Re: [videoblogging] Re: Input from the community?
And my apologies for missing the 'k' reading too fast. It's a consistent fault. So, nevermind. I'm sorry. $10,000 would buy hotdogs for me and my whole neighborhood. Well, not really. I don't pay entry fees for contests. Ever. It was the entry fee thing got my ire up. Dang. Hmmm. Another fault: I've no confidence whatsoever in the value of my work. Never have. So, my answer has been to eschew competition. You got me. In so many ways. Jan On 12/16/06, Nox Dineen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan, I wasn't clear about the winnings. I took the lazy route and wrote $10k rather than adding the zeros. The winners in both Naughty and Nice categories will get $10,000. Would it be more appealing if we removed the whole wish granting aspect and just made it about who could produce the best/funniest/most amazing video? I do also agree that having people pay to submit is probably not the best revenue model, but it was discussed before I began working with the company and much of the team consider it a done deal already. The benefit is that we're trying to encourage higher quality submissions, and having to shell out the $5 means a person has to have some confidence that their submission stands a chance at winning. Thanks for the comments. (And apologies about the laziness typing numbers and URLs.) Nox On 12/15/06, Jan / The Faux Press [EMAIL PROTECTED]jannie.jan%40gmail.com wrote: Am not inspired by the concept in the least. Pay $5 in order to maybe get $10? I don't think so. Robin Hood works if Met Life is the sponsor. If Met Life is the sponsor, then folks don't have to pay to enter. Glenda the Good Witch would work as wish-granting icon, but she's copyrighted. Year-round-Santa? Perpetual Santa? Good luck, though, I support the idea of making wishes come true wholeeartedly $10 wishes will be difficult to come by. Hot dogs sodas for me and two friends, please. Jan P.S. Were you to type in the whole http address one could just click it in the email. http://www.robinhoodfund.com - like so. On 12/14/06, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED]BillCammack%40alum.mit.edu BillCammack%40alum.mit.edu wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Nox Dineen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recently started working at an Internet startup that is looking to create a video website based around the concept of people submitting wishes in video format, and then granting the wishes with the most votes on a weekly or monthly basis. The site is at www.robinhoodfund.com (although we're considering moving away from the Robin Hood theme), and quite frankly I hate it. It's ugly, user hostile and doesn't exactly prompt immediate action. I agree that Robin Hood is a poor choice for something like this. :D The idea is a good one, but Robin Hood implies strongarming funds from one person in order to give them to another person. The question then is who's getting strongarmed? and why do they 'deserve' to lose out so someone else can benefit? Tell whomever thought that up to watch the movie again and pick a different hero. :D -- Bill C. http://ems.blip.tv -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Nox 2.0 (blog) -- http://www.noxdineen.com Nox TV (vlog) -- http://www.noxdineen.com/vlog/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Input from the community?
hello Nox, it could be that i am just suspicious by nature but this is my critique based on a first impression of the site: I think the pay to submit model is a bad one because it gives the appearance that the money given out is directly related to the submission fee. that is not necessarily bad but it would be nice to know if this is the case. if not, where is the money coming from? how is it meted out? what, if any, guarantees are in place that money is actually being given out at all or that the contest isn't rigged in some way? is it a ploy to get as many five dollar bills from as many people as possible? how can the participant be sure? the overall feel of the site is amateur and the about page, with it's reference to oprah and habitat for humanity, seems like a way to legitimize the venture (kinda like name dropping of people you don't really know but have heard of). i don't mean this to be harsh and i'm sure that's not the intention of the sitebut...it's the way it reads to me. it has the appearance of dodginess. even the name suggests something suspicious. it is, afterall, the name of a famous robber. On 15-Dec-06, at 9:22 PM, Nox Dineen wrote: Jan, I wasn't clear about the winnings. I took the lazy route and wrote $10k rather than adding the zeros. The winners in both Naughty and Nice categories will get $10,000. Would it be more appealing if we removed the whole wish granting aspect and just made it about who could produce the best/funniest/most amazing video? I do also agree that having people pay to submit is probably not the best revenue model, but it was discussed before I began working with the company and much of the team consider it a done deal already. The benefit is that we're trying to encourage higher quality submissions, and having to shell out the $5 means a person has to have some confidence that their submission stands a chance at winning. Thanks for the comments. (And apologies about the laziness typing numbers and URLs.) Nox On 12/15/06, Jan / The Faux Press [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am not inspired by the concept in the least. Pay $5 in order to maybe get $10? I don't think so. Robin Hood works if Met Life is the sponsor. If Met Life is the sponsor, then folks don't have to pay to enter. Glenda the Good Witch would work as wish-granting icon, but she's copyrighted. Year-round-Santa? Perpetual Santa? Good luck, though, I support the idea of making wishes come true wholeeartedly $10 wishes will be difficult to come by. Hot dogs sodas for me and two friends, please. Jan P.S. Were you to type in the whole http address one could just click it in the email. http://www.robinhoodfund.com - like so. On 12/14/06, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED]BillCammack% 40alum.mit.edu wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging% 40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Nox Dineen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recently started working at an Internet startup that is looking to create a video website based around the concept of people submitting wishes in video format, and then granting the wishes with the most votes on a weekly or monthly basis. The site is at www.robinhoodfund.com (although we're considering moving away from the Robin Hood theme), and quite frankly I hate it. It's ugly, user hostile and doesn't exactly prompt immediate action. I agree that Robin Hood is a poor choice for something like this. :D The idea is a good one, but Robin Hood implies strongarming funds from one person in order to give them to another person. The question then is who's getting strongarmed? and why do they 'deserve' to lose out so someone else can benefit? Tell whomever thought that up to watch the movie again and pick a different hero. :D -- Bill C. http://ems.blip.tv -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Nox 2.0 (blog) -- http://www.noxdineen.com Nox TV (vlog) -- http://www.noxdineen.com/vlog/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Input from the community?
Am not inspired by the concept in the least. Pay $5 in order to maybe get $10? I don't think so. Robin Hood works if Met Life is the sponsor. If Met Life is the sponsor, then folks don't have to pay to enter. Glenda the Good Witch would work as wish-granting icon, but she's copyrighted. Year-round-Santa? Perpetual Santa? Good luck, though, I support the idea of making wishes come true wholeeartedly $10 wishes will be difficult to come by. Hot dogs sodas for me and two friends, please. Jan P.S. Were you to type in the whole http address one could just click it in the email. http://www.robinhoodfund.com - like so. On 12/14/06, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Nox Dineen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recently started working at an Internet startup that is looking to create a video website based around the concept of people submitting wishes in video format, and then granting the wishes with the most votes on a weekly or monthly basis. The site is at www.robinhoodfund.com (although we're considering moving away from the Robin Hood theme), and quite frankly I hate it. It's ugly, user hostile and doesn't exactly prompt immediate action. I agree that Robin Hood is a poor choice for something like this. :D The idea is a good one, but Robin Hood implies strongarming funds from one person in order to give them to another person. The question then is who's getting strongarmed? and why do they 'deserve' to lose out so someone else can benefit? Tell whomever thought that up to watch the movie again and pick a different hero. :D -- Bill C. http://ems.blip.tv -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Input from the community?
Jan, I wasn't clear about the winnings. I took the lazy route and wrote $10k rather than adding the zeros. The winners in both Naughty and Nice categories will get $10,000. Would it be more appealing if we removed the whole wish granting aspect and just made it about who could produce the best/funniest/most amazing video? I do also agree that having people pay to submit is probably not the best revenue model, but it was discussed before I began working with the company and much of the team consider it a done deal already. The benefit is that we're trying to encourage higher quality submissions, and having to shell out the $5 means a person has to have some confidence that their submission stands a chance at winning. Thanks for the comments. (And apologies about the laziness typing numbers and URLs.) Nox On 12/15/06, Jan / The Faux Press [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am not inspired by the concept in the least. Pay $5 in order to maybe get $10? I don't think so. Robin Hood works if Met Life is the sponsor. If Met Life is the sponsor, then folks don't have to pay to enter. Glenda the Good Witch would work as wish-granting icon, but she's copyrighted. Year-round-Santa? Perpetual Santa? Good luck, though, I support the idea of making wishes come true wholeeartedly $10 wishes will be difficult to come by. Hot dogs sodas for me and two friends, please. Jan P.S. Were you to type in the whole http address one could just click it in the email. http://www.robinhoodfund.com - like so. On 12/14/06, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED]BillCammack%40alum.mit.edu wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Nox Dineen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recently started working at an Internet startup that is looking to create a video website based around the concept of people submitting wishes in video format, and then granting the wishes with the most votes on a weekly or monthly basis. The site is at www.robinhoodfund.com (although we're considering moving away from the Robin Hood theme), and quite frankly I hate it. It's ugly, user hostile and doesn't exactly prompt immediate action. I agree that Robin Hood is a poor choice for something like this. :D The idea is a good one, but Robin Hood implies strongarming funds from one person in order to give them to another person. The question then is who's getting strongarmed? and why do they 'deserve' to lose out so someone else can benefit? Tell whomever thought that up to watch the movie again and pick a different hero. :D -- Bill C. http://ems.blip.tv -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Nox 2.0 (blog) -- http://www.noxdineen.com Nox TV (vlog) -- http://www.noxdineen.com/vlog/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Input from the community?
It seems as though money cannot be the prime motivator. There seems to be a disconnect in the end product that you want people to give. There seems to be no motivation in this concept other than money, kinda like how a church tells you to pay tithing so that God will like you down the road. It seems to me that the only way to motivate creativity is to have an idea that will inspire creativity primarily, and not just a fuller wallet. And not many will risk even a small farm for an abstract idea that is based on a closed circuit. Plus, how can you really be that creative with the idea of gimmie anyway? -Sean On 12/15/06, Nox Dineen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan, I wasn't clear about the winnings. I took the lazy route and wrote $10k rather than adding the zeros. The winners in both Naughty and Nice categories will get $10,000. Would it be more appealing if we removed the whole wish granting aspect and just made it about who could produce the best/funniest/most amazing video? I do also agree that having people pay to submit is probably not the best revenue model, but it was discussed before I began working with the company and much of the team consider it a done deal already. The benefit is that we're trying to encourage higher quality submissions, and having to shell out the $5 means a person has to have some confidence that their submission stands a chance at winning. Thanks for the comments. (And apologies about the laziness typing numbers and URLs.) Nox On 12/15/06, Jan / The Faux Press [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am not inspired by the concept in the least. Pay $5 in order to maybe get $10? I don't think so. Robin Hood works if Met Life is the sponsor. If Met Life is the sponsor, then folks don't have to pay to enter. Glenda the Good Witch would work as wish-granting icon, but she's copyrighted. Year-round-Santa? Perpetual Santa? Good luck, though, I support the idea of making wishes come true wholeeartedly $10 wishes will be difficult to come by. Hot dogs sodas for me and two friends, please. Jan P.S. Were you to type in the whole http address one could just click it in the email. http://www.robinhoodfund.com - like so. On 12/14/06, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED]BillCammack%40alum.mit.edu wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Nox Dineen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recently started working at an Internet startup that is looking to create a video website based around the concept of people submitting wishes in video format, and then granting the wishes with the most votes on a weekly or monthly basis. The site is at www.robinhoodfund.com (although we're considering moving away from the Robin Hood theme), and quite frankly I hate it. It's ugly, user hostile and doesn't exactly prompt immediate action. I agree that Robin Hood is a poor choice for something like this. :D The idea is a good one, but Robin Hood implies strongarming funds from one person in order to give them to another person. The question then is who's getting strongarmed? and why do they 'deserve' to lose out so someone else can benefit? Tell whomever thought that up to watch the movie again and pick a different hero. :D -- Bill C. http://ems.blip.tv -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Nox 2.0 (blog) -- http://www.noxdineen.com Nox TV (vlog) -- http://www.noxdineen.com/vlog/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Artsmash : Art as Starting Line [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.artsmash.tv skype : sunoxen
[videoblogging] Re: Input from the community?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Nox Dineen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recently started working at an Internet startup that is looking to create a video website based around the concept of people submitting wishes in video format, and then granting the wishes with the most votes on a weekly or monthly basis. The site is at www.robinhoodfund.com (although we're considering moving away from the Robin Hood theme), and quite frankly I hate it. It's ugly, user hostile and doesn't exactly prompt immediate action. I agree that Robin Hood is a poor choice for something like this. :D The idea is a good one, but Robin Hood implies strongarming funds from one person in order to give them to another person. The question then is who's getting strongarmed? and why do they 'deserve' to lose out so someone else can benefit? Tell whomever thought that up to watch the movie again and pick a different hero. :D -- Bill C. http://ems.blip.tv
