I would love to see more on sponsors because it's gotten to the point where if I see a company sponsoring content now it makes me suspicious of their value/claims
This is a deleted scene of Michael Keaton in “Night Shift”… same energy when he talks about “idea to make money! Mix the mayonnaise into the can with the tuna fish!” 😂😂
This is a display of great integrity, very much appreciated and should be modeled by other creators. HEads up I'd be leary of the tech health care share, it sounds similar to a Health Care Sharing Ministry (HCSM) which has issues where they are not regulated and under no requirement to reimburse your health care expenses - and are recently being called out for bad faith practices.
I'm definitely wary of the health share, but it's important to acknowledge that even being IN insurance is a risk. And it is a value-loss position. I don't think Crowdhealth is perfect (at all). There ARE red flags. But I think it's less of a risk than insurance in America. Which is a crazy, but also rational stance I think. See the last ten minutes of this video: th-cam.com/video/3AvHZ_2Uxko/w-d-xo.html
Terms and conditions get you out of contracts don't meet your requirements. There can also be compensation for you if you set up the conditions correctly where they are still required to pay you and you don't promote them. In this case attorneys are your friend.
@ScottCarneyBackchannel not if they can protect your ethics and still get you paid. What was the value of the one advertisement that you now have to get out of, vs the cost of your attorney setting up a contract that would protect your ethics? I would take a guess that it would cost less with an attorney.
@ you can give yourself a way out in the contract that wouldn’t give you a financial hit - or maybe even pay you for the time spent to test the product. not now obviously, haha, but get your lawyers involved in all this paperwork in the future and tell them what your boundaries and concerns are. ive never regretted consulting a lawyer! :) (my original comment reads a bit more brusque than I meant it!!! Sorry. And as you can tell by my multiple edits here i may be confused about the overall situation)
I monetized my channel on Christmas Day. I’m 90% sure that I don’t want to associate myself with any sponsor. I couldn’t live with myself if I unwittingly harmed my audience. I can’t possibly know if a sponsor is going to steal from me or from my audience, so until there’s a way to regulate sponsorships, I’m just going to take a pass.
So I looked at their faq, they say they've only asked for the max contribution twice in three years. What is the average contribution? Most importantly where can I review that info that's not necessarily here? Do those records exist? If they asking for 95% the max contribution every month, that's important and really pads that statement. I can see a company willing to eat 5% to keep that max contributions figure low. Especially since they did do a round of venture capital funding and a lot of companies will operate at a loss for YEARS to get a hold in the market.
I think it could be promising as a supplement to insurance that you're already getting for _no_ cost, but absolutely _not_ as a complete replacement. (I added the numbers for the TOS clauses in case anyone wants to double check my interpretations since I'm no fluent speaker of legalese) Reading the TOS and FAQ this looks a bit concerning... 11.6 (they can permanently stop helping you without notice) and the needing to pay a bill _before_ asking for funding especially. You can also only ask for funds if you're a member "in Good Standing" though I don't remember seeing much about what that means. If it's not too late I would recommend following the instructions in 15.3 to maintain the ability to participate in a class action lawsuit. This has some potential but there are a lot of things they don't cover, people they outright won't let sign up, and another part of their TOS that as far as I can tell is saying they're not obligated to give you customer support either (16.8.) It's not like I wouldn't expect those from other online services, it just seems very unsafe when you could be depending on said service for life-saving care. (Edit: reordered a bit for the cutoff)
@Velvetin3 Yeah, the TOS seemed funky to me. My main concern is the preexisting condition bit. I have an idiopathic neurological condition that got me some fun brain surgery earlier this year. They wouldn't support me in that until I'd been a member for two years. And how would they determine if something is or is not related to that? I imagine a lot of people signing up are going to get denied access to funds on those grounds. If they make it so only some cases get posted then it's easy to them to keep their stats high.
I would love to see more on sponsors because it's gotten to the point where if I see a company sponsoring content now it makes me suspicious of their value/claims
Don't take Honey as a sponsor
nor hello fresh
Better Help and Raycon too
This is a deleted scene of Michael Keaton in “Night Shift”… same energy when he talks about “idea to make money! Mix the mayonnaise into the can with the tuna fish!” 😂😂
This is a display of great integrity, very much appreciated and should be modeled by other creators. HEads up I'd be leary of the tech health care share, it sounds similar to a Health Care Sharing Ministry (HCSM) which has issues where they are not regulated and under no requirement to reimburse your health care expenses - and are recently being called out for bad faith practices.
I'm definitely wary of the health share, but it's important to acknowledge that even being IN insurance is a risk. And it is a value-loss position. I don't think Crowdhealth is perfect (at all). There ARE red flags. But I think it's less of a risk than insurance in America. Which is a crazy, but also rational stance I think. See the last ten minutes of this video: th-cam.com/video/3AvHZ_2Uxko/w-d-xo.html
Being ethical & honest is hard, but it makes you look much better when you look at the mirror
Terms and conditions get you out of contracts don't meet your requirements. There can also be compensation for you if you set up the conditions correctly where they are still required to pay you and you don't promote them. In this case attorneys are your friend.
My attorney is too expensive.
@ScottCarneyBackchannel not if they can protect your ethics and still get you paid. What was the value of the one advertisement that you now have to get out of, vs the cost of your attorney setting up a contract that would protect your ethics? I would take a guess that it would cost less with an attorney.
why didn't your contract allow you to exit? will you be more vigilant about this in the future?
I’m sure I can break the contract. How much more careful can I be than testing a product?
@ you can give yourself a way out in the contract that wouldn’t give you a financial hit - or maybe even pay you for the time spent to test the product. not now obviously, haha, but get your lawyers involved in all this paperwork in the future and tell them what your boundaries and concerns are. ive never regretted consulting a lawyer! :)
(my original comment reads a bit more brusque than I meant it!!! Sorry. And as you can tell by my multiple edits here i may be confused about the overall situation)
I know it's hard, but always choose ethics. 🇧🇷🌏🙏👏👏👏
Agree. However, I never trust people who show off how ethical they are.
@ryelor123 I understand. But if the person shows in attitudes too ... they deserve credits and then we keep observing.
I bet it's those data deletion companies. And I bet they sell your data too. The marketing vibes with them were just off.
Could it be incogni? Or "Delete me"?
I've noticed that TH-camrs have way more subscribers on Instagram and Tik Tok. Not sure how the pay works there.
I monetized my channel on Christmas Day. I’m 90% sure that I don’t want to associate myself with any sponsor.
I couldn’t live with myself if I unwittingly harmed my audience.
I can’t possibly know if a sponsor is going to steal from me or from my audience, so until there’s a way to regulate sponsorships, I’m just going to take a pass.
And you thought crowd health was the next best choice for an ethical sponsor? 🧐🤡
Meanwhile, here's a link to @CrowdHealth: www.joincrowdhealth.com/?referral_code=CARNEY
So I looked at their faq, they say they've only asked for the max contribution twice in three years. What is the average contribution? Most importantly where can I review that info that's not necessarily here? Do those records exist? If they asking for 95% the max contribution every month, that's important and really pads that statement. I can see a company willing to eat 5% to keep that max contributions figure low. Especially since they did do a round of venture capital funding and a lot of companies will operate at a loss for YEARS to get a hold in the market.
I think it could be promising as a supplement to insurance that you're already getting for _no_ cost, but absolutely _not_ as a complete replacement. (I added the numbers for the TOS clauses in case anyone wants to double check my interpretations since I'm no fluent speaker of legalese) Reading the TOS and FAQ this looks a bit concerning... 11.6 (they can permanently stop helping you without notice) and the needing to pay a bill _before_ asking for funding especially. You can also only ask for funds if you're a member "in Good Standing" though I don't remember seeing much about what that means. If it's not too late I would recommend following the instructions in 15.3 to maintain the ability to participate in a class action lawsuit. This has some potential but there are a lot of things they don't cover, people they outright won't let sign up, and another part of their TOS that as far as I can tell is saying they're not obligated to give you customer support either (16.8.) It's not like I wouldn't expect those from other online services, it just seems very unsafe when you could be depending on said service for life-saving care.
(Edit: reordered a bit for the cutoff)
@Velvetin3 Yeah, the TOS seemed funky to me. My main concern is the preexisting condition bit. I have an idiopathic neurological condition that got me some fun brain surgery earlier this year. They wouldn't support me in that until I'd been a member for two years. And how would they determine if something is or is not related to that?
I imagine a lot of people signing up are going to get denied access to funds on those grounds. If they make it so only some cases get posted then it's easy to them to keep their stats high.