Recently I was critical on social
about the way that camera marketing
is being handled on YouTube right now.
And I read a lot of your comments about it
and I have a few responses to those comments
before we jump right into it.
First, to the creators who shared my sentiments
and actually offered to participate in this video
or whatever I was gonna make,
I wanna say thanks a lot
and I actually considered including you in this video,
but then I thought it might actually be a lot better
if you make your own videos.
More videos equals more awareness.
And honestly, I'd rather hear what you have to say
in your own format without me interjecting
in some kind of conversation.
I also read a lot of comments from YouTubers
saying that they would find this new YouTubers
who said that they would find this useful
to help them navigate these potential issues
that they might find in the future.
And I think that might actually be
what urged me to make this video more than anything.
And then lastly, there was a lot of comments
from people in other sectors
that wanted me to make it clear
that this isn't just a camera YouTube review issue,
that other categories,
basically anything that gets reviewed on YouTube
probably has these same struggles.
What did I actually write when I wrote that blurb on social?
Let's talk about press events for a minute.
They're weird.
In the photo/video space,
many of us camera viewers are friends.
So when you invite a bunch of us to an interesting location
and we're hanging out eating good food and sharing stories,
the positivity in the air naturally rises.
Then they shuffle us all in an auditorium
where an enthusiastic speaker from the brand
comes out to tell us about this new product
that they're very excited to share with us.
By this point, the room is already so excited
just to be there in that moment that we clap and cheer
just because some dude from the camera brand
merely walked on stage.
So then when they start showing us slides
on a massive screen about their latest,
likely only infinitesimally better gadget,
we collectively start building a video on our minds
of how to best regurgitate this to you,
the consumer and YouTube viewer,
and likely how to shoehorn a sponsor in there
so we can actually get paid
because these press events actually cost us money,
not make it.
They don't give a presentation about the camera's cons,
so it's up to us to find them.
But imagine trying to find all those cons while walking
around an exotic location with a group of friends
all giggling about a bunch of esoteric memes,
and with limited time before we have to travel back home
and rush to edit the video to hit embargo.
It's a flawed system
designed to generate hype and sell products.
It's also extremely effective.
We should actually be impressed that many creators
are able to put any kind
of reasonably balanced review at all
considering these conditions.
I don't generally fault anyone
for the type of content that comes out around embargoes
or after press events,
aside from generally lackluster
or completely absent disclosures.
But I think what we're actually doing wrong
is playing the game in the first place.
Why am I talking about this now?
Why now?
And why with Lumix?
Why after a Lumix launch?
And the answer to that is simple.
This is the first launch in a while
where I've been in the position that I've been in
and I'm not participating in the launch at all,
I'm not reviewing the camera at home
while people are at a press event.
I'm not at the press event,
I'm just a viewer on YouTube
that was watching these videos to see
what is everybody saying about the Lumix S9.
And I'm reading your comments and I'm watching the videos
and I thought, "Wow, there's a serious disconnect here
between me knowing what these people
are up to in a positive way
and reading what the comments are saying and thinking."
And so I got to experience that maybe more as a viewer
than as anybody else.
In my opinion,
there's three stages to the camera reviewer lifecycle,
if you will.
You start out, nobody knows who you are,
you gotta do everything yourself.
If you're trying to review cameras,
you're either reviewing the cameras you own,
maybe some old stuff.
Maybe, what I did, is I made a connection with a local store
and started trying to borrow cameras for them for favors
and then making videos on that stuff.
I wasn't getting sent anything.
I wasn't going on press trips.
That's step one.
That's the hustling lifecycle.
And then when you do that,
if you build a bit of an audience,
then the brands are gonna see you
and then the invitations will come,
invitations to borrow gear,
invitations to maybe get in a little earlier,
invitations to go to a press event.
And this is the one where the traps appear.
And then I feel there's a third stage,
which is kind of where I'm at now
and I know some other creators that are as well,
which is you are kind of, you're kind of over it.
And you see the lack of value in that middle section
that a lot of the audience doesn't see.
They think,"Oh, they gotta say things positively
because if not, they're not gonna get sent gear anymore.
They're not gonna go on the trips."
"What do you mean the video's not sponsored?
It's clearly sponsored
because you're getting all this stuff."
That value is overstated
because when you're first entering
into that second phase of the lifecycle,
it is extremely exciting.
But not all creators
are in the same stage of that lifecycle.
So it's not fair to treat all creators,
to paint all creators with the same brush
of how important it is to them.
But again, I'm only gonna share my perspective,
which is that I don't care about your trips.
In fact, I don't really care that much about embargoes
or getting early access to cameras.
And I'm gonna provide
a little bit of evidence to back this up.
But the trips thing has always been sort of a joke to me.
One, as I said, these trips cost money,
they don't make money.
So for me it's always just been
about hanging out with other creators.
That's the sole value to me.
If I wanna go on a trip, I'll pay to go on my own trip.
I don't need the brand to send me there.
And often I just don't go.
And if I do go and then they announce something,
I say, just so you know,
I'm not making a video while I'm here.
I don't make videos about press events,
I'm not gonna rush to get anything out.
You can send me the camera
and I'll review it at home in my time,
that's the only way I like to do it.
I don't make videos on press events
and I don't think anybody else should either.
Not trying to throw shade,
but it comes back to what I was saying,
which is you get this sort of rushed video
where everybody kind of makes the same video
and everybody's only discovered three or four
of the exact same cons
and kudos to all those creators
for actually being able to put together these videos
in a quick time with a balanced perspective
on as much information as we have.
But these creators haven't had a chance
to really live with the camera,
so they're gonna find things out later on
and then they're gonna give you their full reviews later on.
So the preview that they give you at the press events
is just because they have to.
And it's not fair that we're in a situation
where they have to,
everybody feels like they're racing.
Everybody feels that they gotta be first.
You all gotta get your video out.
And also, when we talk about brands,
we're gonna talk about consequences.
But let's just move past that.
Trips are not as valuable as they appear.
The audience shouldn't overstate their value.
And if you're a new YouTuber,
don't get sucked into like, "Oh my god, trips."
I know they're gonna be exciting,
but have sort of like a code of ethics and stick to it.
Make your money on YouTube and then pay for your own trips.
That's my advice on that.
I do go on trips though, I'm not trying to be a hypocrite,
it's just that I don't overstate their value,
and I think that if you don't make videos
while you're on the trips and you tell the brands,
you can send me if you want,
but you know, I'll just go hang out with YouTubers,
I'm not making anything.
And you can ask any of the YouTubers
at like the Sony events that I go to.
Gerald just sits around in a chair and talks shop
and doesn't do anything for the brand.
And sometimes they invite me back, sometimes they don't.
I think a criticism that I've seen in the comments
that is fair is that when audiences have hard time believing
that you're getting flown to a place
that you care enough about to go on that trip
to actually go on it,
that you're being given the camera as a long-term loner,
that you have somewhat of an established relationship
with the brand,
that you're also somehow gonna be completely able to just,
if you hated the camera to make a video,
I hate this camera and here's why.
Now some creators do and I've seen those videos and kudos
and the other creators I know personally,
I know that they are trying to find
a balanced objective video in there.
All I'm saying is that the skepticism from the audience
I think is warranted because me as a viewer
who's in this space,
when I watched your videos, I was skeptical.
So what does that mean?
And I already know,
I know the honesty that you're providing
and I was still skeptical watching it.
Now I know these creators well enough to defend them
and say, "Guys, trust me,
the trip isn't that important to them.
They're going there and they're trying their best
to make a balanced video so they can stick
probably their own sponsor there and actually get paid,
because like I said, the trip isn't worth any money."
I think there's a misconception with a lot of people,
the comments that I've read that suggest
that when they see oh 30 people, whatever,
all posting a video at the same time, what's Lumix up to?
What's Sony up to, et cetera.
That's just an embargo.
And in case you don't know what an embargo is, the brand,
they make you sign an NDA,
then they give you all the information about the camera,
and they say, "Nobody's allowed to talk about this
until this date and time."
Now there's no other collusion going on there
other than every creator has to respect that embargo.
And many of them have their videos ready to go
and then when the embargo is lifted, they just hit Publish.
And so that's why you get flooded with them.
It's nothing coordinated
other than you're not allowed to post before that time.
So there is a question of like,
well, does having that early access,
is that so beneficial
that you now warped your perspective?
That's a good question.
And then the second one is,
what's the value in being first?
As somebody who's been doing this for a while,
I can tell you the value in being first
is also severely overstated.
I've had some videos where I launched them embargo
and they've done incredibly well.
I've also had some that were eh,
but then I've had some videos I did after the fact
where I thought, nobody's gonna watch this
because I wasn't first, I missed it,
I'm six months late
or Canon didn't send me the camera
until after everybody's already covered it,
nobody's gonna listen to me.
And they did either just as well or surprisingly better.
I think that being first is way overrated
and that is one of the major traps
of that second stage of the lifecycle.
So again, new YouTubers,
you only got to the recognition you got to
by making videos on old stuff,
by making better videos or more interesting videos
or providing a unique angle on old stuff,
you now don't need to have the new stuff
in order to keep making interesting videos
with interesting angles, and so on.
I do embargoes more than anything now to give me a schedule
to stick to so that I can give sponsors dates.
I can say to the sponsor, look, on April 10th
there's a lens coming out
and I'm gonna make a video on that one.
I'll put your sponsor spot in that video.
Does that sound good?
And it's gonna be on this product and whatever.
It lets me stay organized.
If it wasn't for that,
if there was no embargoes,
I'd have to find another way to do it.
But I don't really think
that it would affect views that much.
And again, it makes sense
because you built your channel on not being first.
And that's another reason why I hate press events
because when you go to them
and everybody is pretty collaborative in the camera space,
which is a great thing,
but you're sitting in a room with 100 other people
and you're almost thinking everybody in here
is gonna be posting on the date.
They just put on the big PowerPoint presentation.
I guess I better post on that date too,
or I'm gonna get buried.
Yeah, you know what?
If your video is uninteresting
and you have nothing unique to say, yeah,
it's probably gonna get buried and lost.
So don't do that.
Find something interesting to say.
And if you don't have anything interesting to say,
don't review the product, don't!
And I've gotten some criticism from people
because like, "You don't review this brand anymore,
you don't talk about that anymore.
How come you didn't compare it to this?
How come you?"
Because I'm not interested
and if I'm not interested in it,
then I'm just gonna make some vanilla video
that is gonna get buried by all the other videos,
especially if somebody else
is making one that is interesting
and they do care about the product
and they're gonna put the passion into it.
So being first is way, way, way overrated.
We should all stop it.
We should all stop trying to be first
and only make videos on things that you find interesting.
But again, I don't wanna tell you how to run your business.
You know, maybe you need it.
Sometimes you're in a spot where you got a sponsor
and you need a video and there is a thing,
so you make a video on anyways so you can get money
because as much as some audiences
don't want YouTubers to make any money,
when you've shifted
to making this your full-time gig, you gotta get paid.
You gotta keep the lights on, right?
Maybe you got employees, maybe your studio is in your house
and you gotta pay your mortgage.
These are all things that you need money for.
So I'm not gonna tell somebody, oh, don't do that.
Don't get paid, get paid.
Never thrown any shade at somebody for making their money.
I'm just saying we don't need to be first.
If you've got an interesting voice, you can get your money
and you can get paid and you can make an interesting video
you actually care about,
you don't have to be on a press event
and you don't have to be first.
How brands react to positive versus negative coverage
and how that affects future trips, gears, and loans?
It depends.
It depends on the brand.
Now I'll give you a little bit of context here,
I am in Canada, some brands have a Canadian sub-detachment,
some is like North America.
So I deal with the same sort of American marketing team
that my colleagues in the US would.
The reason probably
why I am more sensitive to Lumix content
and the Lumix S9 launch whatever
is because they have historically shown
to be punitive and incorrectly so.
Now before I go too far on this little tirade,
I would like to say that the American personnel,
so I work mostly under the sort of US side
of the Lumix thing.
There is like a very small Canadian thing
but it usually gets deferred through US.
And the individuals in the US
have been pretty great as far as marketing.
And it's also important to differentiate
between marketing and the product and the engineering.
So this is more of a criticism on marketing.
Lumix marketing has punished me
when I made videos in the past.
They're very sensitive to the language that's used.
I was gonna make a joke when I saw people
talking about the S9 as being strange, that word.
I have an experience of calling a camera strange
and then not being invited to review the S5 Mark II
because my review of the S5
was "Panasonic Lumix S5: A Strange but Powerful Camera."
And I stand by that.
It was a strange camera.
Why did I call it strange?
Because it basically made the S1s
and their more expensive previous cameras
kind of superfluous.
It did everything they did but for cheaper
and it's powerful.
And at the end of the video I said,
"It's one Sony auto focus system away
from being the perfect camera."
And yet somebody at Lumix saw that title
and said, "Huh, when we're figuring out
who we should send the S5 Mark II to,
don't send it to this guy
'cause he thought the S5 was strange."
And then they didn't invite me to Japan.
Not this Japan, the previous Japan,
the one where they launched S5 II,
because of that, no Japan.
And probably a little bit because I was critical
of the GH6 because they were like,
"He still likes Sony crop sensor cameras,
but he doesn't like the Panasonic crop sensor cameras?
He's biased.
Don't invite him to Japan."
In fact, at one point, it was even lightly suggested to me
that if I could provide a title ahead of time
for the S5 II, that they could run that up to flagpole
and potentially get me approved to review that camera.
And my response was obviously like, "Are you insane?
How can I give you a title for a camera
that I haven't even touched or seen yet or been briefed on
or know anything about other than that I signed an NDA
and you've got a camera coming out
and that you're not sending me to Japan?
How can I possibly provide you a title?"
That made no sense to me.
But it really did indicate to me
what they were trying to do,
which is create hype pieces.
They weren't trying to get reviews of a camera,
they were trying to create hype pieces.
And I'm like, I can't do it, I can't do it.
So I had to review the S5 II kind of on my own, so to speak.
I didn't go to Japan, I wasn't at the press event.
I was in my studio doing my regular tests
and I posted my video on my own
and thankfully the US team was able
to send me a unit to actually review.
But that's an example of punitive.
Now this time around with the S9,
I didn't go to Japan either,
but they did actually call me and say,
"Hey Gerald, we're not gonna send you Japan
because we don't think you'll like the camera."
And this is an interesting topic
that isn't really about,
is there negative consequences?
But it is something that I wanna touch on
in just a little bit.
So let me finish the negative consequences thing
and then we'll talk about what I think
about what these brands are doing
with press releases based on some feedback
that I got from Lumix.
And I do appreciate their open honesty,
but I think it means a lot.
So real quick, to be fair,
let's harass the other brands as well for consequences.
What else do we got?
Canon.
Okay, Canon in Canada is a joke
and I don't mind saying that out loud.
I think at one point, like,
I don't know if I've ever received
an early camera from Canon.
So if ever you wanna know,
"Is Gerald right about being first?
Does it matter?"
Look at any of my Canon reviews.
I don't think I ever got a pre-release product from Canon.
Most of those ones I either got from a camera store
or I hassled the cinema department
to send me one of their like C300s or whatever,
like months after it came out
for me to make like a long review.
So great that they lent me things,
but I'm borrowing things from like the rental department.
I'm not getting seeded from Canon marketing.
They're kind of useless in Canada.
I don't mind saying that.
Who else? Fuji.
Fuji has gone the full cycle.
They went from being great,
they have a Canada attachment
and they went from being great,
they were one of the first brands
that ever reached out to me.
And then we had a relationship that continued from there
where they would keep sending me cameras.
But then something went wrong with one of those launches.
I think it might have been the X-H2S
and I don't think it was on me,
but I think Fuji had a problem
where they were sending out cameras
that weren't final firmware,
and the people, the reviewers were having trouble
knowing whether to say in the video
that something was an actual bug
or was a pre-production issue.
And so my understanding is that Fuji kind of shut it down.
They shut down the sending cameras out pre-production
before embargo
and now they'll brief you on the camera ahead of time,
but they won't send them out until after embargo
unless you're part of somebody who gets invited
to the launch events,
which are usually in different places
like what was like Sweden and Japan and stuff like this,
then those people get hands on.
But also that's another fact
that I want you to connect with the Lumix thing of like,
what does it mean if you're being sent there, what is it?
And we will touch on this more,
but keep that part in mind for the next section.
So Fuji wasn't so much punitive
other than they just kinda shut it down,
'cause like "We don't like the way that reviewers
are reviewing our products.
So now there will be no more pre-release
until we have final firmware
and hopefully that will clear the air
of what's a pre-production problem
and what's a final firmware problem."
Maybe that's reasonable, maybe that's annoying.
It's a bit of both probably.
Nikon's always kind of just been quiet.
You know, they never really,
they've never really done embargo cameras.
If you remember I had one where the guy
actually had to chaperone it and if you were,
if you've ever watched a video on an Nikon camera
from one of your favorite creators
and they're doing a review,
you best believe just out of the shot,
there's a Nikon guy who brought the camera
and it's kind of just like chaperoning the product
because they don't mail out a camera
for you to have for two weeks.
But they have been good in my experience
of sending out cameras after the fact
and being flexible with like
how long you need it for and what you wanna make.
Never really gave me any feedback,
if I don't like a camera,
and historically, you know,
I was a little bit like not so sure
when they first entered the mirrorless market,
but they were like, "Try the Mark II,
try our Z9, try our Z8,"
and they're always kinda like,
"Try the next one, try the next one."
Never felt anything punitive from Nikon.
So good on them.
And then lastly, Sony.
Now on the camera side and on the engineering side,
I've been critical of Sony.
You know, I roast them
about not putting firmware in cameras,
about making the next camera
make a more expensive camera look stupid,
about making cameras, too many cameras, too many segments,
bad cameras, weird cameras.
The Burano, the vlogging cameras.
I've been all over Sony's butt.
I would say my most negative videos are about Sony products.
Why?
Because I am the most comfortable
making those critical videos about Sony.
If I have a bias towards Sony,
I think it's because of that.
I think that if a brand, people say,
"Oh, you know, they have to say nice things,
the YouTuber has to say nice things
or the brand's gonna punish them."
I'm the opposite.
I'll say whatever I wanna say
and then if the brand punishes me,
then that will change my perspective on the brand.
It doesn't start over here.
With Sony, they've given me opportunities.
I've both said great things
and also negative things in different videos
and then they keep giving me opportunities,
that just keeps making me more a fan of the brand.
And so that is the smartest play.
If camera brands, if you're listening, that's the play.
If you make a creator
feel like they're immune to any punishment from you,
not only will they provide their audiences
with more objective, balanced videos
that actually show the criticisms,
but then you as a brand look like a brand
that's willing to take that criticism,
pass it on to the engineers.
And if you ask a YouTuber, they'll say,
whenever we go to the Sony events,
the engineers are there
and they have sit down sessions
where you can tell the engineers what you think.
Sony feels like the brand
that is able to take criticism the best.
And so I give them the highest marks for that.
And I'm more likely to use their products
knowing that they're a brand that takes criticism the best,
even if they don't act on that criticism
as quickly as I would like them to.
I want to talk a little bit more about the consequences
with something that's very personal to me,
but then also talk about,
I think a perception that us as YouTubers
should be careful with.
The one that's personal to me is back with Lumix.
When this first issue started happening
where they didn't invite me to Japan the first time
for the S5 II,
I talked to some of my closer YouTube friends about it.
I was like, "Can you believe this?
What's going on?" Blah blah.
And they're like, "Yeah,
you've always been really positive in Lumix."
And I thought about making a video at that time,
'cause people are asking me, "Why now, Gerald,
why are you talking about this now?"
I was gonna make, instead of an S5 II review,
I was gonna turn my S5 II review into screw Lumix
and here's why.
And I didn't because I thought people
actually need to know about this camera, it's a good camera,
and I want people
to hear hopefully a fair review from me
that isn't bogged down by all this.
But I think there was also some of the feedback
that I got from some of my friends
who I think were doing it with the right intention
were saying, "If you make that video, man,
it's over for you.
Lumix is never gonna talk to you again."
And I thought, "Yeah, that's a good point."
And I do, you know,
and then now looking back on that,
that's that negative consequences.
You can't say what you wanna say
because they'll never talk to you again.
And that's what the commenters are right about.
There is that, but I was wrong.
And do you know why I was wrong?
Because I hadn't said anything negative about them
leading up to that point
and they canceled me from going to Japan
before I had ever made a video roasting them.
So what does that mean?
It means that we're disposable as creators.
You may think that you made a video on the S5
that called it like perfect,
it just needs better auto focus.
And I did, you may have made a video on the GH5,
on the S1, on the S1H, on the S1R,
all the damn LUMIX cameras and be like,
"This is fantastic, this is fantastic.
I love this. Oh, V-Log is so good.
Oh this is great.
Maybe a better auto focus.
I think they need better auto focus, but this is great.
Can you believe they put this shutter?"
And then they'll go, "Did he call it strange?
No Japan, get him outta here."
That's what it's like.
And I'm worried that,
I guess I shouldn't say anything about Lumix
because I don't wanna be in their bad books.
I already am so easily disposed of,
that why am I worried
about preserving the sanctity of the brand?
If they watch this video and they go,
"Oh, any future things, cut him off, cut him off."
You might have done that anyway
for something I wouldn't have even known
why you were gonna do it.
That lack of security means
that you don't get any kind of sensitivity from me
because you made me feel uncertain
when I was just doing my job, honestly.
So now I'll just be fully honest about everything
and if you don't like that,
then you can keep making me feel uncertain
like you already have.
That's my frustration with Lumix.
Now when I look at this S9 launch
or even when I look at the Fuji stuff
where they send people to the specific events,
but they won't send out pre-embargo cameras anymore,
I think what we should be concerned with as YouTubers
is what does that say about us?
To my fellow creators who went to Japan for the S9,
I want you to know something.
They approached me about the camera ahead of time
and they said, "Gerald, we're not gonna invite you to Japan
and you're not the only one
that we're not gonna invite
because we don't wanna send,
because we don't think that you're gonna like the camera.
We don't think that it's for you.
We think that for what you do,
for what you like to shoot,
for how you like to use your cameras,
for how you test your cameras,
for the fact that you make videos about overheating,
about record limits,
about how long you can live stream,
how long you can record YouTube videos for,
we don't think you're gonna like the camera
so we don't think it makes sense for you to go to Japan."
And they said, "There's also some other people
that were not gonna invite for those same reasons."
And I know some of those people, Patrick Tomasso,
Caleb Pike from DSLR Video Shooter.
And I was thinking to myself,
those are two channels you just said
that I believe aren't gonna sugarcoat anything
and are gonna tell the criticisms
about that product regardless of what kind of angle
you are trying to take with it.
They're gonna say, "Yeah, but can I do this? No."
So by you not inviting us
and then inviting other people,
what are you saying about those other people?
And again, I'm not criticizing my YouTube colleagues,
I'm saying I know them,
I know that many of them strive to create balanced content.
But by inviting them,
are you suggesting that you can just tell them
that it's great
and they're gonna say that it's great
and they're gonna ignore all the cons?
You're only inviting hype people?
You wanna just create hype,
you don't want balanced reviews?
That's what it feels like when you say those things.
It makes us look bad.
All of us, anybody who goes to that Japan thing now,
and I know that when I make this video,
people are gonna look back on those creators,
the ones that are like vindictive
or the ones who have the attitude of like,
"Wee, I knew all YouTubers were shills."
They're gonna be like all these people in Japan,
they're all just bought and sold by Panasonic."
They're not, they're not.
But Lumix is categorizing,
they're putting them in lumps
as people that they think will toe the line.
And so all I would ask of my fellow YouTubers
is ask yourself,
are you doing something to put yourself in that box
that Lumix feels safe, presenting a camera
that other people they thought would be critical of,
that they don't invite,
but they say these people will be fine,
these people, we can what manipulate these people.
We can get them to say the positive things.
These people won't be that critical.
Make sure you're not doing something
to put yourself in that category
unless you want to be in that category.
And again, if your plan is like, "Man, I love trips,
I wanna make money,
I got lots of sponsors that I gotta have inventory for.
I like all cameras."
Then cool.
You know, there's some people out there
that I adore their content who mostly love everything.
They love everything tech-based
'cause they're just in love with technology
and every little,
I call it an infinitesimally better gadget,
that makes them happy.
So cool, you can be in that box
and for a marketing department,
that's a good person to invite
'cause they love tech, right?
But if you're not trying to be in that box,
then maybe evaluate what you're doing
and make sure that you're not being incorrectly lumped
in a box of people that's like, "We'll just invite them
'cause they won't be critical of the camera"
because that's why they didn't invite me
or Caleb Pike or Patrick and a bunch of other people.
I'm not better than anybody else.
Let me get that straight.
It's just that clearly
I'm not as concerned about upsetting a brand
and I guess that's what I want.
I want us to be in a place where the new YouTubers
that are just transitioning into that phase too
aren't worried about upsetting a brand
and that the rest of us that are in the thick of it
and are trying to earn our living off of this platform
can maybe take a few more liberties
without being worried about upsetting the brand
and make the content that we actually wanna make
when we wanna make it without being first,
without worrying about embargoes,
without worrying about press trips.
And just getting back to that interesting content
that allowed you to transition
from phase one to phase two in the first place
and making the stuff that you really wanna make.
That's what I think this should all be about.
And I think that if we do that,
that we'll be immune to all this other nonsense
that's going on.
And I think that's what a reviewer should be,
immune to all this kind of crap
because it's what the audiences deserve
and it's what we deserve for ourselves
and for the videos that we wanna make,
which is why we started this in the first place.
Alright.
I'm done.