And my apologies for missing the 'k' reading too fast. It's a consistent fault.
So, nevermind. I'm sorry. $10,000 would buy hotdogs for me and my whole neighborhood. Well, not really. I don't pay entry fees for contests. Ever. It was the entry fee thing got my ire up. Dang. Hmmm. Another fault: I've no confidence whatsoever in the value of my work. Never have. So, my answer has been to eschew competition. You got me. In so many ways. Jan On 12/16/06, Nox Dineen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jan, I wasn't clear about the winnings. I took the lazy route and wrote > $10k > rather than adding the zeros. The winners in both Naughty and Nice > categories will get $10,000. > > Would it be more appealing if we removed the whole wish granting aspect > and > just made it about who could produce the best/funniest/most amazing video? > > I do also agree that having people pay to submit is probably not the best > revenue model, but it was discussed before I began working with the > company > and much of the team consider it a done deal already. The benefit is that > we're trying to encourage higher quality submissions, and having to shell > out the $5 means a person has to have some confidence that their > submission > stands a chance at winning. > > Thanks for the comments. (And apologies about the laziness typing numbers > and URLs.) > > Nox > > On 12/15/06, Jan / The Faux Press <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<jannie.jan%40gmail.com>> > wrote: > > > > Am not inspired by the concept in the least. > > > > Pay $5 in order to maybe get $10? I don't think so. > > > > Robin Hood works if Met Life is the sponsor. If Met Life is the sponsor, > > then folks don't have to pay to enter. > > > > Glenda the Good Witch would work as wish-granting icon, but she's > > copyrighted. > > > > Year-round-Santa? Perpetual Santa? > > > > Good luck, though, I support the idea of making wishes come true > > wholeeartedly > > > > $10 wishes will be difficult to come by. Hot dogs & sodas for me and two > > friends, please. > > > > Jan > > > > P.S. Were you to type in the whole http address one could just click it > in > > the email. http://www.robinhoodfund.com - like so. > > > > On 12/14/06, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<BillCammack%40alum.mit.edu> > <BillCammack%40alum.mit.edu>> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > > > <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > "Nox Dineen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I recently started working at an Internet startup that is looking to > > > create > > > > a video website based around the concept of people submitting wishes > > in > > > > video format, and then granting the wishes with the most votes on a > > > weekly > > > > or monthly basis. The site is at www.robinhoodfund.com (although > we're > > > > considering moving away from the Robin Hood theme), and quite > frankly > > I > > > hate > > > > it. It's ugly, user hostile and doesn't exactly prompt immediate > > action. > > > > > > I agree that "Robin Hood" is a poor choice for something like this. :D > > The > > > idea is a good one, > > > but "Robin Hood" implies strongarming funds from one person in order > to > > > give them to > > > another person. The question then is "who's getting strongarmed?" and > > "why > > > do they > > > 'deserve' to lose out so someone else can benefit?" > > > > > > Tell whomever thought that up to watch the movie again and pick a > > > different hero. :D > > > > > > -- > > > Bill C. > > > http://ems.blip.tv > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > The Faux Press - better than real > > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > -- > Nox 2.0 (blog) -- http://www.noxdineen.com > Nox TV (vlog) -- http://www.noxdineen.com/vlog/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
