I’m not going to do this because of time constraints, but if you really want to know you can run google ads on youtube on just Beast Philantropy videos and get a CPV and you’d know the worth of that video according to advertisers (who probably have a similar target audience to beast philanthropy watchers). Question is if givedirectly’s TA is the Beast Philanthropy TA. My best guess is that it’s not because most donors are older, going to spend less time watching youtube videos and would watch other content than this, so you’d have to discount the CPV with whatever you think is best. If I would do it I would probably discount it with 50-75% and value this at 1-2 cents per view for givedirectly, so 200-400K worth for givedirectly.
It’s hard to figure out the discount (or premium) rate for GiveDirectly vis-a-vis an advertiser here. I agree that the demographic mix would likely warrant a reduction in value. On the other hand, there’s at least someselection for interest in philanthropy based on the user clicking on the video (and it having only a fraction of the views of an average Mr. Beast video). Moreover, GiveDirectly is getting something that seems much more valuable: an extended favorable presentation from a source who is trusted by his viewers. The advertiser is getting 6-20 seconds on a non-skippable ad—and viewers may have some level of default skepticism toward advertisements.
Sorry I missed that point: a 20 minute video might indeed be significantly higher CPV and because it’s not an ad might be favoured higher on that point too.
All in all it’s hard to say. I suppose GD will have some numbers on increased traffic and increased donations versus baseline, but this will be quite hard to measure correctly even with tracking in place.
I’m not going to do this because of time constraints, but if you really want to know you can run google ads on youtube on just Beast Philantropy videos and get a CPV and you’d know the worth of that video according to advertisers (who probably have a similar target audience to beast philanthropy watchers). Question is if givedirectly’s TA is the Beast Philanthropy TA. My best guess is that it’s not because most donors are older, going to spend less time watching youtube videos and would watch other content than this, so you’d have to discount the CPV with whatever you think is best. If I would do it I would probably discount it with 50-75% and value this at 1-2 cents per view for givedirectly, so 200-400K worth for givedirectly.
It’s hard to figure out the discount (or premium) rate for GiveDirectly vis-a-vis an advertiser here. I agree that the demographic mix would likely warrant a reduction in value. On the other hand, there’s at least some selection for interest in philanthropy based on the user clicking on the video (and it having only a fraction of the views of an average Mr. Beast video). Moreover, GiveDirectly is getting something that seems much more valuable: an extended favorable presentation from a source who is trusted by his viewers. The advertiser is getting 6-20 seconds on a non-skippable ad—and viewers may have some level of default skepticism toward advertisements.
Sorry I missed that point: a 20 minute video might indeed be significantly higher CPV and because it’s not an ad might be favoured higher on that point too.
All in all it’s hard to say. I suppose GD will have some numbers on increased traffic and increased donations versus baseline, but this will be quite hard to measure correctly even with tracking in place.