A short transcript excerpt from a Cracks Podcast episode (host Oso Trava with guest Roberto Martínez) discussing content monetization. Roberto contrasts revenue from Spotify and YouTube, notes Facebook/Meta’s decline as a monetization channel, and describes inserting static, TV-style ads directly into content as a revenue tactic. The exchange is informal and experimental in tone.
That I narrate or that my version A narrates. You charge differently.
And they charge differently. They are different. Wow. Roberto Segunda Division has a red microphone for people who don't know if he has a black microphone. It's me. It's something I committed to doing.
How are you thinking about content monetization today?
Content monetization? I mean, I have the base monetization of Spotify, the one from YouTube. And how does Spotify work for you?
Because I don't use it on Spotify. I use the bass from YouTube.
Right. Spotify works very well for me. It still doesn't represent the same as YouTube, but it is a considerable and welcome percentage within the creative monetization scheme. I mean, I have the monetization of social networks that Spotify, YouTube, Facebook, which practically no longer exist, from being the one that generated the most to being the one that generates the least today. Yes, it has been unfortunate how they.
Have treated it, because apart from the visits have not gone down. I mean, the visits are going up, but the monetization has not pulled the entire business there. What you have to do there is.
Buy meta shares, because I don't know what happened. Maybe the issue of aligning now with getting out of the W line, now that Trump won and going to the other side, I don't know if that affected advertisers, but something happened that made Facebook practically no longer figure in that monetization issue. Aside from all that, today I'm inserting static ads directly into the content, like a television program. It's something that they do a lot.
Where you narrate, that is, you make a cut and show the ad which.
I narrate or my version narrates. And a. It's different than stealing the second division and stealing your second division. I mean, who wants to steal your second division or steal your first division?
And you charge differently.
And they charge differently. They're different. Wow. Stealing the second division has a red microphone for people who don't know if it has a black microphone. It's me. It's something I committed to doing, but today I'm experimenting with static ads. Nowadays, YouTube even internally manages where you place the ads before you could select the points where you wanted it to interrupt. Today, YouTube does it natively, but I do it this way. The thing is, it's hard for me to establish in an interview or in a talk how I do it, because the truth is, what I want is for the process to remain alive. And. And sometimes I share work methodologies or ways that work for me at that moment or things that I do with my project. But in a year or two, it changes, because that's how I want it to stay. Ultimately, I want my process to remain in a process of continuous improvement. So everything I'm saying in this talk, maybe in two or three years. Right. And it's something I didn't say two or three years ago. I'm mentioning that now because there are things that come to haunt me these days, and I also understand where they come from. But what interests me with the podcast topic is to keep it alive in a matter of personal experimentation. I mean, in terms of my ability to try certain things, not all of them work. Sometimes I screw up and say, you know what? This didn't work, or I'm not doing it again. But I like having that ability to screw up in my experimentation. I think that's something that happens when projects grow, which is where you start to miss anonymity a little, is that once you've built something, you lose the ability to experiment because you can compromise what you've already built. Yeah.
