[videoblogging] Re: The Case Against Advertising in Net Video
Yikes - it's almost the rise of the red scare in here. We've mainly been using web video FOR advertising purposes - I guess we're evil because of it in the eyes of some here. We say we produce original content but it's usually sponsored by someone, either directly to support a product in a direct way like we're doing with http://www.inkisit.com http://www.inkisit.com or to support it in an indirect way like we did for Sundance Channel http://news.animaxent.com/2007/01/animax-on-sundance-channel.html http://news.animaxent.com/2007/01/animax-on-sundance-channel.html . Basically either you the viewer pays via subscription, or someone pays to reach you, or someone else sponsors the content originator to reach you. Ultimately there is a net loss from the system if you want to consider payment not just in dollars terms but also in terms of consumed time. Michael http://www.animaxent.com http://www.animaxent.com http://www.arnoldspeaks.com http://www.arnoldspeaks.com http://www.inkisit.com http://www.inkisit.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You summarized it beautifully Jan. Simple, if not easy. And easier for some than others. Beach Walks - as a show - was founded on the principle of don't get invested in the results of what you do. It takes guts on some days, on other days it is utterly liberating. Your words are going on my bulletin board. When there is true peership among a producer and a sponsor *and* the audience, it is in everyone's best interest to tell and hear the truth. We just don't have many examples of that yet, though many are in the works. How do we pry ourselves off the dilemma's horns? Hmmm? By committing to tell the truth at the risk of losing the advertising client. By choosing clients carefully. Rox On 3/3/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Advertising is flawed by definition, corrupt in its basic premise, a premise that in a pinch, excludes truth. One cannot accept money toward one's survival and in the pinch - when it really matters - tell the sad truth about the advertiser. It's all fine and dandy until the advertiser screws up. Screwups are inevitable. Behind every advertiser are fallible humans. Humans will lie to survive. That's a dilemma. How do we pry ourselves off the dilemma's horns? Hmmm? By committing to tell the truth at the risk of losing the advertising client. By choosing clients carefully. Advertising reeks with lies. I challenge you to watch an evening's worth of television with a lie filter in your brain. Some lies are mere hyperbole; others, flat-out insulting with untruth. As a result of the ubiquitous lie, we are inured to them. A dangerous mindspace in which to live. Trusted filters. Social currency. That's my answer. Jan On 3/3/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Generally, I have to agree with Bill here. On the web, there are many ways to use ads with video. I think it remains to be seen which will be the most well received approach, again generally speaking. Enric is likely correct in pointing out that mid-roll ads will not prove to be popular when done in such an intrusive manner as google video had been doing (or still is?). I think we might see more subtle in-play ads that do not interrupt the video but do take presence somewhere within the region or stage or the video and the player wrapper of the video. In particular, I believe that fullscreen modes will introduce additional opportunities, and real estate obviously, for ad placements. So where you might not experience in ad in default view, you would see ads when in fullscreen. Just theorizing really. But yes, the ads should be able to follow the video around as well but I think management of ad campaigns using new technologies will cover that. What I mean is. ad implementation for web video playback and ad implementation of device video playback can utilize different injectable assets for different distribution channels that can be managed and manipulated by content owners and agencies. So I dont thnk an ad must follow a specific video but rather understanding that different videos will be distributed out and each can utilize different approaches and technologies to penetrate and disperse. Somone asked about Joost... I'm firing up Joost now to remind myself how ads, if any, are handled.. aye. looks like i need to download latest mac version. they need to add auto-updates already! cool, i have 2 invites to send out. email me off-list if you need em. Ok, Joost has ad bumps in between some videos... sponsors. they are quick bumps. I suppose longer ads exist too. So it's like TV. Which makes sense since Joost is TV as VOD. Yeah... ads. yeah.
[videoblogging] Re: YouTube - Account Closed?!
This has been an interesting thread. We've actually been using YouTube for a client project right now http://www.inkisit.com for Kodak. I actually tried on their behalf to investigate a more direct relationship with them but to no avail. In particular didn't want to find ourselves up a creek one day if they took us down for any variety of reasons. We've been posting the video to all the broadband video sharing sites as a back up method but trying to consolidate things via YouTube. At the same time I have a feeling that the corporate use of these sites is what is probably making it harder for small guys in a way. On a separate note, this same client was thinking of expanding it's outreach efforts to bloggers, podcasters, etc. and involve them in this Ink Is It talk show, mainly around issues of printing and the high cost of ink. Your show/blog doesn't even need to focus on these issues or even on technology - mainly they want to show how the problem has impacted everybody and doesn't discriminate. Kodak is coming out with a new line of inkjet printers in March that hopes to dirupt the model. So I'm in the midst of a hunt for folks that are open to working with advertisers in different ways, but the hunt is kind of a slog right now. Is it a direct person to person effort (which is what we've been conducting) or is there a clearinghouse of sorts to present the pitch of how we'd like to work with folks and see if there is interest? I figured in some ways this message list might be the best forum to start the conversation since a lot of the more vocal folks are right here. Thanks, Michael http://www.animaxent.com http://www.arnoldspeaks.com http://www.inkisit.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kent Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right that's exactly the problem. We talk a lot about rights and such, but all of that is built on these crappy TOS agreements. Even if you own your own site, you're still at the mercy of the ISPs up the chain of command. Your speech is only as free as it's convenient to corporate structure that hosts it. Web 1.0 was more about setting up a static site, staking your little claim on the net and building traffic, etc. Web 2.0 changes the equation because the people are the value. YouTube is based on a $20 shareware script, the value came from the people there. Same with MySpace. But the legal structures and way of thinking have not caught up to this change. There's a million little fiefdoms. And your rights are different each site you go to. What I'd love to see is a set of principles that govern this new user generated reality that gives we the users basic rights wherever we go. That's a huge shift from where we are right now, and it will take a lot of work to get there. But I'm afraid if we don't tackle this area, the door for new voices that has been opened a crack will get slammed shut by the media monopolies. -Kent, askaninja.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins steve@ wrote: Im not looking to put anybody off this sort of action, but I think the arbitrary acceptable use policy stuff is an internet-wide problem. To cover themselves, just about every hosting service Ive ever seen has terms and conditions about what content is acceptable, and many of the terms are vague. People certainly should draw attention to services which are trigger-happy about removing stuff without good cause. Youtube are likely to show up as an offender a lot because of their sheer size, and as I sepculated earlier, they may be trying to save themselves from copyright lawsuits, but doing it in a way that also removes some legitimate content, and this is not good or nice to their users for them to be so careless. I know Richard Bluestein called for a boycott on youtube because he was banned and though it was due to being gay or hosting gay content, whereas after some research I thought it was more likely because some trailers he uploaded had lots of naked breasts, and western society doesnt mind exploiting breasts for profit but the mainstream has a nipple phobia. So anyway theoretically most services are flawed in the sense that almost anybody could find their content falling foul of the terms conditions, even if their content is innocent enough, and as far as I know the services dont even have an obligation to contact people who are banned and explian exactly why. I think legal issues will stop terms conditions from changing that much, so the best we can hope for is that in practice many services are careful, think of their users, engage in dialogue and careful checking of material before hitting the big red delete button. Whatever the reasons behind youtubes removal of the content in this case, its certainly sloppy and shows no sense of responsibility to users who upload legitimate videos. As for the grey area where content might actually be
[videoblogging] Re: OOoh, Amanda's Up!
The spirit of the season is clearly alive and well in the vlogosphere At least it is with Arnold Schwarzenegger. He wishes everyone a Happy Hanukkah... http://www.arnoldspeaks.com/2006/12/id-like-to-have-word-with-hanukkah.h\ tml http://www.arnoldspeaks.com/2006/12/id-like-to-have-word-with-hanukkah.\ html --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amanda, I have always been outspoken about sharing my experiences with Rocketboom and this is no longer an exception. You can hide talking about it publicly, we see how that has led to your advantage. As long as no one speaks up, you continue to lie and mislead people about what you have done for yourself. Meanwhile no one can learn from the problems you have created. As you know our lawyers ARE working on it. I hope your lawyer is listening when I say yet again, look here below how you have out right lied in saying I let you go. People should know that in order to do business in this field there is a need to protect oneself from this kind of atrocious behavior. Luckily I have, its just that I have previously been quiet about it for legal reasons myself. So now Im ready to share with everyone how I expect this will turn out and then we can talk about it, take wagers, and see what the judge has to say. In the end, we should all be in a better position to engage in creative partnerships. On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:57 PM, Amanda Congdon wrote: Andrew, get a grip. Please. This http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details? q=rocketboom.comurl=rocketboom.com is not my fault. You made the decision to let me go. So I went. As for your outlandish claims about HBO and ABC, please contact my lawyers. Let's do this the right way. And having a desk and a second camera are not ideas you own. Those are conventions. Best to focus on your own show, I think. Or you can continue to attempt to drag me down and write emotional emails to ABC but I'm done talking about this publicly. Time to move on. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron andrew@ wrote: Jeeze, I have never been so offended. Its like Alice and Wonderland around here, somebody pinch me: http://www.dembot.com/011895.html On Dec 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, CarLBanks wrote: This gives me hope that I could be picked up one day. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
