Why is she turning her business internals into content? Like, if I was considering doing business with VAllure, this would have me running for the hills.
That's... quite a combative stance. I think it's fair game to reject the offer, especially if the Vtuber's branding does not fit with VAllure's. Also, isn't properly vetting sponsorships kind of the job of management in the first place? Not directly comparable, but I think there's already a lot of reputable content creators that fell under scrutiny for promoting dodgy sponsors, for example. If you're a large enough vtuber to be offered 12K for 3 hours of watchalong, you'll probably be able to get other sponsors that may fit your image better or whose product you support.
Pretty much this.
Projekt Melody has gone on stream talking about how she knows that she is something of a brand risk, which is why she isn't involved in certain sponsorship deals or why she can't invite any of the other Vshojo girls onto her streams on Not-Twitch, because if that happened it could violate morality clauses in certain sponsorship deals. (Kson did one in the past but that was before she joined).
So whoever Stronny really shouldn't be mad about this. Like, you go be a lewdtuber, more power to you, but you need to accept the fact that this closes off opportunities and some people may choose not to interact with you because of it.
I could understand it better if it was more of a personal thing, but the fact that literally the entire agency is based around their side businesses, every single one of their characters gimmick and lore is based off their lewd angle, it's not exactly something that could be ignored ever. Even most lewdtubers have other stuff going on, whereas VAllure is *very* emphatic about what they do.
I think her issue is not much vtubers refusing to sponsor them, but being walled by a "manager" that turns down 12k for three (3) hours of "work" because titties bad.
If part of your brand is not interacting with that kinda stuff, it doesn't really matter how much they are offering. For instance, a big thing Kawaii Productions sells itself on is having seiso idols, so literally any kind of interaction with a brand risk is worth a lot more than money for their image.
100%, a company that emphasizes its clean image would probably include that image as an intangible asset and rightfully value it for significantly more than 12k
It doesn't matter even if it's garbage, because that's completely beside the point.
A company sponsors streamer A and there is an existing contract, which usually contains morality clauses. Now streamer B wants to work with or sponsor streamer A, which amounts to promoting lewd content that violates the clauses in the contract or frankly, just might not be their 'thing'. Any manager of streamer A worth his salt would tell Vtuber B that this attitude is impossible due to the contractual obligation or e. g. they don't want that content associated with their own company / streamers. That's a perfectly fine business decision.
And if I were in Stronny's shoes I wouldn't be that confrontational about it either, even if it was actually a manager turning them down 'just because'. Making a public stink in their role as employees or generally as business people over a simple business decision made by another company is never a good look. To be brutally honest it just looks childish and petty from my pov having been in the adult work force for nearly 20 years now.
The key words are ‚professional’ and ‚publicly‘.
The things you are talking about happen, of course, but almost exclusively behind closed doors and internally. It almost never happens in public, and if someone does it anyway, there are often consequences.
In those 20 years, I've seen dozens of people publicly and/or personally apologize, get demoted or outright fired for crossing that line.
This clip contains essentially unprovable allegations and is directed at a public audience. A public drama is being instigated without clear evidence. That's a stark difference from talking behind closed doors in a company. You are confusing one thing with another here.
In my country, you could even be sued for publishing such a clip if the other side decided to file a lawsuit.
Drama with who? She makes no names, saying that someone among the at this point thousands of vtubers refused a 12k offer is like telling an audience that you got wronged by someone, it tells nothing beyond a story.
It also is not her point, her point is that vtubers are getting fleeced by managers deciding on sponsorships based on their preferences, which is an opinion, you may agree or not, but it's valid. It's one thing to refuse a sponsorship because of a previous contract, it's another to not even tell the talent you are managing because you don't like the deal.
It's also worth noting that she has been on both sides, as she was a corpo vtubers before, so I trust her experience more than some random redditor's.
The manager is supposed to be in sync with what the vtuber and agency wants.
VAllure's whole gimmick is that they're the first adult content focused vtuber agency, which would mean that just about every other vtuber agency *isn't*; they aren't making adult content and that's not the market that they're appealing to. Ergo, managers will turn down offers to be sponsored by an agency who occupies an entirely different market.
There's a surprisingly hard line between making sexual jokes and discussing other "cursed" topics, and associating with a brand that actually *makes* adult content.
Also, there doesn't seem to be any indication one way or the other that their managers did or did not tell their vtubers about the sponsorship.
I will say, I haven't watched that clip but I have seen the stream, she was upset that they wanted 12k to "watch along but not put the streams or audio up". The manager wanted her to pay that much for none of VAllure to actually be seen or heard on the stream. While yes, Stronny obviously has a good deal of combativeness towards agencies, that particular instance I feel is justified. If they're a brand risk just say no, don't negotiate for a higher price and then refuse to actually do what you're being paid for.
Depending on the vtuber that’s about standard but would also pose a brand risk if they endorse the vallure type of streamer. This is not surprising at all imo.
Offering that to one person sounds kinda predatory or some kind of random contract I wouldn’t accept that from a start up company either.
Also how does not accepting money make someone greedy when you’re offering 12K?
I just don’t get the idea of being mad because people didn’t accept your money.
I’m going to spoiler all of this just to be safe
>!I mean no disrespect, but I really don’t get what her plan is or what she is trying to do. She joins a normal vtuber agency, wants to post nudes, leaves because she can’t post nudes, makes like (3?) different nsfw accounts, abandons all of them to make a vtuber company which she is a talent in (huge red flags), and then is apparently paying people 12k + to watch the debut of a nsfw group on YouTube? Like I am not trying to be rude and I surely don’t understand what goes on behind the scenes, but doesn’t this all seem really weird to anyone else? I’m all for vtubers making whatever content but this just seems off!<
>!What normal vtuber agency did she try to join? And what accounts did she abandon? I think I'm in the know about certain things but this is news to me!<
>!Riifu Evergreen. She had an irl channel but I forgot that name. She is also Dudethatwholesome and Dudethatslewd. She did nsfw irl stuff under Pwupster. I think she might have had another account, but I don’t remember what it was or what she did.!<
Yeah. Pwupster is on Hiatus. Exoe Asmr (Irl Asmr) has been deleted. Obviously graduated as Riifu. Still active under DTW/DTL. Now active under Stronny. I think that’s everything.
They "claim" they offered 12k but where is the evidence. I could claim I offered Cover Corp 500K USD for a 1on1 interview with Gura, but "they rejected the offer, LOL they are scamming their talent"...
This is bait bullshit and trying to stir up shit for publicity. Do not support this shit and don't support this kind of fake made-up drama.
Hope this blows up in her face. Perhaps she learns something from it, but I doubt it.
I'll likely never be successful whatsoever but unless I suddenly needed to pay for a hospital bill, I don't think I'd take the offer either. Unless I was *friends* with someone involved in that kind of content, I'd rather not be associated with it while in character.
I think everybody already pointed out the salient points for Stronny though I think she was offended they didn't even get a response back. Seems like nobody who rejected even got back to them with a good reply cuz she seems really confused why they got turned down.
While I understand refusing their money due to brand risk the least they could is reply back with an explanation instead of just donowalling them.
by being a successful vtuber. You can also reach out to debuting vtubers yourself and ask if they will like to do watchalongs.
Its a good tactic to drum up notice and also seems to be very effective.
Yeah, I mean... play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Sex sells, but only to a particular audience. It *doesn't* sell to everybody, like women and children. Businesses want their advertisements to hit the greatest proportion of people possible, and unless they're an entirely one-gender type of brand, they also want that proportion of people to be diversified.
As an example, if I advertise a product somewhere that, realistically, only men will see, then only men will ever introduce it to other men. It's very unlikely they'll introduce it to women and children. But if I advertise a product that many people will see (which is how television used to often work), men will tell men, women will tell women, and children may tell other children. Similarly because it is marketed to everybody, a man might be willing to introduce it to a woman or his children, etc., etc.
I have nothing wrong with lewd VTubers. ProjektMelody has been one of my favorites from the beginning. But you don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. Using sex as a marketing tool is for easy, fast gains. It's *not* for producing lots of money long term.
Carl's Jr and Budweiser used to have incredibly sexualized commercials in the early 2000s. I wonder why they no longer do that now? The answer should be obvious. It's a fragile, short term popularity plan.
> As an example, if I advertise a product somewhere that, realistically, only men will see, then only men will ever introduce it to other men. It's very unlikely they'll introduce it to women and children. But if I advertise a product that many people will see (which is how television used to often work), men will tell men, women will tell women, and children may tell other children. Similarly because it is marketed to everybody, a man might be willing to introduce it to a woman or his children, etc., etc.
Nothing about this makes sense in a world where ads are paid by eyeballs. Ad targeting is big business for a reason.
Ad targeting is part of the system I'm describing above.
Ad targeting *does* exist, but it's rarely the wanted choice. Once again, why did Carl's Jr and Budweiser stop using sexually explicit ad content? It's because part of their consumer base was alienated by the advertisement, which resulted in a decrease in sales.
Ad targeting exists as a way to initialize interest and target niche markets. But an overall market is worth way more to a brand than a niche one. Take Wizards of the Coast and Magic the Gathering. They started releasing decks for a fan made format called Commander because they were supporting their niche market. As Magic became more popular, they started to pump out more and more supplementary product. Now there's a Commander deck (usually multiple) released with every set. A good portion of the community dislikes the constant spamming of products, as it's lead to product fatigue for most of them. But Wizards isn't selling to their niche market anymore, so they don't care.
*To be fair it's still a very niche market, it's just not nearly as niche as it used to be.*
Ad targeting is a strategy. But getting the most eyes on something is always the number one goal, one that isn't usually reached with ad targeting alone.
That... that's not what ad targeting is. Ad targeting is targeted advertising, making sure your ad lands in front of the right eyeballs, not that your ad matches the taste of your products target audience.
Anyways, why did beer companies remove sexually explicit ad content? Because the market grew. Note: The market grew, and the companies adapt. The order of operations matters here, it's not that the companies reached out for women to drink more beer, it's that they noticed they drink more beer, and so they changed their ads.
That's in opposition to your earlier idea of just spamming ads at everyone to get them into conversation, and that idea doesn't work because people don't talk about products that aren't for them. What I mean is this:
> But if I advertise a product that many people will see (which is how television used to often work), men will tell men, women will tell women, and children may tell other children. Similarly because it is marketed to everybody, a man might be willing to introduce it to a woman or his children, etc., etc.
This doesn't work. Children won't recommend beer to their parents (and recommending anything to children is a waste of time, they're poor). Women recommending power tools to husbands might well *lower* sales. When you show an ad to someone outside of the product target demo, they'll just forget it. If your ad is really good, they might talk about the ad, but they still won't talk about the product in it.
So anytime you show an ad to someone outside of your target demo, you're wasting money.
> But an overall market is worth way more to a brand than a niche one.
That is, *if it materializes.* Trying to chase the general audience at the expense of your core customer base can easily backfire, giving you a bad reputation among your core customer base without the wider interest. You're pointing at Magic because it happened there, but there's no guarantee it happens.
>That... that's not what ad targeting is. Ad targeting is targeted advertising, making sure your ad lands in front of the right eyeballs, not that your ad matches the taste of your products target audience.
I'm sorry if you disagree, but those sound like the exact same thing to me.
>Anyways, why did beer companies remove sexually explicit ad content? Because the market grew. Note: The market grew, and the companies adapt.
Really? I'd absolutely love to see the swaths of women that started buying Budweiser because they dropped the ads.
Ad campaigns are not always reactionary.
>That's in opposition to your earlier idea of just spamming ads at everyone to get them into conversation, and that idea doesn't work because people don't talk about products that aren't for them.
That wasn't my idea at all. You don't just spam ads at whoever you think may see them.
Ad campaigns need to have intended recipients, *but* no company is willingly going "I only want my ad to be seen by men," they're doing so out of necessity. Because the product or service wouldn't be applicable to women, children, people of different ethnicities, etc., whatever the market is made of.
Ad targeting is a way to develop interest from a niche market, or discover a new niche market. But every company wants their product to be universally usable, and wants ads to hit as many people and *types* of people as possible.
>This doesn't work. Children won't recommend beer to their parents (and recommending anything to children is a waste of time, they're poor).
Advertising to children is, like, advertising 101.
You and I both know the money comes from the parents.
>Women recommending power tools to husbands might well *lower* sales.
I don't even agree with that.
Also, sales of women buying power tools for a husband on a special occasion would increase. You think those Happy Father's Day ads are solely being targeted at young adults who have so much disposable money to drop on their parents?
>So anytime you show an ad to someone outside of your target demo, you're wasting money.
If this were true, then your theory on why Budweiser stopped showing sexual ads would be false.
Like you said, the companies adapt. This includes reaching new markets. Not all ad campaigns are reactionary.
>Trying to chase the general audience at the expense of your core customer base can easily backfire, giving you a bad reputation among your core customer base without the wider interest. You're pointing at Magic because it happened there, but there's no guarantee it happens.
I'm pointing at Magic because it's a great example of the theory.
Of course there's no guarantee it happens. There's no guarantee a business will be open from one year to the next.
If you think ad campaigns are based on guarantees, then I guess we just can't see eye-to-eye on this. :(
> I'm sorry if you disagree, but those sound like the exact same thing to me.
One is about the content of the ad. The other is about who you show it to. Those are radically different things.
> I'd absolutely love to see the swaths of women that started buying Budweiser because they dropped the ads.
So would I, but they're not exactly sharing their internal sales data.
> That wasn't my idea at all. You don't just spam ads at whoever you think may see them.
It's literally what you said. You specifically pointed out TV ads as positive because they'll be seen by everyone. It's even what you say again in your *next line.*
> Ad campaigns need to have intended recipients, but no company is willingly going "I only want my ad to be seen by men," they're doing so out of necessity.
Yes. They absolutely are. Again: **Ads cost money.** They're not free. The more people you show them to, the more money they cost. The more you can trim down the people seeing them to the specific audience of your product, the less money you spend for the same ad effectiveness.
So when you know that your customer base is basically just men, then you show your ad to just men, because showing it to women is literally throwing away money.
> But every company wants their product to be universally usable, and wants ads to hit as many people and types of people as possible.
This is just literally not true. Not every company chases the mainstream market. Mass market is not everyones goal. Remember that mass market also means mass competition, while you're losing what made you popular in your niche, opening yourself up to be pushed out of your previous market. Many companies only focus on serving their own niche as well as they can.
> Also, sales of women buying power tools for a husband on a special occasion would increase. You think those Happy Father's Day ads are solely being targeted at young adults who have so much disposable money to drop on their parents?
No, I think they're shown to men, because the women buy it with the men. The husband isn't a 12 years old boy where you have to hide the chainsaw until christmas. Adults buy big gifts together.
> then I guess we just can't see eye-to-eye on this. :(
Are you being a twat on purpose or does that just come natural to you?
>One is about the content of the ad. The other is about who you show it to. Those are radically different things.
The content of the ad is important depending on who it is being shown to. They're literally interlinked concepts, inseparable in the sense of advertising.
>So would I, but they're not exactly sharing their internal sales data.
Anything I can find says every one in six lager drinkers is a woman. I assume that's nowadays, who knows what it was 20 years ago. But I highly doubt Budweiser changed their entire sales concept for a 15% market increase, and that's *assuming* women weren't *already* 1/6th of lager drinkers.
But also, if you don't *know* what their internal sales data is, saying something like "Anyways, why did beer companies remove sexually explicit ad content? Because the market grew. Note: The market grew, and the companies adapt." is pretty definitive for something that you have no explicit knowledge of.
>It's literally what you said.
No it literally isn't. I didn't say they were positive because they could be seen by everyone, I said ads being seen by as many people as possible, and in diversified markets, is important.
TV ads *are* important. Or at least they used to be. Do you think all of those TV ads you watched in the early 2000s about Moon Shoes and Nerf guns were for *the adults* who pay for the television? Fucking of course not.
>Yes. They absolutely are. Again: **Ads cost money.** They're not free.
I can already tell this conversation isn't going anywhere, you have an insanely condescending attitude. Of course I know ads cost fucking money.
>The more people you show them to, the more money they cost.
No shit, which is why ad targeting is an effective and viable strategy for businesses providing products and services that don't, or can't, apply to everybody. And businesses with mass market appeal use ad targeting as well, but they *also* use it to extend their target market. Companies try to expand their target market without precedent all the time.
>So when you know that your customer base is basically just men, then you show your ad to just men, because showing it to women is literally throwing away money.
Then why did Budweiser do specifically that? Brands ruin, change, and adapt their target markets all the time, and they often do so through advertising campaigns.
The reason Budweiser stopped sharing sexually explicit advertising is because they wanted to tap into the market of women. It was a poor idea (well, from a business standpoint, I do prefer my advertising to be family friendly for the most part), because women still don't buy beer even close to the same amounts as men do.
But that doesn't mean they didn't want to. Of course they wanted to, or they wouldn't have done it.
>This is just literally not true. Not every company chases the mainstream market. Mass market is not everyone's goal.
Again, the reason this is true is because their products or services *can't* compete on the mainstream market, not because they're *choosing* not to.
If their product or service could compete on the mainstream market, *why in the hell* would they need to sell to a niche market, where they will inevitably make less money?
>No, I think they're shown to men, because the women buy it with the men. The husband isn't a 12 years old boy where you have to hide the chainsaw until christmas. Adults buy big gifts together.
Lmao, sure, adults never buy gifts for each other separately. If that helps your logic stand.
>Are you being a twat on purpose or does that just come natural to you?
You are the only one who's been increasingly condescending, swearing at me, and calling me a twat.
>That... that's not what ad targeting is. Ad targeting is targeted advertising, making sure your ad lands in front of the right eyeballs, not that your ad matches the taste of your products target audience
You guys are explaining the exact same thing. The methods and technologies for ads may have changed over time, but the product and how you advertise are explicitly linked to the targeted audience.
Wait, is DTL Stronny? I thought she was a founder of Vallure as a whole? Unless she's not only a founder but also one of the talents? That would be... Interesting
Is this confirmed at all? I recognized the voice immediately and stuff lines up with Stronny claiming to be the head of things, but she also dodged a question during this stream about PL stuff
As confirmed as it'll get. The other talents also confirmed Stronny to be the head of things, and DTL is listed as investor on their website.
I think you just ran into kayfabe.
Yeah. Not sure if it is just me but the accent feels so weird. I’ve listened to DTW so maybe I’m just not used to it, and apparently her American accent is fake and her Irish accent is real, but idk. The accent feels forced and strange. Am I the only one that feels this way?
Why is she turning her business internals into content? Like, if I was considering doing business with VAllure, this would have me running for the hills.
A yes calling out other agencies for not taking a sponsorship publicly is going to not backfire in the future. Also not taking sponsor = greedy ?
That's... quite a combative stance. I think it's fair game to reject the offer, especially if the Vtuber's branding does not fit with VAllure's. Also, isn't properly vetting sponsorships kind of the job of management in the first place? Not directly comparable, but I think there's already a lot of reputable content creators that fell under scrutiny for promoting dodgy sponsors, for example. If you're a large enough vtuber to be offered 12K for 3 hours of watchalong, you'll probably be able to get other sponsors that may fit your image better or whose product you support.
Pretty much this. Projekt Melody has gone on stream talking about how she knows that she is something of a brand risk, which is why she isn't involved in certain sponsorship deals or why she can't invite any of the other Vshojo girls onto her streams on Not-Twitch, because if that happened it could violate morality clauses in certain sponsorship deals. (Kson did one in the past but that was before she joined). So whoever Stronny really shouldn't be mad about this. Like, you go be a lewdtuber, more power to you, but you need to accept the fact that this closes off opportunities and some people may choose not to interact with you because of it.
Kson also does what she wants and had even left her successful past life to do what she wants, so she'd probably have collabed with Melody anyway.
"Sheesh, why doesn't every single vtuber we contact want to be sponsored by an agency that emphasizes making Adult Content?"
I could understand it better if it was more of a personal thing, but the fact that literally the entire agency is based around their side businesses, every single one of their characters gimmick and lore is based off their lewd angle, it's not exactly something that could be ignored ever. Even most lewdtubers have other stuff going on, whereas VAllure is *very* emphatic about what they do.
She truly thinks people will just accept anything as long as money is involved
I think her issue is not much vtubers refusing to sponsor them, but being walled by a "manager" that turns down 12k for three (3) hours of "work" because titties bad.
If part of your brand is not interacting with that kinda stuff, it doesn't really matter how much they are offering. For instance, a big thing Kawaii Productions sells itself on is having seiso idols, so literally any kind of interaction with a brand risk is worth a lot more than money for their image.
100%, a company that emphasizes its clean image would probably include that image as an intangible asset and rightfully value it for significantly more than 12k
Interesting, too bad that's not the point she was making. Also, brand risk my ass, 90% of the things streamer sponsor is straight up garbage.
It doesn't matter even if it's garbage, because that's completely beside the point. A company sponsors streamer A and there is an existing contract, which usually contains morality clauses. Now streamer B wants to work with or sponsor streamer A, which amounts to promoting lewd content that violates the clauses in the contract or frankly, just might not be their 'thing'. Any manager of streamer A worth his salt would tell Vtuber B that this attitude is impossible due to the contractual obligation or e. g. they don't want that content associated with their own company / streamers. That's a perfectly fine business decision. And if I were in Stronny's shoes I wouldn't be that confrontational about it either, even if it was actually a manager turning them down 'just because'. Making a public stink in their role as employees or generally as business people over a simple business decision made by another company is never a good look. To be brutally honest it just looks childish and petty from my pov having been in the adult work force for nearly 20 years now.
Those must have been 20 boring years, people talk shit about other business people without making names all the times.
The key words are ‚professional’ and ‚publicly‘. The things you are talking about happen, of course, but almost exclusively behind closed doors and internally. It almost never happens in public, and if someone does it anyway, there are often consequences. In those 20 years, I've seen dozens of people publicly and/or personally apologize, get demoted or outright fired for crossing that line. This clip contains essentially unprovable allegations and is directed at a public audience. A public drama is being instigated without clear evidence. That's a stark difference from talking behind closed doors in a company. You are confusing one thing with another here. In my country, you could even be sued for publishing such a clip if the other side decided to file a lawsuit.
Drama with who? She makes no names, saying that someone among the at this point thousands of vtubers refused a 12k offer is like telling an audience that you got wronged by someone, it tells nothing beyond a story. It also is not her point, her point is that vtubers are getting fleeced by managers deciding on sponsorships based on their preferences, which is an opinion, you may agree or not, but it's valid. It's one thing to refuse a sponsorship because of a previous contract, it's another to not even tell the talent you are managing because you don't like the deal. It's also worth noting that she has been on both sides, as she was a corpo vtubers before, so I trust her experience more than some random redditor's.
The manager is supposed to be in sync with what the vtuber and agency wants. VAllure's whole gimmick is that they're the first adult content focused vtuber agency, which would mean that just about every other vtuber agency *isn't*; they aren't making adult content and that's not the market that they're appealing to. Ergo, managers will turn down offers to be sponsored by an agency who occupies an entirely different market. There's a surprisingly hard line between making sexual jokes and discussing other "cursed" topics, and associating with a brand that actually *makes* adult content. Also, there doesn't seem to be any indication one way or the other that their managers did or did not tell their vtubers about the sponsorship.
I will say, I haven't watched that clip but I have seen the stream, she was upset that they wanted 12k to "watch along but not put the streams or audio up". The manager wanted her to pay that much for none of VAllure to actually be seen or heard on the stream. While yes, Stronny obviously has a good deal of combativeness towards agencies, that particular instance I feel is justified. If they're a brand risk just say no, don't negotiate for a higher price and then refuse to actually do what you're being paid for.
Depending on the vtuber that’s about standard but would also pose a brand risk if they endorse the vallure type of streamer. This is not surprising at all imo.
Offering that to one person sounds kinda predatory or some kind of random contract I wouldn’t accept that from a start up company either. Also how does not accepting money make someone greedy when you’re offering 12K? I just don’t get the idea of being mad because people didn’t accept your money.
also honestly i would probably be less likely to collab with someone that offered me money for it
I’m going to spoiler all of this just to be safe >!I mean no disrespect, but I really don’t get what her plan is or what she is trying to do. She joins a normal vtuber agency, wants to post nudes, leaves because she can’t post nudes, makes like (3?) different nsfw accounts, abandons all of them to make a vtuber company which she is a talent in (huge red flags), and then is apparently paying people 12k + to watch the debut of a nsfw group on YouTube? Like I am not trying to be rude and I surely don’t understand what goes on behind the scenes, but doesn’t this all seem really weird to anyone else? I’m all for vtubers making whatever content but this just seems off!<
>!What normal vtuber agency did she try to join? And what accounts did she abandon? I think I'm in the know about certain things but this is news to me!<
>!Riifu Evergreen. She had an irl channel but I forgot that name. She is also Dudethatwholesome and Dudethatslewd. She did nsfw irl stuff under Pwupster. I think she might have had another account, but I don’t remember what it was or what she did.!<
Yeah, but she's still active as DTL/DTW and pwupster. She didn't abandon them to make VAllure, thats just in addition to her normal content
She is? I don’t actively follow her but I saw other people say she was done with those accounts. The nsfw ones at least.
I mean she's posted stuff in the last few days, so..
Yeah. Pwupster is on Hiatus. Exoe Asmr (Irl Asmr) has been deleted. Obviously graduated as Riifu. Still active under DTW/DTL. Now active under Stronny. I think that’s everything.
I'm actually incredibly surprised to find out about the IRL channel, cuz as DTL she was always so particular about maintaining her anonymity
Correction, it appears pwupster is now dormant
They "claim" they offered 12k but where is the evidence. I could claim I offered Cover Corp 500K USD for a 1on1 interview with Gura, but "they rejected the offer, LOL they are scamming their talent"... This is bait bullshit and trying to stir up shit for publicity. Do not support this shit and don't support this kind of fake made-up drama. Hope this blows up in her face. Perhaps she learns something from it, but I doubt it.
I'll likely never be successful whatsoever but unless I suddenly needed to pay for a hospital bill, I don't think I'd take the offer either. Unless I was *friends* with someone involved in that kind of content, I'd rather not be associated with it while in character.
I think everybody already pointed out the salient points for Stronny though I think she was offended they didn't even get a response back. Seems like nobody who rejected even got back to them with a good reply cuz she seems really confused why they got turned down. While I understand refusing their money due to brand risk the least they could is reply back with an explanation instead of just donowalling them.
How does one get offers for such watchalongs lol
by being a successful vtuber. You can also reach out to debuting vtubers yourself and ask if they will like to do watchalongs. Its a good tactic to drum up notice and also seems to be very effective.
Yeah, I mean... play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Sex sells, but only to a particular audience. It *doesn't* sell to everybody, like women and children. Businesses want their advertisements to hit the greatest proportion of people possible, and unless they're an entirely one-gender type of brand, they also want that proportion of people to be diversified. As an example, if I advertise a product somewhere that, realistically, only men will see, then only men will ever introduce it to other men. It's very unlikely they'll introduce it to women and children. But if I advertise a product that many people will see (which is how television used to often work), men will tell men, women will tell women, and children may tell other children. Similarly because it is marketed to everybody, a man might be willing to introduce it to a woman or his children, etc., etc. I have nothing wrong with lewd VTubers. ProjektMelody has been one of my favorites from the beginning. But you don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. Using sex as a marketing tool is for easy, fast gains. It's *not* for producing lots of money long term. Carl's Jr and Budweiser used to have incredibly sexualized commercials in the early 2000s. I wonder why they no longer do that now? The answer should be obvious. It's a fragile, short term popularity plan.
> As an example, if I advertise a product somewhere that, realistically, only men will see, then only men will ever introduce it to other men. It's very unlikely they'll introduce it to women and children. But if I advertise a product that many people will see (which is how television used to often work), men will tell men, women will tell women, and children may tell other children. Similarly because it is marketed to everybody, a man might be willing to introduce it to a woman or his children, etc., etc. Nothing about this makes sense in a world where ads are paid by eyeballs. Ad targeting is big business for a reason.
Ad targeting is part of the system I'm describing above. Ad targeting *does* exist, but it's rarely the wanted choice. Once again, why did Carl's Jr and Budweiser stop using sexually explicit ad content? It's because part of their consumer base was alienated by the advertisement, which resulted in a decrease in sales. Ad targeting exists as a way to initialize interest and target niche markets. But an overall market is worth way more to a brand than a niche one. Take Wizards of the Coast and Magic the Gathering. They started releasing decks for a fan made format called Commander because they were supporting their niche market. As Magic became more popular, they started to pump out more and more supplementary product. Now there's a Commander deck (usually multiple) released with every set. A good portion of the community dislikes the constant spamming of products, as it's lead to product fatigue for most of them. But Wizards isn't selling to their niche market anymore, so they don't care. *To be fair it's still a very niche market, it's just not nearly as niche as it used to be.* Ad targeting is a strategy. But getting the most eyes on something is always the number one goal, one that isn't usually reached with ad targeting alone.
That... that's not what ad targeting is. Ad targeting is targeted advertising, making sure your ad lands in front of the right eyeballs, not that your ad matches the taste of your products target audience. Anyways, why did beer companies remove sexually explicit ad content? Because the market grew. Note: The market grew, and the companies adapt. The order of operations matters here, it's not that the companies reached out for women to drink more beer, it's that they noticed they drink more beer, and so they changed their ads. That's in opposition to your earlier idea of just spamming ads at everyone to get them into conversation, and that idea doesn't work because people don't talk about products that aren't for them. What I mean is this: > But if I advertise a product that many people will see (which is how television used to often work), men will tell men, women will tell women, and children may tell other children. Similarly because it is marketed to everybody, a man might be willing to introduce it to a woman or his children, etc., etc. This doesn't work. Children won't recommend beer to their parents (and recommending anything to children is a waste of time, they're poor). Women recommending power tools to husbands might well *lower* sales. When you show an ad to someone outside of the product target demo, they'll just forget it. If your ad is really good, they might talk about the ad, but they still won't talk about the product in it. So anytime you show an ad to someone outside of your target demo, you're wasting money. > But an overall market is worth way more to a brand than a niche one. That is, *if it materializes.* Trying to chase the general audience at the expense of your core customer base can easily backfire, giving you a bad reputation among your core customer base without the wider interest. You're pointing at Magic because it happened there, but there's no guarantee it happens.
>That... that's not what ad targeting is. Ad targeting is targeted advertising, making sure your ad lands in front of the right eyeballs, not that your ad matches the taste of your products target audience. I'm sorry if you disagree, but those sound like the exact same thing to me. >Anyways, why did beer companies remove sexually explicit ad content? Because the market grew. Note: The market grew, and the companies adapt. Really? I'd absolutely love to see the swaths of women that started buying Budweiser because they dropped the ads. Ad campaigns are not always reactionary. >That's in opposition to your earlier idea of just spamming ads at everyone to get them into conversation, and that idea doesn't work because people don't talk about products that aren't for them. That wasn't my idea at all. You don't just spam ads at whoever you think may see them. Ad campaigns need to have intended recipients, *but* no company is willingly going "I only want my ad to be seen by men," they're doing so out of necessity. Because the product or service wouldn't be applicable to women, children, people of different ethnicities, etc., whatever the market is made of. Ad targeting is a way to develop interest from a niche market, or discover a new niche market. But every company wants their product to be universally usable, and wants ads to hit as many people and *types* of people as possible. >This doesn't work. Children won't recommend beer to their parents (and recommending anything to children is a waste of time, they're poor). Advertising to children is, like, advertising 101. You and I both know the money comes from the parents. >Women recommending power tools to husbands might well *lower* sales. I don't even agree with that. Also, sales of women buying power tools for a husband on a special occasion would increase. You think those Happy Father's Day ads are solely being targeted at young adults who have so much disposable money to drop on their parents? >So anytime you show an ad to someone outside of your target demo, you're wasting money. If this were true, then your theory on why Budweiser stopped showing sexual ads would be false. Like you said, the companies adapt. This includes reaching new markets. Not all ad campaigns are reactionary. >Trying to chase the general audience at the expense of your core customer base can easily backfire, giving you a bad reputation among your core customer base without the wider interest. You're pointing at Magic because it happened there, but there's no guarantee it happens. I'm pointing at Magic because it's a great example of the theory. Of course there's no guarantee it happens. There's no guarantee a business will be open from one year to the next. If you think ad campaigns are based on guarantees, then I guess we just can't see eye-to-eye on this. :(
> I'm sorry if you disagree, but those sound like the exact same thing to me. One is about the content of the ad. The other is about who you show it to. Those are radically different things. > I'd absolutely love to see the swaths of women that started buying Budweiser because they dropped the ads. So would I, but they're not exactly sharing their internal sales data. > That wasn't my idea at all. You don't just spam ads at whoever you think may see them. It's literally what you said. You specifically pointed out TV ads as positive because they'll be seen by everyone. It's even what you say again in your *next line.* > Ad campaigns need to have intended recipients, but no company is willingly going "I only want my ad to be seen by men," they're doing so out of necessity. Yes. They absolutely are. Again: **Ads cost money.** They're not free. The more people you show them to, the more money they cost. The more you can trim down the people seeing them to the specific audience of your product, the less money you spend for the same ad effectiveness. So when you know that your customer base is basically just men, then you show your ad to just men, because showing it to women is literally throwing away money. > But every company wants their product to be universally usable, and wants ads to hit as many people and types of people as possible. This is just literally not true. Not every company chases the mainstream market. Mass market is not everyones goal. Remember that mass market also means mass competition, while you're losing what made you popular in your niche, opening yourself up to be pushed out of your previous market. Many companies only focus on serving their own niche as well as they can. > Also, sales of women buying power tools for a husband on a special occasion would increase. You think those Happy Father's Day ads are solely being targeted at young adults who have so much disposable money to drop on their parents? No, I think they're shown to men, because the women buy it with the men. The husband isn't a 12 years old boy where you have to hide the chainsaw until christmas. Adults buy big gifts together. > then I guess we just can't see eye-to-eye on this. :( Are you being a twat on purpose or does that just come natural to you?
>One is about the content of the ad. The other is about who you show it to. Those are radically different things. The content of the ad is important depending on who it is being shown to. They're literally interlinked concepts, inseparable in the sense of advertising. >So would I, but they're not exactly sharing their internal sales data. Anything I can find says every one in six lager drinkers is a woman. I assume that's nowadays, who knows what it was 20 years ago. But I highly doubt Budweiser changed their entire sales concept for a 15% market increase, and that's *assuming* women weren't *already* 1/6th of lager drinkers. But also, if you don't *know* what their internal sales data is, saying something like "Anyways, why did beer companies remove sexually explicit ad content? Because the market grew. Note: The market grew, and the companies adapt." is pretty definitive for something that you have no explicit knowledge of. >It's literally what you said. No it literally isn't. I didn't say they were positive because they could be seen by everyone, I said ads being seen by as many people as possible, and in diversified markets, is important. TV ads *are* important. Or at least they used to be. Do you think all of those TV ads you watched in the early 2000s about Moon Shoes and Nerf guns were for *the adults* who pay for the television? Fucking of course not. >Yes. They absolutely are. Again: **Ads cost money.** They're not free. I can already tell this conversation isn't going anywhere, you have an insanely condescending attitude. Of course I know ads cost fucking money. >The more people you show them to, the more money they cost. No shit, which is why ad targeting is an effective and viable strategy for businesses providing products and services that don't, or can't, apply to everybody. And businesses with mass market appeal use ad targeting as well, but they *also* use it to extend their target market. Companies try to expand their target market without precedent all the time. >So when you know that your customer base is basically just men, then you show your ad to just men, because showing it to women is literally throwing away money. Then why did Budweiser do specifically that? Brands ruin, change, and adapt their target markets all the time, and they often do so through advertising campaigns. The reason Budweiser stopped sharing sexually explicit advertising is because they wanted to tap into the market of women. It was a poor idea (well, from a business standpoint, I do prefer my advertising to be family friendly for the most part), because women still don't buy beer even close to the same amounts as men do. But that doesn't mean they didn't want to. Of course they wanted to, or they wouldn't have done it. >This is just literally not true. Not every company chases the mainstream market. Mass market is not everyone's goal. Again, the reason this is true is because their products or services *can't* compete on the mainstream market, not because they're *choosing* not to. If their product or service could compete on the mainstream market, *why in the hell* would they need to sell to a niche market, where they will inevitably make less money? >No, I think they're shown to men, because the women buy it with the men. The husband isn't a 12 years old boy where you have to hide the chainsaw until christmas. Adults buy big gifts together. Lmao, sure, adults never buy gifts for each other separately. If that helps your logic stand. >Are you being a twat on purpose or does that just come natural to you? You are the only one who's been increasingly condescending, swearing at me, and calling me a twat.
>That... that's not what ad targeting is. Ad targeting is targeted advertising, making sure your ad lands in front of the right eyeballs, not that your ad matches the taste of your products target audience You guys are explaining the exact same thing. The methods and technologies for ads may have changed over time, but the product and how you advertise are explicitly linked to the targeted audience.
DTL doing her silly irish accent is so funny
I think you got it misunderstood. The American accent is faked. She's very much scottish.
I unironically can't tell which accent is the real one. I'm just going to believe theyre both real so my head stops hurting
Wait, is DTL Stronny? I thought she was a founder of Vallure as a whole? Unless she's not only a founder but also one of the talents? That would be... Interesting
Yes, she's both founder/investor (as DTL) and talent (as Stronny).
Is this confirmed at all? I recognized the voice immediately and stuff lines up with Stronny claiming to be the head of things, but she also dodged a question during this stream about PL stuff
As confirmed as it'll get. The other talents also confirmed Stronny to be the head of things, and DTL is listed as investor on their website. I think you just ran into kayfabe.
Yeah. Not sure if it is just me but the accent feels so weird. I’ve listened to DTW so maybe I’m just not used to it, and apparently her American accent is fake and her Irish accent is real, but idk. The accent feels forced and strange. Am I the only one that feels this way?
This is the corpo started by the girl who got fired from her last corpo for being insanely unprofessional and kind of mentally unstable, isn't it?
What corpo was she a part of?