A 3-minute video to trash the 'Perro' campaign

The cost of a 3-minute viral video, like the one mentioned, can be a direct reflection of how public funds are managed and the impact of taxes on the digital sphere.

## the price of attention

The fact that a video of barely three minutes can generate so much controversy or surprise about its funding says a lot about how we understand public spending today. The idea that "it's not magic, it's your taxes" puts the focus on the direct connection between what we contribute and what we see, especially when it comes to content that is massively distributed. This forces us to think about transparency and how it is decided which projects receive funding, and whether that investment aligns with citizens' priorities.

## the machinery behind the content

Behind every viral video, however short it may be, there is an investment. If that investment comes from public funds, it is legitimate to ask what is being funded. It's not just about the production of the video itself, but also its distribution, promotion and, ultimately, the impact it seeks to generate. The exact figure of how much it costs to produce and distribute a **3-minute** video can vary enormously, but the principle is the same: public money has a destination and a purpose.

## where does the money go?

The discussion about public spending and taxes becomes more tangible when linked to concrete examples like this one. Funding content, whether educational, cultural or entertainment, is a political decision. If a **3-minute** video is promoted as something "worth watching", the key question is whether that investment in attention and distribution is justified by the results or the social benefit it provides. Opacity in these decisions can generate distrust, and that is where accountability becomes essential.