Doing Things Media Pricing Explained, And What To Consider Instead

Doing Things Media sells sponsored placements across a fixed portfolio of roughly 20 owned meme accounts, at a flat rate per post rather than a rate tied to views. Publicly reported pricing for a past sponsorship deal ran several thousand dollars a month for a set number of posts, meaning the brand carries essentially all of the view risk, since the fee is the same whether a post gets modest reach or goes genuinely viral.

What Doing Things Media actually is

It is a publisher, not a distribution network, owning a small set of well known meme accounts and selling sponsored posts on those specific pages. That is a real strength for a brand that wants placement on accounts with a recognizable name and an established audience. It is also a real ceiling, since a fixed roster of about 20 accounts cannot expand to match a brand’s specific niche, city or audience demographic the way a much larger pool of accounts could.

The pricing model, plainly stated

• : Who carries the risk. Flat per post pricing: The brand, regardless of how a post performs. Per view pricing: Shared, since payment scales with actual delivered views
• : Predictability. Flat per post pricing: Fixed cost known ahead of time. Per view pricing: Cost scales with performance, higher for a viral hit
• : Best fit. Flat per post pricing: A brand that values a known, recognizable roster. Per view pricing: A brand optimizing for reach and cost per view

Neither approach is wrong on its own, a flat rate is easier to budget and a per view rate rewards actual performance. The honest question for a brand is whether it is paying for a small set of recognizable accounts specifically, or for reach and frequency at scale, since those are two different things to be buying.

When a wider network fits better

• When a brand needs placement across a specific niche, vertical, or city rather than whatever fits inside about 20 general accounts.
• When a brand wants to pay based on delivered views rather than a flat fee regardless of performance.
• When audience geography verification matters more than name recognition of the specific pages used.

Why a flat rate feels safe but can cost more per view

A flat monthly fee for a fixed number of posts feels predictable, and predictability has real value for a finance team approving a budget. The trade off that is easy to miss is what that flat fee actually costs once translated into a cost per view after the fact. If a sponsored post underperforms and pulls a modest view count, the effective cost per thousand views on that specific post can end up far higher than a comparable per view campaign would have cost, simply because the fee did not adjust downward with performance.

Reported pricing on a past sponsorship of this kind, several thousand dollars a month for around ten posts, works out to a meaningful figure per post before a single view is counted. Whether that ends up being a good deal or an expensive one entirely depends on how those specific ten posts performed, information a brand generally only has after the campaign has already run and been paid for.

What a brand loses by being limited to about twenty accounts

• No ability to match placement to a specific niche beyond whatever the existing roster happens to cover.
• No city or regional targeting, since the roster is fixed regardless of where a brand’s actual customers are concentrated.
• No ability to scale up mid campaign if the initial results are strong, since supply is capped at the size of the owned portfolio.
• Limited ability to test many different creative angles at once, since fewer accounts means fewer simultaneous variations running.

None of that makes the roster a bad option for a brand specifically chasing name recognition on a handful of well known pages, it simply means the model answers a narrower question than a brand optimizing for reach, targeting and per view cost efficiency actually needs answered.

A brand that already has a relationship with a fixed roster like this does not necessarily need to abandon it entirely. A common pattern is keeping a small flat fee placement on one or two recognizable pages for brand credibility, while running the bulk of ongoing reach spend through a per view model elsewhere, since the two approaches are solving different problems rather than competing head to head for the exact same budget line.

For a brand deciding between the two right now, the fastest way to settle it is a simple exercise, take the flat monthly fee, divide it by the number of posts promised, then compare that per post cost against what a similar number of views would cost on a per view network. If the flat fee works out cheaper per view than the alternative once you estimate realistic view counts for those specific accounts, the recognizable roster may genuinely be the better buy for that particular campaign.

One more angle worth considering directly: a brand chasing a specific cultural moment, a product launch tied to a single big event, may value the certainty of a known, already large audience more than the flexibility of a wider pool it has not tested yet. In that narrow case, paying a flat premium for guaranteed placement on accounts with an established following can be worth more than optimizing purely for cost per view, since the goal in that specific instance is guaranteed visibility on a fixed date, not the lowest possible cost across an entire campaign window.

A managed network built around a much larger pool of vetted pages can match a campaign to the right niche and price per delivered view rather than a flat monthly fee. Our own network runs 2 billion views a month across 15,000 audited American creators, across american sports, finance, movies and memes.

TinyCPMs is the managed distribution service from FindClout, a network of roughly 15,000 creator pages delivering about two billion views a month to audited American audiences. More on how the network is built and verified at the FindClout blog.