That thing that's differnet, is it's it's communications. Just because I can only speak to one person on the phone does that mean phones suck.
The value is podcasting, and video sharing is communications... it's in staying on touch with people you know. The example I always give is photosharing... People get the value in sharing their photo albums... there's a smooth transition between something millions of people buy a print of and hang on the wall and a photo of a friend, or family. That doesn't mean the picture of your friends or family are actually less valueable... to you, they're more valueable in fact. A picture is worht a thousand words as they say... it can say more in a split second then an entire email. Very valueable and powerful tools of communication. For some reason when it comes to moving pictures we forget this valueable use of video as basic communication. It's all the stick up the but obsession over reaching millions of people, the money... entertainment, hollywood, but screw that crap, it's not everything. In many ways I think video blogging is ironicly fulfilling the dream of video telephony that never was. The future is nothing that you expect, and yet so much more. Does 1:1 video communications in realtime make sense, or does one to many, passive, on your own time video communications make more sense. People keep thinking this is about entertainment and as long as they think that they will never full get it. It's understandable really. After all until just recently you'd have to mail a VHS tape to someone... while we've been sending photos and postcards for the better part of a century. It's a truely new thing the idea of communicating through video. In this new space there is fundamentally no boundry between our everday communications and hugely popular new media... it's a smooth sliding scale. A video of a friend can be just a great insider joke amoung a few friends one day and the very next day be a world wide phenom. You may post thousands of videos in the coming years of you mundane and ordinary life (not monundane and ordninary to you, your friends and family) and then one day capture something that could be of interest to millions like a tsunami, or anything really. That you have that platform when you need it is what's important... not that you get 100,000 daily viewers. It's scallable, it brilliant and it's powerful. Oh, and it's also logical. It's just so completely new people think it's illogical. So... post some new vids. -Mike On 2/6/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry, I don't mean to go on, but there was one other thing that was > quite interesting about the conversation tonight. It's something > I've seen talked about here a lot before, and understood > instinctively, but never really understood rationally or articulated > before. > > At dinner, there was the usual confusion from TV people about "What's > the point?" in reaching a few hundred or thousand people - surely it > was better to be able to reach a few million people like they did > with broadcast TV. And in explaining it - explaining the connection, > the immediacy, I realised how much more satisfied I have been > producing videos - mostly those I made in 2005 rather than the odd > bits I've shoved up in the last few months - which reached a few > hundred or thousand people and which elicited responses and > connections with people - how much more satisfying that has been than > making the films I made that went out on Channel 4 in the UK and were > watched by 2 million people and had good reviews. I realised that, > explained it, and the penny really dropped for me - and more > dramatically for the TV people I was talking to - that making > something that's actively watched by just a few, with human contact > from even fewer who didn't have to contact to you but did - is more > satisfying than making something that's passively viewed by a > thousand times as many anonymous strangers. Not to advertisers, of > course, but to me as a creator. That's something that's ILLOGICAL to > hard core MSM creatives and management, where the advertisers' > commercial goals have over time merged with their own good intentions > and creative goals - a survival necessity. It was unsettling for > them, grappling with the idea of not judging success by audience > numbers. I mean, I didn't really understand this satisfaction > 'illogicality' fully until just now, and I *do* it. At least now I > partly understand why I'm so excited about doing it. Instead of > thinking that maybe I'm crazy. And maybe now I'll let myself put up > more films. Ho hum. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
