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
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
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.
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
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
--- 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
