[Closed] Singletrack "pay us if you want your videos published"

The vast majority of these vids are advertorials.

I agree with Mark to be honest.

On Facebook, Alker complained that "another sponsored rider has just sent us their latest very pro/expensive video episode with a request to share it to the massive audience we've spent 15 years and a [load] of money building. No is the answer."

The self-proclaimed "grumpy" publisher added: "If sponsored riders want to get exposure by creating their own content (presumably with the financial backing of their sponsors) then build your own audience to distribute it to, or pay us like all our advertisers have to so we can be around for the next 15 years. Our reach is available to buy."

Or another way of looking at it would be:

"Here's some free, relevant, high-quality content to publish on your website from which you get advertising revenue"

"Nah, pay me."

I thought Mark's logic was quite sound, tbh.

STW are the channel to an audience why should they not be paid for providing access?

Just because an advert is interesting and engaging with moving images doesn't mean it's anything more than a way for a company to get their product seen and sold...

Bit of a non-issue, I doubt the editz makers will be crying into their chips, and a lot of this stuff is members only anyway on STW.
I never watch vids on this site, they are available elsewhere.
Some of the 15m viewership is there due to the content which STW republishes, and now it wants to be paid to do so? Seems a strange approach.

I think this has been a long time coming.
All the sites just show every branded video in the same way as press releases.

Doesn't leave any room for differentiation between sites and therefore I'm not sure the 'click' [i]is[/i] worth anything.

The embargoed news releases are just as bad. 5/6 sites all sharing the same news on facebook simultaneously.

Comparing to the kind of advertising that is on STW is stupid though. The ads on STW are largely incredibly irritating and no-one wants to watch them.

These 'ads' we are talking about here are generally videos that everyone actually wants to watch, and could easily watch somewhere else if they wanted to.

Sorry, I can't read the OP because a large pop up is blocking the screen. Apparently if I pay for a premium membership I am led to believe this advertisement will go away.

grum - the point Mark is makign is because companys spend all their budgets on videos stw are forced to deliver pool ads.

If someone could pay to have a feature at the top of the forum etc for their video for a day or a week it would make the sie more interesting and also give revenue to stw?

lol@

What we do get is more network ads and a poorer experience for the readers,

Mark and team seem to be working hard to define what publishing looks like in the online age and how it makes money. That may mean challenging the accepted norm from time to time and this looks just like one of those times. I suspect it will be an uphill struggle but hats off for having the balls to put this in place.

It'll be interesting to see if the Forum will be more heavily moderated to remove such content from threads. I would assume so.

Paid riders (and athletes from all sports) have always got photo incentives for having photos in mags showing sponsors' logos. It's how it's worked - get yourself known, do things worth photographing and printing, get paid.

vids are a step up in terms of time and budget, but essentially they're the same.

I guess the difference is how much editorial control the mag has over the content.

But is there a real difference between Akrigg going out filming and submitting a vid and, say, Greg May (I assume he's got a few sponsors - he does enough) going off into the hills on his own or with a photog, and submitting some ST-friendly whimsy to go with the pretty pictures?

[i]It'll be interesting to see if the Forum will be more heavily moderated to remove such content from threads. [/i]

be interesting if they go for the 'daily mail' type 'we can't stop you going there but here's why we don't want you to' type page for certain urls?

I can see his point. It's a better revenue stream than intrusive pop ups which everyone abdlocks. Good luck to him, although I suspect it will drive more people to the likes of Pinkbike.

On the other hand if he makes enough money from the videos and doesn't then need to have forum ads, we all win xx

I thought Mark's logic was quite sound, tbh.

STW are the channel to an audience why should they not be paid for providing access?

+1

http://singletrackmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/behind-the-lens-patagonia-barney/

I think the difference is the editorial control Mark has over content?

The self-proclaimed "grumpy" publisher added

What happened to "not grumpy, not jumpy"?

(unashamedly - it's a bike launch)

The story doesn't read like a bike launch at all. Especially not in an MBUK manner - "This new specialized is the greatest bike ever" on left page, full page Specialized bike advert on right page.

Always find the griping about web adverts funny on this forum. It's not a hobby site for Mark et al, this is their livelihood fair play to them for making an independent magazine that does slag off products/brands sometimes.

Edit: And I met Mark the other week and he wasn't too grumpy, even after my mate decided to drukenly fall out of a bunk bed and stop breathing during the night!

It does what?, when was the last time a product got slagged anywhere, many builders from Bespoked mentioned on instagram being offered space for 1200 odd quid in certain publications.

People maybe dont trust any of the media controlling bike press anymore?

I do wonder what the future holds. Machine learning is getting freakishly clever now. Facebook, for example, seems to be getting better at serving up relevant content without having to tell it what you want to see, so maybe dedicated/specialist sites like STW will become less relevant. If I the latest Akrigg edit appears in my Facebook feed automatically, why do I need to come to STW?

It's fascinating stuff and I don't envy publishers right now, but at least STW are looking forward and not backward.

Here is one of the adverts (unashamedly - it's a bike launch) which I assume Mark wants paying for?
So they want the Manufacturer (who I assume has footed the bill for this jolly) to pay to have it published AND the readers to pay to view this advert?

Wrecker - I wrote the story on the FP, and the mag article it alludes to in the latest issue.

I'm not going to wade in on this thread overmuch, except to say that yes, Santa Cruz paid for me to go to Patagonia. But I wrote and photographed this (as well as the story in the mag - well, some of the photos in that); it's not advertorial supplied to me by Santa Cruz (the pics may well be of a higher quality if it was TBH, and some of them might actually have been of the bike in question).

But in terms of paying to view it, there's also a free version on the front page as well as the Premier version (the Premier one has hi-res photos in a nicer format).

There's a debate here, clearly - but I think there's a difference between manufacturers sending you written or video material and inviting you to go on a launch where you're free to make your own decisions.

Neither in this *nor* the mag piece - which the story you mentioned is much more of a promotion for, to be honest - do I (for example) mention anything about the bike at all apart from its name - that's elsewhere on this site under 'reviews'. Feel free to search.
But it's a trip to Patagonia which we wouldn't have been able access otherwise, unless perhaps we were sent a version of it by a Sant Cruz sponsored rider - which of course wouldn't have had the editorial freedom I've been able to exercise.

It's a question of where the line is I suppose. But I don't think a story of my photos of an amazing place qualifies as an advert personally. Your mileage may vary.

Thanks for the response Barney. There is clearly a discussion, and IMHO STW needs to be careful. It may have a 15M viewership, but people are fickle (many long deceased forums can attest to that) and if the big firms get upset, cutting ads to ST will hurt the mag more than it hurts them. Also, there is the issue of not being sent kit to review or being invited to launches.
Is it an ad? I dunno. Did you pixellate the bike branding in the pics? 😉

Don't particularly disagree with Mark's standpoint, but then I've always seen Fresh Goods Friday as being empty press-release style promotion. It might be kit that's going to get tested, but 9 arty up-close shots of the Orange Segment and captions like

that colour is totally gorgeous. We like, a lot.

Some very impressive bending of metal going on there, there really is

Love the Strange top cap.

isn't journalism.

http://singletrackmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/fresh-goods-friday-290/

when was the last time a product got slagged anywhere

I agree with Mark, make no mistake these vids are adverts, they may be entertaining adverts, but they're still adverts.

If STW choose to only run these on their site for a fee that's completely up to them, if RedBull et al, think that's terribly unfair or whatever, they could always try phoning up Sky or ITV and saying "We've made this wonderfully shot, fun to watch short-film, but it quiet heavily branded will you broadcast it for free?" to see how far they get.

Whether it's a good idea I guess only time will tell, maybe if the latest Brendawg vid is only on Pinkbike we'll all migrate over there, but I doubt it.

He has a point. It's advertising through the 'Backdoor' and that's not fair

Crashtestmonkey:

Fresh Goods Friday isn't journalism, no. It's photos of the new stuff that came into the office, with some pointless and occasionally meaningless waffle written by me to go with it. Incisive and investigative it frankly ain't.

People like to look at the pictures, and (to a lesser extent) read the waffle.

Feel free not to read it - thousands already don't 🙂

barney - Moderator

There's a debate here, clearly - but I think there's a difference between manufacturers sending you written or video material and inviting you to go on a launch where you're free to make your own decisions.

Also worth adding that if it's (for instance) a new videogame or pharmaceutical, flying a load of writers/journos/doctors/etc. somewhere warm and sunny would be a blatant attempt to sway positive coverage, but when it comes to doing a global bike launch with journalists from all over the world, good riding destinations make a lot of sense and you're hardly going to fly them to Swindon instead.

The Scalpel launch last week in Italy had around fifty journalists (of which I was one) from all over the world, and doing that has it's own economies of scale compared to doing a launch in each country. It was all paid for by Cannondale, but as Barney says, we're allowed to write and photograph whatever we want in these cases. It's not a matter of just being spoon-fed content by a third party.

and if the big firms get upset, cutting ads to ST will hurt the mag more than it hurts them. Also, there is the issue of not being sent kit to review or being invited to launches.

I don't think the big beasts send kit out and invite people to launches because they're all best mates, I reckon readership figures, and the demographics of that readership, is possibly a slightly more significant factor. What with it being a business and all.

I don't know the chap, but that Alker fella seems to be doing a reasonable job thus far with his little backstreet bike mag and associated website. Thus far, ploughing his own furrow seems to be working out okay.

I don't think the big beasts send kit out and invite people to launches because they're all best mates, I reckon readership figures, and the demographics of that readership, is possibly a slightly more significant factor. What with it being a business and all.

RedBull et al, think that's terribly unfair or whatever, they could always try phoning up Sky or ITV and saying "We've made this wonderfully shot, fun to watch short-film, but it quiet heavily branded will you broadcast it for free?" to see how far they get.

Depends if it's good enough. Pretty sure I saw Imaginate on "real" telly not that long ago, red bull branding aplenty.

Come to think of it, those Redbull soapbox races are on telly fairly often, and those "throw yourself into a lake in fancy dress" things. All heavily branded, but all also offering something worth watching so a decent "sell" to a broadcaster.

I'm sure if people offer content to Mark that he thinks is worth putting the stamp of STW approval on for his readership he'll listen, but not throwing up every sponsored "edit" that comes in is something that makes a lot of sense imo.

Facebook, for example, seems to be getting better at serving up relevant content without having to tell it what you want to see,

Fresh Goods Friday as being empty press-release style promotion.

+1

Exactly what I was thinking, plenty of press releases are passed off as 'News' on here.

Although I see Marks' point on vids I think his stance is wrong, with one danger is brands simply stop sending you product to test. And unless STW are going to start doing their own news content then people will move to Pinkbike and the likes of GMBN & GCN

Of course, but in the scheme of international bike sales, I reckon manufacturers could probably survive without singletrack. Not sure it works the other way around.

But there's no incentive for them to, when they can continue to advertise, send kit, invite to launches etc. - that 'blackballling' singletrack wouldn't drive, say, Specialized, out of business doesn't give them any incentive to not advertise to their readership because Mark's on the naughty step. Unless, I suppose, their business strategy is just "survive*" in which case, yes, I suppose they could drop their advertising a bit.

*Not being flippant, this can be a legitimate strategy for some products: Brasso - it exists as a cash cow only. I believe not a penny has been spent on advertising Brasso for something like 40 years. It still exists and it still sells (in gradually reducing quantities). Those who need Brasso know or find about it, they buy it. One day, the declining market for Brasso will dry up completely, but until then the Brasso people quietly make a profit from it. The moment you see MTB companies take this approach, you'll know that MTB's days as a growth market are over.

barney - Moderator
People like to look at the pictures, and (to a lesser extent) read the waffle.

People also like to watch videos

All MTB videos even the long play commercial releases such as Seasons etc are in essence adverts, they all have a long list of supporting companies front and back end

Will ST take a similar approach with covering events like the Red Bull Rampage, as I said earlier where do you end up drawing the line?

I'm with Mark on this.

People also like to watch videos

It's funny actually because I prefer not to watch videos. Don't know why really but prefer reading / static images. Pinkbike is a good example for me in this area. I love their photographic articles around the World Cup DH. I don't think I've watched a single team video of the same races. I'll watch the Claudio run and I'll watch the race / highlights but all the "Behind the scenes at X team" not interested at all.

What's Mark done wrong?!

So what happens when the vids get put on YouTube, and then someone starts a thread 'latest Danny MacAskill riding a Santa Cruz around the red bull factory video ' with it on, will the thread be deleted if the right people haven't paid the right people?

+1 with Mark.

I think he's spot on!

Though as a budding filmer/rider/blogger/traveller I'm not sure where it will leave me.... 😕

tomhoward - Member

So what happens when the vids get put on YouTube, and then someone starts a thread 'latest Danny MacAskill riding a Santa Cruz around the red bull factory video ' with it on, will the thread be deleted if the right people haven't paid the right people?

All imo.

Seems like Mark has the right idea, I can't see a problem with it. After all it's all commercial marketing isn't it, promotion and such.

The sponsors could put the video up on the forum themselves, since the forum is open to the public. Who's to know the person who started the thread is an employee of any particular company. Do people visit the ST site without visiting the forum, surely the forum is what drives people to the site since it's usuage is so great.

So what happens when the vids get put on YouTube, and then someone starts a thread 'latest Danny MacAskill riding a Santa Cruz around the red bull factory video ' with it on, will the thread be deleted if the right people haven't paid the right people?

Those are the absolute top end videos though.

For comparison if you go to the Pinkbike home page right now there are currently 10 videos on the page including videos by Maxxis, 5:10 and Pivot. I've not watched any of them and probably won't. I can see being wanted to be paid to include them on a homepage. If they're good enough to go viral then fair enough but the vast majority are not good enough...

That was my thought Jekyll, but then that would fall foul of the 'no commercial activity' rule I guess?

Sorry, I can't read the OP because a large pop up is blocking the screen. Apparently if I [s]pay for a premium membership[/s] use DuckDuckGo as a default browser, I am led to believe this advertisement will go away.

Mark and team seem to be working hard to define what publishing looks like in the online age and how it makes money. That may mean challenging the accepted norm from time to time and this looks just like one of those times. I suspect it will be an uphill struggle but hats off for having the balls to put this in place.

When does a video containg logos or sponsored title become an advert?
Will STW accept being charged by other publications on a tit-for-tat basis?

Not sure that ranting off like a 7 year old is the best strategy for securing your future customers? Will there be a picture of Mark's arse soon in a stairwell? Maybe a behind the scenes negotiation would have made better sense.

Mark is in the business of publishing. The business of publishing finds itself in the same perfect storm as the music industry found itself in a few years back. As HMV etc could tell you- that didn't turn out well!

For some reason people seem to think that all content should be free. And that people have some kind of divine right to facilities like this forum without paying for it. Like it's just provided by a magic fairy who doesn't need to eat, or pay a mortgage. Or pay the bill for a print run.

Manufacturers releasing advertorials dressed up as films instead of what they are .... adverts, to access a market somebody else has spent the time building, are basically taking the piss.

But if you want to have an 'ITS SOOOOO NOT FAIR!!!" bleat about how their massively financed marketing departments are really hard done by from those nasty people at a small independent publication...

Well said binners.

Having said all that, it does grate a bit when Chipps turns up on a Monday Night Pub Ride and pulls his gold-plated Santa Cruz out of the boot of the Singletrack Bentley...

Don't spoil your moment.

Having said all that, it does grate a bit when Chipps turns up on a Monday Night Pub Ride and pulls his gold-plated Santa Cruz out of the boot of the Singletrack Bentley...

I thought he brought those friendly Pilipino ladies with him to do all of the heavy lifting.

Back to the OP though... I agree with Mark.

Well said binners.

+1

😀

I think a few people need to reactivate their 'real world' filter, take their blinkers off, and realise that this is a business. A business that balaces (pretty bloody well in my opinion!) providing this site, the news page, classifieds, and forum, essentially for free, with bringing in revenue to pay for it. How on earth do they think it's being paid for?

If you're whining about it - which you don't seem shy of doing - then you need to wake up and ask how long you think that's sustainable for?

About as long as it was sustainable for HMV to have a prime store in every high street when everyone is downloading the content of that store for free! That's how long!

Just have a think about that! And stop bloody whinging!

Don't spoil your moment.

+1

I'm pretty sure companies pay to have their adverts on the telly don't they?

same thing right? Singletrack is a channel...Just on line.

The winners here seem to by people like Cut Media, who get real hard cash to make the actual videos.

For any major company The cost of producing the actual adverts/advertorials/films/whatever will pale into insignificance next to what they'll budget for putting it out there. The costs of traditional mainstream advertising are absolutely eye-watering!

I definitely agree with the principle, but as well as the article that sent Barney to Patagonia I'm sure I remember reading one exclusively about the making of such a video up in snowy Scotland. And as a direct result of the article I watched that video, and at least one more by the same team.

I'm not 100% down with how the money flows, but I would assume that generally contributors are paid by Singletrack so I'm not quite sure how that gets reconciled here.

That said I really enjoyed reading all the articles discussed and watching the videos linked (including Fresh Goods Friday) and am more than happy to keep paying my money for what I get here.

The winners here seem to by people like Cut Media, who get real hard cash to make the actual videos.

Chipps turns up on a Monday Night Pub Ride and pulls his gold-plated Santa Cruz out of the boot of the Singletrack Bentley...

I agree with binners and therefore Mark

If they want to run adverts then they need t pay

I also think it unrealistic to think that all the internet will be free as somewhere STW has to actually pay the bills. its either mag sales or Premier or ads

I agree its probably better to make the actual big boys pay though

Pursuing guys like cut is a total cop out. The money holders are the manufacturers and distributors.

I agree, but I wonder who it is that's asking Singletrack to post the video? Is it Cut Media (for example)? I would have thought their work is done once the finished article is delivered, and then it's down to either the rider(s) or the brand to get it out there.

But is there a real difference between Akrigg going out filming and submitting a vid and, say, Greg May (I assume he's got a few sponsors - he does enough) going off into the hills on his own or with a photog, and submitting some ST-friendly whimsy to go with the pretty pictures?

I'm as famous as Akrigg now! With about 1% of the skills 😉

Sadly not sponsored persay - just a Salsa Fanboi who eventually blagged some free kit to ride in for the Tour Divide 🙂 I did pay for my Cutthroat - and Spearfish - and so on, I just work in an industry where I have had the option to meet some really nice people who've helped me out.

The Ortlieb kit for the Divide is a prime example of where people jump to assumptions - never asked for it, was just offered it with no "you must do this/that/get this exposure" contract. Never, ever had that in my life - doubt many have.

Most of the bikes I've had over the last few years have been heavily discounted, won't deny about that, but that is also due to having raced them at elite level for CX and reasonably fast for 24hr racing. You get some results, it makes it easier for a shop to get you on something nice - which most of the time is to promote a local bike shop - not a brand. But usually, its frame - you get a frame at cost+VAT+shipping at if you are lucky - the parts, well you pay for them yourself - maybe you'll get free spannering...can't turn that down.

Most of the kit I have, honestly it's stuff I buy myself - no kids (yet) and a very understanding wife! Or, occasionally I get it through STW or Grit, which is a real boon. But again, I have a real job behind a desk I do every day which pays for my bike bits - proudly race as a privateer and have done for years, people appreciate that and they try to help you. Is it wrong of me to try to help them back?

I used to feel disenfranchised when it came to seeing people on "free" bikes - the reality, very very few people get fully free bikes. I can only think of one I've ever had - the same season I had UCI points. Quite a few years past that now sadly! Now, well I say good for them - they are obviously worth something to the brand, so why shouldn't they have to work for it? It's not just about results - it's about exposure.

Now to photoshop all my things. I may even bill Patagonia for all the free exposure I've given them over the years....maybe also have to bill the manufacturers of toast.

Pursuing guys like cut is a total cop out. The money holders are the manufacturers and distributors.

Chris Akrigg should be given free advertising and a pat on the back for making inspiring videos that never fail to interest. A credit to mountain biking.

The rest of them should have to pay. Loads. For making shite videos of people roosting corners and the rest. So boring. I wish MTBing would piss off. Or at least I wish people wouldn't film it. A waste of human resources.

philxx1975 - Member
It does what?, when was the last time a product got slagged anywhere,

Not read my Stooge review then....

*leaves thread before he gets lynched*

Having said all that, it does grate a bit when Chipps turns up on a Monday Night Pub Ride and pulls his gold-plated Santa Cruz out of the boot of the Singletrack Bentley...

Wouldn't the gold plating make his Santa Cruz a bit unwieldy in terms of weight? It seems pointless to worry about frame material and how many grams your groupset is when you then turn around and cover the thing in gold!

On a separate note, I find what jimjam said on the first page

jimjam - Member

Sorry, I can't read the OP because a large pop up is blocking the screen. Apparently if I pay for a premium membership I am led to believe this advertisement will go away.

incredibly dumb.

Yes, jimjam, a premier membership makes the advertisements go away. There is no 'apparently' to it.

I don't know about you, but I think the benefits of having this forum PLUS full access to the magazine make the meagre amount they ask well worth it.

For making shite videos of people roosting corners and the rest.

Depends doesn't it. If Cut are the ones contracted to produce a viral advertisement and they need to pay some media outlets to gain exposure then they'll need to build that into the pricing model.

I don't blame Mark, you want to splash your video on the front page, especially when they are sponsor heavy, then pony up.

If you want to go via the forum and see if you can get a whole load of pseudo-viral traffic, then ok, but if it's just a load of poorly shot trailside gnarrllocks be prepared for trial by mob 🙂

Yes, jimjam, a premier membership makes the advertisements go away. There is no 'apparently' to it.

I don't know about you, but I think the benefits of having this forum PLUS full access to the magazine make the meagre amount they ask well worth it.

I also moderately resent the freeloaders moaning about services that other folk pay for and offering advice to those who need to make a living.

Dont like it **** off your "revenue" wont be missed one bit.

I also like the fact they let the free loaders maon so much about it

I have to say I would be ban hammering you for comedic effect by now 😈

Dont like it **** off your "revenue" wont be missed one bit.

No you miss the point without folk paying for it there would be **** all for you to see

What blame Wrecker?
I struggle to see how saying Cut or whomever factor in some other costs can be throwing blame at them. The brand seeking exposure can pay for it.

And see that little P next to my username, you're welcome. I presume you don't use adblock and don't complain about advertising on the site
Have been noticing that the general trend has been premier members have been pro Marks stance and nays have been non prem.

You got to hand it to the advertorial producers, bloody clever bit of [s]conning[/s] marketing. You produce an advert so good folk seek it out to consume and demand to be exposed to it with host sites feeling pressurised into placing it for them gratis. Whilst bog standard paying adverts are considered the bane of the web users life and most have adblockers setup to try and minimise the horrible stuff. The sneaky bastards.

Some videos though whilst being produced by a company and featuring their logo are maybe about selling stuff but that isn't at the forefront of the vid
Akriggs videos are primarily enjoyable, Mongoose and his other sponsors are not really rammed down your throat through the vid, just some logos at the end, the riding and film making definitely comes first
The syndicate video blogs I don't really associate primarily with trying to sell Santa Cruz bikes, it's more a look behind the scenes of a World Cup race team and their lifestyle, a view we don't get to see otherwise

Both of those, yes to an extent are free advertising but say for example the recent Sealskins vid with Traharn Chidley (incidentally now a freelance writer for Singletrack, presumably in the back of that vid) was produced by a sock company and maybe helped to sell socks, but primarily it was thought provoking and inspirational (also the Sandy Plenty one in the same series before that) and it would be a real shame if ST didn't help promote that sort of vid (and they did promote it, asking us to vote for it to win an award just last week)
These are the things I want to watch, as well as being mildly promotional they are newsworthy in their own right
However Marks comments on his FB post suggested that unless Sealskins/Mongoose/Akrigg/Santa Cruz paid them they would not feature
This 'blanket ban' attitude that came across I think is a shame.

Purely promotional vids then yes I agree with and applaud Marks stance, but I hope there will be some editorial discretion shown and if something is presented that offers the sites viewers/readers something extra above the free advertising it will be given a chance, it will become a very bland website if all there is is reports from trade shows, product reviews (for the premier members only of course) and stories about perceived sexism in the sport

This ^^^^^^^

Iain1775 marketing is very clever, linking your logo to a moving piece, powerful emotional story, great skill that's appreciated by the target audience Sticks in the mind.

Ever seen a Coca Cola logo flash up in the middle of a great film etc? That's more product positioning but those few seconds stick.

A vid paid for by a company isn't backed purely out of the goodness of their hearts, it's to get that powerful emotion, visual or message linked to their brand name.

So yes why should their commercial vid not be charged for?