Are Sensationalised Social Media And Youtube Posts Damaging The Broads Tourism Industry?

[grendel]

Recently we have noticed a trend in Youtube videos of the Broads by so called influencers, and the ubiquitous boat crash type of video.

Are these types of post causing damage to the broads boating industry? are they putting off prospective hirers before they even come here?

a thread to discuss all aspects of social media and its impact on the Broads we love.

its to mitigate against some of the potential damage that we have the rule of no boat names or closeups of incidents (the name and shame clause) in our Terms of Service.

Quote

Forums members must not post confidential or other information that may infringe upon the privacy, proprietary or personal rights of others. This includes, but is not restricted to, personal telephone numbers, email and postal addresses. The NBN does not subscribe to 'naming and shaming'.  i.e. pictures or descriptions of accidents where either the boats or people are recognisable.

so how do you feel about this?

[Bernard]

There are some awful youtubers on the broads, claiming big crashes when it's nothing more than someone coming in a bit heavy to moor in strong winds, one of them is one of the worst anglers I have seen on the broads giving 'advice', terrible fish handling skills.

Most of them would rather film a boat sinking than help, I'm not a great fan.

[grendel]

yes or facebook posts of boats stuck under bridges where the helmsman and crew are ridiculed, these are as bad, for the person involved its bad enough that it even happened, to then have it spread across social media must be awful, I can see a first time hirer never wanting to hire again after something like that.

[dom]

43 minutes ago, Bernard said:

one of them is one of the worst anglers I have seen on the broads giving 'advice', terrible fish handling skills.

I suspect I know who you mean. Also goes wherever he likes, including filming a video fishing from private land in someone's back garden. Has also fallen out with two boatyards, a pub landlord and homeowners in Wroxham - all of whom he criticizes, completely failing to comprehend his intrusion.

To be fair though, he does at least show his face and makes no secret of his identity.

What I do notice is that two of the worst Ludham Bridge offenders have never shown their faces and use pseudonyms. Obviously, anyone can film another person in public. I'd really like to see how they'd react when caught on video and uploaded to Youtube.

 

[catcouk]

All I can suggest is to join them. Sadly, social media is now a part of society's life. I hope that I have only added a positive and realistic view of hiring on the Broads with my past content. Whilst we can all very much choose to stay away from social media (whilst acknowledging that we use this forum which is... a social medium...), we cannot ignore it's existence. At school, I advocate sever caution to my students when accessing social media but I know that it will fall partly on deaf ears (certainly as I get older!).

So, as I said at the start, those of use who can should share the positive experiences we have!

[CambridgeCabby]

With the public thirst for videos of others mishaps I can only see the current trend worsening , what is in-fact a relatively rare occurrence is being seen as commonplace and will certainly lead to some families considering a Broads holiday afloat to look elsewhere .

If the two main protagonists happen to read the forum I would invite them to perhaps instead of spending a day awaiting such occurrences at Ludham bridge , spend a day filming those families moored up somewhere like Salhouse Broad , or Ranworth where the loudest sound is often children’s laughter .

 

[rightsaidfred]

Trouble is that there is far to much money to be made from all forms of social media for bloggers of any stature, how accurate or informative or damaging the content is is  irrelevant, there are more than enough people prepared to believe anything without question and follow their particular favourites.

Fred

[ExSurveyor]

Is there an easy way to see if a YouTube thing is monetised.

It seems to me, and I am no expert, that those who aim to make money out of a video approach it differently than say SwanR (Jean).

I enjoy the gentle nature of Jean's and others output where as I hate hearing the biased spouting of some egotistical snot who thinks I value his opinion and usually has an axe to grind.

What I do enjoy, and always read, are our own members holiday write and memories.

[SwanR]

7 minutes ago, ExSurveyor said:

 

Is there an easy way to see if a YouTube thing is monetised

 

Thanks for your kind comments. All I know is that to monetise your channel you have to reach certain criteria such as a minimum number of subscribers and minimum watch time. You can become a partner and then get money via memberships, super thanks etc. 

I have no interest in any of that. My videos are just a hobby and mostly made for my own amusement and as a nice record of my own holidays and trips out. And out of principle I would never include other people’s mishaps or difficulties. 

[YnysMon]

I must put in a word about the ‘New Name, Same Me’ lady. She started out videoing rather sensational videos at Ludham Bridge, which turned me off. However, I notice her more recent videos are a lot more varied, many exploring other areas of the Broads.

Last weekend’s video did feature some boats having difficulty at Ludham Bridge with the wind, but no ‘incidents’, and sympathetic commentary which just served to remind people that the tide and wind combined can make things difficult. Actually, I found it quite instructive to watch. I also liked that she said that nasty comments would be deleted.

[CambridgeCabby]

I remember eagerly awaiting “London Rascals” next adventure in the days when he used to hire , his videos were always informative, amusing (especially his hot dog tin episode) and entertaining , his videos as a boat owner and his car adventures followed in a similar vein ; many of the new regular YouTubers could learn a lot from watching his back catalogue .

[Ray]

Another aspect and I don't know if this has happened or is common, is that a helm becoming aware of being filmed may be distracted enough to make the mistake the filmer is hoping to capture.

Many of us will have experienced messing something up because we are under scrutiny whether afloat or in any other area of life (my first driving test haunts me still after 50 years lol)  Basically it's intrusive and un-nerving and more so for those making their first attempt at a new skill.

[grendel]

I follow one channel, a youngish lad, he has a monetised channel and over 1 million subscribers.

for his channel he clears and mows one property a week for free, lately he has been clearing abandoned properties to clear the footpaths and make the house acceptable for the neighbours. surely if he can build a popular channel, just by mowing rather unkempt lawns, others must also be able to do it without resorting to the misfortunes of others - I think he does get sponsored by some of the garden equipment companies, but he achieves it all without demeaning others. (he also works ver hard clearing the properties for his money.

[dom]

I've lost quite a few hours watching mowing videos. There's also a British lad with 250k subs who does similar pressure washing. He did a small job for an old lady who's 96 years old and had been issued with notices by the local council. He's since been back to clear the entire garden, trim trees, repair fences, etc, all for free.

[dom]

45 minutes ago, YnysMon said:

Last weekend’s video did feature some boats having difficulty at Ludham Bridge with the wind, but no ‘incidents’, and sympathetic commentary which just served to remind people that the tide and wind combined can make things difficult. Actually, I found it quite instructive to watch. I also liked that she said that nasty comments would be deleted.

Would she have shown incidents if any occurred though? I think we all know the answer.

I can appreciate the point you're making, but there's so much more to the Broads than just that one bridge. It's been done to death, so I think it's time to just leave it. There are lots of aspects of the area which haven't ever been covered - and the one dimensional videos do the area a disservice.

I've said it before, but I'm not going to suggest topics, as it's conceivable I might have a go at uploading some stuff in future - but, as an example, why not go and have a chat with someone at one of the sailing clubs and feature some sailing. Better still, provide some info on youth sailing and how kids can get into the sport. Or take a look at what Alice Loxton does - she now has 2 million social followers just from talking about history.

 

[dom]

1 hour ago, ExSurveyor said:

Is there an easy way to see if a YouTube thing is monetised.

Not easily or accurately. Anyone with 1k+ subscribers may be.  Socialblade.com will give an indication of what a channel might be earning. I suspect most people hitting 1k probably opt into Google's ad programs, but most probably earn little or nothing.

Really, there ought to be far more transparency and I think Google ought to only be paying money to Youtube channels who make their owners identities clearly known and state that they're monetized. Unfortunately though, Google's finances are so vast that when the EU fine them €2.4bn for anti-trust breaches, they just laugh about it, make changes, but then revert back to their original position after a while. They just don't care about these things and no-one really has the power to force them to do anything.

[Mouldy]

9 hours ago, YnysMon said:

I must put in a word about the ‘New Name, Same Me’ lady. She started out videoing rather sensational videos at Ludham Bridge, which turned me off. However, I notice her more recent videos are a lot more varied, many exploring other areas of the Broads.

I have to disagree.  One of her last offerings was captioned ‘ . . . . . drama as boat hits barge at Ludham Bridge.’  Clickbait title designed purely to increase views to satisfy some folk’s predilection with seeing others struggling or embarrassed.

9 hours ago, YnysMon said:

 . . . . . . . . I also liked that she said that nasty comments would be deleted.

We all know that Ludham Bridge on a busy weekend is going to be the scene of a few people struggling.  Many will have just set out on their first Broads adventure from the largest yard on the network and find themselves inadvertently starring in someone’s YouTube video and the object of some unnecessary comments.  Going back to the video mentioned earlier, someone posted ‘True idiots on that boat.’  A not very pleasant comment that hadn’t been deleted.

I doubt that a video showing families moored at Salhouse or Ranworth, enjoying time on The Broads would attract the number of ‘clicks,’ so gain less potential revenue.  There is a reason that Ludham Bridge is the central focus for their attention and I think it does little to enhance the appeal of a boating holiday.  I wonder how many folk who watch these videos from the comfort of their armchair, realise that although at times the rivers are busy, nowhere else on the network is the scene of this kind of ‘sport.’

[RumPunch]

Personally, I've always found accidents fascinating. Loss of property, or even life, is tragic, but if you can set that aside the chain of events leading to the end result is often worthy of study.

There used to be a Flight Safety poster in the RAF - 'Learn from your mistakes, or better still learn from the mistakes of others'

[MauriceMynah]

Ever since one caveman saw another one slip on a banana skin, people have laughed at the misfortune of others. Yes we can type about how nasty it is, and that we wouldn't do so ourselves,  but are we being truly honest with ourselves?

If I mess up and notice that it's been caught on camera,  these days I'd expect to see it on YouTube within hours. Happy about it? No not really, but that's life nowadays.  

There used to be a program on TV called "You've been framed" it ran for years and years with a succession of presenters. It wouldn't have lasted so long had it not been so popular. We still laugh at banana skin humour, we can't help it.

From Charlie Chaplin's tramp through "Some mothers do have 'em" to ... well what ever's on today it's same old same old. 

Do I think it would put people off coming to the Broads, nah I don't think so. It might make some of the viewers more careful when approaching bridges but I suspect that more people will have the Jeremy Clarkson attitude "How hard can that be?" than will think "I don't think I can do that."

As far as the footage that was responsible for this thread goes, I take my hat off to those here who watched it all. I switched it off after just a few minutes having lost patience with the presenter. He seems to be referred to as an 'influencer'. Anybody who is influenced by that chappie needs to get out more, further, anyone calling themselves 'influencers' need to stay in more.

[CambridgeCabby]

I notice elsewhere that Sherz and Lynz have just had another holiday afloat on The Broads and I await their next YouTube offering eagerly , their videos are always amusing and informative .

[oldgregg]

I watch a lot of YouTube, particularly car and photography content but a fair bit about boating. Not so much about the Broads though.

But I don't really watch any of the Broads 'influenzas' any more, they're all just producing the same stuff year on year. New faces and channels come along but it's just exactly the same formula rehashed again and again and again. 

Someone sent me a link to the Ludham Bridge video person the other day. It was something like a 15 minute edit of just boats coming up to the bridge, some getting through, some turning round. I skipped through it, to see if there was anything interesting... Spoiler alert but there wasn't. 

I get that sensationalism is easier and to make genuinely interesting content requires real talent and a lot of time and effort and therefore genuinely interesting content is going to be rare, but it's good to see there are still a few people about doing that.

[Vaughan]

Firstly, thank you Grendel, for starting this debate on what I might call the "open" forum.

And now, here's the dinosaur in me : I just can't get my head around the economics of all this.  In the business world that I am used to, you manufacture your product and then your customers come and buy it.

If I view something on Youtube, I don't pay for it - it comes for free.  But all these little bloggers can make what seems to be a good living just by getting lots of clicks for their "efforts".  So who is actually paying them?  The clickers certainly are not and I can't see how Youtube is, either.  So how does this new multi billion Pound industry sustain itself?  And how does Elon Musk make so much money, just out of everybody's silly little tweets?

Or was my mother wrong all along, and money really does grow on trees?

[twowrights]

11 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Firstly, thank you Grendel, for starting this debate on what I might call the "open" forum.

And now, here's the dinosaur in me : I just can't get my head around the economics of all this.  In the business world that I am used to, you manufacture your product and then your customers come and buy it.

If I view something on Youtube, I don't pay for it - it comes for free.  But all these little bloggers can make what seems to be a good living just by getting lots of clicks for their "efforts".  So who is actually paying them?  The clickers certainly are not and I can't see how Youtube is, either.  So how does this new multi billion Pound industry sustain itself?  And how does Elon Musk make so much money, just out of everybody's silly little tweets?

Or was my mother wrong all along, and money really does grow on trees?

Google AdSense pay monetized YouTubers, figures I've seen quote between ten and thirty pounds per thousand views, depending  on things such as subscriber numbers. 

[Vaughan]

4 minutes ago, twowrights said:

Google AdSense pay monetized YouTubers, figures I've seen quote between ten and thirty pounds per thousand views, depending  on things such as subscriber numbers. 

So are we saying that this is all funded by advertising?

Edited to add :

Thank you very much for reply. I am not being flippant : I am actually very keen to see how this monster feeds itself!

[twowrights]

Yes, funded by the adverts on there, and probably those that pay not to see the adverts. I just click on the button that skips the adverts, but apparently it still counts as viewed.