oh my mistake, I would add a creative comment that you would probably take credit for but I don't want to encourage further public spectacle.
On 12/14/06, andrew michael baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Apparently, not having your own ideas runs in the family. ;) > > > On Dec 14, 2006, at 4:54 PM, Andrew Congdon wrote: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes > > > > On 12/14/06, andrew michael baron <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]<andrew%40rocketboom.com>> > wrote: > > > > > > On the topic of ABC's videoblog, I'm going to set aside all of the > > > technical problems everyone has already mentioned with the video > > > distribution and the ABC platform - the fact that there are no RSS > > > feeds, the comments are pre-approved and filtered (even when not > > > offensive), the video scrolls have been turned off, one is forced to > > > view long, irrelevant pre-roll ads that outlast many people's > > > curiosity and especially the closed platform with no mobile or local > > > potential. > > > > > > In otherwords, the only difference between this video platform and > > > one from say, 1997, is that for this one, at least the video does > > > come on and plays. > > > > > > Maybe they can hire someone who knows a thing or two about it. > > > > > > I'm going to suggest that the greatest failure of this project > > > however has to do with the severely expensive resources that are > > > being used for a product that can be much more valuable for a mere > > > fraction of the effort and costs. > > > > > > My question is, how much money did it take to produce this? > > > > > > Also, if all of the effort only goes into a once-a-week show, how > > > effective and interested are the people behind the show to take so > > > much time and money to do so little? > > > > > > For instance, we know they are probably paying Amanda a professional > > > salary. They are also paying two senior level producers for this. > > > Then there is at least one editor, a camera person (unless one of > > the > > > producers is a cameraman), lighting tech, audio guy, all with > > premium > > > 'ABC' salaries. I am just speculating, perhaps I have missed some. > > > > > > In addition to that, the entity ABC needs to make revenue (beside > > the > > > people), yet they also have at least one rep that works with Amanda > > > besides the producers and other production staff. Surely they have > > > someone who works on the website if not a section of a team. > > Amanda's > > > agent needs a professional share. Amanda's manager too. They > > > obviously have a very aggressive PR team too (which they will > > > definitely need to drive people to the show). Lets not forget the > > > advertisers! They are the ones supporting this and because so many > > > people need to get paid such high salaries, the advertisers need to > > > get paid most of the real-estate of the website. In many ways, this > > > scenario is typical of one where the advertisers are way more > > > important than the show itself. The show is just a tool for ad sales > > > in the end, after all. > > > > > > The point I want to make is, there are probably WAY too many people > > > needed to pull off this one 5 minute production exclusively for a > > > small flash file on one website. > > > > > > A company like ABC should perhaps use their expensive resources to > > > produce content that needs expensive resources. Was there special > > > access gained? Was there need for expensive equipment? Travel > > > expenses? 3 producers? > > > > > > No, there was no sign of any need for any of the above that I > > could see. > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
