I suppose you could choose (for your attention, expertise, influence, etc.) to be someone else's ‘product’ to sell to their paying customers, if you don't want to be parting with your own money to be supplied with, or given access to, what you feel benefits you
as a consumer. Just to be clear, I'm assuming we're talking here in the context of
non-essential goods and services
not provided or underwritten by governments or the public purse, so you (or me) as a person outside of the capacity of a consumer in the market is irrelevant. Why else would ‘society’ give you what you would like materially or for entertainment, etc. if you neither want to be someone else's revenue source nor be an asset underpinning someone else's business model and/or profit?
Originally Posted by
TSherbs
Just show the pen writing, give a few measurements, and shut the heck up.
So what would be in it for the reviewer, then, such that the benefit to him/her for producing and posting/sharing a video will be greater than the benefit to you as a passive, non-contributing consumer of such content? Your ‘time’ and attention cannot be of any value to the video reviewer if he/she cannot otherwise deploy or leverage such to his/her advantage or profit. We aren't talking about start-ups trying to build up enough of an enterprise or reputation as an asset, such that Google or Facebook might eventually offer to buy it off the reviewer for millions of dollars while you cheer him/her on and consider yourself having contributed to the financial windfall of which you'll be content to share no part.
Bookmarks