The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
12/29/2012
Posts:
56
Member Details
I strongly recommend against producing content for this venture.
SocietalGaming has been, to put it lightly, opaque about the deal that it offers to content producers. Here is Verean's summary:
However just so it clears it up for everyone that is questioning this, once our site goes live (extremely soon) a page will be displayed, that will show each videos earnings in which you will get a 70%(subject to change, although most likely not) of. So you will know exactly how much you get and much SocietalGaming will receive.
In brief, you are sacrificing 30% of your profits to SocietalGaming in exchange for enough publicity to make up these lost earnings.
This means that SocietalGaming ought to be able to provide extensive marketing that would not ordinarily be available to a solo LPer - enough to gain around an audience roughly 40% larger than would ordinarily be possible as a bare minimum to make back that 30%. Note that 40% is substantial in this case - in comparison, doubling is 100%, so this is roughly halfway to doubling the size of the audience. Increasing the size of the audience by 40% twice leads to an audience 195% as large as previous - 5% away from doubling. (1.00 * 1.40 * 1.40 = 1.95)
However, Verean stated the following about his business strategy in SocietalGaming.
I am in no rush to become a larger network, I would rather slowly grow into a larger network with consistent quality content. We went from 0 subscribers almost 2 weeks ago to 40 right now. As for funding, every video that is put out the director is getting payed. The relationship with the amount of subscribers and whether the director gets paid is indirect.
This post states that SocietalGaming is relying entirely upon the quality of content that its syndicated LPers produce, which amounts to a confession that SocietalGaming does not provide or intend to provide effective marketing to its content producers. Although one might argue that it has more subscribers than an ordinary new venture might expect, realize that SocietalGaming requires its potential applicants to subscribe and (in essence) pretend to be devoted fans whether they are or not.
This is similar to a vanity publisher which requires its prospective clients to write favorable testimonials in order to be considered and demonstrates further dishonesty on SocietalGaming's part.
On the subject of dishonesty, note that SocietalGaming has:
misrepresented its business model and attempted to conceal its business model from applicants. Among the ways it has misrepresented itself are the following:
It claims that it pays at a fixed rate for content when it actually pays royalties. The original post claimed that "As stated in the video, you will be paid for each upload that goes onto our channel," while a later post (quoted above) details the royalty-based model.
Note that this is a hallmark of online businesses with no funding to speak of, which attempt to recruit without laying money on the line, passing the risk of failure to the staff (you) rather than to the management. This means that, should it fail to meet its promises, SocietalGaming will not lose money - instead, you will not be paid as SocietalGaming promised you would be.
It claims that it provides exposure when it does no such thing. This is self-evident given that it has no website, has published no content in the past, and has fewer subscribers even than most non-syndicated SomethingAwful LPers (and probably even fewer legitimate subscribers).
There is no evidence that the owner of SocietalGaming even intends to promote your content, and there is plenty of evidence that he does not.
required applicants to misrepresent SocietalGaming in the above ways by generating false interest - for instance, by subscribing.
brought up circumstantial negative information about critics to discourage dissent (see post #33)
Regardless of whether your content is of quality or not, you will be able to provide better marketing and integrity working alone than working with SocietalGaming. You will sacrifice less profit if it is a concern to you and you will prevent others from needlessly sacrificing profit as well.
In order to prove otherwise, it will be necessary for the owner of SocietalGaming to provide detailed information about its model and how syndication with SocietalGaming is superior to promoting oneself without.
I strongly recommend against producing content for this venture.
SocietalGaming has been, to put it lightly, opaque about the deal that it offers to content producers. Here is Verean's summary:
In brief, you are sacrificing 30% of your profits to SocietalGaming in exchange for enough publicity to make up these lost earnings.
This means that SocietalGaming ought to be able to provide extensive marketing that would not ordinarily be available to a solo LPer - enough to gain around an audience roughly 40% larger than would ordinarily be possible as a bare minimum to make back that 30%. Note that 40% is substantial in this case - in comparison, doubling is 100%, so this is roughly halfway to doubling the size of the audience. Increasing the size of the audience by 40% twice leads to an audience 195% as large as previous - 5% away from doubling. (1.00 * 1.40 * 1.40 = 1.95)
However, Verean stated the following about his business strategy in SocietalGaming.
This post states that SocietalGaming is relying entirely upon the quality of content that its syndicated LPers produce, which amounts to a confession that SocietalGaming does not provide or intend to provide effective marketing to its content producers. Although one might argue that it has more subscribers than an ordinary new venture might expect, realize that SocietalGaming requires its potential applicants to subscribe and (in essence) pretend to be devoted fans whether they are or not.
This is similar to a vanity publisher which requires its prospective clients to write favorable testimonials in order to be considered and demonstrates further dishonesty on SocietalGaming's part.
On the subject of dishonesty, note that SocietalGaming has:
misrepresented its business model and attempted to conceal its business model from applicants. Among the ways it has misrepresented itself are the following:
It claims that it pays at a fixed rate for content when it actually pays royalties. The original post claimed that "As stated in the video, you will be paid for each upload that goes onto our channel," while a later post (quoted above) details the royalty-based model.
Note that this is a hallmark of online businesses with no funding to speak of, which attempt to recruit without laying money on the line, passing the risk of failure to the staff (you) rather than to the management. This means that, should it fail to meet its promises, SocietalGaming will not lose money - instead, you will not be paid as SocietalGaming promised you would be.
It claims that it provides exposure when it does no such thing. This is self-evident given that it has no website, has published no content in the past, and has fewer subscribers even than most non-syndicated SomethingAwful LPers (and probably even fewer legitimate subscribers).
There is no evidence that the owner of SocietalGaming even intends to promote your content, and there is plenty of evidence that he does not.
required applicants to misrepresent SocietalGaming in the above ways by generating false interest - for instance, by subscribing.
brought up circumstantial negative information about critics to discourage dissent (see post #33)
Regardless of whether your content is of quality or not, you will be able to provide better marketing and integrity working alone than working with SocietalGaming. You will sacrifice less profit if it is a concern to you and you will prevent others from needlessly sacrificing profit as well.
In order to prove otherwise, it will be necessary for the owner of SocietalGaming to provide detailed information about its model and how syndication with SocietalGaming is superior to promoting oneself without.
Okay, get a life. You spend all of that time to write that long message that no one will read, shows you have too much time on your hands. Societal Gaming is for guys/girls who want to play games together and upload them, while they get money. What could be better? We created a good environment that everyone loves. Societal Gaming is for new youtubers who are looking to grow their channel, increase views, and giving them "shout out" each time the upload because their video is representing their channel. Stop hating, you spend way to much making idiotic comments on small gaming networks. Just leave, before you make yourself look any bit more retarded.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
12/29/2012
Posts:
56
Member Details
Apologies for the length of this post, but I'd greatly appreciate it if you read it in full. If you are a SocietalGaming contributor, read at least the final two paragraphs.
Quote from cadesproductions »
Okay, get a life. You spend all of that time to write that long message that no one will read, shows you have too much time on your hands. Societal Gaming is for guys/girls who want to play games together and upload them, while they get money. What could be better? We created a good environment that everyone loves. Societal Gaming is for new youtubers who are looking to grow their channel, increase views, and giving them "shout out" each time the upload because their video is representing their channel. Stop hating, you spend way to much making idiotic comments on small gaming networks. Just leave, before you make yourself look any bit more retarded.
It isn't clear to me if you are a contributor, a maintainer of SocietalGaming, or an uninvolved third-party, but in this response I'll assume that you're a maintainer (based on "We created a good environment that everyone loves.").
There are a variety of small gaming channels which advertise and recruit on this forum whose topics I've read but not commented in. You can check my posting history to verify this. Any claim that I am targeting SocietalGaming out of some ulterior motive is a blatant lie.
Any business that promises contributors a reward in exchange for a service, and later fails to deliver the promised reward is, by definition, a scam. In my previous response I outlined why SocietalGaming has promised money and publicity but can guarantee neither. This is why I am targeting SocietalGaming.
Although you seem to be under the impression that money is not the most important issue here, SocietalGaming has clearly promoted itself in a way designed to appeal to YouTubers looking to profit from their content, and aside from the promised exposure (which is also unlikely to occur), there is really no other reason for a YouTuber to apply. SocietalGaming does not provide a community, production assistance, paid marketing, or any other advantages that larger networks might use as incentive to join.
You haven't really addressed any of my concerns about SocietalGaming directly, but I'll try to respond to the points you've raised individually.
Societal Gaming is for guys/girls who want to play games together and upload them, while they get money. What could be better?
In the royalty model that SocietyGaming actually uses (which it did not present upfront to applicants), there is no guarantee that contributors will be paid at all for their content.
We created a good environment that everyone loves.
It doesn't matter if everyone loves SocietalGaming. Plenty of folks love Amway, too, and that's a pyramid scheme.
Societal Gaming is for new youtubers who are looking to grow their channel, increase views, and giving them "shout out" each time the upload because their video is representing their channel.
Not only has SocietalGaming never indicated that it intends to provide any marketing that would not be accessible to an unsyndicated YouTuber - in the second post I highlighted in my previous response, SocietalGaming has indicated that it intends not to.
A shoutout on a non-notable channel (don't pretend that SocietalGaming's channel receives any attention near what might be accessible to even a moderately popular LPer) certainly isn't the sort of marketing boon that might be worth a 30% loss of profit.
What do I think SocietalGaming could provide that an unsyndicated commentatorer wouldn't have access to? Advertising on notable sites, interviews on notable gaming magazines - a foothold into the gaming consciousness, and the kind that doesn't come for free. If SocietalGaming had any confidence in its contributors, this kind of investment would be the first thing that comes to mind.
This leads into my largest problem with SocietalGaming, and it's an old one we all recognize from vanity publishers: SocietalGaming insists that its contributors are talented and provide great content, but refuses to back them with any money. No honest organization makes great claims about the value of an investment while refusing to invest in it. If it so much as provided a fifty-dollar advance to the videomakers it took on, it would seem more honest than it seems right now.
I'd like to apologize if I've offended you, but if you're a maintainer of SocietalGaming, these are concerns you ought to address if you'd like to maintain even the semblance of an honest business. If you're already running an honest business, you ought to consider acting like one. Your contributors and I would thank you.
Final note to SocietalGaming contributors: if you want to know what you're really worth to SocietalGaming, ask them for a paycheck: you'll never know until you get one. Leave if the offer is too low, if they say no, or if they tell you to wait till later. Later means never.
If you've got any talent at all, you've got too much to waste on freeloaders.
Okay, get a life. You spend all of that time to write that long message that no one will read, shows you have too much time on your hands. Societal Gaming is for guys/girls who want to play games together and upload them, while they get money. What could be better? We created a good environment that everyone loves. Societal Gaming is for new youtubers who are looking to grow their channel, increase views, and giving them "shout out" each time the upload because their video is representing their channel. Stop hating, you spend way to much making idiotic comments on small gaming networks. Just leave, before you make yourself look any bit more retarded.
Hey kiddo, you might want to research first. If you didn't know, Youtube can pay you if you become their partner. Oh and are you saying that Youtubers who are not a partner of SG can't grow their channel, and increase their views? You just made yourself look retarded.
Certainly will be accepting a few more soon.
Also a passion for gaming is held higher then the want of just money. You will get paid but we rather you do what you want because you enjoy doing it, that way you produce excellent content. Many of our directors can start getting paid already but have opted to wait.
Certainly will be accepting a few more soon.
Also a passion for gaming is held higher then the want of just money. You will get paid but we rather you do what you want because you enjoy doing it, that way you produce excellent content. Many of our directors can start getting paid already but have opted to wait.
We're pretty much a family that games, we are constantly talking to each other in our group chat; as well as play games just for fun.
Those with the mindset of i'm in it for the money is not what we aim to achieve.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
12/29/2012
Posts:
56
Member Details
Certainly will be accepting a few more soon.
Also a passion for gaming is held higher then the want of just money. You will get paid but we rather you do what you want because you enjoy doing it, that way you produce excellent content. Many of our directors can start getting paid already but have opted to wait
It doesn't matter which is 'held higher' - if you promised to pay your contributors in a particular way, and do not do so, you are lying to them. This is the case whether you present an alternate payment model, procrastinate into infinity, or vanish before they invoice you. I've outlined why your strategy is a raw deal for your contributors (namely - you take profit if they succeed but do not take any losses if they fail), and while it's up to them if they want to participate, in the knowledge that the circumstances are as they are, the fact of the matter is that the deal you offered in your opening post is superior to the deal that your business actually provides.
I'd like to hope that you realize that aside from the financial and publicity incentives (both of them likely false), that there's really no reason for these commentators to work for your enterprise, and that if they do it's a testament to their naivete rather than to your business ethics. There isn't anything keeping them from producing excellent content without you, for 100% rather than 70% profit, receiving the same amount of attention and additionally keeping the rights to their content.
Speaking as a jaded contractor (audio design/music production) who's heard this argument more than once before, it's abhorrent to imply that artists who are concerned with receiving just compensation for their work are concerned with 'just money', and that your contributors ought to enjoy their work so much that they wouldn't mind not getting paid for it.
The evidence as it stands suggests that your enterprise provides no tangible service while still taking a substantial portion of their profit away: not only is it possible not to get paid, but it is possible and likely to lose money (in the form of potential profit) by working with SocietalGaming. This is the sort of deal that an intelligent contractor would have to be drunk to take.
You use a royalty model, meaning that rather than paying contributors a fixed rate per video (as you originally claimed), contributors receive a portion (70%) of the profits of each video.
Although contributors profit in both cases (they make more profit than they would if they produced no videos at all), they make 30% less profit in your case, meaning that the circumstance is equivalent to producing as normal, but paying you a 30% fee. This means that your business is essentially charging them 30% of their profits in order to become partners. In economics, this is called 'opportunity cost' - the drawbacks of the chosen option over the next best option.
Unless your business can ensure that their profits before you take your cut are around 40% greater (because their profits then would be at least 98% of original profits: 1.40 [140%] x .70 [70%] = .98 [98%, or approximately 100%]) than they would be if they were alone, you are actually costing them money because they would make more profit without your enterprise than with it. I explained why your business will be unable to accomplish this increase in profits as a sidenote in this post (namely, because SocietalGaming doesn't do anything that an unsyndicated commentator is incapable of doing), which you hopefully read before replying.
I expect that you were aware of this previously, and that my explanation will be of more use to your contributors than to you.
I applied a long ass time ago, what the hell?
Seriously, this gaming channel is just a person to wants to make money and use content from those who have more subscribers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Very true. Got some good recent applications, one of them may be yours so good luck.
if you don't believe me, just give me your opinion on this video..
Still looking to accept a few more, I will be looking at the recent applicants tonight.
Will look into it.
Societal Gaming will get a overhaul for strictly Minecraft which will allow for more of you to be accepted.
Yeah... Like me. I've been waiting for DAYS.
SocietalGaming has been, to put it lightly, opaque about the deal that it offers to content producers. Here is Verean's summary:
In brief, you are sacrificing 30% of your profits to SocietalGaming in exchange for enough publicity to make up these lost earnings.
This means that SocietalGaming ought to be able to provide extensive marketing that would not ordinarily be available to a solo LPer - enough to gain around an audience roughly 40% larger than would ordinarily be possible as a bare minimum to make back that 30%. Note that 40% is substantial in this case - in comparison, doubling is 100%, so this is roughly halfway to doubling the size of the audience. Increasing the size of the audience by 40% twice leads to an audience 195% as large as previous - 5% away from doubling. (1.00 * 1.40 * 1.40 = 1.95)
However, Verean stated the following about his business strategy in SocietalGaming.
This post states that SocietalGaming is relying entirely upon the quality of content that its syndicated LPers produce, which amounts to a confession that SocietalGaming does not provide or intend to provide effective marketing to its content producers. Although one might argue that it has more subscribers than an ordinary new venture might expect, realize that SocietalGaming requires its potential applicants to subscribe and (in essence) pretend to be devoted fans whether they are or not.
This is similar to a vanity publisher which requires its prospective clients to write favorable testimonials in order to be considered and demonstrates further dishonesty on SocietalGaming's part.
On the subject of dishonesty, note that SocietalGaming has:
- misrepresented its business model and attempted to conceal its business model from applicants. Among the ways it has misrepresented itself are the following:
- It claims that it pays at a fixed rate for content when it actually pays royalties. The original post claimed that "As stated in the video, you will be paid for each upload that goes onto our channel," while a later post (quoted above) details the royalty-based model.
Note that this is a hallmark of online businesses with no funding to speak of, which attempt to recruit without laying money on the line, passing the risk of failure to the staff (you) rather than to the management. This means that, should it fail to meet its promises, SocietalGaming will not lose money - instead, you will not be paid as SocietalGaming promised you would be.
- It claims that it provides exposure when it does no such thing. This is self-evident given that it has no website, has published no content in the past, and has fewer subscribers even than most non-syndicated SomethingAwful LPers (and probably even fewer legitimate subscribers).
There is no evidence that the owner of SocietalGaming even intends to promote your content, and there is plenty of evidence that he does not.
- required applicants to misrepresent SocietalGaming in the above ways by generating false interest - for instance, by subscribing.
- brought up circumstantial negative information about critics to discourage dissent (see post #33)
Regardless of whether your content is of quality or not, you will be able to provide better marketing and integrity working alone than working with SocietalGaming. You will sacrifice less profit if it is a concern to you and you will prevent others from needlessly sacrificing profit as well.In order to prove otherwise, it will be necessary for the owner of SocietalGaming to provide detailed information about its model and how syndication with SocietalGaming is superior to promoting oneself without.
Okay, get a life. You spend all of that time to write that long message that no one will read, shows you have too much time on your hands. Societal Gaming is for guys/girls who want to play games together and upload them, while they get money. What could be better? We created a good environment that everyone loves. Societal Gaming is for new youtubers who are looking to grow their channel, increase views, and giving them "shout out" each time the upload because their video is representing their channel. Stop hating, you spend way to much making idiotic comments on small gaming networks. Just leave, before you make yourself look any bit more retarded.
It isn't clear to me if you are a contributor, a maintainer of SocietalGaming, or an uninvolved third-party, but in this response I'll assume that you're a maintainer (based on "We created a good environment that everyone loves.").
There are a variety of small gaming channels which advertise and recruit on this forum whose topics I've read but not commented in. You can check my posting history to verify this. Any claim that I am targeting SocietalGaming out of some ulterior motive is a blatant lie.
Any business that promises contributors a reward in exchange for a service, and later fails to deliver the promised reward is, by definition, a scam. In my previous response I outlined why SocietalGaming has promised money and publicity but can guarantee neither. This is why I am targeting SocietalGaming.
Although you seem to be under the impression that money is not the most important issue here, SocietalGaming has clearly promoted itself in a way designed to appeal to YouTubers looking to profit from their content, and aside from the promised exposure (which is also unlikely to occur), there is really no other reason for a YouTuber to apply. SocietalGaming does not provide a community, production assistance, paid marketing, or any other advantages that larger networks might use as incentive to join.
You haven't really addressed any of my concerns about SocietalGaming directly, but I'll try to respond to the points you've raised individually.
In the royalty model that SocietyGaming actually uses (which it did not present upfront to applicants), there is no guarantee that contributors will be paid at all for their content.
It doesn't matter if everyone loves SocietalGaming. Plenty of folks love Amway, too, and that's a pyramid scheme.
Not only has SocietalGaming never indicated that it intends to provide any marketing that would not be accessible to an unsyndicated YouTuber - in the second post I highlighted in my previous response, SocietalGaming has indicated that it intends not to.
A shoutout on a non-notable channel (don't pretend that SocietalGaming's channel receives any attention near what might be accessible to even a moderately popular LPer) certainly isn't the sort of marketing boon that might be worth a 30% loss of profit.
What do I think SocietalGaming could provide that an unsyndicated commentatorer wouldn't have access to? Advertising on notable sites, interviews on notable gaming magazines - a foothold into the gaming consciousness, and the kind that doesn't come for free. If SocietalGaming had any confidence in its contributors, this kind of investment would be the first thing that comes to mind.
This leads into my largest problem with SocietalGaming, and it's an old one we all recognize from vanity publishers: SocietalGaming insists that its contributors are talented and provide great content, but refuses to back them with any money. No honest organization makes great claims about the value of an investment while refusing to invest in it. If it so much as provided a fifty-dollar advance to the videomakers it took on, it would seem more honest than it seems right now.
I'd like to apologize if I've offended you, but if you're a maintainer of SocietalGaming, these are concerns you ought to address if you'd like to maintain even the semblance of an honest business. If you're already running an honest business, you ought to consider acting like one. Your contributors and I would thank you.
Final note to SocietalGaming contributors: if you want to know what you're really worth to SocietalGaming, ask them for a paycheck: you'll never know until you get one. Leave if the offer is too low, if they say no, or if they tell you to wait till later. Later means never.
If you've got any talent at all, you've got too much to waste on freeloaders.
Hey kiddo, you might want to research first. If you didn't know, Youtube can pay you if you become their partner. Oh and are you saying that Youtubers who are not a partner of SG can't grow their channel, and increase their views? You just made yourself look retarded.
Certainly will be accepting a few more soon.
Also a passion for gaming is held higher then the want of just money. You will get paid but we rather you do what you want because you enjoy doing it, that way you produce excellent content. Many of our directors can start getting paid already but have opted to wait.
It doesn't matter which is 'held higher' - if you promised to pay your contributors in a particular way, and do not do so, you are lying to them. This is the case whether you present an alternate payment model, procrastinate into infinity, or vanish before they invoice you. I've outlined why your strategy is a raw deal for your contributors (namely - you take profit if they succeed but do not take any losses if they fail), and while it's up to them if they want to participate, in the knowledge that the circumstances are as they are, the fact of the matter is that the deal you offered in your opening post is superior to the deal that your business actually provides.
I'd like to hope that you realize that aside from the financial and publicity incentives (both of them likely false), that there's really no reason for these commentators to work for your enterprise, and that if they do it's a testament to their naivete rather than to your business ethics. There isn't anything keeping them from producing excellent content without you, for 100% rather than 70% profit, receiving the same amount of attention and additionally keeping the rights to their content.
Speaking as a jaded contractor (audio design/music production) who's heard this argument more than once before, it's abhorrent to imply that artists who are concerned with receiving just compensation for their work are concerned with 'just money', and that your contributors ought to enjoy their work so much that they wouldn't mind not getting paid for it.
The evidence as it stands suggests that your enterprise provides no tangible service while still taking a substantial portion of their profit away: not only is it possible not to get paid, but it is possible and likely to lose money (in the form of potential profit) by working with SocietalGaming. This is the sort of deal that an intelligent contractor would have to be drunk to take.
Where does it say I don't pay them?
You use a royalty model, meaning that rather than paying contributors a fixed rate per video (as you originally claimed), contributors receive a portion (70%) of the profits of each video.
Although contributors profit in both cases (they make more profit than they would if they produced no videos at all), they make 30% less profit in your case, meaning that the circumstance is equivalent to producing as normal, but paying you a 30% fee. This means that your business is essentially charging them 30% of their profits in order to become partners. In economics, this is called 'opportunity cost' - the drawbacks of the chosen option over the next best option.
Unless your business can ensure that their profits before you take your cut are around 40% greater (because their profits then would be at least 98% of original profits: 1.40 [140%] x .70 [70%] = .98 [98%, or approximately 100%]) than they would be if they were alone, you are actually costing them money because they would make more profit without your enterprise than with it. I explained why your business will be unable to accomplish this increase in profits as a sidenote in this post (namely, because SocietalGaming doesn't do anything that an unsyndicated commentator is incapable of doing), which you hopefully read before replying.
I expect that you were aware of this previously, and that my explanation will be of more use to your contributors than to you.
Seriously, this gaming channel is just a person to wants to make money and use content from those who have more subscribers.