Where are Mr. Beast's early sponsors now?
preethamrn.com
preethamrn.com
The worst examples are low-margin businesses that have high churn, e.g: food subscription boxes. Hello Fresh etc have extremely high churn so they’re paying advertisers orders of magnitude more than they make per sale. That’s why they’ve moved from “free trial” offers to things like “free desert for the lifetime of your subscription” to spread the cost of the offer over the lifetime of the subscription (but even that doesn’t make the model profitable).
Rule of thumb: when advertising via influencers (YouTube, podcasts etc.) assume you will receive a single payment from each customer before they churn. If the first (and only) payment the customer makes doesn’t cover the advertising cost (and operating costs) it’s a very bad idea. Free trials are the worst option because it’ll go from 1 payment to 0 payments.
- https://kumu.io/Windscribe/vpn-relationships
- https://windscribe.com/vpnmap
The main two that parent poster would be talking about would be "Kape Technologies" and "Ziff Davis VPNs".
We also did an article in 2019 https://www.privacyguides.org/articles/2019/11/20/the-troubl...
They do a lot of astro-turfing with "review websites" that aren't actually independent at all.
And no they're not exaggerating, have a look at the two companies I mentioned and how many "brands" they own.
Also mentioned in the post's link by the way.
But also TikTok was probably a net negative for him as they lured viewers away from YouTube.
I never watch MrBeast and I always block ads and sponsors (sponsorblock) anyway so I didn't really notice any of these things. It's really nice not being overwhelmed with comercialism.
Honey's business model has always been obvious to anyone with any understanding of affiliate marketing, their innovation was that they created a browser extension: that's it. Coupon code websites were doing exactly the same thing for decades before, retailmenot being the one we're probably all familiar with from the early 2000s.
The claim that these influencers have lost affiliate commissions because Honey's method is true but it's also true that these influencers are losing affiliate commissions to one another. Amazon is the preferred e-commerce platform for affiliate marketing because they are extremely generous with how they attribute: if you click an Amazon affiliate marketing link and then make any purchase in the next 30 days the affiliate will get paid regardless of whether they were advertising the product you bought or not. And guess how Amazon attributes? Last click!
If Influencer A includes an affiliate link for "Expensive Camera" and Influencer B includes an affiliate link for "Cheap Toy" and you click on "Expensive Camera" then click on "Cheap Toy" and then buy the expensive camera, Influencer B is getting paid for that purchase expensive camera purchase, despite Influencer A influencing you to buy it.
Affiliate marketing is adversarial, it's a fight for attribution at the expense of everyone else. Holding Honey to a different standard isn't going to work for them. Wilful ignorance of how a company operates isn't a defence against being harmed by them, it's embarrassing.
* Affiliate marketing attribution is understood to be imperfect, the best effort nature of it is priced in to the commissions
* Affiliate marketing uses multiple attribution strategies with varying trade-offs including coupon codes (e.g: "use code INFLUENCER at checkout for a 10% discount") vs. links ("click the link in my description") because of the imperfect nature
* Affiliate marketing is adversarial, all of these influencers have "stolen" attribution from each other
As Honey will have no problem proving:
* The advertisers (e.g: NordVPN) understand that affiliate marketing attribution is not an exact science, that n sales driven by an influencer does not translate to n affiliate commissions, and that the amount they offer to influencers per sale accounts for that
* The agencies that work on behalf of influencers to negotiate deals with advertisers understand the challenges of attribution and have negotiated based on this imperfect art of attribution
* The agencies/influencers/advertisers choose whether to engage in affiliate marketing by weighing up the benefits of being paid per sale vs. being paid per video or views
* There will be pages and pages and pages of emails within these influencer agencies where discussions have taken place on the choice to use affiliate marketing based on the audience of a video, e.g: link based affiliate marketing is less effective for an audience that watches videos on TV, vs. an audience primarily watching the video on a computer
* Honey was not receiving an equivalent rate to what the influencers were receiving, the influencers would not have earned their per sale commission x the number of sales if Honey had not captured the attribution (which demonstrates that this is all priced in)
Maybe PayPal will settle but given the harm this drama has caused to the Honey business, I doubt they have any intention of doing so.
I think the perceived difference is that influencer A or B got someone to click a link to a store while Honey used a browser extension to reset the affiliate attribution when the user was already at the store on the checkout page about to click to purchase. They didn't drive the user to the store. That's a big difference.
https://www.shopify.com/blog/shopping-cart-abandonment
"According to Baymard Institute, 70.19% of online shopping carts are abandoned. Think about that. For every 100 potential customers, 70 of them will leave without purchasing. How much would your revenues increase if you were capturing those sales instead of losing them?"
Honey provides value to merchants because it reduces cart abandonment: it's easy for Honey to argue that without Honey these sales would not have completed and therefore Honey deserves the commission on the sale.
Even in cases where Honey didn't find a discount, Honey can argue that by searching for coupons on behalf of the user the user gains confidence that the price they're paying is the best price and that's why they complete their purchase.
> The defence so many influencers employ when advertisers turn out to be doing shady things is "You can't hold me responsible! It's not my fault, how can I know what my advertisers are doing?" but as soon as an advertiser does something that harms the influencer, it's a problem?
Yes, if the damage is directed towards you then that's a case for a defence.
Inluencers are just providing advertisement space like any other media platform (TV, websites etc.). So if a sponsor bought this advertisement space and turns out to be shady, why should influencers, TVs, websites etc. be held accountable? Hasn't their reputation been damaged as well? They usually just don't go after it because it's a tough case to quantify and any legal trouble can be exceedingly tiresome.
> If Influencer A includes an affiliate link for "Expensive Camera" and Influencer B includes an affiliate link for "Cheap Toy" and you click on "Expensive Camera" then click on "Cheap Toy" and then buy the expensive camera, Influencer B is getting paid for that purchase expensive camera purchase, despite Influencer A influencing you to buy it.
It's the last click, yes. There's a difference between [A] you actively clicking an affiliate button to land on a product page and [B] you being tricked into a last button click right before checkout with the (void) promise of free coupons. You stated it perfectly, yet you don't understand the difference?
As for "Expensive Camera - Cheap Toy": What get attributes how is a technical challenge and cookie domains seem to be the solution that gets picked by the affiliate stores. I think there could be a more fine-grained solution that wouldn't be so difficult to implement, agree, but it seems like there's no work being done in this space?
Except Honey doesn't do that. Online shops pay Honey to ignore the best coupons, so that the customer will pay more than if they had looked for the coupons themselves. They run a cashback scheme that is no different than e.g. payback cards, but they deceptively fund it using affiliate marketing, meaning that the user is getting a pittance in savings in comparison to what honey gets.
The entire point of Honey is that it is activated at checkout: how else could it work?
Also ask yourself about the merchants involved: did NordVPN know about the relationship between Honey and affiliate commissions? Of course, they were paying Honey too. And yet NordVPN chose to use last-click attribution for deals with influencers.
There is a (imo bad faith) argument that Honey directs you to a cheaper vendor (How? When? I’ve never seen it) thus saving the consumer money. I have never seen anyone use Honey this way and I’m not even sure what user behavior / UI they have built up around this flow but I feel it’s just to cover their ass.
I don't think anyone ever thought to research / investigate how Honey made their money until recently.
The surprise for people most likely wasn't that Honey would have to make money on some weird side hustle, the surprise was that they'd steal from their partners.
I did NOT think they purposely, aggressively, stole affiliate attribution from advertisers while pretending to look for coupon codes that never existed or even ignoring actual coupon codes on purpose.
Most people are not familiar with affiliate marketing even existing, how much of a bubble are you in that this SPECIFIC business strategy is surprising to people confuses you?
One product in particular I must have received twenty emails from different marketing agencies trying to give me one for free. It's now pretty popular in my niche, though when reviewed by an actual expert they said it was junk.
Or what they "learned from our sponsor" is that they're offering courses.
That's been apparent for the last 300,000 years of human existence.
- 2,000 years ago: Google Ads: https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/history-advertising-n...
- 5,000 years ago: Google Reviews - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-n%C4%81...
There is little to no history beyond the melt at the tail end of the last ice age 13,000 years ago. Seas have risen by 200 years and we've always lived near water. My head canon: Agriculture didn't just "pop up", there was a history and tradition before that. Humans have never changed. We just have flashier toys now.
Yeah, because they're paid to say that. You don't actually think they use the service themselves, do you?
Do you actually use it man? Have you actually learned anything on Brilliant?
Seems to work somehow.
He's also recently been implicated in several controversies - including (all allegedly) hiring and protecting a misogynist/pedofile CEO, promting and then dumping various scam cryptocurrencies, and very poor conditions for contestants in his recent "Beast Games" (a spin on the hit move Squid Game).
search soggy cereal on YouTube for more info
Which makes it interesting to see just who sponsors him. What nine year old is investing in crypto? What eight year old is buying VPN products?
While I agree that a 13 y.o. is probably more likely to follow him than a 30 y.o., his reach is anything but limited to the teens & children segment.
Chamath Palihapitiya have have worn Mr. Beast merch on multiple occasions on the All In pod as well - which I find kinda funny :D
That there's no separation anymore. YouTube added support for multiple audio tracks and since then everything goes to one channel again. The channels in other languages even redirect to the main channel.
"We get cars and throw them in a hole!" "10 thousand people battle for 1000 dollars!" "I survived 10 days in a hole!"
stuff like that. They are always quite stupid but very well produced. MrBeast always shouts "isn't this awesome" "isn't this cool" etc. Very easy viewing, especially if you're a teen male, never challenging in any way
0. TeamTrees vs REALITY!! https://youtu.be/gqht2bIQXIY
Not wrong.