Gena, Sorry this is a long response. If we keep this up we may have the second book to come from this group! I separated the points with lines to make it easier to read. I promise I'll try to make any future posts shorter!
>>I really understand about having too much to do and no time to do it. I >>read your other post about full disclosure and now have a concern that you >>might get job whacked for "blogging." It has happened. It is >>not just MSM I have distrust for but what companies are currently >>doing to employees that express themselves via blogging. Yeah, maybe I need to do a little more "full disclosure." I am, I think, the only person currently on this list that does not yet blog or vlog. I have mentioned it before. I am lame. I am still in academic mode and trying to find my voice. But soon, soon I shall join you all in the Promised Land of free expression. I was going to dive in the other week, but my work schedule got switched, I didn't (and still don't) know what to call my vlog, I am sort of waiting for Movable Type to release 3.2 (any day now), and, well I suppose there will always be excuses. Anyway, hopefully very soon. That being said, I don't expect I'll blog much about work. Television and media theories, perhaps, but not specifics of my day-to-day job or the people there. That's typically where people go wrong. Although, who knows, maybe someday something blogworthy will happen at work. I guess I'll cross or burn that bridge when I get to it. =========================== >>*Podcasting has cut into bottom lines and ...it is still >>young/increasingly bad financial situation.* >> >>No they kind of did it to themselves by marketing their product to 13 to >>39 year old boys or cheap reality programming. They listened to the bean >>counters and advertisers who told them to target and slice up the >>demographics. Actualy, 18-34-year-old males are the most desired audience, and even though I still fall in that range, I agree the programming choices stink. That's why I don't miss my television. But you are right, they listen to the advertisers and they serve up banal or sensationalized programming to appeal to the widest desired audience (AKA: lowest common denominator). But they are in a business to make money, so while I don't necessarily like it, I do understand it. It is the same with movies, unfortunately. The other part of this as Clint Sharp, myself, and others have stated: They get one program to air at any given time to the entire country. If you tune in at 8pm tonight, any station you go to is going to offer you one choice (unless you go to a Video On Demand station). Think of the possibilities the Internet can open up when they -- and we -- are not restricted to a single-program delivery model. Will they change or just offer more of the same? I don't know. But they might invest more in higher-quality second-tier programs that will bring in sizeable cash even if it is less than what they make off of "I Want To Be A Hilton" because they can effortlessly show both at the same time. When TV and the Internet become joined, however, it'll bring with it a host of new issues for businesses to deal with: Instead of competing in a 500-channel universe, they will be competing against every web page in existence. What will the advertisers do? Pay lower Internet rates instead of high television rates? If they do, then networks will lose money. If TV and Web become the same, there will be no reason for network affiliates anymore. Network shows would be accessible via the network website/stream or from other non-local affiliates (unless they figure out how to restrict it). Likely they'll lose many affiliates and the cashflow from them. If Internet/Web is the same, in theory the whole world could watch a show -- but will US companies want to pay ad rates if the show is seen by a large number of people outside the US? Same for political ads. I am off on a tangent. Sorry. To get back to yourpoint: MSM has gotten rich off of the coveted 18-34-year-old male. But they haven't really understood him. So, they were taken somewhat unaware when research started showing that that demographic is watching less television. They play video games. They use the Internet. Internet usage=less TV. Broadband=even less TV. Broadband saturation is over 50% in the US. Is MSM killing itself by putting such a high focus on men 18-34? Yes and no. As this demo continues to migrate away from TV, networks will have to make adjustments. However, if relevant high-brow content was truly what people wanted, PBS might likely be the richest network. Afterall, unlike traditional networks it gets significant funding *directly* from its viewers. And viewers have sway when it comes to picking shows. If television networks had been the ones who pioneered alternative media distribution methods, they might have controlled it, now they are playing catch-up and they don't fully understand the playing field, in my opinion. ================================ >>* Hatred of carpetbaggers* >>What the carpetbaggers did was take advantage of the devastation of the >>civil war by buying property and businesses on pennies on the dollar. Now >>maybe it had to occur but it was not pleasant by any means to see what was >>built and then marketed & sold by the other. I am not sure this is the best analogy for the situation, but here's a different perspective: What if we are the carpetbaggers? Afterall, mass communication has belonged to businesses for a long time. Now, here we come to seize a part of what has traditionally been part of their domain. During their devastation (loss of audience and money) we pay pennies on the dollar (in comparison) for the tools we use to compete against them. And I am sure it is not pleasant for them to see us and others steal members from the audiences they have taken years to build up. I imagine they are quite upset. So, are carpetbaggers still bad? ================================= >>My contemporary appropriation of the concept is that MSM sees that there >>is this new thing "podcasting". It could be like the Internet or it could >>be like CB Radio. CBS mulls it over, does research, talks to the young >>folks inside of the company, consults with marketing, have more meetings >>and this is what they come up with. >> >>A contest. I guess I do not see why that is a problem. Contests are a great way to get people involved and maintain brand awareness. If your problem is that it seems calculating and not passionate, that -- it has been my experience -- is how much of business is done: how do we increase market share? What are the latest trends, fads, and movements? Once again I'll say: I do not understand why some people criticize MSM for not acknowledging podcasting, blogging, or vlogging, but are ready in an instant to blast them when they do. If I have misread your intentions on this, please correct me. It should be noted that Viacom-owned Infinity Radio is getting heavier into podcasting, also CBS News has a podcast section here: < URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/06/utility/main706903.shtml.com > . Is it great, fantastic stuff? It's not my cup of tea, but I just don't want anyone to think this is their first foray into podcasting. ================================== >>*Most people accept illusion as fact.* >> >>Yep. That explains the past five years in America. Actually, I think that explains a lot of history and human experience. =================================== >>*A media blitz campaign could help change that.* >> >>The blitz would be how CBS/MSM defines the term. I ain't crazy about how >>they currently define text blogging let alone podcasting (I wish it was >>called audio blogging) As Charles HOPE pointed out there is a difference >>between the distribution method and the content of the audio blogging. Microsoft, understandably, doesn't want it to be called podcasting. They suggest blogcasting. I am hoping for a third term to emerge. Audio blogging is a good suggestion, but I am not sure I would associate it with the people who are producing "radio show"-type content. They seem to be casting more than blogging to me, especially the very music-heavy ones and talk show ones. I am not clear on what you mean by the difference between the distribution method and the content. Is that in reference to the name? for example, "I am podcasting my audioblog"? ==================================== >>MSM (not just CBS) have given the impression that video blogging is just a >>bunch of people who are gazing at their navels. That there is no >>"substance," don't worry about it-stick with TV. I honestly don't know of any media references outside of written articles on vlogging. I would suspect it is in television's best interest to downplay this movement as much as possible. I think they will eventually come around a little more, but they probably don't take us too seriously right now. ==================================== >>Now certainly we collectively need to do a better job of helping >>non-bloggers find content. Most folks just use Google and land on the >>first couple of hits. Or it is by word of mouth. I don't want to depend on >>the other to define me or my work. Exactly, I agree 100%. Ro's vlog ring, for instance, seems so simple and yet is a great example of the community working together powerfully -- Jan's press kit, Michael Sullivan's VlogDir, Ryanne and Verdi's Freevlog, Josh and Jay's FireAnt, Matt and Peter's VlogMap, there are of course several examples of places where a non-blogger can find many of us -- the problem is they have to find that first page. We don't have advertising budgets, but we have numbers; we have diversity. Unity will make us stronger than any of us can be alone. ==================================== >>** All based on previous judgments and not based, it seemed, on any facts. >>It was opinion. Negative opinion.* >> >>Yo, David, that what an opinion is, my feelings based on the facts that I >>was presented plus my experience. Sometimes it is negative. Oh well. Gena, I just went and re-read your initial post and I apologize. My mistake. It seemed more like a freeform rant when I read it before for some reason and I wasn't able to folow the thread that seems pretty obvious to me now. Ugh! Sorry. ==================================== >>There is a problem in transmitting sarcasm via the typed word. But if what >>I said discourage anyone from doing this that would be regretful but dumb >>on his or her part. Okay, not dumb, eh an ill-advised action. Yeah, yeah >>that what I meant to say. This is a place of expression and you don't have >>to agree with anything I or anyone else said. >> >>As much as I will not do it there should be others that do sign on to >>tells us what the process is like or that if they feel they want a shot at >>the brass ring. All options in play. Again, my apologies for my misunderstanding. ==================================== >>*Quickly gain a monster-sized audience* >> >>That's just it do we need a monster size audience? Do we have to or want >>a million, 10 million people? >> >>(Hold on some of you cuz I know the answer is yes, oh god yes and >>expletive yeah!) If you are true to your work and craft, you do good work >>and have 10,000 contented subscribers isn't that satisfaction enough? >> >>And anyway who will host the podcast? Will there be a link to their >>original site or blog. Who owns the content? What are the terms of use? >>I'd want to read the 2-point type before I send my stuff. I would second that advice: READ THE FINE PRINT. Remember, alert is good. ==================================== >>*I cited NECN.com* >> >>I'll take a look at it. I don't know about it. Yeah, I know they are asking for submissions, but I do not know if they have actually used -- or received -- anything yet. ==================================== >>*I just do not understand smart people with knee-jerk reactions.* >> >>What if it is a form of PTSD? I see something that is potentially harmful. >>That has harmed me in the past. The initial response is to go into defense >>mode. There are times when I feel assaulted by MSM or traditional news. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder? Sounds like there is more to this story... ===================================== >>A silly example. If you watch MSM there are more blondes here than in >>Sweden. They are pack enhanced ta-ta's, limited waistlines, and an IQ that >>can be measured in fractions. >> >>There is such a rich diversity of women in this or any country. We are >>round and have curves. Some of us pack meat or we are just fat. We are not >>imitation of men's desires. We are full functioning women. Many of us are >>over 30. >> >>Some of us are blond and can string a sentence together without the help >>of a publicist. Most of us are not blond, will not have breast enhancement >>and we are loved by dang good men. Or women. Or have a box of "toys" under >>the bed until the right person comes along. I digress. >> >>There is almost no reflection of that in MSM. There is no "perceived >>profit" in doing so. This is one of the reasons video >>blogging is important. Representation. Creativity. Diversity of hair >>color! I agree wholeheartedly with this. Mainstream media is all about surface presentation. It is fantasy not reality. Trust me, most guys don't see themselves represented on TV or in movies either. MSM men all have smooth, hairless, tanned bodies (except for the perfect hair atop their heads), bright white smiles, square jaws, and six-pack abs. For God's sake, we have an obesity crisis in this country, the only time one might guess that is during health reports where they show those fat, faceless torsos waddling across the screen. And not only are they dumbing down news, they're dumbing down reporters! There are still some talented people out there, but it is sad to see a field once dominated by true journalists overrun by dim-witted but "good-looking" reporters who only went into the business to be on TV. ======================================= So the last thing I wanted to mention was this: There was a recent study about blog usage which is very interesting. Among the findings? "50 million U.S. Internet users visited blog sites in the first quarter of 2005. That is roughly 30% of all U.S. Internet users and 1 in 6 of the total U.S. population" "Blog visitors are 11 percent more likely than the average Internet user to have incomes of $75,000 or more" (Great news for those who want advertisers!) Here's the biggie, the study suggests blogs are -- or are very close to being -- Mainstream Media: "While its difficult to define where the threshold lies for mainstream media, one could argue that with approximately 30 percent of the U.S. Internet audience now visiting blogs, this medium is quickly approaching that status ." Read more at Jeff Jarvis' BuzzMachine: ( URL: http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2005/08/08/measuring-us/ ) -David ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> <font face=arial size=-1><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hvjn3p6/M=362329.6886308.7839368.1510227/D=groups/S=1705554021:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123634495/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992 ">Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!</a>.</font> --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
