Re: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
*Au contraire*, dear Frank, media makers rely on base human nature to produce content guaranteed to suck audiences in. If it bleeds, it leads mentality. Everywhere. Big media relies a great deal on tits, ass, sexual frustration, and various forms of perversion (torture wrapped in pretty ribbons as I recently figured out that what I loved about Robin Hood as a kid was the kidnap and bind stuff, same with lots of other shows I liked as a kid and am driven still to watch in shows like 24), the heroic, the unattainable (the Olympics), fear (cop shows) and all the stuff that originates in our reptilian brains. In order for stuff that appeals to other parts of our brains to succeed, our culture would require a massive re-education. We'd have to demonize rubbernecking in the same way we've demonized smoking, for example. That's unlikely. That's also why striving for mass popularity is not a worthy goal. If you give people what their lesser-evolved selves want, they will sit and watch it 'til the cows come home. And THAT's the point: eyeballs glued to the screens so the messages are conveyed. Ads are less effective these for lots of reasons I'll not get into here. The result is television has resorted to Big Messages in their programming. It's those 'messages' I noticed as I spent the last six months viewing all the networks' top shows online or on DVD. The messages are totally and unabashedly about the virtues of consumerism, respite from fear, the goodness and efficacy of the medical, legal, military, and police systems, etc. etc. Advertisers *do control content. Producers know if they put something out there that offends consumers or discredits consumerism, advertisers and their dollars will evaporate. Producers daren't risk it. Cart and horse, horse and cart - it's a constant dlalog between producers and advertisers. As a matter of fact, I'm working on a vlog post on this very subject as we speak. Jan On Dec 28, 2007 2:46 AM, Frank Sinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jan, One big reason big media rings so false: advertisers control content. I have to disagree with that. Viewers control the content. Meaning, studios only fund productions they think audiences will watch, buy a movie ticket, purchase a DVD, etc. It is the masses controlling what gets produced by big media... Listening to your audience (both through metrics and comments) and being responsive should always be #1 priority. The real power of new media is that direct access to your audience. Regards, -Frank http://mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why advertising is a dangerous way to go if you're interested in true things. One big reason big media rings so false: advertisers control content. Jan On Dec 27, 2007 10:37 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hint: eventually sponsors and employees get the message and move money away from a company that isn't getting community support. And, worse, it definitely demoralizes the employees and makes them far less willing to take risks on behalf of the community. I think this is BS too. If you think that's BS, you've never made your living solely from advertising. Advertisers do turn away when they perceive they are associating their brand with something negative or failing. If the advertisers turn away, the employees stop getting paid, lose their jobs, etc. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://wburg.tv aim=janofsound air=862.571.5334 skype=janmclaughlin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://wburg.tv aim=janofsound air=862.571.5334 skype=janmclaughlin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
Watching. Brilliantly on point. More later. XO, Jan On Dec 28, 2007 10:17 AM, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 27, 2007, at 11:46 PM, Frank Sinton wrote: One big reason big media rings so false: advertisers control content. I have to disagree with that. Viewers control the content. Meaning, studios only fund productions they think audiences will watch, buy a movie ticket, purchase a DVD, etc. It is the masses controlling what gets produced by big media... this is not how the TV biz model works content is not the product here and viewers do exert control viewers are the product please check out the great video from Denver Open Media about how the model really works and how it can be changed http://www.denveropenmedia.org/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://wburg.tv aim=janofsound air=862.571.5334 skype=janmclaughlin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
On Dec 27, 2007, at 11:46 PM, Frank Sinton wrote: One big reason big media rings so false: advertisers control content. I have to disagree with that. Viewers control the content. Meaning, studios only fund productions they think audiences will watch, buy a movie ticket, purchase a DVD, etc. It is the masses controlling what gets produced by big media... this is not how the TV biz model works content is not the product here and viewers do exert control viewers are the product please check out the great video from Denver Open Media about how the model really works and how it can be changed http://www.denveropenmedia.org/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
Ads are less effective these for lots of reasons I'll not get into here. The result is television has resorted to Big Messages in their programming. It's those 'messages' I noticed as I spent the last six months viewing all the networks' top shows online or on DVD. The messages are totally and unabashedly about the virtues of consumerism, respite from fear, the goodness and efficacy of the medical, legal, military, and police systems, etc. etc. Advertisers *do control content. Producers know if they put something out there that offends consumers or discredits consumerism, advertisers and their dollars will evaporate. Producers daren't risk it. Cart and horse, horse and cart - it's a constant dlalog between producers and advertisers. Dammit! Formatting problems again... Can't cut without jumping margins I've really been freaked out by the nature of recent villains on TV. They are decidedly anti-corporate and anti-consumer. Those that are anti-corporate are portrayed as 'crazies' - homeless wrecks railing at the good and wholesome machine. It's sick. And holy cow, I watched some cable TV recently and was just shocked by the nature of entertainment, but worse than the entertainment is the messaging in commercials, which is about 1/4 of the viewing total. It's scary, scary stuff when you're not bombarded by it daily. Then there's the Screw and/or Rat Out Your Neighbor 'reality' shows. People are becoming classically conditioned. And then the operant conditioning takes place at the water cooler and in the 'pull' media people access online. It perpetuates that state of being. It's totally like how we train dogs. The above sequence is exactly how we counter dog on dog aggression. Dose them with classical conditioning and then let them perpetuate the good feeling with operant decision making. Blam, behavior solved! It works the other way too. As a matter of fact, I believe that our method of dog training is almost exactly like American Capitalism. You can have anything you want as long as it's this or that. No really, you like doing this, see, I'll prove it to you. Give me this and I'll give you a cookie. See, you like that. You don't want to do that, here's a cookie. You like solar power? Here try this shitty product... See it doesn't even work... Maybe we'll be able to get it right in the FUTURE, but right now it's garbage. Keep them away from the problematic stimuli, make it a no brainer decision to stick with our protocol, and we wind up in total control. Pretty soon we don't even need to ask for things because the behavior has become default. It's simply what the dog does. Check out these vids. They're a little creepy, even more so when you realize that this kind of science has been levied at People to stimulate consumption and to control behavior. Poor BF Skinner. He's like the Oppenheimer of the mind. http://youtube.com/watch?v=I_ctJqjlrHA http://youtube.com/watch?v=mm5FGrQEyBY This is what they've been studying. Read some Walter Lippman, and that was before TV. And I have not even gotten into NLP. Neuro-Linguistic Programming. I think my head would explode if I really looked into that. There is a science on controlling people with media and it's highly, highly evolved. and here's a bonus short on a political note: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UQBWGo7pef8 Sorry, I'm kind of going off here... I'm not supposed to do that anymore... Poor Scoble... name attached to this drivel... Cheers Robert! Ron. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
Spot on indeed... My very first Recommended diary at Daily Kos back in '04. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/12/44450/883 While many people are under the impression that the customers of the media are the end users (viewers, readers, and listeners) that impression is incorrect. The customers of the media are the corporate advertisers. The end users are the product being sold. Did you get that? We are the product. Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog http://pawsitivevybe.com On Dec 28, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Jan McLaughlin wrote: Watching. Brilliantly on point. More later. XO, Jan On Dec 28, 2007 10:17 AM, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 27, 2007, at 11:46 PM, Frank Sinton wrote: One big reason big media rings so false: advertisers control content. I have to disagree with that. Viewers control the content. Meaning, studios only fund productions they think audiences will watch, buy a movie ticket, purchase a DVD, etc. It is the masses controlling what gets produced by big media... this is not how the TV biz model works content is not the product here and viewers do exert control viewers are the product please check out the great video from Denver Open Media about how the model really works and how it can be changed http://www.denveropenmedia.org/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://wburg.tv aim=janofsound air=862.571.5334 skype=janmclaughlin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
Why advertising is a dangerous way to go if you're interested in true things. Somehow I've managed to sleep well at night getting paid by advertisers for 6 years. Then again, I'm largely trying to help people be less frustrated with their computers, not change the world. One big reason big media rings so false: advertisers control content. There is a big difference between advertisers controlling content and advertisers abandoning a sinking ship (which is what I was talking about), although there could be parallels. Controlling content might mean having a show about training puppies that gets Purina to sponsor and then suddenly switching your show to being the puppy snuff film of the week. Likely Purina would pull the financial plug on sponsoring the abuse of animals, and the show switching from training animals to killing them would be a good sign that it's also a sinking ship. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
Matt - I think you missed the point here. You are right that PodTech makes business decisions based on some outcome, like profit. It makes perfect sense. The thing is, regardless of that, PodTech created opportunities that were not there before. The fact that neither of us inserted ourselves into those opportunities is ireelevant. What they did is they got more people looking at videoblogs. As content creators, that's important to all of us. My pockets were not lined with silver because of them but because of what PodTech did, videoblogging is a much more accepted form of media. Did they fail? I would say no. Perhaps they just have not succeeded at what they were intending to do. You are right - it wasn't a charity and should not be treated as such. However, they were a business that helped all of us somehow, even if we can't put our finger on exactly where or how. They grew the space we exist in and made it more mainstream and accessible on both ends - for the creators and the viewers. Blazing trails isn't easy work. I took some shots at PodTech for the Lan Bui photo fiasco (http://camerasamurai.com/?p=17) but that's not an indication that I think they were a terrible company. Sometimes you have to speak up to have your voice heard and hold people accountable. Anyway, a good New Year's to you all. Cheers, Carl Carl Weaver Photographer http://www.carlweaver.com http://www.camerasamurai.com - Photography education, news, tips and more http://dcmetrostories.com - DC Metro Stories: Stories about the people, places and events in the DC Metro area http://nextlifeintheafternoon.com - A Journey Through Thailand Quoting MATTFELDMAN78: I normally just lurk here, but this one really got me. One thing I wanted to say over there is that PodTech invested more than a million dollars in this community (seriously, I have the receipts, we hired dozens of videobloggers and even had a few on our staff, including people who are very active on this group). I've personally got tons of people here paid, some of which got paid more than $100,000 each since PodTech was born. PodTech was a BUSINESS, not a charity. Whatever money was paid to anyone on this list was a BUSINESS decision. PodTech saw value in the work and thought they could profit from it. Apparently they were mistaken---but don't classify that as some sort of charity. They saw an opportunity to profit, but they failed. PERIOD.
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
Balls, people are always going to respond only to pointson which they have comment to make, I dont think that devalues anything. The group has been on fine form since this discussion began, I do not recognise descriptions of its recent dramatic decline as being accurate. It may have declined from its peak, but the decline has either been very slow, or occured years ago, I would escribe its current status as stable but limited. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And just to bring things back to the topic at hand. This is exactly the kind of nit picking of emails that I feel has brought the group down. Where was the comment on everything else I brought up? This kind of stuff only starts flame wars. On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot. It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than one article and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some cases, attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those accuracies is shut down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with irrefutable scientific proof in hand. Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting anything else. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
Yup. If anything the group's vitality temperature shot out of the thermometer during the past week or so. Unless you measure a group's health primarily by a LACK of diversity and conflict. ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
Oh, give me a break, seriouslysomeone question's Wikipedia, which Cnet, MSNBC, Reuters, etc have done on various occasions and they are, in your opinion, wackos.give me a break Nothing's perfect, including Wikipedia Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps I should have said people that distrust the Wikipedia model. Fact checking is definitely your responsibility as well as an important part of anything you read online. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability which makes this much easier. Any statements that are not verifiable should of course be taken with a grain of salt. The content should of course be scrutinized in the same way anything you read should be scrutinized. Regarding inaccuracies and claims of suppression, Wikipedia has been found to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica and your distrust of it's model stems from a lack of understanding of it's policies and is not some kind of conspiracy to cover up the truth. Without even knowing what article, what statement, or what scientific journal you're referring to, I can assume with a good level of certainty that you were probably trying to cover up a significant viewpoint in order to advance a position through your own original research and synthesis of published material. This would necessarily lower the value of an encyclopedia article and, ironically, make it less trustworthy. It's important to understand something before discrediting it. However, if this is of no interest to you I can recommend others that universally hold the same opinions of Wikipedia as your own. They are: - creationists - people who easily buy into conspiracy theories - people who don't believe in the theory of evolution - people who buy into new age beliefs about quantum physics and movies like What the Bleep do we Know!? Down the rabbit hole. ...etc On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot. It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than one article and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some cases, attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those accuracies is shut down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with irrefutable scientific proof in hand. Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting anything else. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
First off--I wrote that a bit hastily and in not such a great mood from the Holidaze--I did not mean it as an attack. But I have to say, it did feel a bit disengenuous. What really would have helped this community is if their business had been sustainable and successful. The way Robert presented it felt like Podtech was a charity and if that is true, then it is not good business. In the long run, Podtech's business failure will actually hurt this community more than it ever helped IMHO. The truth is that I don't believe it was that pure and idealistic. I think Scoble is a smart guy and they saw an opportunity to create a business. This is new territory and we're all struggling in one way or another to carve out our piece of the pie, but I think its important to be honest about our motivations. I probably have a different perspective than alot of people on this list, as I am a behind the scenes guy and not a videoblogger myself, but from my point of view Podtech did nothing in terms of advancing the business as I see it moving forward. Shows that enjoy sustainable success like Rocketboom and Epic Fu deserve much more credit as far as I'm concerned. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Carl Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt - I think you missed the point here. You are right that PodTech makes business decisions based on some outcome, like profit. It makes perfect sense. The thing is, regardless of that, PodTech created opportunities that were not there before. The fact that neither of us inserted ourselves into those opportunities is ireelevant. What they did is they got more people looking at videoblogs. As content creators, that's important to all of us. My pockets were not lined with silver because of them but because of what PodTech did, videoblogging is a much more accepted form of media. Did they fail? I would say no. Perhaps they just have not succeeded at what they were intending to do. You are right - it wasn't a charity and should not be treated as such. However, they were a business that helped all of us somehow, even if we can't put our finger on exactly where or how. They grew the space we exist in and made it more mainstream and accessible on both ends - for the creators and the viewers. Blazing trails isn't easy work. I took some shots at PodTech for the Lan Bui photo fiasco (http://camerasamurai.com/?p=17) but that's not an indication that I think they were a terrible company. Sometimes you have to speak up to have your voice heard and hold people accountable. Anyway, a good New Year's to you all. Cheers, Carl Carl Weaver Photographer http://www.carlweaver.com http://www.camerasamurai.com - Photography education, news, tips and more http://dcmetrostories.com - DC Metro Stories: Stories about the people, places and events in the DC Metro area http://nextlifeintheafternoon.com - A Journey Through Thailand Quoting MATTFELDMAN78: I normally just lurk here, but this one really got me. One thing I wanted to say over there is that PodTech invested more than a million dollars in this community (seriously, I have the receipts, we hired dozens of videobloggers and even had a few on our staff, including people who are very active on this group). I've personally got tons of people here paid, some of which got paid more than $100,000 each since PodTech was born. PodTech was a BUSINESS, not a charity. Whatever money was paid to anyone on this list was a BUSINESS decision. PodTech saw value in the work and thought they could profit from it. Apparently they were mistaken---but don't classify that as some sort of charity. They saw an opportunity to profit, but they failed. PERIOD.
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
Then I suggest you look in the mirror then, cause you have done your fair share of nit picking. heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And just to bring things back to the topic at hand. This is exactly the kind of nit picking of emails that I feel has brought the group down. Where was the comment on everything else I brought up? This kind of stuff only starts flame wars. On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot. It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than one article and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some cases, attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those accuracies is shut down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with irrefutable scientific proof in hand. Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting anything else. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
Ease up, lads. Keep it on point. Jan On Dec 28, 2007 2:44 PM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then I suggest you look in the mirror then, cause you have done your fair share of nit picking. heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And just to bring things back to the topic at hand. This is exactly the kind of nit picking of emails that I feel has brought the group down. Where was the comment on everything else I brought up? This kind of stuff only starts flame wars. On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot. It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than one article and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some cases, attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those accuracies is shut down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with irrefutable scientific proof in hand. Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting anything else. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://wburg.tv aim=janofsound air=862.571.5334 skype=janmclaughlin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
i don't personally believe this nor do i think anyone could conjure up any form of proof to back this up. they are/were just a business entity trying to ride the wave of net video like so many others. they held this yahoo group up to exaggerative heights, or maybe that was just scoble... but in doing so, they set themselves up for disappointment on a business and money perspective. now they know you cant buy love, as they say. and thats what they were trying to do by injecting money into certain people and events. now they are sour at some so-called videoblogging community as represented by this yahoo mailing list, or at least scoble is. it's been so predictable. podtech and other companies that attempt to buy their way in to a community that in reality is neither here nor there. contests, awards, content contracts, faux transparency and so on. it's largely a game where their are some winners, some losers and many observers. On Dec 28, 2007 1:58 PM, Carl Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but because of what PodTech did, videoblogging is a much more accepted form of media. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
At this point, I'd like to thank Brooke and Steve for responding to my comments. Steve, I hope you can appreciate the comments I made about how when people begin to agree, they stop contributing. If your posts feel ignored as you've often stated, please take into consideration. Even when you disagree with me, I still find your comments refreshing. I agree that people should comment where they feel they have something to say but I think that, in order to move a conversation forward, it's important to include concessions in responses. (e.g. the way i started off this paragraph) When members simply jump onto the first thing they disagree with, discussions tend to spiral down into bickering. Additionally, straw man arguments should be avoided... On Dec 28, 2007 2:41 PM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, give me a break, seriouslysomeone question's Wikipedia, which Cnet, MSNBC, Reuters, etc have done on various occasions and they are, in your opinion, wackos.give me a break Nothing's perfect, including Wikipedia Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps I should have said people that distrust the Wikipedia model. Fact checking is definitely your responsibility as well as an important part of anything you read online. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability which makes this much easier. Any statements that are not verifiable should of course be taken with a grain of salt. The content should of course be scrutinized in the same way anything you read should be scrutinized. Regarding inaccuracies and claims of suppression, Wikipedia has been found to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica and your distrust of it's model stems from a lack of understanding of it's policies and is not some kind of conspiracy to cover up the truth. Without even knowing what article, what statement, or what scientific journal you're referring to, I can assume with a good level of certainty that you were probably trying to cover up a significant viewpoint in order to advance a position through your own original research and synthesis of published material. This would necessarily lower the value of an encyclopedia article and, ironically, make it less trustworthy. It's important to understand something before discrediting it. However, if this is of no interest to you I can recommend others that universally hold the same opinions of Wikipedia as your own. They are: - creationists - people who easily buy into conspiracy theories - people who don't believe in the theory of evolution - people who buy into new age beliefs about quantum physics and movies like What the Bleep do we Know!? Down the rabbit hole. ...etc On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot. It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than one article and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some cases, attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those accuracies is shut down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with irrefutable scientific proof in hand. Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting anything else. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
What was the point again? Oh, yeah...Gena sending a message to Robert Scoble.kinda funny if you think about it... Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ease up, lads. Keep it on point. Jan On Dec 28, 2007 2:44 PM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then I suggest you look in the mirror then, cause you have done your fair share of nit picking. heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp pdelongchamp@ wrote: And just to bring things back to the topic at hand. This is exactly the kind of nit picking of emails that I feel has brought the group down. Where was the comment on everything else I brought up? This kind of stuff only starts flame wars. On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington jake@ wrote: I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot. It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than one article and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some cases, attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those accuracies is shut down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with irrefutable scientific proof in hand. Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting anything else. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://wburg.tv aim=janofsound air=862.571.5334 skype=janmclaughlin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
I didn't respond because I found your tone to be dismissive and I found your argument to be extremely weak and didn't really think it merited a reply. Not trying to egg you on, just trying to be honest. I've written far too much on this topic here, once again... But come on... Writers figuring out how to sell toasters? Isn't that like Privates or Sergeants deciding what oil rich country to invade next year? I thought the writers ideas were chosen specifically for their ability to sell toasters? And Id really like to get off the sitcom thing and talk about News, which is where the corporate media has not just failed miserably, but has committed heinous crimes. Their slavish devotion to the corporate agenda has all but killed this country. We could talk about Fox and it's peddling of righteous indignation, creating the most tasteless television shows and then furthering Rupey's global domination agenda by railing about it on their news properties. I believe they are classically conditioning people to hate self governance and democracy. Or we could talk about the rampant militarization of the History Channel, the discovery channel and our heavily scripted Corporate Sponsored Sporting events. We could talk about debasing and dehumanizing reality TV shows. We could talk about CSI Albuquerque. Sure it's the writers who make those decisions. Evil liberal media. Don't blame the enlisted men for starting wars, it's the officers and civilian commanders that do that stuff. When's the last time you saw a good love story? When's the last time you saw a human interest show? When's the last time you saw somebody feel good on TV? It doesn't happen that often, and that's not because people don't like that. It's because it doesn't sell. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog http://pawsitivevybe.com On Dec 28, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: At this point, I'd like to thank Brooke and Steve for responding to my comments. Steve, I hope you can appreciate the comments I made about how when people begin to agree, they stop contributing. If your posts feel ignored as you've often stated, please take into consideration. Even when you disagree with me, I still find your comments refreshing. I agree that people should comment where they feel they have something to say but I think that, in order to move a conversation forward, it's important to include concessions in responses. (e.g. the way i started off this paragraph) When members simply jump onto the first thing they disagree with, discussions tend to spiral down into bickering. Additionally, straw man arguments should be avoided... On Dec 28, 2007 2:41 PM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, give me a break, seriouslysomeone question's Wikipedia, which Cnet, MSNBC, Reuters, etc have done on various occasions and they are, in your opinion, wackos.give me a break Nothing's perfect, including Wikipedia Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps I should have said people that distrust the Wikipedia model. Fact checking is definitely your responsibility as well as an important part of anything you read online. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability which makes this much easier. Any statements that are not verifiable should of course be taken with a grain of salt. The content should of course be scrutinized in the same way anything you read should be scrutinized. Regarding inaccuracies and claims of suppression, Wikipedia has been found to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica and your distrust of it's model stems from a lack of understanding of it's policies and is not some kind of conspiracy to cover up the truth. Without even knowing what article, what statement, or what scientific journal you're referring to, I can assume with a good level of certainty that you were probably trying to cover up a significant viewpoint in order to advance a position through your own original research and synthesis of published material. This would necessarily lower the value of an encyclopedia article and, ironically, make it less trustworthy. It's important to understand something before discrediting it. However, if this is of no interest to you I can recommend others that universally hold the same opinions of Wikipedia as your own. They are: - creationists - people who easily buy into conspiracy theories - people who don't believe in the theory of evolution - people who buy into new age beliefs about quantum physics and movies like What the Bleep do we Know!? Down the rabbit hole. ...etc On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When's the last time you saw a human interest show? When's the last time you saw somebody feel good on TV? It doesn't happen that often, and that's not because people don't like that. It's because it doesn't sell. NBC did Clash of the Choirs about a week or so ago. It was fun, wholesome, it got ratings (at least to my knowledge it did) of couse the writers strike helped that, but it made me feel good and not just cause the Cincinnati team won ;) Heath http://batmangeek.com
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
This is a tough thread to jump in on! hahaha :D I think Gena brings up some valid and *interesting* points. I'm not involved in any of this, but I'll put in my two cents anyway. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert I want to specifically address an issue you have brought up and I don't think you were being heard. You took a lot of heat concerning the Podtech - Censorship of Loren debacle. Words were said and mud was flung in all directions. Upon reflection, I don't think folks separated you from the company or in fact the actual person that generated the situation in the first place. I think we as humans start to classify folks as personalities and not as real people. Again, not that this is relevant to the actual discussion, but my entire experience of PodTech has been through this list. I had never heard of it other than being mentioned in relation to Irina Eddie, Jay Ryanne, then eventually Jay Smooth, Bill Streeter and Loren Feldman. Also, at some point, the Lan Bui photo scandal. I have to agree with what Gena's saying. From my perspective of reading limited mention of PodTech, I never felt that they had a grass roots or ground level presence. What I mean by that is that PodTech appeared to be some mother ship type of thing that had something to do with funding podcasts and the, let's say main characters in The PodTech Show appeared/appear larger than life. Case in point would be Scoble or The Scoble, who isn't referred to as Robert or Bob, but either as solely his last name or Scobleizer, which is obviously a Terminator-esque, movie-starish nickname. [Disclosure: (hahaha oh brother) The first time I heard of The Scobleizer was when he was interviewed by my friend Dan McVicar on his McVlog http://blip.tv/file/71178 however, all I took away from that was that this was some guy that liked to say Power Move!. Having not heard of Ze Frank at that time, I had no idea what he was talking about.] Then, if you listen to his media (such as http://www.podtech.net/home/3745/calacaniscast-31-beta), he's talking about maxing out contact limits on social sites Literally, having FOUR THOUSAND followers on Facebook, for instance. Obviously, that's not normal. :D Unfortunately, that's not only going to generate fans, but also haters and people that are apathetic about mud-slinging towards 'stars'. Maybe it's not actually apathy, but more a feeling of Well, this guy's immensely popular inside this echo chamber, he should be used to this and able to fend for himself perfectly well. Especially when you add the backing of the mother ship, financially and as far as prestige is concerned... My personal feeling about the situationS that came up with PodTech (besides it being none of my business in the first place) was They're playboys... they're used to taking heat... they can handle it. Looking at it from the perspective that Gena's presented, I agree that my perception of Scobleizer is of personality and not real person. MissBHavens has a fancy name, too... However, due to her style of interacting with this group, style of video blogging and lack of connection to a funded mother ship, mud-slinging against her is going to be perceived completely differently, being that she's a real person. This is an interesting study in how personal bias can become ingrained and seem perfectly normal until someone checks you on it. That was one of my points about Cheryl's thread that started all this. I feel like the previous lack of sponsorship of Epic-FU caused her to feel one way about the show and that adding sponsorship went against her own personal 'understanding' of what was going on. Without the prior ingrained bias, there would have been no perception of change. I met a very nice person (this would be you) a few years back. We talked as regular folks. To be honest I tend to do that with everyone I met. But others treat you as The Scoble with reverence. The other side of that seems to be intense anger when there is a disagreement. It is not right but there ya go, it is human. Part of it is the celebrity thing. The other side of it is somedays we just do not act according to our better natures. I didn't speak up and say Hey, he didn't cause this situation why are you going after him? I didn't do that either, for the reasons stated above. However, I think Gena's right again. In cases where it can be proven that someone was NOT directly responsible for something happening or doesn't have the direct ability to do something about it now, they should be stood up for when people accuse them unfairly, personality or not. -- Bill Cammack CammackMediaGroup.com I have been to other events where folks wouldn't part their lips toward me because I'm not an A - Lister. This is a good thing as it cuts down on the amount of BS I have to produce. I'm aiming for zero emissions. When I look at the comments section of your blog those folks
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
I normally just lurk here, but this one really got me. One thing I wanted to say over there is that PodTech invested more than a million dollars in this community (seriously, I have the receipts, we hired dozens of videobloggers and even had a few on our staff, including people who are very active on this group). I've personally got tons of people here paid, some of which got paid more than $100,000 each since PodTech was born. PodTech was a BUSINESS, not a charity. Whatever money was paid to anyone on this list was a BUSINESS decision. PodTech saw value in the work and thought they could profit from it. Apparently they were mistaken---but don't classify that as some sort of charity. They saw an opportunity to profit, but they failed. PERIOD. Hint: eventually sponsors and employees get the message and move money away from a company that isn't getting community support. And, worse, it definitely demoralizes the employees and makes them far less willing to take risks on behalf of the community. I think this is BS too. How many of you have stood up and said thank you to YouTube, Blip.tv, Kyte, or any of the other companies who are trying to make it possible for you to distribute your work (and get paid - I know at least one videoblogger who gets paid more than $10,000 per month thanks to YouTube's advertising deals)? Some of you have, and that's always appreciated. But most of you remain silent, or don't look to help out and make sure there are healthy businesses here. I'm sorry, some of these companies are better than others and are more attentive to people on this list, but once again these are BUSINESSES. Don't forget that we are creating things that are of value to them. Yes, they provide the technology to enable us host for free, but without content that means nothing. The cost of bandwith is rapidly plummeting to the point that this will not even be an issue for too much longer. Although it hasn't happened on a major scale yet, the TOS that we all sign gives these companies the power to syndicate our content all over the place and profit from that in ways that we might not even anticipate yet. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gena, Thanks, this was a very nice Christmas present and a nice way to end a really great day. Someone just forwarded me your email and I appreciate that too. I haven't been able to respond over on the Cheryl page because it keeps saying my comments are spam, which is funny too. Oh well. One thing I wanted to say over there is that PodTech invested more than a million dollars in this community (seriously, I have the receipts, we hired dozens of videobloggers and even had a few on our staff, including people who are very active on this group). I've personally got tons of people here paid, some of which got paid more than $100,000 each since PodTech was born. Part of my frustration is that the community, rather than cheering on businesses that are trying to put food on videoblogger's tables, actually turn and attack and not in a helpful way and when someone is under attack I don't see many in this community come and stand up against the mob. I just looked back on the last few days of posts here and I see pretty predictable results from my outburst. But you didn't get the point. How many of you stood up when TechCrunch said that PodTech deserved to be in the dead pool? How many of you stood up when that same blog, or when Valleywag printed attacks against me? Not many. Hint: eventually sponsors and employees get the message and move money away from a company that isn't getting community support. And, worse, it definitely demoralizes the employees and makes them far less willing to take risks on behalf of the community. That's why Cheryl's post about Epic-FU rubbed me the wrong way. I can bite my lip when it's me under attack (although, no, it's not fun) but when I see a repeated pattern I felt I needed to speak out about it and this community has often not been friendly to those of us who are trying to make businesses that get more of us paid. Let's turn it away from PodTech. Have any of you thanked Revision3? Rocketboom? Huffington Post? Federated Media? Jason Calacanis? (He was attacked here, but my friends who worked for him say his paychecks never bounced). Leo Laporte? Epic-FU? Or any of the other people struggling to make money in this new art form? And there are dozens of others who are trying to build businesses here in the NewTeeVee industry. How many of you have stood up and said thank you to YouTube, Blip.tv, Kyte, or any of the other companies who are trying to make it possible for you to distribute your work (and get paid - I know at least one videoblogger who gets paid more than $10,000 per month thanks to YouTube's advertising deals)? Some of you have, and that's always appreciated. But most of you remain silent,
RE: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
Hint: eventually sponsors and employees get the message and move money away from a company that isn't getting community support. And, worse, it definitely demoralizes the employees and makes them far less willing to take risks on behalf of the community. I think this is BS too. If you think that's BS, you've never made your living solely from advertising. Advertisers do turn away when they perceive they are associating their brand with something negative or failing. If the advertisers turn away, the employees stop getting paid, lose their jobs, etc. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
Why advertising is a dangerous way to go if you're interested in true things. One big reason big media rings so false: advertisers control content. Jan On Dec 27, 2007 10:37 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hint: eventually sponsors and employees get the message and move money away from a company that isn't getting community support. And, worse, it definitely demoralizes the employees and makes them far less willing to take risks on behalf of the community. I think this is BS too. If you think that's BS, you've never made your living solely from advertising. Advertisers do turn away when they perceive they are associating their brand with something negative or failing. If the advertisers turn away, the employees stop getting paid, lose their jobs, etc. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://wburg.tv aim=janofsound air=862.571.5334 skype=janmclaughlin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
Hi Jan, One big reason big media rings so false: advertisers control content. I have to disagree with that. Viewers control the content. Meaning, studios only fund productions they think audiences will watch, buy a movie ticket, purchase a DVD, etc. It is the masses controlling what gets produced by big media... Listening to your audience (both through metrics and comments) and being responsive should always be #1 priority. The real power of new media is that direct access to your audience. Regards, -Frank http://mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why advertising is a dangerous way to go if you're interested in true things. One big reason big media rings so false: advertisers control content. Jan On Dec 27, 2007 10:37 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hint: eventually sponsors and employees get the message and move money away from a company that isn't getting community support. And, worse, it definitely demoralizes the employees and makes them far less willing to take risks on behalf of the community. I think this is BS too. If you think that's BS, you've never made your living solely from advertising. Advertisers do turn away when they perceive they are associating their brand with something negative or failing. If the advertisers turn away, the employees stop getting paid, lose their jobs, etc. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://wburg.tv aim=janofsound air=862.571.5334 skype=janmclaughlin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just looked back on the last few days of posts here and see .pretty predictable results from my outburst. But you didn't get the point. How many of you stood up when TechCrunch said that PodTech deserved to be in the dead pool? How many of you stood up when that same blog, or when Valleywag printed attacks against me? Not many. I don't read techcrunch or Valleywag, so I woundn't know you had been attacked Have any of you thanked Revision3? Rocketboom? Huffington Post? Federated Media? Jason Calacanis? (He was attacked here, but my friends who worked for him say his paychecks never bounced). Leo Laporte? Epic-FU? Or any of the other people struggling to make money in this new art form? And there are dozens of others who are trying to build businesses here in the NewTeeVee industry. I guess you have never read any of my posts, and didn't watch my response video to Cheryl's post the other day How many of you have stood up and said thank you to YouTube, Blip.tv, Kyte, or any of the other companies who are trying to make it possible for you to distribute your work (and get paid - I know at least one videoblogger who gets paid more than $10,000 per month thanks to YouTube's advertising deals)? Some of you have, and that's always appreciated. But most of you remain silent, or don't look to help out and make sure there are healthy businesses here. I guess you never saw my week long Vlog posting I did in which I thanked many people, as a matter of fact one vlog post was dedicated to Blip by itself. Or I guess you have never read any of the emails I have sent to the blip team since I have been using them to thank them for all their hard work and let them know I support them.. I can only guess why you never saw any of those posts or why you have never responded to the various private emails I have sent you expressing my disgust for some of the hateful things that get said about you sometimes...things said just for meanness sake..Maybe you just missed those, maybe they were caught in your spam filter, maybe you have watched my vlog since the beginning and have just never commented.or maybe it's because I don't matter cause I am not an A-lister, maybe I don't matter because I am using vlogging to try and break down these silly barriers that we put on ourselves. You wanna call out people? Fine call them out, but how bout acknowledging the litte people out there, you know the guys who arn't on your radarthe ones who ARE supporting this community... Oh, and as a side note, blanket statements server no purpose other than to make people feel devalued, to make them feel useless and unwanted, to make them feel that they don't matterthat's how YOU just made me feel.. Heath http://batmangeek.com
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . One thing I wanted to say over there is that PodTech invested more than a million dollars in this community (seriously, I have the receipts, we hired dozens of videobloggers and even had a few on our staff, including people who are very active on this group). I've personally got tons of people here paid, some of which got paid more than $100,000 each since PodTech was born. Part of my frustration is that the community, rather than cheering on businesses that are trying to put food on videoblogger's tables, actually turn and attack and not in a helpful way and when someone is under attack I don't see many in this community come and stand up against the mob. I just looked back on the last few days of posts here and I see pretty predictable results from my outburst. But you didn't get the point. How many of you stood up when TechCrunch said that PodTech deserved to be in the dead pool? How many of you stood up when that same blog, or when Valleywag printed attacks against me? Not many. Hint: eventually sponsors and employees get the message and move money away from a company that isn't getting community support. And, worse, it definitely demoralizes the employees and makes them far less willing to take risks on behalf of the community. That's why Cheryl's post about Epic-FU rubbed me the wrong way. I can bite my lip when it's me under attack (although, no, it's not fun) but when I see a repeated pattern I felt I needed to speak out about it and this community has often not been friendly to those of us who are trying to make businesses that get more of us paid. Let's turn it away from PodTech. Have any of you thanked Revision3? Rocketboom? Huffington Post? Federated Media? Jason Calacanis? (He was attacked here, but my friends who worked for him say his paychecks never bounced). Leo Laporte? Epic-FU? Or any of the other people struggling to make money in this new art form? And there are dozens of others who are trying to build businesses here in the NewTeeVee industry. How many of you have stood up and said thank you to YouTube, Blip.tv, Kyte, or any of the other companies who are trying to make it possible for you to distribute your work (and get paid - I know at least one videoblogger who gets paid more than $10,000 per month thanks to YouTube's advertising deals)? Some of you have, and that's always appreciated. But most of you remain silent, or don't look to help out and make sure there are healthy businesses here. There's tons of others, too. Community... space videobloggers... Years ago, decades ago, I remember being struck in a philosophy or math class that something that describes everything describes nothing. I am afraid we have reached this point with videoblogging. What is the difference between a videoblog and a show? It seems to me that there is a schism here of people who want to break into show business and those who want to blog with video and create their own websites. They would like recognition and compensation, but they do not particularly want to break through to show biz. I found the Vloggies and a lot of what was going on at PodTech as encouraging the show biz folk. This was really apparent from Robert Scoble's post on his own blog at the time of the Vloggies: http://scobleizer.com/2006/11/05/more-from-the-vloggies/ OK, I have a complete list of winners from the Vloggies up now the big winners was Alive in Baghdad (they got the only standing ovation of the evening). Interestingly enough, before the Vloggies, I had never seen their stuff and it really is incredible. In fact, I haven't seen many of the award winners before tonight and there's some really interesting video going on out there. I'm slowing going through the list and will share my favorites from time to time. I love Ze Frank and Rocketboom, but there's really a lot more incredible work being done out there and I'm glad we got a chance to highlight just a little bit of that tonight. I could not believe that at that time, in November, 2006, Robert Scoble had never seen any of Alive in Baghdad. It made such an impression on me that I saved the quote. I have nothing against Scoble, but I do feel he has helped polarize this space or community or whatever. There is nothing wrong with wanting to break into show business. And there is nothing wrong with using small tv to do it. Maybe online video will be like Second City, Off Broadway and regional theatre in that it will allow people to make mistakes and learn some acting techniques to they can go on and do sitcoms. Fine. But why are we calling shows videobloggs? Let's tolerate some difference rather than saying everyone is the same? Okay. Stan Hirson http://hestakaup.com
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
Whenever there is mob mentality here, there are usually a few who take the opposite stance, but if they are the minority then it makes little difference. At the end of the day, this community is a slightly abstract concept, and so surely its podtech itself that is mostly responsible for how individuals within this community responded to its plight. You think all the money spend by podtech, etc etc, had got it credit in the goodwill bank, that it had earnt respect here, and would be defended. It wasnt, and it seems like you are still upset by this. As this community does not have editorial leadership or thought control, its hard to put this down to a hidden agenda, personal rivalry or a baseless vendetta against you or podtech. Seriously, the community is a fairly wide cross-section of people, with no government whip to keep them singing from the same hymn sheet. If podtech failed to win them over, isnt it more likely that was because podtech did something wrong, rather than bad luck that this community just happened to be full of people who werent fair to podtech. Business is a risk. Take more responsibility for your own failings, you'll get more respect that way, demanding respect never works. I could run off a list of businesses sites that maybe 'deserved our respect and support', and didnt get it, and in each case it's their own actions that were responsible. Take Ourmedia as just one example. People loved their agenda, but the service wasnt reliable enough at a crucial time, so now its hardly ever mentioned. As I understand its been taken over by Outhink now, and that hasnt even gotten a mention here. Outhink have done their fair share of sponsoring some people services in this community, yet I dont see them coming here and demanding respect. Any business that relies on a community and its goodwill, needs to be extremely careful in all its dealings with that community. Its not an even playing field, individuals within the community will rant at will about you, but you musnt return the favour. The business has a far tighter power structure, can fully co-ordinate its message, and will be seen as a single entity capable of making deliberate decisions. The community can distance itself from the views of its individual members far more effectively. The business has more to lose. The politician who blames his constituents when things go wrong, is doomed. Personally I beleive the economy in 2008 is gonna be real stinky, we will see more failures, and as I wouldnt get any creit for their success, forgive me for refusing to take share of blame if they fail. Cheers Steve Elbows PS. Imagine what the community would have done if it had had all those millions that podtech wasted, to spend itself on building sustainable foundations for broad vlogging, rather than it being pissed up the wall trying to be the golden shills of the new media revolution. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gena, Thanks, this was a very nice Christmas present and a nice way to end a really great day. Someone just forwarded me your email and I appreciate that too. I haven't been able to respond over on the Cheryl page because it keeps saying my comments are spam, which is funny too. Oh well. One thing I wanted to say over there is that PodTech invested more than a million dollars in this community (seriously, I have the receipts, we hired dozens of videobloggers and even had a few on our staff, including people who are very active on this group). I've personally got tons of people here paid, some of which got paid more than $100,000 each since PodTech was born. Part of my frustration is that the community, rather than cheering on businesses that are trying to put food on videoblogger's tables, actually turn and attack and not in a helpful way and when someone is under attack I don't see many in this community come and stand up against the mob. I just looked back on the last few days of posts here and I see pretty predictable results from my outburst. But you didn't get the point. How many of you stood up when TechCrunch said that PodTech deserved to be in the dead pool? How many of you stood up when that same blog, or when Valleywag printed attacks against me? Not many. Hint: eventually sponsors and employees get the message and move money away from a company that isn't getting community support. And, worse, it definitely demoralizes the employees and makes them far less willing to take risks on behalf of the community. That's why Cheryl's post about Epic-FU rubbed me the wrong way. I can bite my lip when it's me under attack (although, no, it's not fun) but when I see a repeated pattern I felt I needed to speak out about it and this community has often not been friendly to those of us who are trying to make businesses that get more of us paid.
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
Mmmm yes the show vs personal vlog was an issue that reared its ugly head quite a bit over the first years of this list. Whilst people are united in their passion for video on the web, there isnt always much common ground about the video itself. It certainly does explain variations in peoples attitudes towards the business and services in this field, there can be a big difference in commercial strategies and emphasis depending on whether the videos are show-biz, personal, business, journalism or otherwise focussed. Still its such a grey area I dont think many have attemoted to clarify, for fear of alienating people needlessly. Even 'show' vs 'personal' is not easy to define, as shows can have a very personal feel, and personal vlogs that have a certain format feel may end up closely resembling a show. All Ive really concluded so far is that people like to be in charge of how their own show is labelled, they may not want to be labelled at all but better to do it themselves than have others opinions make the choice. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Stan Hirson, Sarah Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am afraid we have reached this point with videoblogging. What is the difference between a videoblog and a show? It seems to me that there is a schism here of people who want to break into show business and those who want to blog with video and create their own websites. They would like recognition and compensation, but they do not particularly want to break through to show biz. I found the Vloggies and a lot of what was going on at PodTech as encouraging the show biz folk. This was really apparent from Robert Scoble's post on his own blog at the time of the Vloggies: http://scobleizer.com/2006/11/05/more-from-the-vloggies/ OK, I have a complete list of winners from the Vloggies up now the big winners was Alive in Baghdad (they got the only standing ovation of the evening). Interestingly enough, before the Vloggies, I had never seen their stuff and it really is incredible. In fact, I haven't seen many of the award winners before tonight and there's some really interesting video going on out there. I'm slowing going through the list and will share my favorites from time to time. I love Ze Frank and Rocketboom, but there's really a lot more incredible work being done out there and I'm glad we got a chance to highlight just a little bit of that tonight. I could not believe that at that time, in November, 2006, Robert Scoble had never seen any of Alive in Baghdad. It made such an impression on me that I saved the quote. I have nothing against Scoble, but I do feel he has helped polarize this space or community or whatever. There is nothing wrong with wanting to break into show business. And there is nothing wrong with using small tv to do it. Maybe online video will be like Second City, Off Broadway and regional theatre in that it will allow people to make mistakes and learn some acting techniques to they can go on and do sitcoms. Fine. But why are we calling shows videobloggs? Let's tolerate some difference rather than saying everyone is the same? Okay. Stan Hirson http://hestakaup.com
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just looked back on the last few days of posts here and I see pretty predictable results from my outburst. But you didn't get the point. How many of you stood up when TechCrunch said that PodTech deserved to be in the dead pool? How many of you stood up when that same blog, or when Valleywag printed attacks against me? Not many. Robert, I lead the charge holding PodTech accountable for the Lan situation and the mistreatment of Irina, etc. It wasn't that mistakes were made -- it was how PodTech tried to cover up the mistakes and not deal with them in an open and honest manner. The biggest lesson from PodTech for me is don't over promise. Going into the Vloggies, PT seemed to be making the right moves in the video space. Bringing in new sponsor dollars, signing up new podcasters. But things started bogging down when they were focused more on developing a new flash player in house rather than selling sponsorships. There just wasn't much revenue coming in from the smaller shows. Ultimately, PodTech did a lot of good for individuals on this list. But it was like hanging out with your rich uncle who's an asshole and makes you feel bad about yourself. Sure he pays for dinner, but you're going to need therapy for a few years to fully recover. You're a survivor Robert, you'll be fine wherever you land. You were bigger than PodTech, and the actions of others there made you look bad. Now you'll be able to stand on your own and I look forward to seeing what's up on Jan. 15th. -Kent, askaninja.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
On Dec 26, 2007 4:31 PM, Kent Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But things started bogging down when they were focused more on developing a new flash player in house rather than selling sponsorships. I agree with this. That's one thing I could never understand. Why did PodTech feel the need to hire an engineering team to reinvent the wheel? Seems like they could have licensed any number of flash players/hosting platforms that were 2 years ahead in development with features already vetted and baked out. I recall pitching a white label blip.tv very early on. Then Castfire appeared, again developed way ahead of PT's roadmap but with all the features, dynamic ad insertion and reporting PT could need. I got the sense PT wanted to be a media company AND a technology company, which I think was a big mistake. -eddie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
And the great Scoble proves my point, narry a word from the manoh well Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble robertscoble@ wrote: I just looked back on the last few days of posts here and see .pretty predictable results from my outburst. But you didn't get the point. How many of you stood up when TechCrunch said that PodTech deserved to be in the dead pool? How many of you stood up when that same blog, or when Valleywag printed attacks against me? Not many. I don't read techcrunch or Valleywag, so I woundn't know you had been attacked Have any of you thanked Revision3? Rocketboom? Huffington Post? Federated Media? Jason Calacanis? (He was attacked here, but my friends who worked for him say his paychecks never bounced). Leo Laporte? Epic-FU? Or any of the other people struggling to make money in this new art form? And there are dozens of others who are trying to build businesses here in the NewTeeVee industry. I guess you have never read any of my posts, and didn't watch my response video to Cheryl's post the other day How many of you have stood up and said thank you to YouTube, Blip.tv, Kyte, or any of the other companies who are trying to make it possible for you to distribute your work (and get paid - I know at least one videoblogger who gets paid more than $10,000 per month thanks to YouTube's advertising deals)? Some of you have, and that's always appreciated. But most of you remain silent, or don't look to help out and make sure there are healthy businesses here. I guess you never saw my week long Vlog posting I did in which I thanked many people, as a matter of fact one vlog post was dedicated to Blip by itself. Or I guess you have never read any of the emails I have sent to the blip team since I have been using them to thank them for all their hard work and let them know I support them.. I can only guess why you never saw any of those posts or why you have never responded to the various private emails I have sent you expressing my disgust for some of the hateful things that get said about you sometimes...things said just for meanness sake..Maybe you just missed those, maybe they were caught in your spam filter, maybe you have watched my vlog since the beginning and have just never commented.or maybe it's because I don't matter cause I am not an A-lister, maybe I don't matter because I am using vlogging to try and break down these silly barriers that we put on ourselves. You wanna call out people? Fine call them out, but how bout acknowledging the litte people out there, you know the guys who arn't on your radarthe ones who ARE supporting this community... Oh, and as a side note, blanket statements server no purpose other than to make people feel devalued, to make them feel useless and unwanted, to make them feel that they don't matterthat's how YOU just made me feel.. Heath http://batmangeek.com
RE: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
I agree with this. That's one thing I could never understand. Why did PodTech feel the need to hire an engineering team to reinvent the wheel? That was a decision I had no impact on (there was an engineering team hired before I got there). As you know, I interviewed the Castfire guys and tried to get Podtech to go that way, among others. At the end I took a lot of internal heat for using Kyte myself instead of PodTech's player - today I'm playing with http://www.qik.com/scobleizer which is awesome and works from my cell phone. At CES we'll be doing live streaming with Mogulus. My next thing I do won't have an engineering team that tries to make its own player, you're absolutely right about that. :-) Robert [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
I have 7,000 unread emails and missed yours, sorry. But since you already threw me under the bus for not answering it I'll just leave it alone. Robert _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heath Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:32 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble And the great Scoble proves my point, narry a word from the manoh well Heath http://batmangeek. http://batmangeek.com com --- In videoblogging@ mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@ mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble robertscoble@ wrote: I just looked back on the last few days of posts here and see .pretty predictable results from my outburst. But you didn't get the point. How many of you stood up when TechCrunch said that PodTech deserved to be in the dead pool? How many of you stood up when that same blog, or when Valleywag printed attacks against me? Not many. I don't read techcrunch or Valleywag, so I woundn't know you had been attacked Have any of you thanked Revision3? Rocketboom? Huffington Post? Federated Media? Jason Calacanis? (He was attacked here, but my friends who worked for him say his paychecks never bounced). Leo Laporte? Epic-FU? Or any of the other people struggling to make money in this new art form? And there are dozens of others who are trying to build businesses here in the NewTeeVee industry. I guess you have never read any of my posts, and didn't watch my response video to Cheryl's post the other day How many of you have stood up and said thank you to YouTube, Blip.tv, Kyte, or any of the other companies who are trying to make it possible for you to distribute your work (and get paid - I know at least one videoblogger who gets paid more than $10,000 per month thanks to YouTube's advertising deals)? Some of you have, and that's always appreciated. But most of you remain silent, or don't look to help out and make sure there are healthy businesses here. I guess you never saw my week long Vlog posting I did in which I thanked many people, as a matter of fact one vlog post was dedicated to Blip by itself. Or I guess you have never read any of the emails I have sent to the blip team since I have been using them to thank them for all their hard work and let them know I support them.. I can only guess why you never saw any of those posts or why you have never responded to the various private emails I have sent you expressing my disgust for some of the hateful things that get said about you sometimes...things said just for meanness sake..Maybe you just missed those, maybe they were caught in your spam filter, maybe you have watched my vlog since the beginning and have just never commented.or maybe it's because I don't matter cause I am not an A-lister, maybe I don't matter because I am using vlogging to try and break down these silly barriers that we put on ourselves. You wanna call out people? Fine call them out, but how bout acknowledging the litte people out there, you know the guys who arn't on your radarthe ones who ARE supporting this community... Oh, and as a side note, blanket statements server no purpose other than to make people feel devalued, to make them feel useless and unwanted, to make them feel that they don't matterthat's how YOU just made me feel.. Heath http://batmangeek. http://batmangeek.com com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
I threw you under the bus sigh.I feel sorry for you Robert, I really do...7000 emails and the one you respond to me to, is the one where you feel slighted.I did like the sarcasm though, it was silly of me to expect a reply so quickly, but could you at least understand my confusion when you answered other people questions? But then again you knew themso...yeah I guess I should have waited longer, I will have to bank that for future reference. Oh, and I want to thank you Robert, and I mean that, you have shown me something of great value (not the waiting thing), that I will take with my to my dying day, I hope someday you find peace.. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have 7,000 unread emails and missed yours, sorry. But since you already threw me under the bus for not answering it I'll just leave it alone. Robert _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heath Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:32 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble And the great Scoble proves my point, narry a word from the manoh well Heath http://batmangeek. http://batmangeek.com com --- In videoblogging@ mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@ mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble robertscoble@ wrote: I just looked back on the last few days of posts here and see .pretty predictable results from my outburst. But you didn't get the point. How many of you stood up when TechCrunch said that PodTech deserved to be in the dead pool? How many of you stood up when that same blog, or when Valleywag printed attacks against me? Not many. I don't read techcrunch or Valleywag, so I woundn't know you had been attacked Have any of you thanked Revision3? Rocketboom? Huffington Post? Federated Media? Jason Calacanis? (He was attacked here, but my friends who worked for him say his paychecks never bounced). Leo Laporte? Epic-FU? Or any of the other people struggling to make money in this new art form? And there are dozens of others who are trying to build businesses here in the NewTeeVee industry. I guess you have never read any of my posts, and didn't watch my response video to Cheryl's post the other day How many of you have stood up and said thank you to YouTube, Blip.tv, Kyte, or any of the other companies who are trying to make it possible for you to distribute your work (and get paid - I know at least one videoblogger who gets paid more than $10,000 per month thanks to YouTube's advertising deals)? Some of you have, and that's always appreciated. But most of you remain silent, or don't look to help out and make sure there are healthy businesses here. I guess you never saw my week long Vlog posting I did in which I thanked many people, as a matter of fact one vlog post was dedicated to Blip by itself. Or I guess you have never read any of the emails I have sent to the blip team since I have been using them to thank them for all their hard work and let them know I support them.. I can only guess why you never saw any of those posts or why you have never responded to the various private emails I have sent you expressing my disgust for some of the hateful things that get said about you sometimes...things said just for meanness sake..Maybe you just missed those, maybe they were caught in your spam filter, maybe you have watched my vlog since the beginning and have just never commented.or maybe it's because I don't matter cause I am not an A-lister, maybe I don't matter because I am using vlogging to try and break down these silly barriers that we put on ourselves. You wanna call out people? Fine call them out, but how bout acknowledging the litte people out there, you know the guys who arn't on your radarthe ones who ARE supporting this community... Oh, and as a side note, blanket statements server no purpose other than to make people feel devalued, to make them feel useless and unwanted, to make them feel that they don't matterthat's how YOU just made me feel.. Heath http://batmangeek. http://batmangeek.com com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
To anyone out there (including Robert), I would recommend checking out Heath's vlog. I personally like it from a technique angle. I still use iMovie whenever I edit and so I can appreciate the use of simple lighting and production techniques to make a clean, simple piece. Makes you think. . . On Dec 26, 2007, at 9:23 PM, Heath wrote: I threw you under the bus sigh.I feel sorry for you Robert, I really do...7000 emails and the one you respond to me to, is the one where you feel slighted.I did like the sarcasm though, it was silly of me to expect a reply so quickly, but could you at least understand my confusion when you answered other people questions? But then again you knew themso...yeah I guess I should have waited longer, I will have to bank that for future reference. Oh, and I want to thank you Robert, and I mean that, you have shown me something of great value (not the waiting thing), that I will take with my to my dying day, I hope someday you find peace.. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have 7,000 unread emails and missed yours, sorry. But since you already threw me under the bus for not answering it I'll just leave it alone. Robert _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heath Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:32 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble And the great Scoble proves my point, narry a word from the manoh well Heath http://batmangeek. http://batmangeek.com com --- In videoblogging@ mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@ mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, Robert Scoble robertscoble@ wrote: I just looked back on the last few days of posts here and see .pretty predictable results from my outburst. But you didn't get the point. How many of you stood up when TechCrunch said that PodTech deserved to be in the dead pool? How many of you stood up when that same blog, or when Valleywag printed attacks against me? Not many. I don't read techcrunch or Valleywag, so I woundn't know you had been attacked Have any of you thanked Revision3? Rocketboom? Huffington Post? Federated Media? Jason Calacanis? (He was attacked here, but my friends who worked for him say his paychecks never bounced). Leo Laporte? Epic-FU? Or any of the other people struggling to make money in this new art form? And there are dozens of others who are trying to build businesses here in the NewTeeVee industry. I guess you have never read any of my posts, and didn't watch my response video to Cheryl's post the other day How many of you have stood up and said thank you to YouTube, Blip.tv, Kyte, or any of the other companies who are trying to make it possible for you to distribute your work (and get paid - I know at least one videoblogger who gets paid more than $10,000 per month thanks to YouTube's advertising deals)? Some of you have, and that's always appreciated. But most of you remain silent, or don't look to help out and make sure there are healthy businesses here. I guess you never saw my week long Vlog posting I did in which I thanked many people, as a matter of fact one vlog post was dedicated to Blip by itself. Or I guess you have never read any of the emails I have sent to the blip team since I have been using them to thank them for all their hard work and let them know I support them.. I can only guess why you never saw any of those posts or why you have never responded to the various private emails I have sent you expressing my disgust for some of the hateful things that get said about you sometimes...things said just for meanness sake..Maybe you just missed those, maybe they were caught in your spam filter, maybe you have watched my vlog since the beginning and have just never commented.or maybe it's because I don't matter cause I am not an A-lister, maybe I don't matter because I am using vlogging to try and break down these silly barriers that we put on ourselves. You wanna call out people? Fine call them out, but how bout acknowledging the litte people out there, you know the guys who arn't on your radarthe ones who ARE supporting this community... Oh, and as a side note, blanket statements server no purpose other than to make people feel devalued, to make them feel useless and unwanted, to make them feel that they don't matterthat's how YOU just made me feel.. Heath http://batmangeek. http://batmangeek.com com [Non-text portions
