--- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Roxanne Darling" <okekai@> > wrote: > > > > Thanks for stating that Enric. I don't think much of anything is > > inherently evil. Life is about context, and in that sense, anything is > > possible. It is in the specifics that we find ourselves making > > choices. I see so much opportunity for formerly disparate groups of > > people to reinvent business relationships, as I hope was obvious from > > my comments. > > > > R > > > Advertising isn't evil in and of itself. It definitely can be used > for evil or have evil intentions, such as getting the public to desire > to buy a car when tests have indicated that the airbags don't work > properly or the tires are prone to uncommonly high failure rates or > you know the car tips over if you change directions at high speed. > That's choosing your $$$ over "what's right" or over the safety of > people that you don't know and will never meet and will never even > know existed unless they end up as a statistic in the news because of you. > > > On 3/3/07, Enric <enric@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From my response on the blog comments: > > > > > > Since some on here and the videoblogging group have the view that > > > "advertising is evil." I want to state I don't share that philosophy. > > > Advertising is essential in informing on the talent and > capability one > > > wants to exchange with someone else's products of talent. > > Sure. By pure definition, advertising is "business". Making people > aware of something in the hopes of achieving a particular outcome. > Neither evil nor good is automatically attached. > > I think the point was more that advertising has a goal and that goal > has nothing to do with the truth.
And it has nothing to do with not the truth. It depends on the purposes of the advertiser. A Honda, Sierra Club, Fox-Warner, Oxfam, etc. commercial can be truthful or false depending on the commercial makers intentions. > That's why you see all this "dirty > tricks" campaigning during election times. Isn't it 'funny' how the > dirt all comes out near the elections? How is it that this person has > been doing this job for 3 1/2 years and you never found out that he > dodged the draft, but NOW it's all over the media? :) That's > effectively TWO lies. The lie of bringing it up NOW as if it's > "news", and the lie of omission of having not said anything about it > until now. > > Meanwhile, advertising could have the goal of making you aware that > you shouldn't litter or that you should know where your kids are @ > 10pm or announce the availability of battered women's shelters and > services. Or, it could bring something very important to light, > changing the landscape of the American trailer park population > forever........ like the FLOWBEE!!!!! <http://www.flowbee.com/> > > > > It can be > > > missused and my point is that putting ads in the main video stream is > > > mainly a missuse. > > > > > > -- Enric > > > -======- > > > http://www.cirne.com > > > I agree to the degree that at this point, there's no definite context > available for in-line advertising. You get whatever the computer > serves, like google ads. The way around this is to choose the ads > yourself and incorporate them in a way that you feel is palatable for > the viewers that you care about. Wreck & Salvage > <http://wreckandsalvage.com/> would be an example of this. They have > their own process of determining who the sponsor is going to be for > this week and they have their own process of integrating the > information about the advertiser into their show that makes it clearly > a part OF the show instead of something tacked on by someone hoping to > exploit the fact that your eyes are on the computer screen right now. > > Philosophically, "I'm trying to sell you something now" is a departure > from the vibe of whatever the video you made was really trying to say. > The only way it isn't is if your sponsor or advertiser happens to > have an ad that is in sync with what your video was about. It takes > the viewer from being immersed in the show (if they ever were in the > first place) to the mental understanding that you see them watching > your video, and you've chosen to inform them that such-and-such movie > is in the theaters right now. The question becomes "why did he/she > tell me that?", and the answer is "in the hopes that I click on it, in > the hopes that they get paid for it". Now, the viewer's concentrating > on the fact that you just advertised to them instead of whatever the > focus of your video was. Of course, it's even worse if you actually > know what you're doing with video and end it in a way that's intended > to leave the viewer with a certain feeling about what they just > watched, and then this video SLAMS onto the screen and just sits there > going "click me! :D click me! :D". The correlation and coordination of the advertising message to the content message I think is the essential aspect. How much does the advertisement placement and message content compete or complement the video content. -- Enric > > Unfortunately, I think it's even worse to have ads moving and changing > WHILE the video's running. Personally, I don't watch television like > that and I don't want to watch videos on the internet like that > either. There are many other people though that watch television > under similar circumstances. They have their TV next to an open > window where they have cars passing by or neighbors. They have radios > next to the TV with flashing LEDs for the equalizer display. They > have a TV in every room and leave them on to the effect of the sound > from one channel being clearly heard while another is being watched. > If you're used to watching videos with all those distractions, ads on > the page probably won't bother you. For me, it pulls my attention > from what's going on in the video to whatever moved on the ad, causing > me to remember that this person is advertising things to me that I > didn't ask them about and pulling me out of experiencing their video > the way they intended me to. Of course, the lack of context of the > rotated ads make it even worse, since I'm wondering why the hell the > content creator thinks I give a damn that there's a flowbee up for > auction on ebay right now. :/ > > -- > Bill C. > http://ReelSolid.TV > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Roxanne Darling" <okekai@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > You summarized it beautifully Jan. Simple, if not easy. And > easier for > > > > some than others. Beach Walks - as a show - was founded on the > > > > principle of "don't get invested in the results of what you do." It > > > > takes guts on some days, on other days it is utterly > liberating. Your > > > > words are going on my bulletin board. > > > > > > > > When there is true peership among a producer and a sponsor > *and* the > > > > audience, it is in everyone's best interest to tell and hear the > > > > truth. We just don't have many examples of that yet, though > many are > > > > in the works. > > > > > > > > >>> How do we pry ourselves off the dilemma's horns? Hmmm? > > > > > > > > >>> By committing to tell the truth at the risk of losing the > > > > advertising client. > > > > >>> By choosing clients carefully. > > > > > > > > > > > > Rox > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Roxanne Darling > > "o ke kai" means "of the sea" in hawaiian > > 808-384-5554 > > > > http://www.beachwalks.tv > > http://www.barefeetshop.com > > http://www.barefeetstudios.com > > http://www.inthetransition.com > > >
