Call to Ban YouTubers

[VISITOR]

Because change is made by having conversations.

We can simply ignore scammers by hanging up on them or deleting their emails. But what about those who don’t know better and continue to be fleeced? Those who know and care have a moral obligation to start conversations and make noise.

this reminds me of car care & tool brands on how they handle (or lack of) their CS and how they treat their customers. i don't care if you are the first company or the last.. if you treat your customers bad (there are plenty of companies who do) or take them for granted, you aren't getting any of my money...

[Coatingsarecrack]

Pretty transparent to me..... maybe folks not paying attention?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WristyManchego]

“Includes paid promotion” is not transparent enough. The tag was added for content that included spot advertising, not an entire video that is an advert.

The major concern with this guy is that he claims to do fair and valid assessments of product based on his own “criteria”. When in fact he takes payment for positive reviews.

At what point would you draw the line between product review and blatant paid advertising [mention]Coatingsarecrack [/mention] ?

[PaulMys]

I realize I wasn't going to comment, but I had to just point this one thing out:


This whole thing originated from Pan just dropping these vids all over AGO, and never contributing. Many members were fed up because it seemed he was polluting the board with what was perceived as "advertising".

Yes, I know that his vids are not "advertising" per se, but in some cases (and I believe especially here on AGO) public perception and opinion takes precedence over the black and white "definition".

And yes, certain things were said that should not have been (in the original thread, by both sides). But I do not think any member had a problem with wether or not Pan's vids were "paid" or "not paid".

Me personally? I wish Pan would get double what he is getting now. And I'm serious.
If he put himself in position (with what I am sure was hard work) to be paid by these companies for a favorable review vid, than more power to him. He deserves every single cent he gets.

But like I pointed out, the original thread was not to call Pan out for making a living.

[DUBL0WS6]

“Includes paid promotion” is not transparent enough. The tag was added for content that included spot advertising, not an entire video that is an advert.

The major concern with this guy is that he claims to do fair and valid assessments of product based on his own “criteria”. When in fact he takes payment for positive reviews.

At what point would you draw the line between product review and blatant paid advertising [mention]Coatingsarecrack [/mention] ?

My first assumption was that line referred to the ads.

[Coatingsarecrack]

“Includes paid promotion” is not transparent enough. The tag was added for content that included spot advertising, not an entire video that is an advert.

The major concern with this guy is that he claims to do fair and valid assessments of product based on his own “criteria”. When in fact he takes payment for positive reviews.

At what point would you draw the line between product review and blatant paid advertising [mention]Coatingsarecrack [/mention] ?

No spot advertising in the video that I saw. That is what YouTube requires when sponsored. The commercials at the beginning are a youtube thing not a Pan thing.

I feel it couldn’t be more transparent and you have the right to your opinion as well but he’s definitely mentions it.

Where does he claim to do a fair and valid assessment. I have seen him say he’s turned down pay to not do videos for products he doesn’t like weather thats true or not I have no idea.

“At what point would you draw the line between product review and blatant paid advertising?”

When I see a video stating with “includes paid promotion”

And is it more wrong to get paid to advertise products, state this is your main source of income and post disclaimers that may or may not be enough or to share private business discussions with someone who has nothing to do with the discussions and then have them “expose” that he’s doing paid promotions like the disclaimer on his video’s says he does?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Coatingsarecrack]

I realize I wasn't going to comment, but I had to just point this one thing out:


This whole thing originated from Pan just dropping these vids all over AGO, and never contributing. Many members were fed up because it seemed he was polluting the board with what was perceived as "advertising".

Yes, I know that his vids are not "advertising" per se, but in some cases (and I believe especially here on AGO) public perception and opinion takes precedence over the black and white "definition".

And yes, certain things were said that should not have been (in the original thread, by both sides). But I do not think any member had a problem with wether or not Pan's vids were "paid" or "not paid".

Me personally? I wish Pan would get double what he is getting now. And I'm serious.
If he put himself in position (with what I am sure was hard work) to be paid by these companies for a favorable review vid, than more power to him. He deserves every single cent he gets.

But like I pointed out, the original thread was not to call Pan out for making a living.

No i get it and agree somewhat as when he came on here and dropped video’s and didn’t leave any comments to help out. Never bought a product on his recommendation..... that’s what you guys are for


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WristyManchego]

“At what point would you draw the line between product review and blatant paid advertising?”

When I see a video stating with “includes paid promotion”

Glad we both agree he does advertising, not product reviews.

[DUBL0WS6]

Glad we both agree he does advertising, not product reviews.

There are channels on YT that do product reviews. Project Farm is a great one. Love him or hate him, Jimbo tests products.

A youtube channel is a business. The way Pan has promoted his channel comes off to me as sleazy. There are claims that he's taken credit for something someone else came up with. Dump promotion posts on a forum and run. That's just a bad way to run a business.

As for Scott at DPC, not sure this helps him either. Most comments about his video sided toward the negative.

[dennis b]

Pan got greedy. I think he started off with good intentions and the money Youtube pays you as a percentage of the advertising was a nice bonus. But that wasn't enough, he added affiliate links to Amazon to make more money. Now he's shaking down manufacturers and demanding terms. The conflict of interest and bias is very obvious and has been for a while. He comes off as so phoney I just can't watch his channel. Greed.

I've heard that sponsors generally pay between $20-$60 per thousand views. Pan is probably demanding the high end if not more.