what up, new media?
Podcast Video [6:54m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (1116) Bigger (640x480) [6:54m]: Download (826)I now present an opportunity for an organic conversation. I’m sure it will get me into trouble, and I’m very sure I haven’t expressed myself to the best of my ability. But if I wait to do it right or perfectly, it’ll never happen. And while this video is mostly saying what I don’t like right now, I do believe in “be the change you want to see in the world.” So I’m going to find a way to put my vlog where my mouth is, and launch a new project early in 2008.
Comments and video responses welcome. Talk to me.
Keep it in context, too. Check out the sites I mentioned:
December 21st, 2007 at 9:43 pm
I think you nail it. And thats an issue that we seriously need to consider. I’ve been thinking about this a lot because, as you may know, I am at the end of my contract with Podtech. As are a lot of other people. And I think that there are some excellent ways to make money from internet video and going balls out commercial is just one way to do it. Thats what Steve and Zadi have done, GREAT! no big deal, the only thing I have a problem with what they are doing is that there is no clear delination between content and advertisement, basically. Thats obvious, and we know it’s intentional. But what do you expect? They’re doing a commercial show thats what you expect from that right? The problem as I see it is that some people seem to think that’s the only business model here. And it’s really not. And I thnk that we can look to some of more mature visual arts communities–painters, filmmakers, writers etc for examples of how to sustain creative, inovative work without completely selling out.
And I’d just like to say for the record that I’m not necesarilly against pure commercial content at all. I just think it’s important that it doesn’t end up being the only way to make a living doing creative video.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I tracked this from jay’s twitter I believe.
That is overkill?
I respect you entirely, even though I don’t know you. I mean no offense, nor is this criticism, but rather discussion that I’m led to believe you’re interested in. Perhaps writing a script is overkill? It was clear that something was read in the making of this video. Maybe it’s my distaste for any type of verbatim prepared speech, but I think that this is superfluous. I may have been able to follow better if I was given the text, and could visit your examples during the reading of said text. Some people perhaps are good actors, and can pull off a prepared script for a speech. However, if this video, since you appear to have been reading, it was hard to hear _you_. Instead, what I heard was someone reading text.
Also, I think there are many different types of online video. Some (http://iamdooser.blogspot.com/2007/02/chuck-palahniuk.html) more worth the time of day than others (http://iamdooser.blogspot.com/2005/07/bug.html). Perhaps the plea “please just post things” (sorry, not verbatim) is a premature conclusion.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:16 pm
@Dooser - yes, I was reading something pre-written, but only to keep myself from rambling. I was trying to say only what I needed to and not digress so that this could be a 7 minute video rather than a 20 minute video. And I stand by my plea to Vu to “just post things” because he stated an intent to post on a daily basis, and his editing standards have prevented him posting anything at all for weeks. Would you rather have rough content, or NO content?
December 21st, 2007 at 10:38 pm
I left a long and rambling comment on Facebook see it here http://tinyurl.com/28n2rv
December 21st, 2007 at 11:10 pm
The reason you don’t trust Epic-Fu is because you are not the target audience.
The reason why Vu doesn’t post daily is because he’s not getting paid to do it.
Honestly, you can’t rag on one person for getting paid and then complain about lack of posts from someone who isn’t.
I don’t know if you noticed, but iTunes isn’t new media. It’s just old media repackaged. Mahalo Daily fits right in with John Mayer and episodes of Gossip Girl.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:30 pm
@Laura, You are correct - I am not EpicFU’s target audience - though, you personally don’t know me, and have no way of judging that, you’re just assuming it.
Respectfully, Vu is the one who announced his intent to post daily. I’m just reminding him.
Also, I’m definitely not “ragging” on Steve and Zadi for getting paid. I’m proud of them, or did you miss that part?
Thanks for your input.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Just wanted to chime in at this point and let everyone know that Zadi and I will respond to all the accusations of dishonesty that are being tossed around on Twitter and Facebook as a result of this video and response videos.
I can say that aside from the sponsors that we have called out by name in our episodes — always acknowledging them clearly as sponsors — we have NEVER once been paid or otherwise compensated for any shred of editorial content in the 90 episodes of the show we have created. This includes any clothes Zadi has worn or anything that appeared in the show either incidentally or otherwise.
Zadi and I have been more concerned about the way we present sponsors to our audience than any of you can possibly know. We think this is an important discussion and we will weigh in with our two cents.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Steve, if thats the case then great! Awesome! but I guess the problem is, then, why does that segment LOOK like product placement, or an ad? I think it had something to do with the fact that it was about a particular game and how to accessorize it. Now obviously I could be wrong about it, but my infomercial radar went off big time when I saw that. So maybe there’s something about the presentation that makes that happen? I dunno. I was sorta thinking that it was just me until Cheryl said something about it. So I dunno. Maybe I’m wrong, I hope so. Anyway wrong or not, this could be a good conversation, so please don’t take it personally. Just making honest observations here, as wrong as they may be.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 am
Steve, I didn’t think and don’t think you are being dishonest, If you got that from my video on facebook, I apoligize…I think what you guys do is great, I think you show things you like, I think the reason why some see a blurring of the lines is that what we have been conditioned to think. We know that “old media” resorts to product placement, we know that there are bloggers, vloggers, etc out on the web we ARE being misleading….but really what it comes down to is knowing the people behind the camera so to speak, because once you know a person, trust builds…..
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:09 am
What’s super-interesting to me is that even though I consider myself reasonably media & advertisement-savvy it never occurred to me that any particular toy/thing/article of clothing/whathaveyou on Epic-Fu was actually a product placement or an non-transparent ad of some kind. I didn’t realize WHY it hadn’t occurred to me until I watched this and then followed up with Heath’s video.
It’s not because I know that Steve and Zadi are super-aware of these issues, although I know very well that they are, it’s because of what Heath said about media and brands and being so saturated with product placements and branded commodities every time I flip a page, click on a link, turn on the radio, ride the subway, walk down the street or watch a film that it doesn’t even register anymore. It used to. It used to make me roll my eyes and grumble. Now it’s in my bloodstream.
Effin’ creepy.
I guess my question regarding transparency is this: how transparent can one really be? Aside from running disclaimer for every single frame of “this isn’t an ad for the thingy; I just like this stuff” footage, what’s a person to do?
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:18 am
Like Steve, we’ll be addressing all the accusations of dishonesty shortly.
In the meantime I will state that we have NEVER - NEVER had product placement in our show and have ALWAYS - ALWAYS announced when we’ve had a sponsor. To date, out of the 90 episodes we’ve produced we’ve had a total of 2.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:54 am
It’s unfortunate you’ve put us in a position where we have to defend ourselves. Definitely not my favorite way to start a discussion.
Just to reiterate what Steve and Zadi said… we have NEVER put hidden ads or product placements on EPIC-FU. I can’t speak for S&Z, but the accusation is personally offensive and now that you know the truth, I hope you update your post accordingly.
It’s unfortunate you didn’t enjoy the Rock Band segment. You may think the game is “useless” but I enjoy it very much and I will continue to recommend it to my friends.
I also wanted to point out that you condemn Vu for not living up to his standards, yet you expect everyone else to live up to yours. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:37 am
@Steve Woolf,/Zadi/Rick - This is exactly why I contacted Steve and Zadi before making this post. Because I wanted you to be able to stay abreast of any response. And I want to be 100% clear here, if you believe I am saying Steve and Zadi are dishonest, I am NOT. Emphatically not. I don’t believe thatt at all, and if you actually watched this post, you don’t see me say that anywhere.
What I tried to say, maybe not successfully, is that I can’t tell for sure by watching EpicFU or looking at the site info whether some of the content is advertising. I was looking for a page on the EpicFU that said exactly what Steve’s comment here said, and I didn’t find it. So I’m really glad I posted this because Steve answered and now I know, and now when I watch EpicFU, the “infomercial radar” Bill Streeter mentioned won’t go off in my head.
Actually I agonized about even making this post. I’ve been thinking about these issues for awhile but did not want to say even the tiniest negative thing about EpicFU. I watched that episode on the 11th, and actually didn’t sleep well because I was thinking about what I could say and how I could say it so as not to hurt Steve or Zadi in any way but still get this off my chest. Then I talked about it with a few people privately, then I emailed Steve & Zadi, read their reply, wrote them back, did not get a second reply,and then I thought about it a lot more. I finally got to where I realized what bugged me was just that I can’t always tell what is an ad or a product placement, and worked out a way to say that here on my site. And as I said here, EpicFU was not the only thing on my mind. I have about 4 more examples of things that are bothering me in new media today - but didn’t want to make this post 20 minutes long.
Again, I just want to reiterate that I totally 100% support Steve and Zadi. I think they are leading the way in many respects. I meant it when I said they are my heroes. They are. My video says this. I don’t know how I can say it any more clearly, yet none of the Smashface team seems to acknowledge that I’ve said it.
I may not be a good audience member for EpicFU. I’m not interested in many of the Mix discussion topics. I watch EpicFU anyway, because I think Steve, Zadi, Rick and Eric are amazing people and I always want to see what they’re going to do next. I find myself disappointed sometimes, and keep feeling like I’m the only one, so I decided to say something publicly to see if that’s true, and see if a good discussion would get started. It may be that I miss some subtleties of EpicFU because I’m not on Mix very much, or because it goes by too fast. I get frustrated when I have to pause and try to rewind back and find the 8 or 9 frames that some words were on so I can see what they said. I’m getting old, remember! I admit it!
I hope you truly understand that I have nothing but love & respect for the Smashface team. I may not always love the end product, but I do always love Steve & Zadi - who they are, what they stand for, how they choose to walk their path.
I tried to post this before going to sleep but our internet access took a dive. Since then, Zadi’s and then Rick’s comments have popped up, and reiterate Steve’s word “dishonesty” - which needs to be clarified. Steve’s comment clearly indicates his understanding that the word “dishonesty” with relation to this topic popped up on Twitter and Facebook in response to this post. I know who used the word, and it wasn’t me. And I haven’t used it here. If I have not made it clear in my video (which I thought I did), or already clear in this comment, I have not now or ever said I thought EpicFU, or any of its producers personally, was dishonest. I said I can’t tell what’s an ad and what’s not. Steve clarified that issue here so now I know, but I had no way of knowing before that, and I think that’s a totally valid thing for me to say. I didn’t say anything as an accusation, Rick, I’m asking questions here. If you took anything as an accusation, I think you took it wrong. I’m certainly sorry if it came off that way, but know that was not my intention.
I can’t wait to see response from Steve & Zadi, just like I can’t wait to see video from Vu.
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:38 am
Hey Cheryl, I think your conversation-starter worked.
Big props to Steve & Zadi for being transparent about your sponsors, and for having sponsors at all. Like MissB said - it never even occurred to me that the Rock Band segment *might* be product placement. I say this knowing very specifically of people that would love to to product placement in your show. Product placement will be a sought-after way for advertisers and content-makers to work together and we do NEED to talk about this.
I’m dying to get Rock Band btw, and never thought about the extra $ you’d have to spend to really pimp it out. I thought Rick’s piece was good and fun - guess that means I’m the target audience.
About Vu, and maybe your larger point - yes, let’s keep making personal videos that don’t have to be slick, don’t have to get sponsored. I understand that you’re just trying to encourage more of that, and that’s a Good Thing.
I’m now at a point, hopefully, where getting paid to make videos for the web is how I make my living. I make personal videos when I can and it’s expectation-free fun. Steve & Zadi are walking perhaps the hardest path - doing what they love, being respectful to their community (”keepin’ it real!”) and trying to make money from that same activity.
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:49 am
I believe Zadi and crew are building the business model for online video. Soon enough, you will be able to click on anything she is wearing, holding, talking about and buy it. The nature of advertising has to change in order to make online video profitable.
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:59 am
Yes! I am thrilled that EpicFU has sponsors and gets paid. I think Chuck’s right when he says they’re walking the hardest path, and out of all new media producers out there, I think they get it right, consistently.
I forget no one has any reason to know this about me, but I’m constantly concerned with media literacy, so I tend to over analyze the messages being put out. It does occur to me to question sources pretty regularly.
I didn’t think the RockBand segment was a product placement, or necessarily an ad. I did think it encouraged consumerism, though, by making it look fun and by Eric saying how awesome it is. I had to rewind to check what it was, a review, I thought. Then I realized the words “Tips and Tricks” appear at the start and end of the segment. For 15 frames at the start, and 9 frames at the end. At least for me, that went by too fast for me to read with everything else that’s happening on screen. I had to rewind and pause to figure out if I was seeing a review, or what.
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 am
Good Conversation Cheryl. We’ve talked about this before, and I really see what you are talking about. It’s a very very sticky subject. If one talks about how to deal with ads and then references specific sites, then one runs the possibility of making people upset. I have noticed that nobody from Mahola Daily has made any comments.
So I guess I’ll stop beating around the bush and say what I think. I think commercialism is America’s religion, and as such it’s hard to NOT do it. I know I am always seeing ads where there aren’t ads - mostly because lots and lots of times there are ads. For Zeus sake, people actually buy tee shirts that have the names of the clothing company on them - and wear these shirts because they think that the ads on the front look good. Amazing but true.
As for posting and doing it in a way that is regular and looks good. It’s a real issue - it takes time - lots of time to edit something and have it look good. I figure if I’m producing something, it’s going to take from 1 to 3 hrs to edit a minute or so. Lots of times when I just want to post something, I still end up spending an hour posting something that I don’t even consider produced. So an hour or more - sometimes lots more, and for something that I just feel like posting.
I love what Rupert does - just grabs stuff from his phone, and emails to blink. Maybe that’s the answer. Having been a producer for over 30 years I know it’s really hard to just “be free” - it really is - but it’s also pretty fun, and I’m getting into it. I’m going to see if I can post a little video comment in response to this. Cheryl, is there a setup place to do that here, or should I just put it on my blog and link to it?
Thanks again,
More later,
Milt
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:00 am
It is unfortunent that Cheryl’s whole video is just being defined by one part. I watched Cheryl’s video a couple of times now, and I really thought she asked and wondered some good points. Questions are ok, she didn’t accuse anyone of anything…she didn’t, she wondered, she asked, she was being passionate. These are all good things….please don’t let the emotion of some things that were said in comments, (and most of those were pretty innocent) cloud the conversation.
It’s good to question, we need to do that because we need to look at things from many angles.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:05 am
I didn’t see any accusations of dishonesty here, only observations about how muddy the waters are and the need for more clarity.
Really want to say more, and have been tryin to formulate a reasonable response post that isn’t a novel, but it will have to wait til the day’s work is finished. I will say I hope this discussion doesn’t become a discussion about just the Epic Fu component - there is so much more here, and much of it isn’t part of the Epic Fu aspect of the post and the responses.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 am
Hey there!
I just wanted to point out that Mahalo Daily was listed as one of the “Best NEW Podcasts of 2007.” We were extremely proud that iTunes recognized our hard work in the past two months, and saw fit to include us on their list. Maybe next year we’ll make the general list!
I have to respectfully disagree with your comments that our show is bland… I’m not sure how many episodes you’ve watched, but “bland” definitely isn’t the word I would use to describe them! Then again, I’m obviously biased. We’re very lucky to have a small team of editors that can make such high-quality graphics for our show… not for every episode, of course, but we like to pretty things up once in a while!
We’re all just trying to find our way in this crazy Internet video world — people like Zadi, Steve and Vu are definitely inspirations to me. Sometimes life gets in the way of posting, like in Vu’s case, but to reiterate the comments made above, Zadi and Steve are nothing but transparent. We all have to be on our toes about advertising and product placement (as an aside, Mahalo Daily has no sponsors thus far) but I think Epic Fu’s character speaks for itself. They’ll let us know if they’re hawking something! And as someone who has a very random show myself, I know how hard it is to keep a message or idea clear (i.e. commercialism). You can buy things, but still be anti-excess! Plus, it’s not like SHE told you to go buy tons of accessories and then swapped her position (yes, I know, a minor and silly point).
Thanks for your comments, and for checking out the show! Happy holidays.
P.S. You gotta try Rock Band, it frickin’ rules.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:28 am
@Veronica - my bad. I did not catch the “New” part of the iTunes listing. I had a hard time navigating to their listings when all the buzz came out. So big whoops there - I am sorry for my misinterpretation!
So far, every episode of Mahalo Daily I have seen I have found a bit lackluster, but I have to admit I have only watched about 7 episodes. Because I am a fan of YOU, I keep checking in. I keep hoping I will go, “AWESOME!” But so far I am not feeling it, so I don’t go back every day. I feel like you are an incredible talent and MD isn’t taking full advantage of you. The episodes I’ve seen look like an imitation of television - and the type of television I generally don’t care for.
But because I am a fan of you, I will keep checking MD every week or two. And the day that I honestly go “AWESOME!” I am going to trumpet it from the highest tower. Well, actually, I’ll leave a comment and make a video and put it here. We don’t have towers here in Phoenix.
I won’t be trying out Rock Band unless I get invited to one of the Rey brothers’ parties, because I can’t vote for that particular product with my dollar. After this post, it looks like I’m persona non grata to Rick, so I guess I won’t get to try it out!
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:01 am
I just want to clarify my position. I was the one that used or alluded to the term “dishonest” and that was careless on my part. I shouldn’t have used that term. Transparent is a better term to use here. I didn’t mean to accuse Steve and Zadi of being dishonest, I really think a lot of them and feel bad for my poor choice of words, I’m sorry.
Also the only reason I even chimed in on this is because I like and respect them, and because I consider them friends, I care about what they do. So please just read my comments as a good faith critique from a friend, not as a personal attack. Because I meant it as an honest comment.
And seriously if I ever do something that is wrong or someone takes the wrong way or misinterprets, I expect to get called out on it too. Please call me out on it.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:28 am
This discussion is by no means unfortunate. What’s unfortunate is that art of human frailty is our inherent addiction to drama, which has turned a civil piece asking videobloggers to check themselves as we pave new ways into an accusation of dishonesty did not exist.
On the micro side of things: While a “traditional” financial sponsorship may not be part of what leads Epic-Fu to wear or feature someone or something, free stuff is a form of sponsorship may be something that does. I hope Zadi and Steve, who I also totally dig and get full respect from me, do ensure that they cover this angle in their response. It’s an tough line to walk, but I am of the belief that full disclosure should include mentions of who gives whom products and brands discussed for free.
The Vu example is a great reminder to all of us of that WE create the values for new media. As these kinds of projects become commercially viable, the job of explaining these values to the suits gets more and more difficult. The suits want to feel safe and that they will get return-on-investment in ways with which they are familiar. Not having handy case studies makes suits nervous, so perhaps it would benefit all of us who want to make a commercial go of things by creating a central case study resource that embodies the values of new media (content over polish, dialogue with audience, etc.). I will be happy to forward this project if there is any interest.
As for Mahalo Daily, I am glad that Veronica came in to clarify. However, I must agree with the quality issue and can’t help but wonder if there was some influence-peddling that affected the decision on the part of the nice folks at iTunes. We all know who Mahalo is connected to, and I rarely (if ever) see Calacanis deliver messages in a straightforward, organic manner. There’s always something slick and up his sleeve, and I leave encounters with his media feeling a bit hustled and manipulated in the old fashioned way. I can go into this in more detail if needed, but I’d rather just say that I have the utmost respect for Veronica for bravely taking this on.
And the “you’re not in the target audience” canard (and in some contexts, it’s used as a backdoor insult) is rather disrespectful form of laziness, acting as a poor excuse for dealing with Cheryl’s painstakingly respectful content with reason instead of lines. Lack of full disclosure has nothing to do with my demographic place in this world and its influence on my taste. Values are values, regardless of content.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:48 am
Wow, looks like I’m a little late to the party here. I feel as though the issues regarding Epic Fu and Mahalo Daily have been properly addressed here… looks like there was a lot of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misguided statements. So much mis. I think Epic FU is one of the most amazing things to come out of this whole new media deal… and I have to say that I haven’t shared the sentiments of some who are saying that there is some sort of blur between what they are paid for and what they are doing on their own. I may know Steve and Zadi but I don’t know the behind the scenes of how they do their show… however I never even wondered what parts of their videos were ads and what parts were just them entertaining us all and sharing things they liked. I always thought that was pretty clear.
As for Vu Goes Vegan and my refusal to “just post stuff”… please don’t get me wrong. I don’t, even at my best, have some super high standards or editing my personal videos or the Vu Goes Vegan videos. If you look at the very few that did get posted, they aren’t done in any way amazing, but I did my best to make sure they weren’t boring for any long stretch of time, by my opinion. My standards have little to do with the editing and effects and production value and everything to do with the content. If I myself am not entertained by it, I will not put it out there for others to see.
So… my problem right now isn’t a lack of being able to do some super fancy editing… it’s just having the time to edit at all. I am not willing to post 10 minute videos because I don’t have the time to trim them down… and I have SO much footage now, because I do still record on a regular basis, that it’s daunting to just think about. I have still maintained a strict vegan diet… and I am still recording everything… well everything interesting… so I am “technically” maintaining my 2 stated goals… unfortunately work has gotten in the way right now. If it comes down to choosing between a project I’m getting paid for vs. a project I’m putting out for ME… I have to choose the one that has someone actually investing something in, and expecting something in return.
I would love to post to VGV daily… I really would. I obviously over-committed to the project… but this is how it goes. If I WAS being paid to do it… things would be different… because it would be on the forefront of my priorities when I decide what needs to be done that day.
I will still post to VGV when the projects I’m working on die down… but it will be up to my standards… which are very simple. I have to enjoy it myself before I will put it up there. If I enjoy it and no one else does… well screw everyone. If I don’t even enjoy it myself and I put it out there for others to not enjoy… well… screw me then.
Anyhow, Cheryl I do appreciate that you push me to do what I said I would do… and your little reminders on Twitter have been fun so I didn’t feel that I had to really defend myself… but now here it is… my defense.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Thank you, Cheryl, for starting this conversation. My thoughts:
Epic-fu : transparency is the best practice and Steve and Zadi have been 100% transparent. It is good to question, of course, and i think their responses answer the questions.
MD : MD is a show that is meant to be complimentary to a business - Mahalo. It accomplishes this very well. I wish Veronica would do a personal vlog too - i, for one, would subscribe.
It will be very interesting, as always, to see where the amazing world of online video goes in 2008. “You” was the Time Person of the Year in 2006, and “Them” is Time Person of the Year in 2007. Here is to hoping 2008 is “We” - meaning convergence is finally here and everyone is included.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Hey Cheryl,
What a great conversation! Something I know will be a future topic for all invovled in podcating. Jeffrey I like your idea about a case study. Marc and I would be happy to participate if you decide you want to do something. I agree whole heartly, there just isn’t enough standard information to help the group as a whole and something like that would be a step in the right direction.
Cheers Cheryl for making a great post and conversation starter!
Nicole & Marc
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Wow! Very interesting discussion. Credit to Cheryl for “falling on her sword” and bringing this up.
I’ve read the comments on this page by Steve & Zadi, and I’m clear about what they’ve said, which is that the two sponsors they’ve had so far, Mobivox and the Jet Li movie “War” are the only sponsorships they’ve received and that they took a long time figuring out how to present this to their viewers and made it completely transparent that these were paid sponsorships. So, my comments don’t actually have anything to do with JetSetShow/Epic-FU, but product placement in our videos in general.
I think Cheryl’s absolutely right about the *perception* of product placement. I’ve said several times on the videoblogger group that I ‘believe’ more in product placement and paid sponsorship than post-roll ads and revenue-sharing.
What I didn’t consider is that by announcing “I’m getting paid to do xyz”, you’re opening the door to the question “what else is he accepting money for?”….
Part of my plan for 2008 is to do “commercials” for companies, but also to do a show reviewing businesses, let’s say restaurants. I didn’t consider that doing a video advertisement for a restaurant, then reviewing the same restaurant might be perceived as a *second* form of advertising for them. Even if they’re not paying me to do the review, my track record of getting paid to create videos sets me up for that perception.
The question becomes then, “What kind of a show am I trying to create?”. I’m either saying “This is a restaurant that I would actually go to personally to have a good time” or “I’m getting paid to tell you about someplace to go in New York City”. I don’t think either one is a negative position, but I see how it’s possible for the lines to become blurred, and that’s something I’m going to have to think about during pre-production.
This isn’t a problem with a series like MissBHavens for example. She’s not getting paid for ANYTHING pertaining to her videos, so if she makes one saying she loves a certain sandwich she buys from a certain cart or that she loves the way a particular pizza shop makes their pizza, nobody will question her ‘motives’ in broadcasting these things.
I wear blip.tv shirts often, because I think it’s a great service, AND I’m friends with them and like them as people. People think I work for blip, and I inform them that I have four shows on blip, but I don’t work for blip at all. Now… If I were getting paid to wear blip shirts, there’s nothing wrong with that either. It would be disingenuous of me to say I wear the shirts for ‘love’ if I’m wearing them for money…. but there’s nothing wrong with being a paid spokesperson for a company.
Specifically with reference to tech shows, GeekBrief, Epic-FU, Rocketboom, BestDamnTech, TeXtra, Mahalo Daily… One way or the other, they *have* to choose products, applications or sites to review on their shows. I don’t see what difference it makes whether they’re getting paid to review certain items or they’re not. Take the “Rock Band” piece for example. I know that *I* twittered to Rick that I wanted to know what his review was of Rock Band as soon as I found out that he was going to stand on line to buy it. I never got that review, but they ended up doing a segment on it for the show. The product is *NEW*, and to gamers that enjoy that type of thing, REVOLUTIONARY, and a review of it was timely and relevant. I personally couldn’t possibly have cared ANY less if the company had paid to get their product on Epic-FU (Which Rick has said on this very page is *NOT* the case). For the same reason, I don’t care WHY GeekBrief reviews what it reviews. I don’t care WHY Veronica Belmont went to a place that only makes grilled cheese sandwiches.
I think the reason this came up in this particular situation is that JetSetShow had already been well established as basically a PERSONAL videoblog well before Smashface became affiliated with Next New Networks or had any sponsors of the type we’re talking about here. I think that because of this, there’s a different expectation of what’s coming from our friends Steve & Zadi than something from people we don’t know that might do a similar show. Mahalo Daily, for instance, was created by a company. From the beginning, there was no implication that the show was anything other than a vehicle to further the company’s agenda, assumedly to get people to use Mahalo as a search site. It’s not like Veronica had a videoblog for a year and then that same show got picked up by Mahalo and now people question why she does what she does. Same thing could be said for CNET. Some video cameras have video reviews… Others have just pictures and text. Did they get *paid* to make video reviews for those cameras? Does it even matter? No. Because we don’t know CNET personally.
Anyway, I think it’s a great topic and definitely something to think about for any of us planning to launch new shows. Quarterlife has based its storyline around a car dealership. People don’t complain about that product placement, because they’re too busy complaining about the acting.
The question becomes not whether we can GET product placement “business”, but whether we’re giving something away in our relationships to our viewers because of it.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Just watched your post and I agree about disclosure in videos. I’ve been fighting the fight against things like PayPerPost since day one.
>> “can’t help but wonder if there was some influence-peddling
>> that affected the decision on the part of the nice folks at iTunes.
Ha! I wish I had such power… I don’t even know anyone who works at Apple (except for Steve Jobs… which, is an obnoxious name drop I know… but it’s true).
>> We all know who Mahalo is connected to, and I
>> rarely (if ever) see Calacanis deliver messages in
>> a straightforward, organic manner.
Actually, most folks consider me to be the most blunt/transparent CEOs in the business. I twitter, blog, etc. all day long about everything we do and answer people’s blog posts quickly (i.e. like this one).
Re: the comments in the video about Mahalo Daily being over produced. … well, we do have a couple of people working on the show and we DID spend like $500 do an intro for the show (no different than digg and Rev3). I love he opening credits and I think it sets a nice tone/audio cue for the start of the show.
The graphics in the show you mention, the football one, are intended to be ironic. The whole point was to OVERPRODUCE that show. How could someone with such a well-laid out argument/blog miss that?!?! Clearly we failed to make the point it was a joke.
The goal was to take a simple concept like “how to watch sports with your boy/girlfriend” and make a joke out of it. To OVERDUE it in every aspect (veronica in an outfit, the sportscasters hamming it up, the sounds, etc).
All the folks in the show are Mahalo employees fyi, and it was even written by one of our employees! The show is VERY organic… we sit around and think of ideas and then try to do them well. Sometimes we hit, sometimes we miss.
I disagree that you have to have BAD production in order to produce something real/authentic (or that good production takes away from the show).
Your lighting and sound are *PERFECT* for example, as are your edits. I don’t think that takes away from your vlog/blog. Your website is also well designed, and you have good spelling/grammar. Again, doesn’t take away from your art… I think it makes it better.
From where I sit getting the details right doesn’t make you a sell out, it makes you a good artist. Sloppy is just that… in fact, I think sloppy in most cases is just lazy. The tools are out there for normal folks to make good products. Most folks on youtube are just to lazy to invest 10 minutes in thinking about lighting, or 20 minutes researching a great microphone.
Cost certainly isn’t an issue. The graphics we’ve created cost nothing…. the major/only real “cost” at Mahalo Daily is the people and their time.
Anyway, I think you bring up a great discussion WRT keeping thing organic and authentic. From where I sit the best way to do that is to give the artists LOTS OF RESOURCES (not less) while staying out of their way. Autoblog, Engadget, Joystiq, Gadling, and all the blogs we created at Weblogs, Inc. were very professional in terms of design, production, etc. but they were VERY authentic and unedited. My job was to get the artists paid and get them resources… the artist job was to make great art.
That’s how it should be no?
To summarize: resources + authenticity is the ultimate goal. Don’t blame Veronica and the MD team for the fact that I’ve rounded up some resources for them. Congratulate them on having resources to do a daily show!
best jason
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Hello Cheryl,
I’m writing this comment as solely fan of video blogs and observer. Like other have stated here, it never crossed my mind the possibility of of product placement on video content on the internet. Just because I’ve always assumed that advertising on the internet doesn’t exactly work like it does on television or in the movies. However, I’m not really making my living doing online content so I
might have no idea what I’m talking about. I think perhaps as a
society we are use to seeing commercialism everywhere (even in sacred places) so maybe we’ve grown cynical now are seeing it places where it doesn’t exist.
I’ve studied the issue of product placement somewhat in my academic career. I usually see product placement in the following places: an MTV music video, a Will Smith summer blockbuster movie, or American Idol with Paula and her coke. And Zadi and Steve doesn’t strike as the product placement kind of folk.
Also, I’ve always seen Epic Fu (just my own personal perception) as trying to compile a list of what’s cool in the internet and pop culture for a young demographic for the week. So, I don’t think it should be a surprise to anyone when they, well, they start listing and recommended stuff they like. I think that is why a lot the show has sustained a large audience because of their impeccable taste.
Maybe perhaps they are encouraging consumerism. But to me the
new technology movement is. When the iPhone came out I saw so many video blogger posting videos with their shiny new gadget. However, they want to be in the forefront of the technology movement. So it’s kinda a job requirement in my eyes. I think we need to encourage consumption of new technologies. We are living in a science and technology innovative age.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:37 pm
That’s a bunch of bull, Jason. There are several videobloggers and videoblogging-associated companies that have access to the Apple podcasting team, insignificant me included. I would bet my testes that you are lying.
As for the rest, you make heas of assumptions about what is being said here, taking things in their most extreme form and then slickly plugging yourself retorting to these extra straw men you’ve brought along. You really are the Ann Coulter of the Web.
Back to the matter at hand, please.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Jeff:
1. just because you have access to the iTunes folks does no mean I have access to them. I’m sure all of you know the Apple iTunes folks, I for one do not. I’m sure Veronica knows them, and clearly they know Veronica and they are fans of her work.
2. If there is something about my argument/points that you think are wrong why not challenge those as opposed to calling me Ann Coulter–which is as low as it gets. I’ll respond and if I’m wrong about something–which happens frequently–I’ll be the first to say so.
so much for organic conversations…
j
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Thank you for bravely starting this conversation.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Very interesting discussion; I’ll definitely dig in more and add a more thoughtful response. In the meantime, it’s been well covered above, but I’d just like to add for the record that our company, which works with Steve and Zadi on Epic-Fu, has a policy of disclosing all advertising in our shows, and we’ve been very careful to be transparent about what’s sponsored content, and what’s not. Steve and Zadi are among the most thoughtful and conscientious people I know about this issue, and are very careful to make sure they keep the trust of their audience. I wouldn’t want anyone to take from Cheryl’s philosophical questions — which are good ones to be asking — that Steve and Zadi have ever compromised the content of their show.
If we ever start including product placements in Next New Networks shows, we’ll disclose them — and that’s a promise that’s good for as long as all of us founders are working there, since one of the principles we had in starting the company was to respect and value our audiences, and their intelligence, over anything else.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
First, it’s Jeffrey. Thanks.
Second, this is about videoblogging. It’s not about you. I could give a ream of examples concerning your clod-dom, but I am trying to stay on-topic and did not intend to disrespect a space that is not mine by making it about my problems with you and your inorganic means of promoting yourself. But you’re not concerned about this space and respecting this space, you’re concerned about you. You did it with the videoblogging list, you’re doing it here.
You couldn’t just let Veronica’s well-put statement be what it is and achieve a better result for your company’s videoblog, just as you say you can leave it to Veronica to take care of the iTunes podcasting team. But here you are underlining and ensuring that brand Calicanis is just as hated as it is loved, which feels rather powerful indeed. But branding is for cows and sheep, Jason.
If you’d like discuss you and my opinions of you and your business, my e-mail is readily available and has been throughout this conversation. This is Cheryl’s blog about Cheryl’s video and the statements she made therein.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I think the Calacanis-hating is off-base here, he had a good response.
Take it outside!
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Jeffrey said “you’re not concerned about this space and respecting this space, you’re concerned about you.”
How so? I thought I addressed the issues and added to the conversation. Conversely you decided to not discuss the issue and call me Ann Coulter. I’d submit that perhaps you are, in fact, the one who is not concerned with this space and is concerned with your own needs (apparently to attack me for some unknown reason).
Jeffrey added: “This is Cheryl’s blog about Cheryl’s video and the statements she made therein.”
Perhaps I’m missing something but wasn’t the point of Cheryl’s piece to start a discussion? Sure felt like that, and considering there are a bunch of considered statements from various perspectives she has done a solid job. If she didn’t want a discussion she could have turned off comments no?
You speak of “organic conversations” on your blog, but your behavior here feels more like superficial attacks. If you have something insightful to share I’d love to hear it. If you want to call me names, well, good luck with that/the line starts on the left.
I’m a fairly normal guy. I wouldn’t be so quick to judge me without meeting me/spending some time with me.
Chuck said: “I think the Calacanis-hating is off-base here, he had a good response.”
Thanks Chuck… you’re a gentleman and a scholar in my book.
best j
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Yeah I have to agree about the Calicanis bashing– not necessary. He seems like a good guy (never met him), I’ve been reading and following him for quite a while and he’s probably as transparent as they come in the business world–he’s always been upfront about his business interests and he really seems to understand how important it is to keep advertising and content separate (see his rants about pay per post for example). Sure he’s a self promoter (part of being a entrepreneur), and some seem to think he’s a hot head but I tend to think he’s genuinely passionate about the business side of things–and thats good, we need people like him to help us do what we do.
And that brings me to the point about Mahalo Daily, I haven’t seen too many of these to really make an informed comment about the content or production values, but I really don’t have a problem with what they are doing. It’s a good example of how businesses can use Internet video to “extend their brand” (I can’t believe I just said that but I guess it’s true–I hate marketing speak). And there’s not a damn thing wrong with that either–it’s a big Internet, there’s room for all kinds of content for all kinds of purposes. The primary issue here is transparency, are you gonna be up front about what’s an ad or are you gonna try to fool me? Thats the core issue here.
With regard to production values, I think that something can be produced so slickly that it can loose some of it’s credibility, and I have a problem with overblown production that tries to mask poor or sometimes even misleading content (big media example: Fox News) –but I haven’t seen too much of that on the Internet yet.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Hey Cheryl,
I did a little video response to your post. Here’s the link: http://hollowbonefilms.com
It’s pretty big since I decided to just post it straight from my camera and get it up. All comments are the thoughts of the filmmaker. No animals were hurt in the production of this film.
Milt
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Here’s our response video: http://blip.tv/file/557026
The link referred to at the end of the video: http://epicfu.com/about/#sponsors
To keep the conversation in one place, people can post comments on this blog post.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Since about 11:45 a.m. AZ time, I’ve been trying my best to stay off the computer and hang with my mom, so I am now catching up with comments starting with Vu.
Vu, I’m so glad you note that my tweeted reminders were fun and you didn’t feel the need to defend. The segment of this post directed toward you is intended in that same spirit - to remind you what you said you’d do. I get that it was an overcommitment, and I’m glad it’s not just some unrealistic quality standard that’s keeping you from posting. I’d love it if you updated your site, even with text, to say that you’re changing what the expectation will be. I’m personally still dying to know what you’re eating, how you’re adapting to veganism, and how you’re doing on this project you’ve undertaken. I think it would be really exciting and immediate to see it daily or even once a week. But of course you should not put up something you don’t enjoy just to satisfy me. You owe me nothing, not even a defense. But thank you very much for your response. It’s great to know where you stand.
I want to say thank you to other commenters as well: Frank, Jason, Bill, Charles - I’m so grateful you stopped by and added to the conversation. You too, Jeffrey, my favorite organic conversationalist!
Especially - thanks to Tim for clarifying that transparency is the policy of Next New Networks. I do want to point out that I looked for information like that before making this post. Perhaps it’s out there and I missed it - I did not spend more than 5 minutes looking, and I only looked at the EpicFU web site since that’s the show I was talking about. After reading your comment I looked at the NNN site and I have to say, I didn’t find the information there, either. If it is available, I would appreciate you directing me to the correct location.I did note that your “Advertise” page is very similar to the one at EpicFU - much of the same wording is used: http://www.nextnewnetworks.com/advertise
The wording similarity indicates Steve & Zadi may not have complete freedom in what their site reveals. I have to ask - if your policy is to disclose all advertising, why not make that policy easier to find? Would it inhibit sponsorships in any way? As a viewer, I tried to find this information and couldn’t, but had it been out there (or easier to find if it IS out there), I never would have questioned the content/advertising mix of EpicFU. And, if I were ever to consider advertising on your network, I’m the type of customer who would want to know this before making initial contact to learn about rates. I’m not going to read every post in the NNN blog to see if policy info is there, I’m going to look on the “About” and “Advertise” page. I’m not telling you how to run your network - you certainly know how better than I! But it’s a thought, especially if transparency is a goal for you.
Finally, thanks for your video response, Milt. You always have a great perspective that I truly value.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 pm
To answer your questions, of course Steve & Zadi have complete freedom in what their site contains. The similarity of our advertising pages is because we have a consistent message to advertisers, and someone at our company wrote the text, and we then used it in a number of places. I don’t think it would hurt our ad sales to disclose this fact, since we say the same things to advertisers who are interested in working with us.
Sorry that you weren’t able to find the answers you were looking for on the sites, and we’ll likely amend those pages to make sure that future people with the same question will be able to find them; though, to be practical, it’s not possible to anticipate every question viewers might have, and have them all available on the site. The best way to have transparency as a company is to put contact information on your website — you’ll notice our SVP of advertising, George, has his email address and phone number right on the advertising page — and respond when people have questions.
We also have a number of other ways for people to reach us, just as a page on getsatisfaction.com, our mailing address and phone numbers on the site, message boards and ning forums, and something that traditional tv networks don’t do: open commenting on every one of our episodes, where viewers can post questions or criticism directly, and get a response from the shows’ creators.
The truth is, it’s the internet, and as this thread has shown, if someone has a question or a criticism, it won’t go unnoticed or unaddressed for long.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:57 pm
And Steve and Zadi respond. They are awesome. I’m very happy to get their perspective, and VERY grateful they have taken the time and effort.: http://blip.tv/file/557026
Holy Crap! They’re saying they think I called them phonies! Let me clarify here, that was NOT NOT NOT what I meant. So I see where the defensiveness is coming from. The intent in my post was to say that I don’t KNOW for certain (before this anyhow) that their personalities as seen on EpicFU are totally in line with their daily selves. How would I? We don’t live in the same town - I see them more through their show than in real life. And it’s a valid question - how much of this is acting and how much of this is real? And they go on to basically question my motivation. My motivation, as I declared to Steve and Zadi via email before this post was even a gleam in my eye, was to start a discussion. Because I care about video on the web and where it’s going. That’s my motivation.
So far, I have not heard Steve or Zadi acknowledge ANY of the positive things I’ve said in support of them, in recent email, in response to others’ responses, in comments here, or in this post. And believe me, I have gone out of my way to let them know that they have my support. Guys, if you can’t hear that or believe it, I don’t know what more I can do but continue to demonstrate it when the opportunity presents itself. But I’m truly disappointed at this moment that you don’t seem to hear anything good I have to say.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Oops, forgot. I am THRILLED about the updated information on the EpicFU About page. Now it’s all crystal clear: http://epicfu.com/about/#sponsors
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Thanks for your support Cheryl. I hope we addressed the core issues.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:21 pm
You did Steve, and I truly appreciate yourr time in making that final comment. Thank you so very much.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Talking about how we make money is like talking about how we have sex.
Ryanne and I also make web video for a living in a very particular niche with its own set of community expectations. We got lucky this year with a strangely cool licensing agreement, but we really stay alive by keeping our costs way way low and doing some outside video jobs.
It made me kind of sad to watch Zadi and Steve’s response because I hope they don’t feel unloved. I see nothing but love on all these comments and elsewhere. They have produced their show for 18 months and are probably the prime example of you can make it more than video on a web page.
This is also why Zadi and Steve are more scrutinized. They are trying to do something more than get views and sell units, and we all really want to make sure they are totally successful at it. If they can do it, we can do it. Questions about one are really questions about ourselves.
In 2005 P.Y. (pre-youtube), I made a video about how I feared commercials would intrude on the intimacy I loved in videoblogs: http://tinyurl.com/2avq3l
Of course this is dumb because we now know that there are different kinds of videoblogs, just like there are different kinds of text blogs.
I can hear Schlomo’s voice in my head: “come on, you make art here. you make money there. quit complaining. some kids don’t get to eat. you could have ebola.” true true. It’s good we have these conversations because asking questions about what we want to see is never bad. It’s keeps us from just becoming tired employees again for someone else’s company. And telling their version of the truth.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:49 pm
@jay: we don’t feel unloved! we’re grateful for all the support we receive from everyone, it boosts us when we’re tired and fed up with the world.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:04 am
This is what have to say….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDzYwLLXi7g
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:37 am
All I have to say to you, Eric Rey, is that you took a huge amount of time and trouble to make a total non-point. There are no ads on my site, nobody paid me to make any of these videos, none of the items you excerpted are product placement, and you know it. I admire the spirit of parody when it’s not done out of spite, but your intentions aren’t clear to me. Your statement that I make accusations here is also false, and if you don’t know it, then you’re still in reaction/defense mode, and you’re wrong. The fact that you took one of the most highly personal videos I have ever made, the one about the death of my grandmother, the story it took me years to be able to tell because it’s so painful for me, and used it in the manner that you have, would be offensive were it not utterly laughable and obvious that you have made no attempt to comprehend it. What you’ve done is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. If I hurt your feelings with this post, I am sorry, but respectfully, you didn’t seem to get the point and I think your actions in posting this video to YouTube are childish, unprofessional, and reflect extremely poorly on Smashface.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:22 am
I stand corrected in my use of the term “personal videoblog” about JetSetShow before it became affiliated with NNN and getting paying sponsors. Steve & Zadi brought this up in their response video (http://blip.tv/file/557026).
I wasn’t actually trying to place JetSetShow into a genre. What I meant (and I could still be wrong about this) in bringing up the difference between JetSetShow => Epic-FU and Veronica switching from CNET to Mahalo was that as far as I can tell from my EXTENSIVE studies of Steve & Zadi’s work (in which I’ve emulated their styles from blogging to codecs/compression to delivery formats to viewer involvement to social site creation and interaction) is that for some people there’s a difference in perception of Epic-FU before and after receiving sponsorship. This is unfortunate, because this is what we all talked about throughout 2007… “How do I monetize my podcast?”. I think Cheryl’s question here brings up an important point about potential perceptions based on receiving sponsorships or having pre-roll or post-roll ads or pop-ups during our shows or doing product placement, transparent or not.
The difference in Veronica’s situation is that she went from company to company. She went from getting paid by CNET to getting paid by Mahalo. Smashface went from (in my perception of the situation over the last year+) getting paid by NOBODY to receiving sponsorships and advertising on their show. That’s the point that I was trying to make. Achieving the success of having people want to pay you to be affiliated with your show and get their advertising message out to your viewers adds the tag in some people’s minds of “what else are they selling?”. I say the only reason this even matters is that JetSetShow had been established for the longest as an unbiased, “transparent” show because of lack of external funding (read: external influence), and at this point, Epic-FU is, as Zadi said in the response video, a BUSINESS. That business CAN and SHOULD make money, because that’s something many of us have been striving for and VERY few have achieved to any notable degree.
So, getting back to my point about the Rock Band segment… If CNET had reviewed Rock Band, nobody would have asked if they got paid to do that. If Veronica plays Rock Band on Mahalo Daily, nobody’s going to ask if she got paid or Mahalo got paid. If Rock Band shows up on a television show or an internet video game show, nobody’s going to ask if they got paid to feature it….. So, why ask Steve & Zadi?
The reason, IMO, is that Smashface Productions is currently transitioning from being un-funded to funded. It’s one of the downsides of pioneering this space…. pioneering ANY space, really. Pioneers have to walk the line between “Us” and “Them”…. The line between struggling to make it, making it and MADE IT. What I’m getting out of this conversation is that the closer you get to “made it”, the more you’re scrutinized for HOW or WHY you’re making it.
Did it occur to me that Rick got paid for his Rock Band segment? No. Why? Because I knew from twitter that he was going to buy the game himself. After he bought it, I saw Eric online playing it. By the time the review video was released on Epic-FU, I said to myself “There goes Rick and Eric playing their Rock Band game that they bought, which is new, current and relevant and I’m interested to see what they have to say about it”. This is why I can appreciate what Cheryl’s saying about perceptions of sponsored product placement. I appreciate it because it’s a totally different perception than what I’ve ever had of JetSetShow or Epic-FU and it’s opened my eyes to what the general public MIGHT consider about a show if it goes the route of in-video product advertisement.
–
As far as Vu’s videos, I think his series is going to be very good… whenever it’s released. It’s easy for people to feel like they can do a daily show BEFORE they actually do a daily show. There are only two ways to do it… Quick & Dirty or have the manpower to multiply the number of hours in a day you have to work on a show. If you follow Kenyatta, you’ll notice he’s often up ALL NIGHT working on Rocketboom episodes, and there are more people on the team that do the research, on-air-talent, etc.
I think a repackaging is in order for Vu’s project. Make it a multi-part documentary that’s going to be released on X future date. Leave yourself enough time to edit the episodes in the fashion that’s satisfying to you and then release daily, but delayed (obviously) a couple of months behind when it actually occurred. I agree with Cheryl’s point that claiming daily videoblog posts on the fly sets up viewer anticipation as well as daily disappointment. Backing up your release date for the series gives you enough time to deal with post and deliver 60 episodes on schedule.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:06 am
Bill, very well put! This idea of making of living by doing the web video thing is really the biggest challenge out there IMO. All the tech stuff is really just details. I’ve been reading and contributing a little tiny bit to the Show In A Box gig, and it’s pretty clear that technically, the video on the web has arrived and is now moving into a higher level of sophistication.
I also was invited to speak to a bunch of black producers at a conference in Mississippi last month. These were mostly young black producers who are either just out of film school, or were already doing production work on various documentaries. I was stunned at two things. #1 - their abilities to find money to produce what they want, and #2 - their minimal knowledge of web video. They really want to move in this direction and clearly they know how to produce, so it’s going be great when they really get into it. But at this point, they don’t see how to devote as much time as all of us here seem to do. Basically because of exactly what we are talking about - how to make a living. I keep thinking that what might happen - at least for me - is that I’m going to write some grants, as I have all my life, and then devote the time that I can buy with that - to releasing my work on the web.
I love the idea of pre-producing a whole series and then releasing it daily for 30 days or 40 or 60 or whatever. At some point, we will see many more of the little series, and then I believe we will also see folks releasing it daily - free - or all at one - “buy my film”
I see no reason not to be producing DVD’s and then selling them. And then you can promote it like a product, but it’s your product that you are promoting.
As a business person, I’ve always had to do that. I’ve never really wanted to do advertising - with, by or for somebody. But and this is the zen master part - “You say you hate advertising, and yet you advertise your own products - what say you, grasshopper?”
To that I respond, “It’s all a play of consciousness”
Have a great day, I’m told the roads to Missouri are open again today, so it’s leg 2 in the grand child tour.
Milt
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:08 am
@Cheryl, regarding Eric’s video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDzYwLLXi7g
Unfortunately, Eric’s video does *not* make a “non-point”.
The point is exactly the same one you bring up by starting this conversation. “How does a content creator choose what goes into his/her show?”. Period.
Yes, the highway stuff where five different car brands are in the same shot is ridiculous… However, at 00:32, you’re apparently showing a Nikon camera and saying “something fun to play with” about it. 00:39 - “Mr. Perkins is an all-in-one espresso-maker”. 01:04 - “and I just want to point out that it’s from the Vegetarian Epicure”. 01:29 - “I got the right flour” (showing King Arthur flour).
By your own logic, the question becomes “Why does Cheryl shout-out these particular brands?”. Your reply on this very page says “nobody paid me to make any of these videos”, which is the same exact thing that Steve & Zadi said about being transparent about their sponsors/advertisers.
There’s no reason anyone would be inclined to believe you more or less than believing Steve & Zadi. If you had a popular videoblog, why WOULDN’T someone toss you a couple of dollars to mention King Arthur Flour? Why wouldn’t someone send you an espresso-maker in exchange for endorsing it to your viewers? Get it? It’s all the same thing. The ONLY difference is that Smashface has announced that NOW, they have sponsorship. That’s the point I was making earlier. Phil Campbell was just given a Canon camera specifcally so he can try it out and post about it. We know this because he said so himself. As far as I know, nobody pays Phil to do his live shows on Operator11, but he’s (transparently) receiving products, so your case isn’t any different.
That’s another reason I was saying that it didn’t matter to me AT.ALL whether they got paid or didn’t get paid to review Rock Band. Shows about technology have to report on what they think is current and relevant. Whether they got Rock Band for free or stood on line at a store at midnight makes no difference to me as the viewer AT.ALL. Similarly, whether Nikon sent you a camera or not has NO bearing on my watching your video AT.ALL if my goal is to receive information about a camera I’m thinking about purchasing. Also, whether Zadi’s wearing a shirt that she bought with her own money or was sent to her by a fan or was sent to her by a company makes NO difference to me AT.ALL as a viewer. If King Arthur really is “the right flour”, and I get to bake whatever you were about to bake and it comes out the way I want it, I couldn’t care ANY less if they sent you coupons for 39 cents off.
That’s the “Pandora’s Box” feature of this discussion. As soon as someone shows something non-generic, the question becomes “why this one and not that one?”. Why review the XBOX instead of the Wii? Why review Harry Potter instead of Lord Of The Rings? Why choose this music video over that one? Why have Zadi as the host instead of Steve? Why have a red light in that lamp instead of a blue one? One way or another, decisions have to be made about content. When those decisions are made, Zadi’s shirt selection has the same level of integrity as your flour selection.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:30 am
Bill, I disagree that Eric’s point is “exactly the same.” It isn’t all the same thing because EpicFU is a business and this site is not. I have a pretty clear statement in my “About my videos” page that this site is non-commercial. Also with the exception of the coffee maker (which is a NaVloPoMo response to Jeffrey and a general request that we make a video about our favorite appliance), and the Nikon camera my husband bought, none of the posts Eric used are specifically about a product like Eric and Rick’s Rock Band segment was. The King Arthur flour was in response to a post from MissBHavens - I made the bread using her recommendations, and the link to her post is available for context. Meanwhile, I was legitimately not certain whether the Rock Band segment was sponsored in some way, because unlike you I am not subscribed to Rick or Eric’s tweets. And I looked for clarification before posting. While if Eric had looked for clarification before posting, if he was legitimately wondering whether my site is commercial, the information is there already, or he could have asked that question, like I did. That’s not what he’s wondering. As near as I can tell, he’s just being mean, though I am working on reconsidering that. In any case it’s clear he’s not out to discusss this with me, which has been my specifically stated intention all along. My response to Eric, I fully admit, was from a place of anger. I’m working on that, too, because I respect Eric regardless of what he thinks of me. Eric is also in violation of my Creative Commons license by not attributing the use of my videos the way I specify in my license. It’s not like I’d ask him to take his parody down, but I supplied full attribution and links for context, and Eric did not. Pandora’s box or no, I think Eric’s out of line with that one.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:18 am
So we’re clear, Cheryl, I’m not “anti” anything you’ve said in your posts. These are all GREAT things to consider. I’m informing you and the other readers of this thread what I’m getting out of it. I’m also not “defending” Eric’s video… I’m saying that for me, amidst the “get-back” nature of the video, it showed a natural extension of the logic that you used in making your initial point. I understand that you disagree.
Do you see how once again, the line has been drawn between what is a business and what is not? Do you see how different standards are being applied because one site has claimed sponsorship and the other site has claimed NOT to have sponsorship?
You still haven’t addressed the question “what difference does it make?”.
If someone paid you (which they didn’t) to show King Arthur Flour, what difference does it make?
If someone paid Rick (which they didn’t) to show the *new* game, Rock Band on a show about current technology, what difference does it make?
If someone paid ME (which they didn’t) to run all over creation wearing blip.tv shirts, what difference does it make?
What’s it to you if I get Foster’s to pay me money to drink their beers in video clips?
What’s it to you if I get free food at a restaurant for doing a review on them?
What’s it to you if Canon sends me a free camera so I can blog about it?
See? This discussion can’t ONLY be about people or groups that are OBVIOUSLY getting money from outside sources for their shows. In order to consider the integrity of sponsored shows, you have to consider the integrity of unsponsored shows. ALL of our shows come into question. Why did we shoot in this location? Why did we feature this politician? Why did we buy this brand of rollerblades? Why did we review this restaurant? Why did we mention this flour? Why did we choose this “flash game of the week”?
Smashface being a business has nothing to do with them getting paid for product placement, *AND* your site NOT being a business has nothing to do with you NOT getting paid for product placement.
Again, I think you’ve started a great and very important discussion here, because we’ve been so busy wondering HOW to monetize podcasts that we haven’t considered potential negatives that arise WITH achieving what we’ve been striving for.
In Steve & Zadi’s case, they have a very long-term relationship with their viewers, and they’re interested in maintaining the integrity and trust they’ve built with them. In my case, I don’t HAVE any viewers
so I’m gonna do what I feel like doing.
If I want to get paid to do product placement, that’s what I’m gonna do. If I feel like making it obvious, and breaking out into a 7-second personally-spoken commercial for a brand or product, that’s what I’m gonna do. If I feel like having pre-roll or post-roll or hard-coded or flash ads on my videos, that’s what I’m gonna do. What.Difference.Does.It.Make? If part of my “on-air talent character” becomes “here comes Bill… he’s going to try to sneak and sell you something”, then fine. Due to this conversation, I’m now aware of more possibilities regarding viewer perceptions than I was aware of two days ago.
(Not Sponsored) doesn’t equal (Not Paid to endorse a product).
(Sponsored) doesn’t equal (Paid to endorse every product on the show).
Why not ask CNET if they’re getting paid to do reviews or feature products? What difference does it make?
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:23 am
I should back slowly away from this about now..
Bill, I don’t think it’s wise of you to not question whether something is product placement, be it on Mahalo, a TV show, or anywhere else. I think this is a larger point being lost in the details and is even reflected in Eric’s video. Product placement *could* happen anywhere, even a personal videoblog. It remind me of Jay Dedman’s Coke commercial in the middle of a purely personal video, wanting to raise awareness about that possible future.
That said, it seems much more probable that one would wonder about product placement on a commercial sponsored show like Epic Fu, esp. when it wasn’t entirely clear what their stance was. Cheryl’s vlog is obviously personal and non-commercial, and probably much smaller audience, so therefore unlikely to have product placement. That could all change though - who knows how “the Long Tail” might be monetized in the future for those who want to do that.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:30 am
The reason we should care about product placement and transparency is TRUST.
If the Rey Bro’s did get Rock Band for free, or even got paid to make a video about it, we need to know that to figure out how much we believe their review. If they’re getting paid, you sort of take it with a grain of salt even though they might genuinely love the game.
We encounter this with citizen journalism all the time. For example, earlier this year I was paid to make some video for the Edwards campaign and was flying around on his private jet, etc. Now, I happen to really like him as a candidate, but people had a right to know whether I was getting paid from any campaign and use that info to decide how much to trust me. People should know what influences are at work.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:56 am
Hey Bill, thanks for all your thoughtful responses. I get what you’re saying. I do. And I’m saying that, for me, it makes a huge difference whether someone displays a product because they are paid to or because they want to, or because it happened to be in the background in a public place.
I would not automatically dismiss a paid-for recommendation, but it would influence my perception of that recommendation - I’d take it with a grain of salt, and judge for myself. But it matters to me. What does it matter? That’s still somewhat subjective for me personally.But it relates to my being able to determine whether someone is telling me something that is in my best interest, or the best interest of all mankind, or just in the best interest of themselves and/or their sponsor. If it’s cliche-used-car-salesman obnoxious, it’ s got as much integrity as spam.
I don’t question Steve & Zadi’s integrity. And thanks to their clarification I no longer question anything I see on EpicFU. They do what they do with care and they take the high road. I regret my confusion over that fact, but it was honest on my part. And I’m reasonably intelligent. I won’t be getting any Nobel prizes for outstanding science, but I’m not a complete moron. I think it’s safe to say that if I was confused, other people could be. I show EpicFU to my 20-something digital multimedia students, and almost every time I do, at least one student asks about these issues. But I think more of my students just become fans of the show.
Regarding my comment that I think Eric’s video response reflects poorly on Smashface, I regret saying that and I formally retract that portion of my comment. I do think, with regard to not respecting my Creative Commons license, Eric’s response is unprofessional. But he has every right to make a parody.
I enjoyed his response and thought it was funny until I saw that he ripped the most painful post I’ve ever made out of context. But Eric probably has not had the experience of becoming solely responsible for the care of an adult that raised him, nor watched them slowly deteriorate and die, then gone through six years before being able to talk about that experience in a tribute video. So he can’t know how it would then feel to have that video trashed as a retort to an “accusation” that he didn’t even make.
I have asked Eric to amend his YouTube post and add permalinks to the videos he took from this site, which would fill my Creative Commons attribution requirement, and provide viewers the chance to see the work in context, which is the same courtesy I extended to his Rock Band segment for EpicFU. You can see my video response to Eric here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcoxjgjevZk
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 am
Forgot to mention, but maybe worth noting: I have been offered the opportunity for a form of sponsorship, both for this site and for Node101 Phoenix. I turned it down without even considering it for my personal site. There will never be ads here in any form, with the possible exception of parody. Not while I’m living. And when I’m dead, there will be no one to pay my hosting fees, and this site will eventually die, like me. For Node101 Phoenix, I thought about it for a couple days, because I really could use some funding in order to offer more to local people who want to learn videoblogging. But in the end, I couldn’t come to a satisfactory agreement with the person making the offer, because I did not want to create any appearance that Node101 Phoenix was recommending the products/services associated with the sponsorship offer.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:16 am
Cheryl,
This is still an interesting discussion. I’m wondering before you posted you’re video if you contacted Rick? But since he was in the video in probably knows what is going on as well. I know you said you contacted Zadi and Steve and I don’t know what happened there but maybe it would have been helpful to contact Rick and Eric.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 am
Hi Terry. Zadi and Steve indicated to me via email that they would share my email to them with Rick and Eric, so I decided to leave it at that. I didn’t think I needed to contact Rick and Eric individually because I used their segment as an example, and didn’t comment directly on how it was produced. Rick stated he’s sorry I didn’t enjoy the segment, which is an assumption, because I did enjoy the segment, at least in terms of entertainment value. I enjoy the Rey brothers’ work in general, and I love seeing them together interacting on camera. They’re funny and full of personality. I wouldn’t go spend money on Rock Band, but that doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy seeing the Rey brothers’ reviews or tips & tricks.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 am
wow
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 am
47 comments later, is there any point in me posting one ?
I’ve never suspected JetSet/EpicFU’s of product placement or hidden sponsorship - not sure why. Perhaps because the whole package - Steve and Zadi and the way they do things - makes that seem unlikely. It’s a cool-new-stuff show, so they have to review and talk about cool new stuff.
But it’s interesting to reflect that they could have stated this in triplicate in burning letters six feet high - perhaps not so much to reassure people, but because it’s a great opportunity to loudly advocate this kind of behaviour. They can say to everybody else who watches, HEY, LOOK HOW WE DO THIS! YOU DON’T HAVE TO SELL OUT TO MAKE IT WORK! So much of what they do is lighting the way for commercial content makers in this murky new world.
So maybe that’s something else good that’ll come out of this.
Re Vu Goes Vegan: I wish that I could post videos more often. (Hell, I wish I could *watch* videos more often.) It’s hard enough to do it with a phone that shoots, cuts and posts, without all the importing/compression/uploading bullshit.
And the idea of doing a daily show for a project alongside my work is terrifying to me. I know that I’d freeze up with the idea of boring people and days would pass and I’d be unable to post anything at all because I’d got so far behind. Which is ridiculous, but that’s the way I am. Twittervlog was my self-help cure.
So I hear what Cheryl says, and I hear what Vu says. You really set yourself a mission impossible there, Vu
And it turned out people were listening! Go easy there, and get little chunks up whenever you can. Even if it’s just one a week for a year, and you’re posting the last one 10 months after your Vegan Project ended.
The iTunes lists were an old media joke. The list I saw wasn’t NEW video podcasts of 2007, it included lots of older sites. One of the most absurd things about it was that EpicFU wasn’t listed. Not that they’d want to be listed in such company, I’m sure. No disrespect to MD, which I haven’t really watched, but which seems like a videoblog to promote a business and so will always be different from the chaos of conversational personal videoblogging. I wouldn’t expect otherwise, and that’s why I haven’t really watched it yet - I have too big a backlog of those personal videoblogs which I really want to watch - to catch up with my friends’ world & art, not what’s new in the MD world.
I can’t imagine ever making money directly from videoblogging. I try to picture my future in online video based on this assumption. I think it stops me going mad and getting sad or worried that I’m not getting *enough* viewers or creating a commercial *enough* regular ’show’ to build a bankable audience (something I’m not really interested in - videoblogging interests me for other reasons). My personal videoblog can work as quite a good showreel, though. There are a lot of people and companies who need help with this stuff. And since I do their stuff for work during office hours, I don’t need to think about their businesses or products when I’m making videos for my personal videoblog.
If anybody’s ever worried about me doing product placement for one of my clients in a non-transparent way, I hope they raise their worries in a similar constructive way.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
How did I miss this conversation?
One of my favorite documentaries is called “Dig!”. If you haven’t seen it, go rent. It talks about this general topic, related more to the music business. It makes you ask yourself a lot of important questions about making money off the things you love to do.
Only you can decide what’s in the best interest of the growth or non-growth of your business. Sometimes you have to leave behind the people that don’t see eye-t0-eye with your ethics. There are no black or white answers, and you can’t make everyone happy.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
I was going to say something about Eric’s “non-point” and Bill’s “No, it’s not a non-point” and Cheryl’s “but it is a non-point” but that’s already been fairly well covered.
In a nutshell, Eric’s video is nothing but payback with a sly wink and a jab in the ribs. The “point” he’s making actually *isn’t* the point of the original discussion which I thought was transparency, and NOT “should there be product placements and what does it matter.”
Cheryl started a conversation here about issues that are obviously difficult to talk about yet everyone keeps saying “yeah, these are important let’s talk about them”. Steve and Zadi DID that in their video. Eric didn’t. I’m glad Cheryl saw some humor in it (to a point) but really, all I saw was childish “oh, yeah! Well so’s your FACE!” type of response.
The overall discussion of new media and transparency and sponsors and products is a great one. Keep it going.
I’m too tired and busy to make a video about this before the holidays. See you an the 26th!
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
It’s interesting how the videoblogging community eats its own. It’s so sad, cause I once harbored opinions that this was a community and we’re all in it to help each other. I lost those feelings long ago and this thread just cements that my opinions were right.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Robert, watch out dissing an entire community. You may still be punchdrunk from your relentless battles with Valleywag and your strange scoble haters.
There’s any actual conversation going on here (albeit with tense emotions) about the values we choose to have as we all struggle to make aliving and stay independent.
I dont see one “fuck you asshole worthless piece of shit cocksucker” in any of the 65 comment so far.
We argue because we love.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Jay: there are a few good people in the community but I’m still soured on this community and it has nothing to do with Valleywag. It has to do with how this community behaves toward each other. There’s a reason why this community never grew very much since I left Microsoft. It looks friendly from the outside but once inside it really isn’t that friendly at all.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Look the best criticism in this space is to lead by example.
So why don’t you pioneer in the space better than Steve and Zadi, shoot and edit by yourself a very personal project while maintaining some sort of standard, and get paid to star and produce a high profile video blog.
The barriers to entry are low. You have no excuses not to.
This video is passive aggressive, I love S & Z, except when they make their videos. Veronica is great and freakishly beautiful, but other anonymous podcasts are more worthy.
Shut up and do better.
Happy Holidays.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
“This video is passive aggressive, I love S & Z, except when they make their videos. Veronica is great and freakishly beautiful, but other anonymous podcasts are more worthy.”
To be clear, I was reducing this blogger’s opinions to make a point. The point is that she is talking out of both sides of her mouth (complimenting S & Z personally and then raping their professional integrity, etc.)
Back to Christmas cookies.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Oy.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Huh. I never know what Scoble’s talking about, and I can tell he doesn’t know what I’m talking about, so that’s okay.
Kent, I totally agree with you that the best thing any of us can do is lead by example. Perhaps you didn’t notice in the text part of my post, before any of the comments, that I said essentially that? That I believe in the “be the change you want to see in the world” philosophy and will launch my own project early in 2008? Did you miss that? Why don’t I pioneer in the space better than Steve and Zadi? I don’t have any particular need to be better than Steve, Zadi, or any other person. But a new project is coming and I’ll do it to the best of my ability, and not worry about competing with anyone. I probably won’t get paid to do it, but it’ll meet most of the rest of your criteria. No excuses have been made here.
You have the right to your opinion of course, but I disagree that I’m being passive aggressive. And who are you to come to my personal site and tell me to shut up? I choose to take your meaning as part of the “lead by example” sentiment you expressed. But if you literally meant “shut up,” you can keep that opinion to yourself. I’m a woman with an opinion and I’m going to say what I’m going to say, and you can’t do shit about it (to quote Verdi). I’ve already clarified my position about Steve and Zadi’s integrity, which I think is rock solid.
You don’t appear to be here to contribute anything new to the conversation.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
I don’t have anything to contribute here because I’m out there doing.
Look this is your site, your forum, etc. You make a post calling folks out like this, you’re going to receive the attention you wanted. And you wanted attention, you got it. Congrats.
But you also attacked three of my friends. Which means that you are going to provoke heated response.
And the video is passive aggressive. If you’re going to throw bombs, then throw them. Have the courage to actually say what you mean rather than trying to hide behind platitudes (they are my heroes).
The cookies are delish, btw.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Whatever, Kent. You’re free to see my remarks as an attack. I don’t. Lot’s of people do/lot’s of others don’t. The only person who can say for certain what my intent is? That would be me. I’ve said what it is, you don’t believe it, I don’t really care what you believe. I do have the courage to say exactly what I mean, and I have said it. Fill your mouth with the cookies so I don’t have to hear your voice any longer, would you?
December 24th, 2007 at 1:29 am
The elephant in the room is advertising as revenue-generating model.
Advertising is flawed by definition. In advertising, the ends justify all means, and by extension corrupt the content associated with it.
Folks begin to understand this flaw and call it ‘inauthenticity’ (among other things). Our bullshit meters grow more sensitive. Perhaps too sensitive as the pendulum swings toward intolerance of hyperbole and lies.
The answer is to find alternatives to advertising-supported media production.
If consumerism has contracted a fatal disease, then its parasitic friend - advertising-supported media - will starve to death as a result.
What new narratives do we tell when advertising doesn’t drive content?
December 24th, 2007 at 1:34 am
I think what’s most important is to enable people to extend their ideas in various mediums. Someone said it’s easier to take things apart but putting it back together is another deal. I really think the wiz-bang media making tools spawned more folks to put out slicker more focused web video For example themed shows instead of themed episodes.
I see EPIC-FU as another feed. I don’t think it needs me & I really don’t need to watch it. I know some people who can’t go a day without their daily BBC podcast or Drudge Report headline. I think online video is still new & open that we can still have choices (fingers crossed).
I’m glad to be able to make videos and blog non-commercially. I don’t use click thru ads and opt out of advertising. Just to stay within fair use & CC safety zone.
For me videoblogging is good for honing your skills in shooting & editing video. It was suggested to me that I should get into wedding videos. I could use the cash, but I don’t feel like networking in that field just yet.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:35 am
I think what’s most important is to enable people to extend their ideas in various mediums. Someone said it’s easier to take things apart but putting it back together is another deal. I really think the wiz-bang media making tools spawned more folks to put out slicker more focused web video. For example themed shows instead of themed episodes.
I see EPIC-FU as another feed. I don’t think it needs me & I really don’t need to watch it. I know some people who can’t go a day without their daily BBC podcast or Drudge Report headline. I think online video is still new & open that we can still have choices (fingers crossed).
I’m glad to be able to make videos and blog non-commercially. I don’t use click thru ads and opt out of advertising. Just to stay within fair use & CC safety zone.
For me videoblogging is good for honing your skills in shooting & editing video. It was suggested to me that I should get into wedding videos. I could use the cash, but I don’t feel like networking in that field just yet.
December 24th, 2007 at 3:05 am
Robert Scoble,
I agree with Jay and respectfully disagree with you. You claim this community appears friendly but actually isn’t on the inside.
I’ve experienced nothing but friendliness and support and education from this community. I’ve made a lot of friends here. If anything, it’s warmer on the inside than it appears.
It’s the most progressive, friendly, educational, open-source web community I know - and for the most part it avoids the hatefulness of other web communities.
I can only assume that you soured on the community after your company breached someone’s copyright and then refused to say mea culpa. And your CEO appeared arrogant and unwilling engage in public discourse when the whole community was screaming at you to account for yourselves.
If I did bad, I’d expect to be called on it by a community that’s trying to work out the right way to do things.
But - you know what - perhaps you were too busy feeling hurt to notice that NO ONE GOT PERSONAL. Among 100+ posts on the Yahoo group on that issue, there was just one tiny post that had anything anti-Scoble in it, and it was ignored.
I wonder which other web communities you find more friendly and supportive and less childish and aggressive.
I find it impossible to read your blog because of all the venom directed at you in the comments section - it makes me feel dirty.
Perhaps you were referring to the A-list blogging community, members of whom were involved in the Mean Kids attacks on your wife and Kathy Sierra.
I’d be grateful if you could reply and let me know.
It’s not just ’some’ good people in the videoblogging community. It’s the overwhelming majority. People’s support and education has chivvied me into doing work in the next few months teaching videoblogging to disadvantaged kids, with an open-source mentality. This is something I’d never have got into without the examples and encouragement of my friends here.
Turning a petty personal experience into an excuse to write off a whole community is not the kind of behaviour I expect from a serious commentator.
With massive readership comes great responsibility.
December 24th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Rupert: I’m talking about the video blogging movement as represented in the Yahoo Mailing List. It’s shrunk. Gotten smaller.
But let’s not make this about me, OK? Cause I’ve seen this community be snarky and go after tons of people, not just me (and if you go after my business THAT IS the same as going after me). Heck, what I really wanted was a discussion from inside the community about how to make it better. So far all I’ve seen is quite predictable stuff and bragging that some site got 1,000 videos in a month. Wonderful. Seesmic is getting 1,300 videos a DAY and it’s only two months old. Seesmic didn’t come out of the videoblogging community. Why not? Neither did Kyte. Neither did YouTube. Neither did Qik. Or Asterpix. Or or or or or.
Yet this group has quite a healthy ego about itself, represented well in your note here. Why is that? Is it deserved? I’m not so sure anymore.
Why is the videoblogging community getting smaller while communities on YouTube are getting massively bigger? (Chris Pirillo is a testament to that). I note that despite supposedly “hundreds of thousands” of members that only a small handful have even discussed this. That’s NOT the sign of a healthy community.
My email tonight is quite stunning and doesn’t agree with your stance. Glad to see you’re having a good time, though. I’ll see ya somewhere else cause I’m done with it.
December 24th, 2007 at 5:45 am
Robert,
I can see how you might think that, but you’re wrong. Way wrong. You’re wrong in thinking that the “video blogging community” is defined by a Yahoogroup. There are tons of people that many of us consider to be part of this community that have never participated in that group (for instance I don’t think that Cheryl –who started THIS conversation was ever a big participant on that group). A lot of us stopped participating there so much because it was never really thought of as “the community” — it was just one other place to connect and exchange ideas, and as other forms came about over time that made that faster and easier (twitter, facebook etc) the need for the Yahoogroup became less important. So yeah the YAHOO GROUP has shrunk, has become less active, but that’s because the YAHOO GROUP isn’t as necessary as it once was. It’s not a big chore to post video online like it was 3 years ago. It’s not as hard to find other people who want to talk about online video in other places as it once was. And big reason for that is because of people in out community went out and made that happen–now conversations that once took place on a clunky YAHOO GROUP take place all over the place. For instance, it’s amazing to me that Youtube has incorpoated most of the vision that Jay Dedman and other laid out 3 years ago for having conversations with video online, (video commenting etc) I’m sure in no small part due to the participation of the YouTube founders in our conversations early on. Another example, Blip.tv, they actually participated in the community and used our ideas to produce one of the best video publishing platforms out there.
So yeah I gotta say you’re way off base here. Not just by parachuting into the Yahoo Group once in a while and saying “wow, this community is going nowhere” but also by your characterization of THIS conversation. This is not a Flame war, not in the least. The only way I can imagine that you might want to think of this conversation as a Flame war is that maybe you think we shouldn’t even be talking about this at all. It really seems that you’ve taken a personal offense to it for some reason, and it’s not really obvious to a lot of us why that is. This is a conversation about our ethics, as a community. And the fact that it’s even taking place proves that the community is alive and well. And yes that community extends to ANYONE who puts video online–including YouTube, MySpace, Facebook etc.
So yeah, you might be tired of the Yahoo Group, thats fine. A lot of had problems with the group–but don’t define the videoblogging community by that group. It’s grown way beyond that and you’re vision is really narrow if you can’t see that.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:30 am
@Chuck
I understand what you’re saying about disclosing the fact that you got paid by the Edwards campaign to make videos for them. I’m probably in the minority in this discussion when I say I couldn’t care less WHO paid you to do what if I’m going to watch a video of yours. I watch your videos because YOU made them… Not because “I’m going to get Chuck’s completely unbiased view of the world as he sees it”.
On top of that, “getting paid” isn’t the only form of bias. I don’t even CARE about policics, but I watch your videos about politics. I might even turn around and twitter a link to your video for anyone that a) didn’t know that you made a new video, or b) are interested in political videos in general. Meanwhile, another 100 political videos are made on the same day that I never see, never care about and never pass on to my twitter followers. So how did YOUR link get passed?
Did you pay me? No. I’m still biased, and I’m still going to give you preferential treatment over political videomakers that I don’t ‘know’.
It’s the same thing with tech reviews. There has to be SOME way to make the decision of what to feature on the show. Why was Rock Band featured instead of the new flight simulator game? Well… Maybe they don’t OWN the new flight simulator game. Maybe they liked Guitar Hero and saw Rock Band as the next level in that type of gaming and bought it for that reason. How does Zadi choose which shirt she’s going to wear for this week’s show? How do I choose which blip.tv shirt I’m going to wear to Burp Castle? How do the guys on BestDamnTech choose the beers they’re going to drink while they’re filming? How is the hostess selected for the next Rocketboom or CommandN or Scriggity or WebbAlert or WallStrip or Mahalo Daily? Decisions have to be made for a reason, and “getting paid” is only ONE potential influence.
Granted, I have a different view on video in general because I’m an editor. I’ve cut LOTS of television news. The reason that makes a difference is that I see the raw footage that mostly ends up on the cutting room floor as the producer selects ONLY the elements that create the desired ’spin’ for the piece. Sure, ten people said “yes” to the survey and ten people said “no”… By the time it goes to air, FIVE people said “yes” and ONE person said “no” and the piece is tracked to show how New Yorkers prefer X over Y. It’s a daily operation. I’ve cut around video that would make an area look too civilized for the desired flavor of the piece. I’ve added cutaways that had nothing to do with the current scene to get over jump cuts. I know how much BIAS goes into video creation, even if it’s not clear to the producer that their own personal biases are affecting the final product.
So…. I don’t care whether Cheryl got a free camera from Nikon or The Rey Bros got a free Rock Band or Zadi got a free shirt or you got a free plane ride with Edwards.
I tune in to Minnesota Stories or Veracifier or Epic-FU to see what’s new that you’ve done this time.
Again, the question is “What difference does it make?”. If I do a Foster’s commercial in the middle of one of my videos, what’s it to you whether I happen to LIKE Foster’s and drink it for real or I got paid by Foster’s or got free beers for mentioning them in my video? What’s it to you whether I got a free location to shoot in and a free meal because I chose to do an interview with someone inside a restaurant and mention the name in the show?
Phil Campbell was given a Canon video camera so he could try it out and blog about it. Does that mean that every positive review he gives of the camera has to be “taken with a grain of salt”?
That’s ridiculous. There are going to be things he likes about the camera and things he doesn’t like. Do you really think he’d toss his personal integrity… his WORD… for a couple of dollars? How much is your word worth? 
Do you really think he would give an all-positive review of a camera and take the chance that one of us goes out and buys it and tells everyone the real deal about it, INCLUDING that Phil doesn’t know what he’s talking about and neglected to tell us X, Y and Z? Personally, I don’t believe it. I also don’t believe that you and I would have a conversation and you’d endorse a candidate that you didn’t believe in just because you got paid some dollars to do a video for him…. Just like I wouldn’t recommend that you go and eat in a restaurant that had poor food or service just because they paid me some dollars to do a video for them.
–
@Jan
I think you’re absolutely right about advertising being flawed by definition. The goal is to endorse a product, not “tell the truth”. Same thing goes for the legal system. They’re not trying to find the truth, they’re trying to win for their side.
Unfortunately, what seems to be the selling-point for video on the internet is “impressions”. What’s being sold is the opportunity to get the name or visuals about your product in front of 40,000 viewers per week. The ROI is increased visibility for the advertiser’s product or brand. Until they come up with a different reason for people to fund internet shows, the song will remain the same. They’re scrambling now to figure something out, because ever since DVRs came on the scene, nobody that owns one watches commercials anyway.
Before that, they came out with VCRs that would automatically cut commercials out of the recordings. I’ll be interested to see what they come up with…
If there’s a new way
I’ll be the first in line
But it’d better work this time
December 24th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Am I the only who believes that most of the concerns brought up in this video should have been handled privately?
December 24th, 2007 at 11:53 am
[…] about new media by Cheryl Cola at Hummingcrow draws passionate responses that nearly turn ugly. (original post; Steve Woolf and Zadi Diaz respond; more on the thread on the Yahoo Videoblogging […]
December 24th, 2007 at 11:55 am
@ Terry Ann - I think a lot of us are glad Cheryl brought these issues up openly. Sure some feelings were hurt, but the issues are larger than any particular videoblog and we should be talking about about them.
Everyone who commented on this thread is part of this community. LIke Bill Streeter says, it’s absolutely NOT just the Yahoo Group. Twitter is how I stay in contact with people making video online most of the time, but this deeper/longer discussion is much-needed.
@Bill Cammack - I thank you so much for what you do.
I see what you’re saying, and I’m the same way in some respect. As Steve Garfield used to say, “I susbscribe to PEOPLE” and certain people I’ll follow whatever they are doing, paid gig or not.
You’re right about me and Edwards - I would’ve gladly covered his campaign for free, just for the experience and I like him as a candidate. Getting paid did not change that and was just a nice benefit.
But I think this is a minority view. Most people - trust me this s absolutely true in the realm of politics and journalism - demand to know if you are getting paid by the people you’re covering and therefore might be influenced. That’s why professional journalists have rules about this. It’s really the hat you’re wearing. Sure you and a handful of people will watch lots of my stuff because I’m wearing the Chuck Hat. But others see me out there with a blogger/citizen journalist hat, trusting that I’m being straight with them - that means disclosure and transparency.
PEACE all and have a lovely Xmas eve (if it’s your thing).
December 24th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Bill, thanks for your post-modern viewpoint. I think that’s what Eric was trying to get across as well. The demand for “transparency” concerning sponsorships calls into question the different reasons why someone might be influenced to use a product. Perhaps I genuinely like a product because they paid me to plug them, then what?
Jan, thanks for pointing out the elephant. I want to hear more about new, alternative, revolutionary models for funding and post-advertising which adhere to our aesthetics and values.
December 24th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I feel like it is important that I bring this post on the videoblogging group to the attention of people who may not see it here.
This is with regard to the email exchange we had with Cheryl prior to her posting her video.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/67152
December 24th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
@Terry, I said before that, at least with Steve and Zadi, I emailed them privately before making this video. I should have pointed out earlier that when I emailed them initially it was about the disconnect I felt between Zadi’s expressed dislike of commercialism surrounding the holidays and the fact that the show, to me, seemed to encourage commercialism with its content. I indicated I had no idea what I would eventually post. I did get a response email that encouraged me to post anything I thought needed to be said, and brought up some great points that I gave further thought to. I replied, but did not ask questions - and I also got no further response, which I took to mean that correspondence was over. As I kept thinking about things I realized that underlying my concerns about commercialism in general, the real thing bothering me was that I could not tell whether certain segments were a form of advertising. And that’s what ended up being the thrust of my post. Because there was a change of subject, I should have continued a private dialog and asked the questions I couldn’t find written answers to, but because my second message wasn’t acknowledged I felt like further contact was not wanted. I freely admit that was a mistake, a big one in terms of what it’s cost any relationship I’ve had with Steve & Zadi. I totally see why the subject change has them wondering about my motivations, even though I’ve truthfully said what my motives are. While I’m sincerely sorry they were offended by my actions, I don’t think I have cost them anyone’s respect, and I’m still glad I made this post because I think others had some of the same questions and were afraid to ask. I’m okay with messing up in public. I have learned a lot and have a lot more to learn.
December 25th, 2007 at 2:26 am
[…] about new media by Cheryl Cola at Hummingcrow draws passionate responses that nearly turn ugly. (original post; Steve Woolf and Zadi Diaz respond; more on the thread on the Yahoo Videoblogging […]
December 25th, 2007 at 5:59 am
Robert,
Thanks for your views. I still don’t agree with most of them, but there we are. I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. I think you raise some interesting points about expected rates of growth of the Yahoo group, but the way you’re looking at it is misguided.
Like Bill said, it’s clear that the activity in the Yahoo Group is now only a small proportion of the ‘community’ and of video blogging online. You know what? I’m not subscribed to that list any more, either. I don’t think it defines the Community AT ALL.
Anyway, you changed position to try to justify your argument. You claimed you were talking negatively about “the video blogging movement as represented in the Yahoo Mailing List”, but that’s not true. Your example to prove your point was this discussion on Cheryl’s blog, arising from her constructive questions about commercialism and transparency. And you used the words “this community”. Cheryl isn’t even a member of the Yahoo Group. And many of the other contributors here don’t contribute there either.
So, you say you have a viewpoint about one particular forum, but you’re using it to discredit wider videoblogging communities in a blog comment area which includes some contributors from that forum. It seemed clear to me that you were casting your net wider than just the activity just on the Yahoo Group.
And there is obviously more than one community - what do you expect? - and some of those communities (which overlap with the Yahoo group) are growing faster than others. For obvious reasons.
Of course it’s not a zero sum game. Just because YouTube communities (some of which are quite limited in scope, if not in activity) and Live Streaming communities and Chris Pirillo’s sphere of influence are all growing fast, doesn’t mean that there’s no validity in what others are trying to do.
A great deal of the kind of videos that are produced by members of the wider videoblogging community are non-commercial personal stories and self-consciously non-commercial high quality personal art.
These videos and this community are obviously going to reach a smaller niche than those reaching for audiences on Youtube.
Why wouldn’t everyone want to use Youtube, then? Partly because it’s limited in various technical respects, has low-visual-quality is a walled-garden and comments are frequently hateful.
Not all of us strive for the highest possible viewing figures or mass-appeal when we’re trying to find a different and better way of doing things. High growth does not always equal success.
The community that I am involved in is ever larger, more successful and interesting in its outlook. And is making Good Things happen - things that may not show their real benefits until the scene settles down a little and people want to do more imaginative things with online video.
Was the videoblogging community and the Yahoo Group ever that influential? Was it ever going to be? I didn’t think so, and still don’t. Depends on how you define influence.
The influence I care about it trying to find interesting (not always commercial) better new ways of doing things and leaving examples to inspire others.
I wouldn’t expect Seesmic or any of those other groups to ‘come out’ of the Yahoo Group.
Is it a failure of the Yahoo Group that Loic had never visited it and thought up Seesmic without consulting Jay Dedman?
I don’t think so.
But most of the videobloggers I know are using Seesmic, and the discussions that people are having with Loic and Johann are informed by what we’ve learnt from years of playing with this stuff. Seesmic is incredibly limited at the moment - fun and popular, but limited in what it actually does. It will get a whole load better, and some of that will be due to what people have learnt.
Nor do I think that there’s any particular ‘ego’ in the Group that thinks it defines the way that online video is evolving.
Personally, I’m glad that it’s happening that way instead of as a result of some kind of “What do key videobloggers say?” a la podcasting and key players like Adam Curry.
And I’m sorry that you used the phrase ‘If you come after my company, you come after me’.
That’s not very wise or sound philosophy. Where do you draw the line? A lot of people saw what your company had done as Not Very Good. You didn’t explain yourselves to them, and instead chose to accuse Lan of dissembling. Your CEO was arrogant and dismissive. None of your response - let alone the original sin - showed any care for what many people considered good conduct. Why would you want to stand up for that kind of behaviour and treat criticism of it as a personal attack? If Podtech committed a more grave corporate crime and people criticised it, would you still say, “If you come after my company, you come after me’? How about if it goes bust? Will you say that to its creditors? Come on.
Anyway. Bah humbug. Happy Christmas one and all!
December 25th, 2007 at 8:01 am
PS - I should make clear that I unsubscribed to individual emails from the Yahoo group (not unsubscribed as a member) not because it wasn’t growing, but because it was generating too many emails to cope with as well as because it was no longer crucial to my involvement in the community.
And finally, on reflection, while I hope 2008 will see another explosion in videoblogging through things like Seesmic, I suppose it does seem a little sad to me that the one videoblogger who has Loic LeMeur’s ear more than any other - Robert - doesn’t believes in the value or effectiveness of this videoblogging community and what we’ve been trying to do. Ho hum. It’s not as bad as you think, Robert - there are a *lot* of good people out there doing good things. Maybe we won’t see you on the Yahoo Group, but I guess we will see you on Seesmic. And that won’t mean we’ve lost anything. It’s all good.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Cheryl: Do you not like an episode of your favorite show on TV when you see an apple product or a can of coke on it? Come on, lets get serious. The difference here is you CAN email Steve and Zadi about it and you CANT email a show on traditional TV. Don’t s*i# where you eat, total low blow here on all fronts.
Regarding Vu, collaborate with him on editing and posting videos if you are that passionate about his project. I’ve done that long distance, it’s well documented. Giving him a hard time isn’t constructive or supportive.
I don’t care what anyone says (and it’s mostly based on Jason being involved for whatever reason), Mahalo Daily is a quality show, and a lot of that has to do with Veronica. A lot of that has to do with the random subject matter. A lot of that has to do with it being daily. Also, please list out the unrecognized shows that you mentioned, I’d like to watch them
Robert, Robert, Robert. Dude, I love your work. I really do. Your evangelism career has inspired me to go down the same path. But you’re so off base here. You wait until a storm brews and then you sweep in and say “See, I told you so!!!”. That is so unprofessional and extremely immature. It’s the equivalent of the kid at school who doesn’t have the guts to fight, but stands in a circle egging it on. You either care or you don’t. If you don’t, fine. Don’t think Big TV has “in fighting” issues? Check out the pickets, man. It happens. We just have full transparency on the web.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Drew: Yes. If my favorite show on TV started prominently displaying branded products, and I thought it was a form of advertisement, I’d like it a lot less. But I tend not to enjoy the shows that do that, anyway. With TV I think we’ve pretty much all accepted that its primary existence is to sell us stuff. Always has been. We were fortunate to get decent news out of it for awhile, but no more. I am hoping for something different from video on the web.
Vu knows how excited I am about his project. I’ve been one of his most frequent commenters. I helped him find vegan food in Phoenix - that was supportive, if not public. He knows my giving him a hard is in the spirit of fun and said as much here. If he’s not offended I don’t see why you should be. I didn’t think to ask Vu if he wanted a collaborator, but I’d be happy to help him in any way possible if he’d like that. I’ll ask him, and I appreciate your suggestion.
Veronica is awesome. But I haven’t seen an episode of Mahalo Daily that I like yet. If you like it, great. It will be awhile before I am ready to list out the unrecognized shows, but there’s something brewing in its infancy stages that should allow me to do that - I’ll make a point to let you know when it’s live.
I thank you for stopping by and weighing in on the actual topics I raised. I really appreciate your input.
I’m going to ask at this point that we just stick to those topics here. If anyone has a deep need to continue discussing the videoblogging community at large, or the issues around the Scoble/Podtech topics that were discussed to death months ago, please do that somewhere more appropriate. I should have requested that earlier.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:40 am
interesting topic. just coming across it late due to holidays & catching up with family. I haven’t seen any of the Steve & Zadi shows apart from the clips in Cheryl’s post above, but I must admit, from that short glimpse of it I just assumed it was like the mtv/music/youth shows that have product placements because the style/format/presentation seemed similar - wasn’t sure if they were sponsored or not. I’m not sure if it matters too much to me though as I’m probably not their audience anyway. but it’s an interesting issue.
when I used to do net radio and help promote local artists/bands some people probably thought i was getting sponsorship too (although that would have been unusual since even the artist weren’t making $ let alone the writers/radio/promo people!! - it’s a grassroots thing) - but it was just me talking about & playing music /artists I liked - I got some music from the artists but most times I bought their cd then approached them. so I can understand how easy it is for people to misunderstand. I don’t see a problem with it though as it’s hard for people to get free promo, so any little bit helps.
I suppose I just assume people can make up their own minds based on what they see/hear to be able to tell if they’d enjoy the same things also. whether those things are the people/characters on the shows, or the things they mention. people will filter what they think is real and can usually tell something fake. (or maybe they can’t!??) it’s the individual viewer’s choice.
I do think product placement will be/is a way videobloggers can break even should they want to though. and I don’t have a problem with it if that’s the way they want to go. it’s everywhere on tv/media now as others have mentioned - we don’t even notice it anymore, like the ads in the streets. it’s hard to escape it. it’s only natural that it’ll (it has) move/d to the web also.
so good luck to the show. it looks like it’d be quite popular.
looking forward to seeing your new project next year Cheryl also.
it’s interesting to see what people are coming up with. I’m just glad there’s so many passionate people out there willing to work on these projects. if only there was more time in the day!
December 27th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
something has been bugging me for days and I could not put my finger on it till just now. A few people commented on how Cheryl “was talking out of both sides of her mouth”….by saying she liked someone personaly but had questions….or perhaps did not like what they were doing professionaly….
If I say I like Tom Hanks as an actor but I didn’t like his last couple of movies, am I talking out of both sides of my mouth? If I say I like “this” canidate but I wonder about his forign policy”. Am I talking out of both sides of my mouth?
That’s what bugged me…..why can’t Cheryl say she likes someone personaly but doesn’t necessarily like everything they do or think that they can do better? We as humans do it all the time…..Heck I love my wife but I don’t always like her….it’s life…..
I think Cheryl did a great job in asking the questions and then making corrections and/or listening to people’s concerns, thoughts and opinions….
She, in my opinion used three people, people she admired and wants to see succeed to ask some questions that could affect us all at some point. It was never personal, although other people’s words made it so.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:25 am
These questions might have easily been posed without individual examples from the community. Questions of follow-through. Questions of product placement, sponsorship, and transparency. These are the large questions are they not?
But without poking at the more visible among us, answers wouldn’t have been brought to the forefront of community thinking, would they? Poking the alphas is dangerous stuff and you took the chance, Cheryl. Balls out, lass. You got balls for sure.
When money is involved, making things gets complicated, including making and sustaining community. Perhaps it is the money rock upon which Scoble gets a leg-up to say the vlogosphere, “eats its own.” Ouch. That really hurt, by the way; hurt in a way that truth hurts.
I daresay the ’sphere learned its lesson more than once about falling too quickly into a mob mentality. Give us credit for growth.
There is definitely an attitude projected from the heart of the vlogosphere that money corrupts the form. It’s too easy to take the next step that by extension, those who make money from the form are - in context of that thinking - potentially corrupt. This attitude is not without reason. Look at extant media, and how the snake-eating-its-tail cycle of advertisers influencing content influencing consumers, influencing advertisers, influencing culture…ad infinitum…has made skeptics of us.
The vlogosphere’s heart is ultra-sensitive to that cycle since breaking it and finding alternatives is why a lot of us are passionately here.
I’d thought product placement a viable alternative to advertising. Thought that vloggers would be ideal to be product-placement supported by toolmakers like Xacti, Apple, Canon, Panasonic. Don’t know why it doesn’t happen frequently. Perhaps because the vloggers don’t themselves approach those companies for support. We certainly promote their tools with every geekish post.
We need sales and promotional experts to grow from and/or gather around the community. Blip’s doing some of that, but only with more traditional “show” content. Blip’s approaching national brand companies. That’s efficient in the way Wal-Mart is efficient, and that kind of efficiency is slowly killing small business.
Think small. Think local.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:05 am
Nicely said, Jan.
As well as sales & marketing experts, we need to promote each other’s films, shows and blogs more - too many good people are not getting enough exposure.
Exposure is my word for 2008.
And I think the reason the big companies aren’t interested in doing product placement deals is that they see that we’re willing to pimp their gear without reward. I guess they don’t see any need to pay people to do it, since they do it anyway. I just spent 9 months telling everybody that I was using a certain brand of phone, and they couldn’t even be bothered to return my emails telling them what I was doing.
And the smarter companies also probably also figure that if someone’s being paid to use a certain brand, their enthusiasm for it is less credible than someone who’s just hyping it because they like it..
Not that I would have taken the phone manufacturer’s money and get locked into their idea of what my videos should be. As I move on from just using my phone, I certainly don’t feel any loyalty or obligation to them, which is quite a nice feeling.
December 28th, 2007 at 8:43 am
re: Jan’s points…
I agree this could have been done in a more generic fashion. I also agree that if it had, there would have been ZERO attention paid to it, and I know that at least for *me*, this is an important discussion and things for me to think about in my ‘08 campaign, so I’m glad Cheryl brought her personal questions up.
The “Money -> Potential Corruption” issue is *exactly* what we’re dealing with, here. I’ve *been* saying that the main issue in this particular case was going from “not sponsored” to “sponsored”. Start out sponsored, like Veronica’s show on Mahalo Daily (sponsored, obviously meaning that Mahalo is giving Veronica money, not that someone is giving Mahalo money for Veronica to do the show), and no questions are asked. Have a show on CNET like Caroline, and no questions are asked. Have a show like Epic-FU, and remain sponsorless… and no questions are asked. Cross over from unpaid to paid, and some people start thinking “What did that person give up in order to get the money?”… “What compromises did they make?”…
Maybe they didn’t make ANY compromises. Maybe someone saw that a show had a demographic and was getting X amount of views per week and was doing their social networking properly and constantly growing their community and jumped on THEIR bandwagon in hopes of benefitting from THEIR position in the space.
The point I was making about Chuck’s political blogging or Phil’s HG10 blogging is that I would watch either of their videos regardless of whether they did them for free or got paid to do them. One of the reasons is that IMO their word/integrity is more important to them than getting a couple of dollars. Chuck has other video work that he does for clients. Phil does freelance work for clients. They already have bills that have been getting paid. Why should I believe that because Chuck gets one more client or Phil gets a loaner camera for 30 days for free that that taints what they have to say in their videos?
Similarly, if I drink Pepsi in every single video I post in 2008, what’s it to *YOU* whether I got paid by Pepsi or they were delivering me free cases of soda or I like the product myself and felt like pubbing it for free or I just happen to drink Pepsi so much that as I was doing my videos, it just so happened to be there? I don’t see what difference it makes AT ALL if you’re tuning in for the content of a show whether BestDamnTech is drinking beer every episode or what shirt Zadi’s wearing or where MissBHavens buys her pizza… OR what flour Cheryl uses in her recipes.
Personally, the less intrusive advertising is, the more *I* like it. NO advertising is the best, of course,
but I’d rather watch them build a storyline around a car dealership in Quarterlife than have the show interrupted for 30-second Toyota commercials.
–
Another point Jan makes is spot-on in that we are ALL already “walking product placement”. As Rupert mentions, he’s been running around with the same brand of phone for 9 MONTHS, *AND* contacting the company about what he’s doing, and hasn’t heard a word back from them. Rupert’s blog is called TWITTERvlog, for crying out loud!
… It doesn’t say on his “about” page http://twittervlog.tv/?page_id=2 that the company behind Twitter has anything to do with him. I’ve said it before that there has to be SOME reasons that decisions are made. Nokia vs iPhone. Rock Band vs Halo3. Coke vs Pepsi. If you tune in to CNET to get product reviews, and you know damned well that EVERYBODY got paid to make those videos, from the on-air talent to the cameraperson to the producer to the EP to the website programmer to the janitor that cleans the floors after everyone goes home… Don’t worry about it when videobloggers go from unpaid to paid. You either get what you came for (this week’s take on internet pop culture) or you don’t…. Regardless of who paid for the shirt or the video game.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:44 am
I’m glad this comment thread is returning to more of a discussion than a tar-and-feathers kind of atmosphere. I’m glad that a few other people are happy that I brought this up. Did I do it well or elegantly? Why no, not especially. But at least I did something about a thing that bugged me. What Jan calls balls, others call stupidity (or if they’re kinder, social ineptness). To me it’s just the big experiment that is my life. And I learn way more when I screw up than when I don’t.
I’m fascinated with who stopped by here, what they brought, and why. I sent out a tweet when I posted this, and that probably got five people to view this video - friends who are interested in what I think. Jay Dedman happened to be one of those friends, and he tweeted a link to my post, and that brought people over who have never heard of me, aren’t necessarily interested in my thoughts, and have no history with me. I’m pretty sure that if Jay had never tweeted it, this video would probably have only been seen by about 30 people. Maybe that’s not a reasonable expectation. Maybe I underestimate my own voice. But some folk have turned up that I’ve been within arms’ length of at events, and neither of us made an effort to meet because we are simply not interested in one another, and they’ve come with guns blazing to shoot down the evildoer - me. Which is cool, because it means they’re passionate about their friends. But I don’t think it says anything about me.
Actually, I was confused by the terms “product integration” and “custom programming” as they were used on the EpicFU and Next New Networks ” advertise” pages. Maybe those phrases mean something solid to people in the Biz, but to me they’re a little vague, and coupled with the statement about being eager to explore custom solutions, had me wondering if any experimenting was taking place. Now I know that so far, it has not, and will be clearly disclosed if/when. But I wouldn’t have had a major problem if it were. I just like knowing.
I’m a bit like Bill Cammack in that I like advertising more when it’s unobtrusive. And I’d consider giving just about any advertised thing a shot if people I know and like are saying it’s a good thing. Knowing whether people plug something simply because they like it, or are paid - that means something to me. But it doesn’t mean I think it’s bad or dishonest to earn a living by helping sell stuff.
I am really interested in whether there will be other ways to earn a living in this video on the web format. At a personal level, I strongly feel that capitalism in general has totally failed to live up to its potential to serve society. People are real. Products and services are real. But businesses aren’t real things, they are just agreements between people about products and services. When the goal of business is to stay in business regardless of the impact on people, products and services, then something, somewhere went horribly wrong. I don’t hold out much hope that can be changed in my lifetime, but I do keep a little spark. I hope to see more vloggers find ways to earn a living doing what they love and being who they are without compromise, hopefully in a win-win way that protects people, products and services from the interest of “business for business’ sake.”
December 29th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Greetings all,
Somewhat of an interloper here as I am not actively producing a video blog but as someone who has observed this community for quite a while, I thought I would throw a couple of things out there:
First of all, I love that you are using the medium itself (and related mediums) to discuss, argue, share and ultimately communicate with each other. This shows it’s strength and that is strength you all have together.
I am pretty sure that the issue of commercialization is one that will never go away. This is especially true when there are so many passionate individuals involved. Of course there will always be those who want to capitalize as much as possible in anything they do and of course there will be those who create out of pure love of the medium. These two groups will always be at odds with each other.
I imagine that the rest are somewhere in the middle. They love doing this and would love to make a living at it. Figuring out how to do both is difficult and certainly requires some sacrifice on one side or the other.
With that said, how about turning this discussion into one that highlights and celebrates video bloggers who have become successful without sacrificing the essence of their work, who are honest and open with their audiences (I am not saying Steve and Zadi aren’t, clearly this discussion has shown that they are)?
So how about it? How about using this passion towards sustainability in the community?
January 28th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
[…] ran across this interesting video via a link from Twitter. It is Cheryl Colan’s observations about the ads in Epic-Fu. I don’t follow Cheryl and in fact this was the first time I’ve ever heard of her. I […]
December 14th, 2008 at 9:22 am
[…] kind of thing was discussed AT LENGTH exactly one year ago, when Cheryl Colan made a post questioning Steve Woolf & Zadi Diaz’s sponsorship & advertising […]