C4 won't negotiate a separate ad contract for the show. It would be a poor business move for them to use the same contract for their Selling super houses show as they did for their drama farming investigation.

Unsure how that assumes that.
There is different pricing for different timeslots the advertiser wishing to go out on the broadcaster, that price does not depend on how many people then see it.
For reference adverts on tv and pricing model is compared to internet streaming services pricing model is chalk and cheese.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

And viewership affects how much money they can command from the advertisement contract. So while they see no immediate benefit it does help in future contract negotiations (The long term contracts).

That also assumes that C4 won't negotiate a separate ad contract for the show. It would be a poor business move for them to use the same contract for their Selling super houses show as they did for their drama farming investigation.



Oh dear I didn't think that such a minor joke would wind you up so much. Calm your ****. Oh wait I can't say that you might get offended again.


Do all your debates end up with you fighting strawmen?

More importantly what debate? You've been treating this minor discussion on how and who is making money on drama as a debate. Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy.



Ignoring the fact that you made a bunch of claims you would struggle to prove as you do not have access to the BBCs numbers. You really are getting your monies worth from that Strawman.

What are you on about.
Traditional advertising is based on slots and popularity. A short term hit from a news event doesn't change that.

What strawman, yu seem very confused, the strawman came from you. Your "everyone making extra money" claim.

The constant childishness has come since YOUR STRAWMAN was called out.

 

[Em3bbs]

The reality is that the likes of the BBC will see absolutely marginal gains from the traffic, in fact it could be negative. Web hits etc are not free. (Which is why outside the UK they now try to balance the costs against the income).

The reality is that the BBC WANT to drive more traffic to their digital channels, whether it costs them, pays them or whatnot. That's why they invest so heavily in them!

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Unsure how that assumes that.
There is different pricing for different timeslots the advertiser wishing to go out on the broadcaster, that price does not depend on how many people then see it.
For reference adverts on tv and pricing model is compared to internet streaming services pricing model is chalk and cheese.

. Your saying if on Tuesday they have some regular run of the mill program at 7PM and then on the Wednesday they drop a program that is guranteed to get more people watching at 7PM than usual. They (C4 or any other channel) would charge the exact same money for the ads in that time slot? Really?

 

[jigger]

. Your saying if on Tuesday they have some regular run of the mill program at 7PM and then on the Wednesday they drop a program that is guranteed to get more people watching at 7PM than usual. They (C4 or any other channel) would charge the exact same money for the ads in that time slot? Really?

So it’s the release cadence you take issue with?

 

[jigger]

7pm is a bad time TBF.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

The reality is that the BBC WANT to drive more traffic to their digital channels, whether it costs them, pays them or whatnot. That's why they invest so heavily in them!

Yep agree. They know they have to digitise to survive.

Thats still not answering why stopping brand from getting the excess income generated from this whole drama, and how it makes many others actually generate higher income however.

7pm is a bad time TBF.

Peak used to be 6-8pm
Its why the prime slots were in between the soaps etc

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

What are you on about.
Traditional advertising is based on slots and popularity. A short term hit from a news event doesn't change that.

No idea what you are confused about since you never said so I can't answer you. Though judging by the structure of your posts. It seems we've reached the mudslinging phase of this "debate"

What strawman, yu seem very confused,

Gaslighting. check.

the strawman came from you. Your "everyone making extra money" claim.

The constant childishness has come since YOUR STRAWMAN was called out.

Misusing the word "Strawman". Check.

you really are throwing all the tricks at this "debate"

 

[sidimmu]

. Your saying if on Tuesday they have some regular run of the mill program at 7PM and then on the Wednesday they drop a program that is guranteed to get more people watching at 7PM than usual. They (C4 or any other channel) would charge the exact same money for the ads in that time slot? Really?

No, thats not what I have said at all.

There is different pricing for different timeslots the advertiser wishing to go out on the broadcaster, that price does not depend on how many people then see it.

Oh I apologise I did not mention that it differs per day too. Either way, its set by broadcaster and whoever wants to put an advert out at that time, pays the price. Again this is traditional advertising through broadcasters. Not advertising through their provided streaming services.
Hope that clarifies any misunderstanding.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

No, thats not what I have said at all.

Oh I apologise I did not mention that it differs per day too. Either way, its set by broadcaster and whoever wants to put an advert out at that time, pays the price. Again this is traditional advertising through broadcasters. Not advertising through their provided streaming services.
Hope that clarifies any misunderstanding.

As much as I could have worded it to be less snarky. It was an actual question. The day and time are moreso for control than an actual example.

If on a Day and time they show program A.
Then on another day and time (controlled to be as similar as possible to the previous one) they show program B that is guaranteed to be more popular (from viewership number perspective) than program A. Would the price of that Ad slot stay relatively constant?

 

[jpaul]

Don't we need to know who the advertising was sold/auctioned to during transmission of the Brand programme itself - who were these vultures ?
(did the rates top the charts & beat the Harry&Meghan show)