what will help web video is better web video. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Mark Villaseñor < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > Rupert Howe: "And I can't agree with the `It's terrible for the industry!' > people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. > ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general > awareness." > > Hi Rupert: > Just a few thoughts... > > There is a difference between manufacturing controversies, and playing off > organic substance that happens to be controversial. The former has proven > disastrous time and again, in part, because an audience knows when it's > being manipulated -- played cheaply (and consequently react in the > negative, > sooner or later). Moreover, CREATING controversy for the sake of attention > is no less a tactic used by countless street walkers -- and look how well > THEY are respected from an industry standpoint. > > This begs the question: how do we in web media (collectively) wish to have > the public and advertisers perceive our work? As credible and substantive, > offering content unavailable elsewhere? Or as attention whores who will > stoop to depths to attract eyes, with antics better suited for mud > wrestling > and porn wanna-bes rather than garnering profitability? > > 911 jokes... Mother Teresa jabs... (Chris Hardwick:) "I have a finger in my > > ass." "I am so looking forward to mouth herpes." Idiots pull pants down... > And the hits just kept on comin, and coming and coming some more! > > "...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general > awareness." Yet this year's Streamys did none of that, not even close! > > Instead the program showed a stellar way-ta-sustain the stereotype that web > > debauchery knows no bounds; nothing being off-limits. It showed potential > advertisers and sponsors they are right to remain cautious of web-visual > media. The event demonstrate how to alienate potential viewers with real > spending power, for the sake of eye balls that mean diddlie to a balance > sheet. > > The image this latest Streamy conveyed is unsustainable and weak, juvenile > and short-sighted; pathetically misguided and woefully out-of-touch. > Clearly > devoid of seriousness, cutting-edge practicality, forward looking > confidence > or fostering broader mainstream financial patronage. It was an utter joke, > and dragged all of us down with every awkward attempt at being slick -- > rather than aiming for legitimacy! > > "...Good for the profile of web video, not bad." Hmmm, yeah, well you are > certainly entitled to opinion. But considering mainstream media ignored the > > event, and independent web commentary has been widely negative. Your take > isn't supported by the evidence. > > The inescapable truth is that the 2010 Streamys were total amateur night -- > > technical glitches notwithstanding. Now if the production's intent was to > show industry immaturity, and a complete disregard for the BUSINESS side of > > the web video business? Then your perspective has a foothold, but not > otherwise. > > Bottom-line, disrespect the audience and we'll get disrespected! That is; > all the way to the bank where our accounts languish, because we're too cool > > to collectively admit error and do better. > > Best Regards, > Mark Villaseñor, > http://www.TailTrex.tv > Canine Adventures For Charity - sm > http://www.SOAR508.org > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
