speaking of robots
this came thru recently on
http://del.icio.us/rss/tag/system:media:video+watchthis
Ms. Kitka wrote:
OR you could just make a funky robotics video, Rocketboomers love that
stuff!
Kitka
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Edmund Yeo" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
oops, forgot the link to the video
http://www.eugenemirman.com/videos/Robot.mov
Markus Sandy wrote:
speaking of robots
this came thru recently on
http://del.icio.us/rss/tag/system:media:video+watchthis
Ms. Kitka wrote:
OR you could just make a funky robotics video,
According to the CBS interview last August, the space of a 15 second
ad is worth about $750,000 a year now @ 150,000 circulation. So their
reserve should be about $15,000 for a week of 15 second or $30,000
for a week of 30 second ads, perhaps $60,000 for a one minute ad x 5.
I imagine they
On 2/1/06, doron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i get the feeling that history is unfolding in front of our eyes.
awesome !!indeed.Interesting to see who's bidding
SPONSORED LINKS
Individual
Fireant
Good topic for a vid conf tip - changing to a new thread.
Enric wrote:
It takes me awhile to think things through sometimes (often.) I think
as administrator/booker of the Tuesday Saturday Flash Meetings that
there should be a Terms of Service stating among other things how
anyone with admin
Done.
LOL, you just out ran rocketboom ;)
On Jan 31, 2006, at 4:25 PM, Susan wrote:
I'd be happy to get $5 - a dollar a day for a week - to exploit
someone for a five second increment in my vlog posts.
Any buyers? ;)
Susan
http://vlog.kitykity.com
--- In
Obviously we've all got the wrong approach to making money... We're
thinking 'videoblogging' when we should be thinking 'video podcast'
See: http://geekbrief.podshow.com/
You just need to enter the podcasting world and wait for PodShow to make
you some sort of offer.
So to recap:
1. Create
So, David, it's not the money you have a problem with. It's the
influence that money brings.
I wonder if other motivators/value-markers that can also influence
content are as soul-destroying.
For instance: I love my husband. Our love is generally a positive
thing. BUT: his influence has
Well what I love about GeekBrief.tv is a combination of Charisma,
femininity in the form of Cali Lewis as well as excellent
production values and BRANDING. Neal and Laura are really an
excellent team. Wonder where they are. And the Podshow HQ is in San
Francisco. Excellent. I'm seriously
I've not really been keeping up, I try to keep out of the Rocketboom social minefield, but I read the blogarithms link you gave. So if Amanda and Andrew will be making the ads and vetoing, I don't know how much response they will get, but then, 130,000 downloads per day, as global viewing
Bit over the top, David. There have to be ads on TV to pay for making the programs, it's not cheap. What we vloggers do is cheap, and it's a hobby, so we spend the money without any desire to recoup it. Some media sites probably have the same problem as TV - it's not a hobby, it's not done in
Kunga, Enric, Markus,I realise that this is probably settled by now, but calm down. People have different opinions, they express them. No need for a punch up. Remember, cat fights are for girls, stop betraying your hormones. Rachel (Alternative Kitten)On 30 Jan 2006, at 04:20, Markus Sandy
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:47:50 +0100, Rachel Knight
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bit over the top, David. There have to be ads on TV to pay for
making the programs, it's not cheap.
There don't have to be ads on tv, no more than there have to be ads
anywhere else. Is the BBC running ads now? I
Point Andreas. But BBC and HBO are paid for by subscription (or in the case of the BBC, by TV Licence). There is no subscription cost for most vlogs that I know of, so that does not pay for it either. And the only ones the tax payer would pay for are Government sponsored/produced items.
Not a problem David, but if the ads are your choice whether to watch them, then they won't pay as much, as they are not guaranteed as large an audience to target. As most vlogging is a hobby, I don't think it will apply for a long time, but anyone who wants to go commercial will have to find
That's funny, I watch LOST on TiVo and have NO IDEA what 118118 is.
There are ads that I am missing by fast forwarding with TiVo.
On the other hand, some shows have ads that I enjoy. Entertaining ads.
I like the new BMW 'Video Podcast'.
I'm subscribed to that. It's all one ad after another
but what if the ad is a video commercial? this is where much new experimentation will be done... not image/text ads.On 1/30/06, David Howell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Here is a simple solution for that. Took me all of 30 seconds to think
about it.User clicks link to video.Window opens with video
I like the new BMW 'Video Podcast'.a believe you mean the BMW VODCAST ;-)
had to do it.http://vodcast.bmw.com/and yes, it is a great example.i still think bmwfilms.com is a great project as well.love companies that experiment like this.
SullOn 1/30/06, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
d by the crassness of those
statements:apologies in advance. i'll try to avoid reading email in the
morning from now on.
- Original Message -
From:
Rachel Knight
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:47
AM
Subject: Re: [videoblogging
Rachel Knight wrote:
Kunga, Enric, Markus,
I realise that this is probably settled by now, but calm down.
People have different opinions, they express them. No need for a punch
up. Remember, cat fights are for girls, stop betraying your hormones.
Yes, gentlemen. That's right.
--
--
I think the way they are doing it is analogous to those ads on the radio when
the dj
just has to basically talk about the product for a minute or whatever
If you are a fan of the dj's style you'll enjoy him/her regardless of the
subject matter
I look forward to
bottom line in my opinion is thisif your audience appreciates your work and is at least half-witty as to why you are trying such ad placements, then they should be happy to watch 15-30 seconds of this ad in order to support you.
if they are completely turned off by this approach and stop
WWWhatsup wrote:
I think the way they are doing it is analogous to those ads on the radio when
the dj
just has to basically talk about the product for a minute or whatever
If you are a fan of the dj's style you'll enjoy him/her regardless of the
subject matter
I look forward to
Charles HOPE wrote:
rob wrote:
it was mentioned that free lunches are a great thing, but i've not yet
found
one: but possibly u did.
distorting history to argue a point-of-view is akin to a free lunch... at
the very least, it's relying on others ignorance to press home an advantage.
I think it totally kicks ass. bravo.
there's so much space in this game - if they were off setting their costs by subscription someone else would be whining.
BUT
I think we should all be thinking of interesting ways to get
micro-payments to work. because I wouldn't put adds on my
personal
Ms. Kitka wrote:
David, I urge you to read the terms of the auction:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemssPageName=ADME:L:LCA:US:11item=5661816188
Rocketboom is not only selling advertising time on their videoblog,
they are making the ads themselves, placing them at the end of
Hi Andreas,
What you are referring to there is Subscription based TV. Nothing is free. The BBC charges us £120 a year just for having the technology to be able to recieve TV pictures, they call it a TV licence, it's like a dog licence except you don't have to take it for walks. As far as I know
you can take my old tv cable fees and divide it amongst yourselves.
actually, take half - then it will seem like a good deal and not just a
replacement
the problem is: how do we divide it up and pay it out from so many to
so many?
this problem already has solutions in the music industry;
$3 a month?On 1/30/06, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How much would you pay for an ad free version of a video blog you
really enjoyed?
Bill
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've read the terms.
You know...maybe this isnt such a
No amount of debate from anyone voicing the virtues of making a quick
buck from their online videos is going to change my opinion.
The way I see it, they had the stones to gamble for a year making
content for free - dropped everything and went after rocketboom. It's
not a quick buck. Like you
Not *everyone* wants ads Kunga.
Were you not listening yesterday in the video conference when several
people gave you flack about your gross generalizations?
As with many things, on-line auctions may work well for some and not for
others.
Here's a question for all: will you try this and, if
Andrew and Amanda have thought alot about the auction's short and long
term issues, and I believe they are seeking to strike an ideal balance
between revenue with transparency and sponsorships.
On 1/29/06, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not that I am an A-List vlogger by any means,
Personally, it's not my drive since my videoblogs are for me to muck
with video and have a record of my life.
...but I am glad they did it. It will be interesting to see how it
all pans out.
On 1/29/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not *everyone* wants ads Kunga.
Were you not
I wasn't there.
--
Taylor Barcroft http://www.blogger.com/profile/11159903
New Media Publisher, Editor, Video Journalist, Podcaster, Futurecaster
Santa Cruz CA, Beach of the Silicon Valley
URL http://FutureMedia.org
RSS http://feeds.feedburner.com/FutureMedia
iTunes http://tinyurl.com/8ql87
On
yep.popular tactic on some radio talk shows where the ads are almost entirely transparent from the regular talk show bit.it works well.for video it will be interesting. rboom can command such terms. often, thats not the case.
but i am happy to see andrew and amanda take control of their
it's still a gross generalization - opinion or not
and i think you have no clue what most people understand (nor do I for
that matter)
thanks for speaking for him though :)
Enric wrote:
Taylor is expressing his point of view, I think most people understand
that.
-- Enric
--- In
too bad enric. if someone claims something about *all* of us, I will
free to disagree if I wish.
Enric wrote:
I like you Markus and applaud the things you do to make videoblogging
available to people. However I find your shaming of Taylor disturbing.
-- Enric
--- In
unless everyone is an inference to those who have a relevant interest in advertisingwhich is where maybe assuming can have benefit.ok enough of this hyperbole.cheers-Sull
On 1/29/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
too bad enric. if someone claims something about *all* of
Of course I meant:
IF THEY WANT TO.
Pardon my lack of precision. I doubt anyone here thinks I think
everyone wants ads in their videos. Of course not everyone wants ads.
I didn't think I needed to write that to express my enthusiasm for
Andrew's innovative approach to the problem.
Thank
Kunga,
Try not to take it personally.
I think your comments and enthusiasm are welcome here. Its a big group
and people definitely battle out ideas sometimes. Don't let any one
person get you down.
-josh
On 1/29/06, Kunga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course I meant:
IF THEY WANT TO.
people often disagree in this group taylor, but you generally
characterize any remark from me as an attack.
please chill out. this passive/aggressive bs is old hat by now
and yes, precision in statements often helps
Kunga wrote:
Of course I meant:
IF THEY WANT TO.
Pardon my lack of
41 matches
Mail list logo
