I agree completly Bill, that's why a long time ago, I stopped worrying about someone paying me or advertising on Batman Geek. I mean I get a few hundred downloads, why would any advertiser look at me...
Now would I like to make money, yep, and that is why I make films, and having been doing a few other things to maybe someday make money at filming stuff...making commerical's etc.. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > See, the problem here is that people seem to think that advertisers > are just looking to throw away money. :) > > I seriously don't know why people expect videos about uninteresting > (except to "the audience of ten") topics to EVER be monetized. As far > as I know, there's not an example YET of that happening. If anyone > knows of one, feel free to post and let me know. What *I* see > happening here is MSM picking up people or internet video production > companies that have proven their ability to get, maintain and grow an > audience. Meanwhile, in the other direction, I see production > companies that have been trying their hand at getting into television > starting to make series for the internet to get exposure, make > contacts and hopefully get a buzz started about their company that > will catapult them back into television or Hollywood. > > Like I've been saying for ~ 6 months, without a way to verify and > quantify demographics, you have NOTHING to offer potential > advertisers. NOTHING. Your only hope is to have some kind of niche > program content that will prompt a sponsor to back your play and > support you financially to get your show made. I'm not talking about > some adsense dollars or revenue-sharing from viral videos. People > seem to be WONDERING when the advertisers are going to show up with > their money, and that's going to be AFTER someone can guarantee them > the proper ROI. > > I've seen a lot of talented videobloggers with shows that aren't > sponsored AT.ALL. I think conversations that focus on "When are > videobloggers in general going to be monetized?" are completely > disingenuous. I think a better conversation (and also more useful to > the community) is "How is someone going to figure out how to quantify > demographics similar to what's done already in MSM so that the > talented videobloggers can be properly recognized and sponsored?" > > I mean, look at public access television. You don't have to pay to > have a show on public access..... OTOH, you don't GET PAID either. :) > You do it because you like to do it, and there are rules (at least in > Manhattan, NYC) that prohibit you from advertising, because you're not > paying anything for your broadcast slot in the first place. The > question could be asked "When are they going to monetize public access > shows?" :D Well... Just because someone has a show doesn't mean that > ANYONE feels it's worth advertising on. > > Meanwhile, you have people that have shows like "Max on Boxing" that > do public access for years, and demonstrate their worth and now Max > Kellerman's on ESPN. He was the best and most passionate boxing > commentator on television on his internet show, AND he was doing > CALL-IN shows!!! Not like these guys that sit at a table with papers > in their hands with their lines on them and teleprompters on the > cameras and earpieces in their ears with producers telling them what > to do and say! :D Max Kellerman should have been in MSM way before he > actually was, because he was demonstrating passion, ability, knowledge > and talent on public access that outdid the MSM sportscasters that > were talking about the same fights at the same time.... AND he was > giving his opinions on the fly to people that would call in randomly. > > The same thing's happening here with Amanda and Ask A Ninja and > WallStrip and Hayden's new projects. People are demonstrating ability > on the internet and getting "picked up". It's not like these are > accidents or that they were all lucky. :D People are being selected > for whatever their consistent, proven talents are. There's no > trickle-down. There's no "matter of time". I think that if someone > wants to be supported financially for their videoblog, they need to > take a hard look at what they're doing and honestly ask themselves > "WHY would ANYONE pay me to do this?" > > -- > billcammack > http://reelsolid.tv > > > > --- In [email protected], "Steve Watkins" <steve@> wrote: > > > > I remain skeptical on a number of fronts. > > > > For a start television, at least in the past, was just the perfect > > medium for advertising. Mass audiences, in a state where they are > > likely to absorb the message, have their attention focussed on your > > ad, and where avoiding the advert required at least some effort. > > > > Now this is changing because of PVR's and tv on demand/iptv set- top > > boxes, and of course the internet. > > > > But that doesnt mean that the internet will be as friendly or > > desirable to advertisers. The more it starts to resemble TV, eg mass > > audiences and lots of safe, controlled, professional content, the more > > the existing advertising business with its billions of $ will be > > interested, and will switch over. > > > > Now thats where I assume many of the $ we see on these charts that > > predict future internet ad spend, will come from, if it comes at all. > > And that may happen, but its certainly not the world im interested in. > > Its still msotly the same players, its really TV on the internet and > > it turns out that doesnt actually offer me much more than TV by > > radiowaves, cable, satellite. > > > > I guess I just expect that if most of the viewers & cash go to the > > internet, all the existing producers of TV shows will go to the > > internet, although I suspect that whatever the technology, really huge > > audiences are a thing of the past because there is always so much more > > choice to fragment the audience. > > > > On a wider level I think humans, society & economy have exceeded their > > own limitations when it comes to scale. Many of the different > > challenges that humans face over the coming century will be about > > scale. We've achieved many things that would not be possible if it > > were not for the absurd scale they have been conducted on, largely > > powered by the industrial revolution and its fossil fuels. But it > > doesnt look like its sustainable unless the sci-fi mineral mining > > multi-planet humanity becomes a reality at some point. So maybe the > > solutions are all small, local, primitive compared to todays giddy > > heights, but sustainable and less of a house of cards. > > > > Bug numbers are so cool and sexy right now, maybe there will come a > > time when down becomes the new up, and I wonder if this is where > > future economic realities may meet long-tail concepts. Until then > > theres insane profit to be made by those that can ride the bohemoth, > > so I doubt it will happen till its unavoidable. > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve Elbows > > --- In [email protected], "Frank Sinton" <frank@> wrote: > > > > > > The shift will be faster than people think b/c of the demographics > > of online > > > video (the coveted 18-34 year-old crowd). It is common sense really > > - when > > > was the last time you heard a 20-something year-old talk about a TV > > show? > > > The buzz and chatter is all about online video, social networks, etc.. > > > > > > > > > > > > On a related note, the LonelyGirl announcement today was huge for > indie > > > video producers. I know it is a "hit", but regardless, it signals a > > shift > > > b/c it appears that LG licensed their content to MySpaceTV w/out > > having to > > > sign an exclusive or hand over creative control. Big shift for old > media > > > player Fox (although sometimes the devil is in the details, so it is > > hard to > > > say how good of a deal it actually was). > > > > > > > > > > > > -Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > Frank Sinton > > > > > > CEO > > > > > > frank@ > > > > > > http://mefeedia.com/user/franks/ > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mefeedia.com - Discover, Collect, and Share video blogs > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Behalf Of Chuck > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 10:29 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: the ugly truth about online video > > > > > > > > > > > > This made me recall what Bill Gates said back in January: > > > > > > http://newteevee. > <http://newteevee.com/2007/01/29/gates-tv-is-doomed/> > > > com/2007/01/29/gates-tv-is-doomed/ > > > > > > Ad dollars to video is not going to change from TV overnight, but > there > > > WILL be a change over time and a significant one at that. > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@ <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> > > > yahoogroups.com, "caminofilm" <caminofilm@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > interesting article about predictions for online video advertising > > > > > > > > http://mediabiz. > > > <http://mediabiz.blogs.cnnmoney.com/2007/07/27/the-ugly-truth- about-> > > > blogs.cnnmoney.com/2007/07/27/the-ugly-truth-about- > > > online-video/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > >
