Do Not Build Your Business On Social Media
There are many reasons why you should not build your business on social media, but I want to focus on the biggest reason of them all and that is that ....
You have very little control ...
Social media platforms do not belong to you and therefore the content that you create on there technically does not belong to you either and you can also not control changes in policies that may effect you in a dramatic way.
One such example is YouTube. YouTube suddenly decided that you should at least have a 1000 subscribers and at least 4000 watch hours per year in order to monetise your videos.
Facebook made a lot of changes where your posts back in the day used to have quite good visibility, but now this is hardly the case as Facebook is trying to get you to pay for visibility through the investment in Facebook ads.
Has anyone ever experienced where your videos in YouTube or even in Facebook got flagged and disabled for no apparent reason at all, due to some illigitimate and sometimes outright crazy copyright infringement claims made against you, despite that your content is 100% original?
Well, I will give you a couple of examples:
Example 1:
My brother created a 100% original cover song which he uploaded to YouTube, as in, it is him playing the guitar, it is him singing etc. and copyright was claimed asking him to remove his video. The claim was that he uploaded an original song to YouTube by the original artist. He appealed the decision and told them that he can send them proof that it is a 100% original cover song which he created and he can even point out all the mistakes he has made within the cover song, send them the orignally recorded audio files etc. The appeal was successful but he was so appauled by the experience that he told them that he is just going to delete it anyways as the whole experience left such a bad taste in his mouth.
Example 2:
Below is what happened to me yesterday. I live streamed an original pre-recorded YouTube video I created, all 100% original content. The video contains no music whatsoever, it is my voice talking throughout the video etc. The image you see here was found on Pixabay which provides royalty free images for the public to use and each and every video clip and image I use are all from legitimate royalty free sources or my own original images, video clips etc.
Universal Music Group (UMG) claims that 30 seconds of my video belongs to them???? My video contains no music at all? It is my voice talking throughout and there is no footage of any music, music video, movie, music event or anything of that nature in this video at all. The topic of this video is: "Jobs During Coronavirus". You can go watch this video if you want on YouTube. My YouTube channel is posted in my dedicated area here on WA and you will see for yourself how absurd it is.
Craziest thing of it all is that FB gives you literally 3 lines to give an explanation in your dispute so all I had characters for was to tell them that I got this image of pixabay and to state the url of this image, in case this is what the dispute is about? I did not even had the opportunity to tell them that UMG is a music group? My video contains no music? It is 100% my voice throughout and to ask further how UMG can claim that 30 seconds of my video belongs to them?
Social traffic is temporary
Another aspect to consider is that social traffic is very temporary.
Build Your Website Instead
This is why it is so important to build your website instead, as your website belongs to you and the traffic you will generate will only accumulate as you rank more and more articles within the top results of the search engines, which will result in consistent traffic month after month.
You have full control over the content on YOUR website. There is no one that is going to start flagging and disabling your content for no apparent reason, just because they feel like it.
You OWN this content, not like is the case with content created on social media that technically does not belong to you and contributes more to building the social media platform than it contributes to content you own, despite that you was the one that created it.
Summary:
Social media has its roll to play, but in my opinion your time is much better spent in building your website - creating content that you personally own and will generate you consistent traffic over and over again. Social media policy changes can disappoint and their judgements are not always fair in recognising the hard work you have put in to create original content.
Social media traffic are often only very temporary, whereas article creation will generate you organic traffic from the search engines over and over again on a much more consistent basis.
So I am not saying not to make use of social media of course. I am simply saying do not build your business on social media. Spend a heck of a lot more time on building an authority website through article creation than spending so much time on all sorts of social media promotion.
Let me know your thoughts below on this matter. Will be interesting to hear.
Wishing you all the very best of success!
PS. See below their claim was unsubstantiated. Now my question: What is the consequence for Universal Music Group making false claims against my original work produced? And the answer is, probably nothing. It is like the high school bully, bullying the primary school kid.
Recent Comments
136
That great information, I agree with your idea and suggestion. But, We can get support to rank our sites from social media. But, don't do business on social media. A business should be a concrete mechanism, But, its base is social media, the business should be changed to based on the policies of the social media. This is not to do your business. I also agree with your idea.
Thanks for your advice and information
SAM
Yes, social media as you says has its role to play, as long as we do not build our business on social media and remember to make our websites, which we have full control over, our main focus.
Schalk, I totally agree.
I am sorry for the issues you and your brother had with Facebook and YouTube. That shows clearly we cannot rely solely on them to build our businesses.
Social Media should be used solely to compliment our business. The best way to use it is to help direct traffic to our own websites.
When you stated that a YouTube Channel needs to have at least 4000 viewers a year and at least 1000 subscribers, I changed my plans to open a new YouTube account for my affiliate marketing business.
My goal now is to rebrand my existing netzoomer website into an affiliate marketing one. I earn little of nothing from it as moist of the content is copyrighted. I don't mind, because making money from it was not my original intention. However,last year I did get a check for $2005 from Google.
In the last 28 days I had views of 33.4K. which was 93% increase from the previous month. And an increase in watch hours to 1.1K, an increase of 87% from the previous month. The amazing thing is I have not added a new video in about two years! My earnings were .........wait for it................a whopping................$2.90! A decrease of 12% from the previous month.
My YouTube channel currently has almost 14K subscribers and over 8 million views. Hence it is not surprising that it has a life of its own. But this is how I plan to rebrand it.
Recently I purchased a new domain called netzoomeraffiliate. I shall be creating a website with this domain soon. When I add content here, I will use my YouTube Channel in several ways. I will use the Community feature to post articles that connect with my website articles, I shall one day start making videos that I will post on my channel.
My niche market will be a segment of the music industry. I will be targeting young entertainers who are struggling. I will show them how they can use affiliate marketing to create businesses of their own that is integrated into their YouTube websites. The music world is filled with affiliate companies that market all sorts of musical gear.
When I joined Wealthy Affiliate my first thought was to set up a niche in this area. However, for reasons I won't go into here, I changed course and decided to focus on the MMO field promoting Wealthy Affiliate. When I start to earn significant money here my affiliatezoomer site will be ready to launch.
I hope to be more knowledgeable so as to build up that site and start earning money fast on that site. That will help me teach the musicians about earning money that way with authority. This is all going to take time of course. But it will be worth it.
A few days ago I turned 74, so my time is very precious and I have to do a lot as quickly as possible so that I can enjoy what I create.
Thank you Schalk for unwittingly enabling me to discuss my Social Media plans on your blog. You gave me food for thought that I had to share in the moment.
I wish you much success in your affiliate marketing business.
Edwin
Hi Edwin, thanks for sharing this with us as I found it very interesting indeed. I just want to make sure I understood. You said you had 33.4 k views in the last 28 days on your YouTube channel and only earned you $2.90? Wow I would have expected quite a bit more from ads showing on your YouTube channels. Interesting info. Was there by any chance a cut in what it is YouTube pays for running ads on your videos in recent years, or was it always that little revenue?
This in a way highlights the point I am trying to make, as how much time did you spend on that channel in the past for such little return on investment.
However, saying this, I am fully aware that YouTube can be an amazing source of traffic as you just pointed out and that revenue from YouTube is so much more than just the Adsense revenue that can be earned. Obviously this traffic can be diverted to affiliate opportunities, e.g. like you mentioned in regards to the music gear, which is an awesome idea. You already seem to have an amazing income stream going here as you already have such a huge number of views.
I think the circumstances is anyways a bit different for those that already have massively successful established YouTube channels as we know there are some people raking in the cash with YouTube, but how many average Joe's however are able to build it up to that level.
This is where my thinking is when you starting out, especially if you have a full time job you gonna have to make a decision to either go flat out for making your YouTube channel an authority or to focus on your website and make that an authority first, as you would not have time for both at the same time.
I am going to build up my website to be an authority and then start working on my YouTube channel more after. This does not mean I will not be creating YouTube videos from time to time to compliment my articles. To be honest, I actually enjoy creating YouTube videos much more than article writing.
YouTube is defo my number 1 social media platform, but for now 80% of my time will go into writing articles and 20% will be dedicated to social media.
Thanks for your insight here and sharing with us, was very interesting and wishing you the very best of success with your online marketing plans.
I so agree with you Schalk. Have never been satisfied with the ROTI (return on time invested) of social media. Whereas your site is your own digital real estate.
It takes time to get traction on the search engines, but if we are persistently creating content soon those page 1 SERPs will occur. These will become steady traffic drivers to your site. Much better ROTI in the long run.
All I can say is WOW!!!!
That is some crazy stuff. Funny, since I decided to become part of WA, from day one I have stated that I do NOT want to use FB or any of those sources to build traffic. I will build it on my own.
I am so sorry for what you guys have gone through. Lesson learned right??
Lol. I do think that you can get quite a bit of traffic organically if you just build your website out with more article content and more article content and more article content and that should certainly be the focus.
Social media however can play an important supplementary role in bringing awareness and traffic to your business. But, yes, in general your time is way much better spent on creating articles for your website so the primary focus should certainly lie with article creation.
Saying that, I do believe that social media still has an important secondary role to play, if done right.
See more comments
Please be very careful about what you post on your website or Social Media. Especially pictures/images. Even images from companies like Pixabay who put them up on the Internet as "Free".
Often times, folks do NOT read the fine print when they use a "Free" image. Pixaby for one will periodically insert a clause in the fine print stating the image is free for a limited time only.
If they find the image on your website after the expiration date, you may very well receive a letter from Higbbee & Assoc Law Firm or other law firms threatening you with a copyright infringement lawsuit if you do not pay their ransom amount.
Many companies like Pixabay, Getty Images, etc are hiring lawyers like Higbee & Associates to scour the Internet to see if you are using one of their images, audios or videos without a license.
I have been battling with Higbee & Assoc. for months now over an image their client (Pixabay) says is their copyright protected image. They allege I used their image without permission so they are threatening if I do not pay them several thousand dollars immediately...they will take me to court and sue for upwards of $100,000 in damages.
The problem is the picture I used was sent to me from "The Daily Beast" news magazine and was an image of my wife's book she published. The book was superimposed on another background image of which the Daily Beast said they created in their graphics Dept.
I told the Law Firm Higbee & Associates to pound sand because the image accompanies an article The Daily Beast did on my wife's book and furthermore, The Daily Beast graphics Dept created.
I further requested Higbee & Assoc. send me Pixabay's Copyright Application and Certificate of Registration. After 5 months they have not supplied me with either, yet, continue to harass and threaten to sue.
They have no grounds to stand on IMO, but I may eventually still have to hire an Attorney to defend myself in court.
I thought I was just a rare case until I stumbled upon a Facebook group entitled "SCAMLetterInfo".
"SCAMLetterInfo" has many members all of which are receiving threatening copyright infringement letters from various law firms representing the likes of Pixabay, Getty Images, etc.
It appears this borderline legal extortion scam has become a common practice among ambulance chaser like law firms. These unethical law firms know most people will pay the ransom, rather than, hire a lawyer and go to court.
In fact, Matthew Higbee, of the Higbee Law Firm is so bold, he states on video he knows 80% of the people receiving their Copyright Infringement letters pay the "Ransom", rather then hire an Attorney.
Higbee states they send out thousands of letters a month in his video. The avg ransom is around $1,000 so if 80% of a thousand pay the ransom that would bring in $800,000 a month. Now I do not believe that figure could be anywhere near accurate, but lets say the Avg ransom was more like $500....that is $400,000/month. Still an insane amount of money.
If you want to learn more Check out the Facebook group... "SCAMLetterInfo" to see for yourself how many people are being targeted by this unethical, yet legal scam.
Wow, that' s really scary ... Thanks for letting us know!
Is pretty upsetting if people are genuinely trying to do the right thing and then have to deal with these daylight robbers.
Have you heard of anyone other than USA residents getting sued in relation to Pixabay etc? Or is it only USA law firms getting in on the action?
Also as a judge that is supposed to be just and being aware of these unethical practices should not really allow this kind of scummy practises to prevail, as it is clear that they are capitalising on those that are trying to do the right thing.
The law needs to do something about these unethical practises.
Is Kyle aware that this is happening in the USA? Coz all of us here on WA are using Pixabay images etc. and included in the WA data base. So maybe will be good if Kyle is aware of this, as WA is built on ethical marketing principles and we are all simply trying to do the right thing.
Since when can you buy a license for images displayed on Pixabay anyways? And are these images not uploaded by the general public voluntarily anyways? As in the general public that took original photos and decided to make these images available to the general public? Or am I missing something?
Folks are receiving letters threatening suit internationally. I don’t know about the licensing.
I doubt any of this has anything to do with pictures the general public has taken as Pixaby can not prove ownership of such photos.
However, Pixaby, Getty Images, etc do purchase image rights from free lance photographers from what I have read.
Some they apply for copyright protection while many images I am finding they have not registered.
It appears some of the copyright firms that represent the image owners (like Higbee & Assoc.) took it upon themselves to develop software programs that scour the Internet for images owned by their clients.
When they find a client’s image (copyright protected or not), Higbee automatically sends out a copyright Infringement letter threatening to sue you UNLESS you pay (in my words), a lesser ransom amount.
I learned from the scamletterinfo Facebook group that a number of the group members’s lawyers told them to send a reply letter or email requesting Higbee send a copy of the copyright application and the copyright protection certificate because in many cases they never applied for copyright protection.
If they do not have a copyright protection application dated prior to the time period they are accusing you of using their client’s image allegedly, they can not sue you. Even so you may still have to Spend money to consult a copyright Attorney
One scamletterinfo member said a photographer came out to her horse farm and took pictures of her and her horses.
Later, She stumbled upon the pictures online so she used one on her website since it was a picture of her and her horse.
Months later she received one of these threatening letters from a law firm despite the fact it was a picture of her, her horse and her farm.
The photographer never asked permission to take the pictures., yet sold the image to Pixabay , Getty or someone else.
As I said, Higbee himself says he knows 80% of the folks receiving his letter pay the ransom because 1). hiring a lawyer just to consult would cost more than the ransom and 2). they do not want to go to court and possibly lose and have to pay $100k in damages.
These extortionist law firm’s clients don’t care what the law firm does because they probably get a piece of the pie if the law firm wins.
I have read there are a growing number of complaints being filed with AGs around the country. Several judges in New York State have slammed a few of these sleezy law firms for their legal extortion practices.
I brought it to the attention of my U.S. Congressman here in Texas and he said he will look into it, but I doubt he will.
It would be worth your while to check out the stories in the Facebook group...scamletterinfo.
In my opinion all these extortion lawyers should be disbarred for ethics violations.
Very upsetting. I feel I need to make Kyle aware of this, as WA is making use of Pixabay images. Let's see what he says.
There is an entire subset of Pixabay images that are CC0, creative commons zero, meaning that you can use the images with any intent they like. These are images managed and controlled by pixabay.
Do know that Royalty Free does not mean free to use, so be careful about using images like that. The images within SiteContent are CC0 and you can safely use those on your websites.
Thanks for this Kyle. I will go to their site and try and learn what this means and what section is which - what is allowed and what is not allowed.