--- In [email protected], Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, unions and rates are all important - but in my opinion it's no > longer as cut and dried as a simple assessement of whether you're > undercutting the rate. > > Like it or not, the new prosumer camera and editing kit has massively > changed the cost of production. I provide video services to small > companies and organisations who otherwise would not be making video > because they can't afford it. I make films for whatever they can > afford, as long as its worthwhile for me. I undercut larger > corporate production companies and don't stick to union rates, even > though my standard hourly rate is higher than union.
As far as Jeffrey's point, I think this is the bottom line. You're not undercutting ANYONE if the groups you're working for wouldn't be able to pay rate in the first place. If they can't pay, the union companies aren't going to do the video, and that's that. NOBODY gets paid. :) It would be totally different if you were going to companies that were about to hire union workers and offering them a better deal. My point in all this is that as far as I've seen in the little-over-a-year that I've been involved with videoblogging, I haven't seen anything that even comes CLOSE to a situation where more than a VERY VERY select few videobloggers can "command" any particular level of payment AT ALL. :D That's why I thought Jeffrey was talking about television when he mentioned AFTRA, because people are videoblogging essentially for free, depending on revenue sharing IF someone watches their video all the way to the post-roll ad and IF they click on that ad. It's more a gamble or like the lottery than an actual business. Then, you have groups that are sponsored by someone to do their show. It's not an attempt to pay them some kind of union wage for their efforts, but more a show of support and appreciation for their work. Other than Casey ;) nobody's quitting their day job to videoblog. If someone... ANYONE is getting some kind of union wage to do their videoblog, please raise your hand so I can go to your site and see what it is that you're doing that got people to pay you! :D Bill C. http://BillCammack.com > If they can't afford it and it's worth my while or I want to make it > happen for whatever reason, I'll take less money. And you know, > sometimes I just do people favors. > > On the other hand, if it's a larger company or charity who I think > can afford it or who need higher production values, I'll give them a > full bill at a full or higher rate. I'll get as much money as I can > get away with. > > I also perform several roles - director, camera, editor, producer, > lighting, sound, continuity, writer, etc etc. This is the kind of > thing that the unions in the UK fought very hard against. They had > very fixed descriptions of who should be hired, and minute > descriptions of permitted activities for each role. So at one > level, I'm doing lots of people out of a job. And sometimes I'm even > undercutting a single cameraman's daily rate, even though I'm > performing that role and four others. > > But when I'm doing that, I'm creating videos that wouldn't be being > created otherwise because the people who are paying for them couldn't > afford to pay full rates for one person, let alone more. > > Or because what's required for the job - something rough and ready on > a small DV camera that's then bunged up on the internet - is not > something they would want to throw money at. The levels of > production values that are required dictate a lot of what people are > willing to pay. > > This is what someone else was referring to. If I was a small > business who wanted a rough & ready videoblog shot by a skilled > amateur, I'd pay someone with that skillset at a lower rate than what > I'd pay a trained & experienced TV cameraman who's overqualified for > what I want. It's not reasonable to pretend that these skills and > jobs are the same thing just because both people are holding a video > camera. > > So in principle I agree with you - stealing someone else's job by > taking less than the standard union rate is unacceptable - but there > are times when you can undercut the rate without taking anyone's job. > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ > > > On 21 Jun 2007, at 08:16, Jeffrey Taylor wrote: > > The rate card that I linked to was not for television work. The rate > card > was for "interactive" work, i.e. work done on non-television and radio > platforms, done by AFTRA members. > > I'm all for free user-generated content. What I am not for is these > content > creators undercutting others when they enter paid agreements with other > entities. > > On 21/06/07, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected] <videoblogging% > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Jeffrey Taylor" > > <thejeffreytaylor@> wrote: > > > > > > Just out of interest, here's AFTRA's (American Federation of > > Television and > > > Radio Artists) interactive rate card: > > > > > > http://aftra.com/member/interactive_rates.html > > > > > > I am of the opinion that every time a videoblogger charges less > than the > > > rate card, they screw things up for people in AFTRA. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Jeffrey > > > > Interesting. However... Charge WHOM? :) > > > > I guess it just seems "backwards" when I compare videoblogging to > > television work. In television, a production company wants a show > > made, so they hire people to work on that show. In videoblogging, the > > videobloggER wants the show made and (for those who want to monetize > > their podcasts) wants someone to pay them to do it. > > > > It seems like in the television senario, people get paid for services > > rendered and bringing their specific expertise to the table, and in > > the videoblogging scenario, it would be doing someone a favor to > > 'give' them money for what they're doing. It's like how you see those > > notices that some show was funded by a grant from whatever foundation > > and the generous support of "viewers like you". :D Without > > philanthropy, lots of videos would never see the light of day. > > > > -- > > Bill C. > > http://billcammack.com > > > > > On 20/06/07, Gökçen Karan <gokcen.karan@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi everyone; I'm start working last month on www.pikniktube.com > > and now > > > > I'm earn my life from video business and video project manager. > > > > This reason I think I'm like a full time videoblogger :-) > Because I > > > > think it's my carrier. I'm old software developer and project > manager. > > > > I was doit many big portal project last 10 years but last year I > > change > > > > my carrier road to video business and beginning to video blog ( > > > > http://www.gokcenkaran.com ) > > > > Now I get results for my works :-) Oh I earn 40K between 60K. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > *Regards;* > > > > > > > > *Gokcen Karan > > > > > > > > PiknikTube > > > > * www.pikniktube.com <http://www.pikniktube.com> > > > > > > > > *Internet > > > > *E-mail gokcen.karan@ <gokcen.karan%40gmail.com> <mailto: > > > > gokcen.karan@ <gokcen.karan%40gmail.com>> > > > > Skype gokcenkaran <callto://gokcenkaran/> > > > > Google Talk gokcen.karan@ <gokcen.karan%40gmail.com> <mailto: > > > > gokcen.karan@ <gokcen.karan%40gmail.com>> > > > > MSN gokcen.karan@ <gokcen.karan%40gmail.com> <mailto: > > > > gokcen.karan@ <gokcen.karan%40gmail.com>> > > > > Vlog www.gokcenkaran.com <http://www.gokcenkaran.com> > > > > Work www.pikniktube.com <http://www.pikniktube.com> > > > > > > > > *Phone > > > > *Work : +90 212 246 32 28 > > > > Mobile: +90 506 418 41 36 > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > "Who's John Galt?" > > > > > > > > tim@ <tim%40frenchmaidtv.com> yazm?s,: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I was in my early twenties and could do all the things I > do now > > > > > plus edit and do HTML I could live off of what I make with > French > > > > > Maid TV but I'm not and I don't so I'm still producing for > cable TV > > > > > networks. > > > > > > > > > > That said, if I can land more sponsorships on a regular > basis I will > > > > > be doing French Maid TV full time. And if I can get the > French Maids > > > > > working for me full time I will then launch new story based > online > > > > > shows. But until I get the "spectacle" working I'm not going to > > > > > venture into "story" without funding from another source. > > > > > > > > > > Fortunately my agents at UTA are working hard to make all this > > happen. > > > > > > > > > > Now if I just don't screw it up everything should be fine. > > > > > > > > > > You know every time I say or write, "My agents" I get a really > > stupid > > > > > smile on my face. > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Bill Cammack wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah Tim, I hear that. Cost of living is a beyotch! :D > > > > > > > > > > > > So what do you think is the feasibility of something like > that? > > > > > > Triple-digit earnings from videoblogging? > > > > > > > > > > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED]<videoblogging% > 40yahoogroups.com> > > <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, "tim@" <tim@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on where I lived. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I lived in Florida, Texas or Arkansas in my own > double wide > > > > > > > trailer with high speed internet connection. Maybe $60K > - $90K > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, London or Hawaii > > with my > > > > > > own > > > > > > > Digital Video Studio - maybe $175K - $250K > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim Street > > > > > > > Creator/Executive Producer > > > > > > > French Maid TV > > > > > > > The Viral Video of "How To's" by French Maids > > > > > > > http://frenchmaidtv.com <http://frenchmaidtv.com> > > > > > > > 818-288-2724 c > > > > > > > Subscribe for FREE on > > > > > > > <ahref="http://www.frenchmaidtv.com/itunes > > > > > <http://www.frenchmaidtv.com/itunes>" > > > > > > target="_blank">iTunes</a> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Bill Cammack wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you were entertaining offers to videoblog as your > full-time > > > > > > job, > > > > > > > > how much money would that take you to make the leap? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Bill C. > > > > > > > > http://billcammack.com <http://billcammack.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] >
