--- In [email protected], "schlomo rabinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Exactly, Steve. > > You dont need huge numbers to get funding for your work; you just need to > make work that someone wants to fund! > > Even in college, I was able to get funding for my projects from the local > businesses in my community. They wanted to help me out because I already am > a patron of their establishment. All they got in return was a copy of the > film and a line in the closing credits. > > The whole concept of "I need big numbers to be able to fund my work" just > doesn't stick. CNet Networks gives me a tidy sum to create the shows that I > make (which have no advertising involved), which came about because I > pitched them the shows. I didn't make these shows beforehand and sell them > on my "big numbers". > > Heck, I bet some of these cable shows have lower viewership numbers than > many of the videoblogs on this list, and they are making a living wage. > Maybe its time to jump to cable?:) > > On a somewhat different note: This list seems to be all about the money > these days since Pixelodeon! Was that the major theme of the event or > something? Or is just coincedence? It could just be the cycle of this > list; every once in a while, thoughts of money take over.
hehe, Well, being the person that started this particular thread, I'll say that Pixelodeon had nothing to do with my question. :) I've had several conversations with people, starting way before Pixelodeon, about videoblogging and monetization. Casey herself had told me she would LIKE to quit her job and devote her time to her creative projects, and now she's done that, as she mentioned earlier in the thread. :) The question isn't so much about the money as it is about the feasibility of making videoblogging a viable PROFESSION, similar to editing video for broadcast, corporate or independent clients, for instance. If you say to someone "I'm an editor", they know you provide a service and you get paid for that service. If you say to someone "I'm a videoblogger", they consider it to be a hobby, like being an artist or something else that people do that they don't expect to get paid for. This is why I didn't understand what Jeffrey was talking about when he mentioned AFTRA. I didn't know how someone could become part of a union and demand XYZ minimum payment when nobody's expecting videobloggers to get paid AT.ALL. :) However... Jeffrey had a good point, which is, essentially... If you put on a show that you're going to run on youtube, and you put together a crew to shoot it and light it and record the sound... WHY should those people be paid less for their time and expertise than people working on a corporate video or a television show? It's the same work, even though the final result looks different because of compression for the net. So the question's really in three parts: A) how much would you need to videoblog full-time, B) why would someone pay you what you're asking, & C) WHO is going to pay you that amount? If your forte is QC, who's going to pay you to EP their videoblog... when the people watching that videoblog don't have an eye for quality in the first place? When you can get away with all kinds of glitches and errors in your show, and you still have fans and viewers, QC is an 'unnecessary' expense. Same thing for hiring a shooter. Why pay his professional day rate when the viewers don't know the different between well-shot video and poorly-shot video? Why pay for a sound mix on your videoblog when the average viewer doesn't care that the audio levels are all over the place, and the background noise or music is drowning out the dialogue? :D So... This thread doesn't have anything to do with Pixelodeon, but rather the current state of videoblogging and whether it's going to change or not. If jump cuts and poor editing and poor lighting and poor audio are going to remain tolerable, then there's no call for professional-level work. No professonal-level requirements => No professional-level pay. No professional payment => No quitting your day job. -- Bill C. http://billcammack.com > Schlomo > http://schlomolog.blogspot.com > http://weknowhow.tv > http://winkshow.com > http://hatfactory.net > > On 6/22/07, Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Jay, > > > > That's not true. > > > > I've been spending some time with local filmmakers and they too use a > > sponsorship model. It turns out that people give them money to make > > movies. All they want in return is a credit at the end of the movie. > > > > You can call them sponsors, and one of their motivations is to > > support art. Other times it's a cause and these sponsors want to > > help get the message out. Being attached to a movie project is > > beneficial to them. > > > > Here's an actual example that is working for me right now: http:// > > spicesoflife.com > > > > Legal Sea Foods is sponsoring the video blog , in part because they > > believe in Nina Simonds and the message she wants to spread about > > healthy food and lifestyles. > > > > It works for us and it works for them on many levels. > > > > Spices of Life just got a big write up in the Food section of the > > Boston Globe and Legal Sea Foods was mentioned in the article. Score! > > > > I'm a big fan of connecting videobloggers with sponsors and think > > it's the best way to go if you are trying to videoblog full time, > > unless you have numbers like Ask a Ninja or Rocketboom. > > > > At this point in time we are embedding the sponsorship directly in > > the video so it can travel with the video no matter where the video > > goes. I'm interested in new technologies that will allow me to > > attach the ad to the end of the video, like blip.tv is doing in beta, > > but that will allow the ad to follow the video to other video hosting > > sites. This also brings up the ad policies of Facebook, MySpace and > > YouTube, which is another discussion... > > > > Another thing that I'm doing in parallel with producing for Nina is > > producing videos for clients on a per video cost which can range > > between $300 and $1,500 depending on what I'm producing. > > > > Hope this helps... > > --Steve > > > > On Jun 21, 2007, at 10:28 PM, Jay dedman wrote: > > > > > Until you can prove "Rocketboom" numbers, it just seems like > > > sponsorship/advertising is a dream. > > > > -- > > Steve Garfield > > http://SteveGarfield.com > > > > Watch Spices of Life with Nina Simonds: > > http://spicesoflife.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
