[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Chumley]

It would seem Jason that you already have the platforms to get those
kind of numbers. With Veronica's CNET roots and following and her
ability to be on big shows like TWIT to plug the show your more set up
for quick big number success than pretty much anyone on this group.

The only things I can think of that can help is to court the iTunes
podcast guys for some front page features, as Rupert said, to try to
work something out with Youtube as well.

Some other things are to try to get featured on BoingBoing or other
large circulation blogs. As far as hosting services getting you that
kind of circulation Blip is about as big as they come. Other than
Podshow that is, but I'm not to partial to their business practices.

If you figure out a sure fire way to get six figure numbers quickly
make sure and tell me. I've been going for 2 years and just get 11k or
so downloads per episode.

Rev. Chumley
Cult of UHF vidcast

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jason McCabe Calacanis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We launched Mahalo Daily with Veronica Belmont last week as some of
> you might know. You can find the show at http://daily.mahalo.com and
> on iTunes. We're hosting it at Blip.Tv (for now) but considering some
> other options since folks have been pinging us. 
> 
> I'm looking for some advice on what we can do--other than make the
> best show we can--to grow the view to 100k+ a day quickly. 
> 
> We did over 120k views in the first week (about 12-37k views for each
> of the first four shows) which is much more than I thought we would.
> We've got our iTunes page running and we're syndicating the videos to
> YouTube and Facebook. We've also started a Facebook, Ning, Flickr, and
> Twitter groups/accounts to compliment the program. They are getting
> nice pickup. 
> 
> On a business level, I'm wondering if there is anyone out there who
> can bring in 100-250k views a day for show, perhaps in exchange for
> exclusive hosting rights/advertising rights or something (i.e. Yahoo,
> AOL, YouTube, etc).  
> 
> Anyone have an distribution tips?
> Has anyone done deals like this? 
>  
> Mahalo for any help... 
> 
> best J
> 
> i blogged about this here:
>
http://www.calacanis.com/2007/11/11/congrats-to-tyler-and-veronica-on-an-amazing-first-week-for-mahalo/
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Jason McCabe Calacanis]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This might not be the right place to ask those questions.  Most (not  
> all) of the producers here are working organically and personally  
> with much smaller audiences and are creating uncommercial content.   

Got it. 

Thought that discussions about distribution channels might be in the
mandate since I've seen them here before, but if not please do delete!
 
> But here's my two cents: You want regular six figure viewing figures,  
> I'd say the only guaranteed way to do it from a standing start is to  
> get featured on Youtube every time.  I would imagine, given your  

YouTube has come up a lot so I guess we should talk to them about
distribution. I agree about the value of those viewers and the
horrible behavior. In some ways I guess it's like getting on the front
page of digg: you get some traffic but you also get abusive comments
from the kiddie/anonymous coward contingent.

> My feeling is that to get any value or meaningful response from your  
> viewers, you need to build audience and loyalty organically.  All the  
> social network/social media groups you've set up are a good start.   

Agreed. We're getting a great response from Ning
(http://mahalodaily.ning.com), Facebook (600 or so memebers), and
Twitter. 

> But they're not a quick fix.  Or a road to instant viewer riches.

Agreed again. I think they are good at creating a space for your
existing users to get together.
 
> I advise you to look at EpicFu (formerly Jetset) - Zadi and Steve  
> have done it about as right as possible, I think.  They've been  
> developing their show and their fans for a long time, and are now  
> getting 1m views per week.  They cover a lot of ground, screen on  
> multiple networks as well as their own site and work very hard at  
> it.  They have their own social network, which is integral to their  
> show.  Seems to work well for them.

Will do... those guys certainly know what they're doing and have been
at it for a long time. 
 
> I also advise you not pay any attention to my advice.  I'm a  
> videoblogger.  I'm happy with a two or three figure audience, not  
> six.  I want to keep personal contact with my viewers.  I have  
> nothing to sell and no intention of making it my business.  None of  
> my opinions are based on any experience of building a promotional  
> show with a big audience.  Good luck with it.

Actually, I think your advice is sage... focus on the organic and
stick to your knitting. The goals of our podcast and a personal podcat
are certainly different, but the passion is the same. 

LinkedIn has like a dozen answers including a VERY funny one from Leo
from TWiT. 
http://www.linkedin.com/answers?viewQuestion=&questionID=128692&askerID=24171

best j

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't know Veronica from sunshine, but I'm guessing she's got a
good rack.
> 
> You don't need much more than that and some low-cut, tight blouses and a
> bevy of good writers and guests to make the numbers you describe.

Yeah, ultimately, that's "the formula".  Veronica *is* the show.  You
have an already popular, attractive female as the front, you have
people ghost-write her material and you have other people research and
do graphics for the show, and it's a wrap.

Also, like Rupert said, get featured everywhere you can, especially
YouTube, where they have infinite idiots that just so happen to watch
a lot of videos, especially the ones placed before their eyes on the
first page they land on.  They're absolutely worthless, unless you're
in the partnership program, but the numbers look good when you're
ready to sell, get sponsors or investors.

--
Bill Cammack
http://CammackMediaGroup.com


> Lots of writers out of work this week.
> 
> Jan
> [Who's kinda sorry for the flip if true response]
> 
> On 11/11/07, Jason McCabe Calacanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert  wrote:
> > > This might not be the right place to ask those questions.  Most (not
> > > all) of the producers here are working organically and personally
> > > with much smaller audiences and are creating uncommercial content.
> >
> > Got it.
> >
> > Thought that discussions about distribution channels might be in the
> > mandate since I've seen them here before, but if not please do delete!
> >
> > > But here's my two cents: You want regular six figure viewing
figures,
> > > I'd say the only guaranteed way to do it from a standing start is to
> > > get featured on Youtube every time.  I would imagine, given your
> >
> > YouTube has come up a lot so I guess we should talk to them about
> > distribution. I agree about the value of those viewers and the
> > horrible behavior. In some ways I guess it's like getting on the front
> > page of digg: you get some traffic but you also get abusive comments
> > from the kiddie/anonymous coward contingent.
> >
> > > My feeling is that to get any value or meaningful response from your
> > > viewers, you need to build audience and loyalty organically. 
All the
> > > social network/social media groups you've set up are a good start.
> >
> > Agreed. We're getting a great response from Ning
> > (http://mahalodaily.ning.com), Facebook (600 or so memebers), and
> > Twitter.
> >
> > > But they're not a quick fix.  Or a road to instant viewer riches.
> >
> > Agreed again. I think they are good at creating a space for your
> > existing users to get together.
> >
> > > I advise you to look at EpicFu (formerly Jetset) - Zadi and Steve
> > > have done it about as right as possible, I think.  They've been
> > > developing their show and their fans for a long time, and are now
> > > getting 1m views per week.  They cover a lot of ground, screen on
> > > multiple networks as well as their own site and work very hard at
> > > it.  They have their own social network, which is integral to their
> > > show.  Seems to work well for them.
> >
> > Will do... those guys certainly know what they're doing and have been
> > at it for a long time.
> >
> > > I also advise you not pay any attention to my advice.  I'm a
> > > videoblogger.  I'm happy with a two or three figure audience, not
> > > six.  I want to keep personal contact with my viewers.  I have
> > > nothing to sell and no intention of making it my business.  None of
> > > my opinions are based on any experience of building a promotional
> > > show with a big audience.  Good luck with it.
> >
> > Actually, I think your advice is sage... focus on the organic and
> > stick to your knitting. The goals of our podcast and a personal podcat
> > are certainly different, but the passion is the same.
> >
> > LinkedIn has like a dozen answers including a VERY funny one from Leo
> > from TWiT.
> >
> >
http://www.linkedin.com/answers?viewQuestion=&questionID=128692&askerID=24171
> >
> > best j
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Faux Press - better than real
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
> http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> http://wburg.tv
> aim=janofsound
> air=862.571.5334
> skype=janmclaughlin
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Frank Sinton]

Hi Jason,

The show is looking great - congrats. You are doing everything right
so far. A few tips:

1) Subscribe - make it more obvious on how to subscribe to your show.
Right now, it is buried at the bottom of your vlog. Bring it up and
put it right smack next to your video of the day. Views are cheap,
subscribers are pure gold.

2) Be sure to promote your website URL on your videos. pre and post
the video, of course.

3) YouTube - i assume this is u:
http://www.youtube.com/user/mahalodotcom

Thumbnails and titles are hugely important on YT. I think Jan and Tim
already covered this area on the thumbs, if you choose to go there
 if you don't, Epic-Fu has a good example channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/jetsetshow

4) Metadata is very important for video. Title + thumbnail + tags -
these are by far the most important. Use the same basic principles as
websites - good keywords in your titles and tags. 

5) RSS - in your feedburner rss:
(a) be sure to have a media:thumbnail
(b) turn off autoplay in the RSS! I went to the feed and 5 videos
started trying to play.
(c) can you use your Blip RSS and put it into FeedBurner? Blip has
great RSS - they do the hard work so you don't have to.


Hope that helps. BTW, your RSS is in Mefeedia - i subscribed. Looking
forward to watching future episodes.

http://www.mefeedia.com/feeds/26422/


Regards,
-Frank

Frank Sinton
CEO, Mefeedia

http://www.mefeedia.com/user/franks - What are you watching?


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin"
>  wrote:
> >
> > I don't know Veronica from sunshine, but I'm guessing she's got a
> good rack.
> > 
> > You don't need much more than that and some low-cut, tight blouses
and a
> > bevy of good writers and guests to make the numbers you describe.
> 
> Yeah, ultimately, that's "the formula".  Veronica *is* the show.  You
> have an already popular, attractive female as the front, you have
> people ghost-write her material and you have other people research and
> do graphics for the show, and it's a wrap.
> 
> Also, like Rupert said, get featured everywhere you can, especially
> YouTube, where they have infinite idiots that just so happen to watch
> a lot of videos, especially the ones placed before their eyes on the
> first page they land on.  They're absolutely worthless, unless you're
> in the partnership program, but the numbers look good when you're
> ready to sell, get sponsors or investors.
> 
> --
> Bill Cammack
> http://CammackMediaGroup.com
> 
> 
> > Lots of writers out of work this week.
> > 
> > Jan
> > [Who's kinda sorry for the flip if true response]
> > 
> > On 11/11/07, Jason McCabe Calacanis  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert  wrote:
> > > > This might not be the right place to ask those questions. 
Most (not
> > > > all) of the producers here are working organically and personally
> > > > with much smaller audiences and are creating uncommercial content.
> > >
> > > Got it.
> > >
> > > Thought that discussions about distribution channels might be in the
> > > mandate since I've seen them here before, but if not please do
delete!
> > >
> > > > But here's my two cents: You want regular six figure viewing
> figures,
> > > > I'd say the only guaranteed way to do it from a standing start
is to
> > > > get featured on Youtube every time.  I would imagine, given your
> > >
> > > YouTube has come up a lot so I guess we should talk to them about
> > > distribution. I agree about the value of those viewers and the
> > > horrible behavior. In some ways I guess it's like getting on the
front
> > > page of digg: you get some traffic but you also get abusive comments
> > > from the kiddie/anonymous coward contingent.
> > >
> > > > My feeling is that to get any value or meaningful response
from your
> > > > viewers, you need to build audience and loyalty organically. 
> All the
> > > > social network/social media groups you've set up are a good start.
> > >
> > > Agreed. We're getting a great response from Ning
> > > (http://mahalodaily.ning.com), Facebook (600 or so memebers), and
> > > Twitter.
> > >
> > > > But they're not a quick fix.  Or a road to instant viewer riches.
> > >
> > > Agreed again. I think they are good at creating a space for your
> > > existing users to get together.
> > >
> > > > I advise you to look at EpicFu (formerly Jetset) - Zadi and Steve
> > > > have done it about as right as possible, I think.  They've been
> > > > developing their show and their fans for a long time, and are now
> > > > getting 1m views per week.  They cover a lot of ground, screen on
> > > > multiple networks as well as their own site and work very hard at
> > > > it.  They have their own social network, which is integral to
their
> > > > show.  Seems to work well for them.
> > >
> > > Will do... those guys certainly know what they're doing and have
been
> > > at it for a long time.
> > >
> > > > I also ad

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Richard Bluestein]

I'm going to puke.

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[danielmcvicar]

Hi Jason
Your view level is pretty good, your show looks very good.

If you want more views, put it across the board on multiple servers and hosts.  
You'd be 
surprised at how many you can get at Daily Motion.

You may also experiment with short sweet and sexy promos.   Across the board.

Sex is what attracts attention the most, the hook is something that you have an 
instinct 
for.  

Then, as a daily show, you are a service, liek Rocketboom, more than a brand 
like French 
Maid TV.  Your audience will find a certain comfort in watching the videos 
daily.

What I enjoyed with The Late Nite Mash experiment was a surprise to me...coming 
from 
audience counting media.  It was the collaboration that I found online and in 
the 
community.

All the best with your show.

Daniel

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jason McCabe Calacanis" <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We launched Mahalo Daily with Veronica Belmont last week as some of
> you might know. You can find the show at http://daily.mahalo.com and
> on iTunes. We're hosting it at Blip.Tv (for now) but considering some
> other options since folks have been pinging us. 
> 
> I'm looking for some advice on what we can do--other than make the
> best show we can--to grow the view to 100k+ a day quickly. 
> 
> We did over 120k views in the first week (about 12-37k views for each
> of the first four shows) which is much more than I thought we would.
> We've got our iTunes page running and we're syndicating the videos to
> YouTube and Facebook. We've also started a Facebook, Ning, Flickr, and
> Twitter groups/accounts to compliment the program. They are getting
> nice pickup. 
> 
> On a business level, I'm wondering if there is anyone out there who
> can bring in 100-250k views a day for show, perhaps in exchange for
> exclusive hosting rights/advertising rights or something (i.e. Yahoo,
> AOL, YouTube, etc).  
> 
> Anyone have an distribution tips?
> Has anyone done deals like this? 
>  
> Mahalo for any help... 
> 
> best J
> 
> i blogged about this here:
> http://www.calacanis.com/2007/11/11/congrats-to-tyler-and-veronica-on-an-
amazing-first-week-for-mahalo/
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[danielmcvicar]

Twaaang.  

OK, here's a summary of my advice.  Jason, show us your tits.

Dan the cheap guitar

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "danielmcvicar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Jason
> Your view level is pretty good, your show looks very good.
> 
> If you want more views, put it across the board on multiple servers and 
> hosts.  You'd be 
> surprised at how many you can get at Daily Motion.
> 
> You may also experiment with short sweet and sexy promos.   Across the board.
> 
> Sex is what attracts attention the most, the hook is something that you have 
> an instinct 
> for.  
> 
> Then, as a daily show, you are a service, liek Rocketboom, more than a brand 
> like 
French 
> Maid TV.  Your audience will find a certain comfort in watching the videos 
> daily.
> 
> What I enjoyed with The Late Nite Mash experiment was a surprise to 
> me...coming from 
> audience counting media.  It was the collaboration that I found online and in 
> the 
> community.
> 
> All the best with your show.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jason McCabe Calacanis"  wrote:
> >
> > We launched Mahalo Daily with Veronica Belmont last week as some of
> > you might know. You can find the show at http://daily.mahalo.com and
> > on iTunes. We're hosting it at Blip.Tv (for now) but considering some
> > other options since folks have been pinging us. 
> > 
> > I'm looking for some advice on what we can do--other than make the
> > best show we can--to grow the view to 100k+ a day quickly. 
> > 
> > We did over 120k views in the first week (about 12-37k views for each
> > of the first four shows) which is much more than I thought we would.
> > We've got our iTunes page running and we're syndicating the videos to
> > YouTube and Facebook. We've also started a Facebook, Ning, Flickr, and
> > Twitter groups/accounts to compliment the program. They are getting
> > nice pickup. 
> > 
> > On a business level, I'm wondering if there is anyone out there who
> > can bring in 100-250k views a day for show, perhaps in exchange for
> > exclusive hosting rights/advertising rights or something (i.e. Yahoo,
> > AOL, YouTube, etc).  
> > 
> > Anyone have an distribution tips?
> > Has anyone done deals like this? 
> >  
> > Mahalo for any help... 
> > 
> > best J
> > 
> > i blogged about this here:
> > http://www.calacanis.com/2007/11/11/congrats-to-tyler-and-veronica-on-an-
> amazing-first-week-for-mahalo/
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[bordercollieaustralianshepherd]

Jason

Wow ... I just caught up with the whole thread ... damn you! Damn You
Jason ... LOL

Well I stand by my ideas, but must give you a big nod for self
promoting in such a sly way ... 

Of all of the crap I threw your way ... and having learned this AIN"T
your first BBQ ... I would work the "Thank You" angle.

Thanks for letting me play

Dave

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Lan Bui]

Whit is the true value of getting 100,000 views in a day? Is it so you can get 
sponsors to 
be interested in your show?

If you do what Rupert and Bill say about getting featured then sure you will 
get those 
views but what true value does it add to Mahalo Daily? 

Was and is your goal just to make money with Mahalo Daily?

Beyond what Jan said, which also would get you viewers, I know that building a 
community 
of genuinely interested people would be the best way go get valuable viewers. 
The better 
the community, the more interactive, the more viewers you will see come.

I have ideas, contact me and we can talk.

Lan
www.LanBui.com



--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jason McCabe Calacanis" <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We launched Mahalo Daily with Veronica Belmont last week as some of
> you might know. You can find the show at http://daily.mahalo.com and
> on iTunes. We're hosting it at Blip.Tv (for now) but considering some
> other options since folks have been pinging us. 
> 
> I'm looking for some advice on what we can do--other than make the
> best show we can--to grow the view to 100k+ a day quickly. 
> 
> We did over 120k views in the first week (about 12-37k views for each
> of the first four shows) which is much more than I thought we would.
> We've got our iTunes page running and we're syndicating the videos to
> YouTube and Facebook. We've also started a Facebook, Ning, Flickr, and
> Twitter groups/accounts to compliment the program. They are getting
> nice pickup. 
> 
> On a business level, I'm wondering if there is anyone out there who
> can bring in 100-250k views a day for show, perhaps in exchange for
> exclusive hosting rights/advertising rights or something (i.e. Yahoo,
> AOL, YouTube, etc).  
> 
> Anyone have an distribution tips?
> Has anyone done deals like this? 
>  
> Mahalo for any help... 
> 
> best J
> 
> i blogged about this here:
> http://www.calacanis.com/2007/11/11/congrats-to-tyler-and-veronica-on-an-
amazing-first-week-for-mahalo/
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[David Howell]

Offering free advice to people who are getting going with this is just giving 
back to the 
community. That's a good thing.

Offering free advice to well established entities could be a good thing if that 
well 
established entity has an inclination to use the one giving the advice for 
future paid 
employment/consultations.

I made the mistake of offering free advice to one such entity. Now they are 
finding issues 
with me wanting to be paid for future "free" advice. Free is in quotes there 
because I am 
no longer offering free advice to that company.

I guess in the case of Mr Calacanis coming and posting on this list his 
question could be 
construed as rather tasteless when the majority of people here are pretty happy 
with 
getting single or double digit page views.

David
http://www.taoofdavid.com
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> You've successfully launched and sold several media properties, Mr.
> Calacanis. You've also got a company, Mahalo, that has a marketing budget.
> In my opinion, folks in your league should pay for advice instead of getting
> it for free. It's not like you're a Rocketboom or a Epic--FU/Jetset,
> starting from the ground up on a shoestring, in the community with the rest
> of us, and including us in the conversation by asking one or some of us join
> you at Mahalo on a contractural or full-time basis to help you gain
> subscribers. You are a not a regular participant on this list, and I've seen
> nothing of value come from you since I've been subscribed. While it doesn't
> break any rules for you to come ask this question, I find it rather
> insulting for you to do so without offering a gig or valuable advice to one
> or some of the people in this community.
> 
> At best, you're getting free consulting that devalues the hard-earned
> expertise of people here. At worst, you're using this medium as a gimmick to
> start conversation about Mahalo Daily. Both are pretty gross.
> 
> And here's my question to the group:
> 
> When does community-based advice to peers end and when does free consulting
> to professionals begin? Or, in other words, when do we start devaluing our
> own experience and expertise by giving it away gratis to people who could
> afford to pay for it?  This is my biggest question as social media rises and
> communities help more and more with building of companies.
> 
> On 12/11/2007, bordercollieaustralianshepherd <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >   Jason
> >
> > Wow ... I just caught up with the whole thread ... damn you! Damn You
> > Jason ... LOL
> >
> > Well I stand by my ideas, but must give you a big nod for self
> > promoting in such a sly way ...
> >
> > Of all of the crap I threw your way ... and having learned this AIN"T
> > your first BBQ ... I would work the "Thank You" angle.
> >
> > Thanks for letting me play
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jeffrey Taylor
> Mobile: +33625497654
> Fax: +33177722734
> Skype: thejeffreytaylor
> Googlechat/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Jason McCabe Calacanis]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> You've successfully launched and sold several media properties, Mr.
> Calacanis. You've also got a company, Mahalo, that has a marketing budget.
> In my opinion, folks in your league should pay for advice instead of getting
> it for free. It's not like you're a Rocketboom or a Epic--FU/Jetset,
> starting from the ground up on a shoestring, in the community with the rest
> of us, and including us in the conversation by asking one or some of us join
> you at Mahalo on a contractural or full-time basis to help you gain
> subscribers. You are a not a regular participant on this list, and I've seen
> nothing of value come from you since I've been subscribed. While it doesn't
> break any rules for you to come ask this question, I find it rather
> insulting for you to do so without offering a gig or valuable advice to one
> or some of the people in this community.

Well, all the advice coming in is 100% transparent and open so we all benefit 
from it. It's 
not like I'm asking folks to tell me in a private email and hoarding the 
information. 

Also, I think folks have the option of NOT answering. 

In the other businesses I've run (i.e. Weblogs, Inc., Netscape/Propeller) I 
used the same 
process of being 100% transparent and giving out MORE information then I got 
in. Check 
my sharing of AdSense learnings on calacanis.com over the years. I gave out all 
our 
secrets and got rewarded with advice and good will over the long term. 

If something works I feel like sharing it is the best way to maximize value... 
 
> At best, you're getting free consulting that devalues the hard-earned
> expertise of people here. 

Really? How so?!? I actually think it gives folks the chance to showcase their 
talent (if  they 
want to). On LinkedIn Answers I got over a dozen responses and many of those 
were very 
good (ones here were better on average). Those folks all get to look smart and 
I think they 
would get more work from it. 
 
> When does community-based advice to peers end and when does free consulting
> to professionals begin? Or, in other words, when do we start devaluing our
> own experience and expertise by giving it away gratis to people who could
> afford to pay for it?  This is my biggest question as social media rises and
> communities help more and more with building of companies.

Well, I think everyone can answer this for themselves by either giving or 
hoarding 
information. It's an individual decision... some folks do blogs giving tons of 
advice 
understanding that they will get increased consulting gigs from it, other folks 
have 
enough consulting gigs and decide to hold their advice close to their vest. 

Different strokes.. 

best j 

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Jason McCabe Calacanis]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Lan Bui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Whit is the true value of getting 100,000 views in a day? Is it so you can 
> get sponsors to 
> be interested in your show?
> If you do what Rupert and Bill say about getting featured then sure you will 
> get those 
> views but what true value does it add to Mahalo Daily? 
> Was and is your goal just to make money with Mahalo Daily?

The goal of Mahalo Daily is to entertain, inform, and sometimes even help 
folks. We look 
at it as a stand-alone property that will also, on a secondary basis, sometimes 
inspire 
folks to use Mahalo for what it's good for (searching, research, how to 
articles, etc). So, at 
the bottom of each Mahalo Daily blog post we post a bunch of related links. 

Today we have a couple of articles including "How to use Dopplr" and "how to 
book a 
cheap flight" linked under the blog post. So, after watching today's show 
(which is very 
funny fyi... good job team!) a certain percentage (5-10%) of the audience might 
want to go 
deeper into the topic area a certain percentage of those might become 
regular Mahalo 
users (say 10% of 10%, or 1%). 

In terms of sponsorship we would consider a sponsor if they were in sync with 
the 
audience and Mahalo brand, but we don't need to have a sponsor because if we 
can get to 
100k views a day the traffic from the searches would pay for the show (a... 
cue the 
sinister Calacanis/Darth Vader music). Yes, page views/search traffic at 50,000 
a day 
range would pay for enough of the show to break even. 
 
> Beyond what Jan said, which also would get you viewers, I know that building 
> a 
community 
> of genuinely interested people would be the best way go get valuable viewers. 
> The 
better 
> the community, the more interactive, the more viewers you will see come.

Sage advice... we've got the core audience already thanks to Veronica's past 
work and a 
core audience of 70-125k folks coming to Mahalo.com every day. So, I guess the 
advice 
of "slow growth" is the best we've seen here. 
 
best j

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Jason McCabe Calacanis]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, John Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm with you Richard. I suggest Jason have lunch with
> Andrew Baron and relive the worst TWIT ever.

I think you're referring to Rupert Murdoch?!? ;-)

TWiT 57 is legendary now... Leo talks about "not pulling a 57" or "let's not 57 
this one.." in 
the pre-interview. Very funny.

j

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Steve Watkins]

Whats really so bad about twit 57 anyway? I tried to listen to twit once and 
couldnt take it, 
but I just watched the video version of twit 57 all the way through. Sure, 
there were some 
moments where too many people talking at once wasnt good, but I found the show 
interesting. Unless the video version is edited, I didnt spot any legendary 
row, just a mildly 
spirited discussion, which was fairly revealing and thus interesting.

And the Murdoch comments were nothing compared to the brief moment at the end 
of 
2006 and start of 2007 where a few 'would be media moguls' stated their 
aspirations in 
even more ott fashion, only for those plans to wither away without much fanfare 
or 
explanation.

I got rather passionate about such things at the time, disgusted by the idea 
that a new 
breed of gatekeepers were trying to bring themselves into existence, because 
that seemed 
like it would destroy some of the things that make blogging and vlogging have 
such 
potential. So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didnt seem to be 
selling out in the 
usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs that Mr Baron 
was 
seeking to achieve a different sort of power. 

In a strange way Im sort of sad that nothing much has happened, I was looking 
forward to 
seeing what would occur. I imagine to witness the emergence of a potential 
mogul of the 
new media world, we need a far more ruthless character with an iron will, and a 
plan that 
is more detail than dream, to give it a go. None of the a-
list/controvertial/opinionated/whatever characters, or your confrontations, 
live up to the 
hype. 

Perhaps the new media dominator must also have a good sense of timing, and will 
wait till 
things grow, and a lot of people do the hard work, before making their move. 

2007, not what was expected, and as I said before I think the wobbly economy 
could 
make 2008 a year of shattered dreams, for those who couldnt keep their dreams 
to a 
realistic size. Long live the sustainable ones, with their feet on the ground!

Regarding Mahalo and promotion, I would like to know stuff about promotion 
options that 
are well beyond the reach of the individual or those with more modest funding 
etc. Do you 
ever consider advertising in traditional mass media? I know that back in 2005 
or whenever 
the year was that some bvloggers got a lot of mainstream press, some were 
surprised 
how little difference a story in the NYT or wherever, would make to their 
stats. And here in 
the UK Ive not seen anything like the number of TV adverts for dotcoms as I did 
during 
the original bubble. But Im also not convinced that web-only promotion works on 
a huge 
scale all that often, seems very hit & miss, and I even wonder whether the 
notion of mass 
marketing will stand the test of time. What if everybody is on the race to the 
bottom, the 
only way is down, etc? Still taht would probably fit well with the needs of 
plnet earth, the 
end of 'god is growth' and a return to saner scales in all things?

Cheers

Steve Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jason McCabe Calacanis" <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, John Coffey  wrote:
> >
> > I'm with you Richard. I suggest Jason have lunch with
> > Andrew Baron and relive the worst TWIT ever.
> 
> I think you're referring to Rupert Murdoch?!? ;-)
> 
> TWiT 57 is legendary now... Leo talks about "not pulling a 57" or "let's not 
> 57 this one.." 
in 
> the pre-interview. Very funny.
> 
> j
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[scottwitter_on_twitter]

Not the kind of show most people would subscribe to IMO, it is the
kind of show that has to be up an in the forefront of bored surfers,
like the way that Yahoo presents "The 9" show. 

"hey i'm bored she looks ok... click"

i don't know of anyone that religiously watches entertainment tonight,
not a 'have to watch it' kind of show, just it is there and convenient.

To get the kind of viewers you want, hundreds of websites with click
on pics of veronica in a bikini in every possible site that tween and
teens gravitate towards.

everyday, repeat, renew ads, expand site lists and links, until she is
on every site in the entire world and cannot be escaped even on a
National Geographic site translated in Punjabi.

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Jason McCabe Calacanis]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Whats really so bad about twit 57 anyway? I tried to listen to twit
once and couldnt take it, 
> but I just watched the video version of twit 57 all the way through.
Sure, there were some 
> moments where too many people talking at once wasnt good, but I
found the show 
> interesting. Unless the video version is edited, I didnt spot any
legendary row, just a mildly 
> spirited discussion, which was fairly revealing and thus interesting.


The audio version was a disaster... the amount of noise was crazy.
Some folks like the spirited debate between me "the Baron," some folks
didn't... i thought is fun! :-)
 
> And the Murdoch comments were nothing compared to the brief moment 
> at the end of 
> 2006 and start of 2007 where a few 'would be media moguls' stated 
> their aspirations in 
> even more ott fashion, only for those plans to wither away without 
> much fanfare or 
> explanation.

No comment. 

> I got rather passionate about such things at the time, disgusted by 
> the idea that a new 
> breed of gatekeepers were trying to bring themselves into existence, 
> because that seemed 
> like it would destroy some of the things that make blogging and 
> vlogging have such 
> potential. So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didnt seem 
> to be selling out in the 
> usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs 
> that Mr Baron was 
> seeking to achieve a different sort of power. 

I actually think he's a hard working, smart guy... he created
something unique at a unique time. I admire him for having big
aspirations and who knows, some day he might become Murdoch. I
mean, it could happen. 

That being said, I think the folks who got in blogging and podcasting
first got to grab a lot of land and look really smart when the value
went up myself included. When there were only two gadget blogs it
was easy to be #1 or #2... today? Well, today there are 500+ gadget
related blogs. 

> In a strange way Im sort of sad that nothing much has happened, I 
> was looking forward to 
> seeing what would occur. I imagine to witness the emergence of a 
> potential mogul of the 
> new media world, we need a far more ruthless character with an iron 
> will, and a plan that 
> is more detail than dream, to give it a go. None of the a-
> list/controvertial/opinionated/whatever characters, or your 
> confrontations, live up to the 
> hype. 

I think you'll see some of the video network folks make a go of it...
Rev3 and NextNewNetworks seem to have solid models of controlling show
costs while keeping value high--and publishing on a regular basis. 

> Regarding Mahalo and promotion, I would like to know stuff about 
> promotion options that 
> are well beyond the reach of the individual or those with more 
> modest funding etc. Do you 
> ever consider advertising in traditional mass media? 

I don't believe in buying advertising for startup companies... I've
always believed that if you make the best product in your space the
world will find it. I'm probably making a mistake in that belief, but
it's worked for me for a while now so I'm going to stick with it.

When I have someone call me and say "buy a $200,000 advertising buy
and we'll send you 10,000 folks a day for the next six months" I think
to myself... hmmm... maybe we could find someone uber talented and put
a couple of talented people around them and make a show that will
bring in 10x." Plus, if you own the show it grows forever... so, it's
 much better deal for us to build a great show then give the money to
some radio station or website to send us some transient traffic.

If we do 250 shows over the next year and they each get 500 views in
the archive on average that's like 100k+ people a day visiting the
site. That's really cool...  the asset value of archives is going to
be great I think.

Own your master tapes if you're going to do a deal with PodShow or
PodTech or Rev3 if you can :-)

best j 

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And don't listen to Daniel McVicar. :)
> 
> Sorry daniel.  Sex sells is B.S.   If you want a genuine audience...
> an audience of makers, participators and creators... like maholo
> fundamentally needs to survive... you're downplay the overt sexiness
> of Veronica, and up-play her obvious street cred.  Veronica should go
> all out and be the geek and gaming girl she was born to be... not put
> on the tight fitting shirt and dumb herself down.

I agree, and disagree. :)

First of all, *obviously* sex sells.  It always has, and it always
will.  In LIFE.  Not just in video blogs. :)

Maybe we should make a list of the 'top' video blogs with female leads
and the 'top' video blogs with male leads.

The part where I agree with you is that you need for the chick to have
a personality, AND either be able to come up with cool dialogue
herself or have the ability to deliver what the ghost-writers make up
for her.

Dan's not saying for anyone to "act like a bimbo" or "dumb anything
down".  The fact remains that if you remove chicks as the hosts on
your shows, your views are going to plummet.

In an ideal world, you can put anyone that looks like anything in
front of a camera and have people tune in on a regular basis.  Until
then, attractive women will always be more in demand and receive more
attention than unattractive women or guys in general.

Please feel free to prove me wrong. :)  If you can, I'll admit that
you've changed my mind, publicly, in this same forum where I'm making
these assertions. :D

--
Bill Cammack
http://CammackMediaGroup.com



> This is much like the youtube issue earlier.  Youtube courts a lot of
> non-genuine traffic... people there for the crowd and spectacle...
> people who leave assinine comments and wouldn't watch your show if it
> wasn't the most popular video of the day.
> 
> This is VERY often seen amongst many top youtube people. 500,000 hits
> on one video 11,000 on the next.
> 
> In the racing world you're only as good as your last race... in the
> youtube world your only really as big as your least viewed video. That
> is more reflective of your real audience.
> 
> In order for maholo to survive it must tap into that culture of
> creators, makers, participators... communicators.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> On 11/12/07, danielmcvicar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Jason
> > Your view level is pretty good, your show looks very good.
> >
> > If you want more views, put it across the board on multiple
servers and hosts.  You'd be
> > surprised at how many you can get at Daily Motion.
> >
> > You may also experiment with short sweet and sexy promos.   Across
the board.
> >
> > Sex is what attracts attention the most, the hook is something
that you have an instinct
> > for.
> >
> > Then, as a daily show, you are a service, liek Rocketboom, more
than a brand like French
> > Maid TV.  Your audience will find a certain comfort in watching
the videos daily.
> >
> > What I enjoyed with The Late Nite Mash experiment was a surprise
to me...coming from
> > audience counting media.  It was the collaboration that I found
online and in the
> > community.
> >
> > All the best with your show.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jason McCabe Calacanis"
 wrote:
> > >
> > > We launched Mahalo Daily with Veronica Belmont last week as some of
> > > you might know. You can find the show at http://daily.mahalo.com and
> > > on iTunes. We're hosting it at Blip.Tv (for now) but considering
some
> > > other options since folks have been pinging us.
> > >
> > > I'm looking for some advice on what we can do--other than make the
> > > best show we can--to grow the view to 100k+ a day quickly.
> > >
> > > We did over 120k views in the first week (about 12-37k views for
each
> > > of the first four shows) which is much more than I thought we would.
> > > We've got our iTunes page running and we're syndicating the
videos to
> > > YouTube and Facebook. We've also started a Facebook, Ning,
Flickr, and
> > > Twitter groups/accounts to compliment the program. They are getting
> > > nice pickup.
> > >
> > > On a business level, I'm wondering if there is anyone out there who
> > > can bring in 100-250k views a day for show, perhaps in exchange for
> > > exclusive hosting rights/advertising rights or something (i.e.
Yahoo,
> > > AOL, YouTube, etc).
> > >
> > > Anyone have an distribution tips?
> > > Has anyone done deals like this?
> > >
> > > Mahalo for any help...
> > >
> > > best J
> > >
> > > i blogged about this here:
> > >
http://www.calacanis.com/2007/11/11/congrats-to-tyler-and-veronica-on-an-
> > amazing-first-week-for-mahalo/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No, I think we're pretty much on the same page bill.
> 
> In fact I think you've clarified the point.
> 
> I should say that diversity is the key.  Even though youtube doesn't
> for example deliver loyal audiences it does provide for the visibility
> to attract loyal audiences.  Neither one end of the spectrum or the
> other is good. Reaching a diverse audience is good, because you need
> to be visible enough for your core audience to find you.

I like this idea... Core inside Diversity.  Similar to panning for
gold. :)

--
Bill


> In the same way sex sells.  If that's all you have in this space
> you've got sh*t.  Why... because increasingly a host is going to have
> to have a more and more shrewd personality... be more of a geek. Have
> more knowlege of the subject matter.
> 
> This is not a knock at all, but when Amanda started working at
> rocketboom she new nothing about online culture. She was however a
> quick learner. She didn't have much street cred though, nor did she
> need it.  Veronica on the other hand has tremendously geeky interests
> and cred. She's not just a pretty face.
> 
> This is the trend... more cred, more shrewdness, more substance, more
> passion for the subject matter. Ultimately that will rule out over the
> whole pretty face routine.
> 
> I mean, look at Leo Laporte. ;)
> 
> But that's another tangent... the tech curmudgeon, the non-threatening
> host that makes everything safe for all the non-geeks... but that's a
> whole nother' email.
> 
> It goes with the maturity of the space.
> 
> I didn't finish that last email the way i had intended either.
> 
> Sex is definitely not everything in this space, but of course a little
> sexiness never hurt anyone's numbers.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> 
> On 11/12/07, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > And don't listen to Daniel McVicar. :)
> > >
> > > Sorry daniel.  Sex sells is B.S.   If you want a genuine audience...
> > > an audience of makers, participators and creators... like maholo
> > > fundamentally needs to survive... you're downplay the overt sexiness
> > > of Veronica, and up-play her obvious street cred.  Veronica
should go
> > > all out and be the geek and gaming girl she was born to be...
not put
> > > on the tight fitting shirt and dumb herself down.
> >
> > I agree, and disagree. :)
> >
> > First of all, *obviously* sex sells.  It always has, and it always
> > will.  In LIFE.  Not just in video blogs. :)
> >
> > Maybe we should make a list of the 'top' video blogs with female leads
> > and the 'top' video blogs with male leads.
> >
> > The part where I agree with you is that you need for the chick to have
> > a personality, AND either be able to come up with cool dialogue
> > herself or have the ability to deliver what the ghost-writers make up
> > for her.
> >
> > Dan's not saying for anyone to "act like a bimbo" or "dumb anything
> > down".  The fact remains that if you remove chicks as the hosts on
> > your shows, your views are going to plummet.
> >
> > In an ideal world, you can put anyone that looks like anything in
> > front of a camera and have people tune in on a regular basis.  Until
> > then, attractive women will always be more in demand and receive more
> > attention than unattractive women or guys in general.
> >
> > Please feel free to prove me wrong. :)  If you can, I'll admit that
> > you've changed my mind, publicly, in this same forum where I'm making
> > these assertions. :D
> >
> > --
> > Bill Cammack
> > http://CammackMediaGroup.com
> >
> >
> >
> > > This is much like the youtube issue earlier.  Youtube courts a
lot of
> > > non-genuine traffic... people there for the crowd and spectacle...
> > > people who leave assinine comments and wouldn't watch your show
if it
> > > wasn't the most popular video of the day.
> > >
> > > This is VERY often seen amongst many top youtube people. 500,000
hits
> > > on one video 11,000 on the next.
> > >
> > > In the racing world you're only as good as your last race... in the
> > > youtube world your only really as big as your least viewed
video. That
> > > is more reflective of your real audience.
> > >
> > > In order for maholo to survive it must tap into that culture of
> > > creators, makers, participators... communicators.
> > >
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > > On 11/12/07, danielmcvicar  wrote:
> > > > Hi Jason
> > > > Your view level is pretty good, your show looks very good.
> > > >
> > > > If you want more views, put it across the board on multiple
> > servers and hosts.  You'd be
> > > > surprised at how many you can get at Daily Motion.
> > > >
> > > > You may also experiment with short sweet and sexy promos.   Across
> > the board.
> > > >
> > > > Sex is what attracts attention the most, the hook is something
> > that you have an instinct
> > > > for.
> > > >
> > > > Then, as a daily show, you are a servic

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[danielmcvicar]

Hi Mike
I was flip, but sex is what does sell, in advertising, etc.
However, once it is sold, what are you bringign.  Not just sex, but a service.  
You must 
give some nutrition with dessert, and once you bring people into the community, 
listen, 
get involved, and ultimately lead.

This is a good discussion
D
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And don't listen to Daniel McVicar. :)
> 
> Sorry daniel.  Sex sells is B.S.   If you want a genuine audience...
> an audience of makers, participators and creators... like maholo
> fundamentally needs to survive... you're downplay the overt sexiness
> of Veronica, and up-play her obvious street cred.  Veronica should go
> all out and be the geek and gaming girl she was born to be... not put
> on the tight fitting shirt and dumb herself down.
> 
> This is much like the youtube issue earlier.  Youtube courts a lot of
> non-genuine traffic... people there for the crowd and spectacle...
> people who leave assinine comments and wouldn't watch your show if it
> wasn't the most popular video of the day.
> 
> This is VERY often seen amongst many top youtube people. 500,000 hits
> on one video 11,000 on the next.
> 
> In the racing world you're only as good as your last race... in the
> youtube world your only really as big as your least viewed video. That
> is more reflective of your real audience.
> 
> In order for maholo to survive it must tap into that culture of
> creators, makers, participators... communicators.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> On 11/12/07, danielmcvicar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Jason
> > Your view level is pretty good, your show looks very good.
> >
> > If you want more views, put it across the board on multiple servers and 
> > hosts.  You'd 
be
> > surprised at how many you can get at Daily Motion.
> >
> > You may also experiment with short sweet and sexy promos.   Across the 
> > board.
> >
> > Sex is what attracts attention the most, the hook is something that you 
> > have an 
instinct
> > for.
> >
> > Then, as a daily show, you are a service, liek Rocketboom, more than a 
> > brand like 
French
> > Maid TV.  Your audience will find a certain comfort in watching the videos 
> > daily.
> >
> > What I enjoyed with The Late Nite Mash experiment was a surprise to 
> > me...coming 
from
> > audience counting media.  It was the collaboration that I found online and 
> > in the
> > community.
> >
> > All the best with your show.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jason McCabe Calacanis"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > We launched Mahalo Daily with Veronica Belmont last week as some of
> > > you might know. You can find the show at http://daily.mahalo.com and
> > > on iTunes. We're hosting it at Blip.Tv (for now) but considering some
> > > other options since folks have been pinging us.
> > >
> > > I'm looking for some advice on what we can do--other than make the
> > > best show we can--to grow the view to 100k+ a day quickly.
> > >
> > > We did over 120k views in the first week (about 12-37k views for each
> > > of the first four shows) which is much more than I thought we would.
> > > We've got our iTunes page running and we're syndicating the videos to
> > > YouTube and Facebook. We've also started a Facebook, Ning, Flickr, and
> > > Twitter groups/accounts to compliment the program. They are getting
> > > nice pickup.
> > >
> > > On a business level, I'm wondering if there is anyone out there who
> > > can bring in 100-250k views a day for show, perhaps in exchange for
> > > exclusive hosting rights/advertising rights or something (i.e. Yahoo,
> > > AOL, YouTube, etc).
> > >
> > > Anyone have an distribution tips?
> > > Has anyone done deals like this?
> > >
> > > Mahalo for any help...
> > >
> > > best J
> > >
> > > i blogged about this here:
> > > http://www.calacanis.com/2007/11/11/congrats-to-tyler-and-veronica-on-an-
> > amazing-first-week-for-mahalo/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Steve Watkins]

Thanks for the reply. I am guilty of always failing to state the positive 
aspects of my 
beliefs, so for example I do think Andrew Baron has some great ideas, some 
vision, the 
ability to make some good stuff etc etc. And I like dreamers, I guess I just 
get annoyed by 
certain dreams, or the gulf between reality and hype.

Yeah I think NextNewNetworks has some potential, they are building a network of 
many 
shows, which seems like alogical starting point. My strongest venom in this 
area was 
reserved for network2.tv, simply because it was a half-assed attempt, and 
because of the 
tone they initially used when 'interfacing' with video creators.

Speaking of which, Chris Brogan seems to have moved on from pulvermedia, 
sincere good 
luck to him despite all the unpleasant things I said about/to him at the time. 

Cheers for the thoughts on advertising. 

Oh I did just notice that in an April WSJ article, Andrew mentioned that he 
'seeded his 
audience' using this videoblogging group. Wonder how much that technique is 
still used 
:D

Steve Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jason McCabe Calacanis" <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>

> 
> The audio version was a disaster... the amount of noise was crazy.
> Some folks like the spirited debate between me "the Baron," some folks
> didn't... i thought is fun! :-)
>  
> > And the Murdoch comments were nothing compared to the brief moment 
> > at the end of 
> > 2006 and start of 2007 where a few 'would be media moguls' stated 
> > their aspirations in 
> > even more ott fashion, only for those plans to wither away without 
> > much fanfare or 
> > explanation.
> 
> No comment. 
> 
> > I got rather passionate about such things at the time, disgusted by 
> > the idea that a new 
> > breed of gatekeepers were trying to bring themselves into existence, 
> > because that seemed 
> > like it would destroy some of the things that make blogging and 
> > vlogging have such 
> > potential. So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didnt seem 
> > to be selling out in the 
> > usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs 
> > that Mr Baron was 
> > seeking to achieve a different sort of power. 
> 
> I actually think he's a hard working, smart guy... he created
> something unique at a unique time. I admire him for having big
> aspirations and who knows, some day he might become Murdoch. I
> mean, it could happen. 
> 
> That being said, I think the folks who got in blogging and podcasting
> first got to grab a lot of land and look really smart when the value
> went up myself included. When there were only two gadget blogs it
> was easy to be #1 or #2... today? Well, today there are 500+ gadget
> related blogs. 
> 
> > In a strange way Im sort of sad that nothing much has happened, I 
> > was looking forward to 
> > seeing what would occur. I imagine to witness the emergence of a 
> > potential mogul of the 
> > new media world, we need a far more ruthless character with an iron 
> > will, and a plan that 
> > is more detail than dream, to give it a go. None of the a-
> > list/controvertial/opinionated/whatever characters, or your 
> > confrontations, live up to the 
> > hype. 
> 
> I think you'll see some of the video network folks make a go of it...
> Rev3 and NextNewNetworks seem to have solid models of controlling show
> costs while keeping value high--and publishing on a regular basis. 
> 
> > Regarding Mahalo and promotion, I would like to know stuff about 
> > promotion options that 
> > are well beyond the reach of the individual or those with more 
> > modest funding etc. Do you 
> > ever consider advertising in traditional mass media? 
> 
> I don't believe in buying advertising for startup companies... I've
> always believed that if you make the best product in your space the
> world will find it. I'm probably making a mistake in that belief, but
> it's worked for me for a while now so I'm going to stick with it.
> 
> When I have someone call me and say "buy a $200,000 advertising buy
> and we'll send you 10,000 folks a day for the next six months" I think
> to myself... hmmm... maybe we could find someone uber talented and put
> a couple of talented people around them and make a show that will
> bring in 10x." Plus, if you own the show it grows forever... so, it's
>  much better deal for us to build a great show then give the money to
> some radio station or website to send us some transient traffic.
> 
> If we do 250 shows over the next year and they each get 500 views in
> the archive on average that's like 100k+ people a day visiting the
> site. That's really cool...  the asset value of archives is going to
> be great I think.
> 
> Own your master tapes if you're going to do a deal with PodShow or
> PodTech or Rev3 if you can :-)
> 
> best j
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Steve Watkins]

Im still waiting for anybody at my job to have even heard of rocketboom, or any 
other net 
video show. So this, coupled with the excitement advertisers have shown in 
recent 
decades for targeting a young demographic, may be responsible for the lack of 
attention 
to completely different segments?

The boomers are starting to retire, which I guess will give them more time to 
be a 
potential viewer, at the expense of some disposable income. 

God I really ish there was more diversity. I want more average looking people 
to be 
fronting the shows, Im tired of the stereotypical beauty, its getting ugly fast.

Cheers

Steve Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> As usual, Mr. Taylor, you bring up the proper questions.
> 
> Who in this space deals with Boomer women? Nobody. Yet.
> 
> We Boomer chicks got time and money and talent ripe for pickin'. Automakers
> begin to get *that point.
> 
> Katie Couric and "The View" type hosts don't suck me and my generation in.
> 
> What will?
> 
> Not tits, that's for sure :)
> 
> My point about tits is that audiences have to evolve (thanks for using the
> word, Meiser) in order to appreciate how vulnerable they are to manipulation
> based on the breast and get beyond it. Getting beyond the animal impulse is
> a good thing and will set you free. Unfortunately, being free is devalued
> these days.
> 
> I envision a Boomer community based around teaching / learning / sharing all
> the creative digital tools of the trade (audio / video) whereby the Boomers
> can get their strut on creatively and support one another in the process.
> 
> Using tits to sell is like shooting fish in a barrel; where's the challenge
> in it?
> 
> Off to work.
> 
> Jan
> 
> On 11/13/07, Jeffrey Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Saying sex sells is only a small part of a longstanding and more
> > comprehensive theory in advertising that creating a somewhat realistic
> > aspirational arrival point for an audience is what sells. This is why we
> > have women presenting on many of these shows that are good looking, but
> > more
> > within reach for male audiences than a runway model would be. The idea
> > that
> > these male viewers have somewhat of a "chance" keeps eyes on the screen,
> > or
> > at least encourages the eyes to return to the screen. When looking across
> > the advertising spectrum and into more general interest brands that run
> > across demographics, you see that this theory has manifested in more
> > diverse
> > ways than the proliferation of sexuality. There's nothing overtly or
> > covertly sexual in Apple's marketing of the iPod, for example, but there
> > is
> > something overtly sexy about how an iPod is marketed.
> >
> > I personally think it's a bit silly to keep repeating the
> > girl-tells-us-about-tech model over and over, lazily avoiding the
> > development of new audiences. I'd love to get some research on this, but I
> > hypothesize that these types of shows (Webb Alert, Geekbrief, etc.
> > –Rocketboom is a bit different because there's more of a hipster demo
> > going
> > on there) are being watched by the same slowly-growing crowd.
> >
> > I am looking forward to seeing who's going to be brave enough to throw
> > away
> > or at least expand on the girl-on-a-screen model when it comes to tech
> > reporting on the web, creating a larger market than the present niche by
> > providing aspirational arrival points for more than just males, primarily
> > 18-25, maybe 35. These shows have mastered a niche, but have are not
> > bringing other niches to the table as building blocks to a larger and more
> > general audience. Entities that appeal to women, especially young women,
> > and
> > the heavy-spending and freetime-rich baby boomers as they retire at
> > increasing rates will do the best. Repeating the same model just because
> > it's been successful before will not do that.
> >
> > And for Jason – I get your response and agree with much of what you say.
> > But
> > I think you also get that creating a context in which achieving what you
> > outlined in your response can live by explain exactly what you did in
> > response to me is very important, albeit easily forgotten tedious at
> > times.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 13/11/2007, danielmcvicar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Mike
> > > I was flip, but sex is what does sell, in advertising, etc.
> > > However, once it is sold, what are you bringign. Not just sex, but a
> > > service. You must
> > > give some nutrition with dessert, and once you bring people into the
> > > community, listen,
> > > get involved, and ultimately lead.
> > >
> > > This is a good discussion
> > > D
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> > > "Mike Meiser"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And don't listen to Daniel McVicar. :)
> > > >
> > > > Sorry daniel. Sex sells is B.S. If you want a genuine audience...
> > > > an audience of makers, participators and creators... like maholo

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Taylor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Saying sex sells is only a small part of a longstanding and more
> comprehensive theory in advertising that creating a somewhat realistic
> aspirational arrival point for an audience is what sells. This is why we
> have women presenting on many of these shows that are good looking,
but more
> within reach for male audiences than a runway model would be. The
idea that
> these male viewers have somewhat of a "chance" keeps eyes on the
screen, or
> at least encourages the eyes to return to the screen. 

Interesting point.  That makes sense.  It also makes sense from a
basic, yet admittedly stereotypical position of "models being models",
and mostly nothing else.  If you hire a model that's TOO attractive,
the viewer isn't going to internally BELIEVE that she actually knows
(or cares) anything about the topic.  I know that's unfair, and that
there are lots of really attractive women that are really intelligent
and have great personalities at the same time.  However, it would be
the same effect as "booth babes" at trade shows or "umbrella girls" @
MotoGP races.  You might feed the booth babes a couple of lines about
the product, but nobody believes they're anything more than hired
guns, designed to "cheat" the viewer into paying attention in the
direction of the product they're standing next to... while they're
wearing spandex in the middle of winter. (not that *I*m complaining
about THAT! :D)

I'm not talking about women that actually know something and are
representatives of the company, but you'll notice that they tend to be
dressed differently, and have a completely different presentation and
presence.  They're expected to be knowledgeable and proficient,
because they're the SUBSTANCE, the bridge between the gawkers coming
by to see the booth babes, and them actually becoming aware of and
interested in buying her company's product.

So, yes... Part of "the formula" is "go good-looking-female, but don't
overdo it!" :D

> When looking across
> the advertising spectrum and into more general interest brands that run
> across demographics, you see that this theory has manifested in more
diverse
> ways than the proliferation of sexuality. There's nothing overtly or
> covertly sexual in Apple's marketing of the iPod, for example, but
there is
> something overtly sexy about how an iPod is marketed.
> 
> I personally think it's a bit silly to keep repeating the
> girl-tells-us-about-tech model over and over, lazily avoiding the
> development of new audiences. I'd love to get some research on this,
but I
> hypothesize that these types of shows (Webb Alert, Geekbrief, etc.
> –Rocketboom is a bit different because there's more of a hipster
demo going
> on there) are being watched by the same slowly-growing crowd.


Unfortunately, as "the formula" keeps working, groups are going to
keep *working* it.  LonelyBoy15 would have been a never-viewed
failure.  I agree with you that it's laziness.  At this point in time,
groups are struggling JUST to put a show together, forget about
experimenting with new models! :)  They want to know what attractive
girl they can get, how well she comes across on camera and how much
'cred' she has in whatever the field is in THAT order.  'Cred' is
good for initial numbers, but not necessary if she can read what the
ghost-writers feed her.

> I am looking forward to seeing who's going to be brave enough to
throw away
> or at least expand on the girl-on-a-screen model when it comes to tech
> reporting on the web, creating a larger market than the present niche by
> providing aspirational arrival points for more than just males,
primarily
> 18-25, maybe 35. These shows have mastered a niche, but have are not
> bringing other niches to the table as building blocks to a larger
and more
> general audience. 

Excellent point.  The target zone is getting younger, not older. 
Shows are being made to appeal to the lowest common denominator, like
MTV-watchers, viral video and email-joke-senders.  I had a meeting
with a newspaper owner about bringing his paper online, and his inital
response was "well... that might be good for the younger readers...".
 I think that in general, people are seeing technology as being used
increasingly by younger viewers/users and assuming that older internet
users just fade away.

Using your "aspirational arrival points" theory, the younger a female
lead is in a show, the farther away she gets from being in the AAP of
an older male, who would feel less and less like he "had a chance"
with her, and in some cases would see her more and more as "his
daughter" telling him about tech rather than a respected female peer.

> Entities that appeal to women, especially young women, and
> the heavy-spending and freetime-rich baby boomers as they retire at
> increasing rates will do the best. Repeating the same model just because
> it's been successful before will not do that.


That's another gre

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As usual, Mr. Taylor, you bring up the proper questions.
> 
> Who in this space deals with Boomer women? Nobody. Yet.
> 
> We Boomer chicks got time and money and talent ripe for pickin'.
Automakers
> begin to get *that point.
> 
> Katie Couric and "The View" type hosts don't suck me and my
generation in.
> 
> What will?
> 
> Not tits, that's for sure :)
> 
> My point about tits is that audiences have to evolve (thanks for
using the
> word, Meiser) in order to appreciate how vulnerable they are to
manipulation
> based on the breast and get beyond it. Getting beyond the animal
impulse is
> a good thing and will set you free. Unfortunately, being free is
devalued
> these days.

Similar to Vista, you're right... "the animal impulse" IS an easily
exploitable vulnerability. :)

"The formula" wouldn't be "The formula" if it weren't guaranteed to
work on so many guys.  Broaden the scope, and you have to find other
ways of attracting and retaining attention and then growing your audience.

> I envision a Boomer community based around teaching / learning /
sharing all
> the creative digital tools of the trade (audio / video) whereby the
Boomers
> can get their strut on creatively and support one another in the
process.

That's a very interesting idea.  I'll have to resarch this with some
of my http://BlogHer.com friends, since I have ZERO insight into this
demographic. :)

--
Bill Cammack
http://CammackMediaGroup.com



> Using tits to sell is like shooting fish in a barrel; where's the
challenge
> in it?
> 
> Off to work.
> 
> Jan
> 
> On 11/13/07, Jeffrey Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Saying sex sells is only a small part of a longstanding and more
> > comprehensive theory in advertising that creating a somewhat realistic
> > aspirational arrival point for an audience is what sells. This is
why we
> > have women presenting on many of these shows that are good
looking, but
> > more
> > within reach for male audiences than a runway model would be. The idea
> > that
> > these male viewers have somewhat of a "chance" keeps eyes on the
screen,
> > or
> > at least encourages the eyes to return to the screen. When looking
across
> > the advertising spectrum and into more general interest brands
that run
> > across demographics, you see that this theory has manifested in more
> > diverse
> > ways than the proliferation of sexuality. There's nothing overtly or
> > covertly sexual in Apple's marketing of the iPod, for example, but
there
> > is
> > something overtly sexy about how an iPod is marketed.
> >
> > I personally think it's a bit silly to keep repeating the
> > girl-tells-us-about-tech model over and over, lazily avoiding the
> > development of new audiences. I'd love to get some research on
this, but I
> > hypothesize that these types of shows (Webb Alert, Geekbrief, etc.
> > –Rocketboom is a bit different because there's more of a hipster demo
> > going
> > on there) are being watched by the same slowly-growing crowd.
> >
> > I am looking forward to seeing who's going to be brave enough to throw
> > away
> > or at least expand on the girl-on-a-screen model when it comes to tech
> > reporting on the web, creating a larger market than the present
niche by
> > providing aspirational arrival points for more than just males,
primarily
> > 18-25, maybe 35. These shows have mastered a niche, but have are not
> > bringing other niches to the table as building blocks to a larger
and more
> > general audience. Entities that appeal to women, especially young
women,
> > and
> > the heavy-spending and freetime-rich baby boomers as they retire at
> > increasing rates will do the best. Repeating the same model just
because
> > it's been successful before will not do that.
> >
> > And for Jason – I get your response and agree with much of what
you say.
> > But
> > I think you also get that creating a context in which achieving
what you
> > outlined in your response can live by explain exactly what you did in
> > response to me is very important, albeit easily forgotten tedious at
> > times.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 13/11/2007, danielmcvicar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Mike
> > > I was flip, but sex is what does sell, in advertising, etc.
> > > However, once it is sold, what are you bringign. Not just sex, but a
> > > service. You must
> > > give some nutrition with dessert, and once you bring people into the
> > > community, listen,
> > > get involved, and ultimately lead.
> > >
> > > This is a good discussion
> > > D
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
,
> > > "Mike Meiser"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And don't listen to Daniel McVicar. :)
> > > >
> > > > Sorry daniel. Sex sells is B.S. If you want a genuine audience...
> > > > an audience of makers, participators and creators... like maholo
> > > > fundamentally needs to survive... you're downplay the overt
sexiness
> > > > of Veronica, and up-play her obvious str

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Steve Watkins]

Could you rephrase that so I understand the challenge? Am I supposed to be 
responding 
to no threads at all, or just one thread? I dont join in with every thread you 
know, and 
whilst my posts are clearly long enough to annoy many, I doubt many get close 
to 5000 
words.

As for power, well Id be pretty deluded if I thought my messages over the years 
gave me 
any sort of power. If anything, I expect my opinion is taken less seriously 
than that of 
those who are more incined to do, rather than just talk. And perhaps the 
negative aspects 
of my posting now far outweigh any good, and so I should cease.People are 
probably 
more than a little tired of hearing my opinions, have mostly heard it all 
before anyway, and 
despite my git side I never wanted my opiions to degrade other peoples quality 
of life. 
And Ive never put myself in a position where I could actually harness any 
potential power 
anyway, its not like Ive tried to turn my opinions into a consultancy business.

Is your dad the asbstos lawyer and democrat fundraiser? If so then he's 
infinately more 
qualified to talk about power than I will ever be.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:
> 
> Speaking of power Steve, I dare you to not respond to a single thread  
> on this list. Ill bet you can't do it in under 5000 words.
> 

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Bill Cammack]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  > On 13 Nov 2007, at 11:38, Bill Cammack wrote:
>  > I wondered how to drag all of those people, aimlessly streaming  
> past me, into viewing an online show.
> 
> ---
> 
> Set top box.  That's the only way you'll get people watching online  
> shows.  I don't know if you use the term 'set top box' in the US.  I  
> just mean a box that plugs into your TV.  One that'd allow people to  
> watch ordinary network shows on their widescreen tv and also surf  
> internet TV.
> 
> People will not watch shows on a computer.  Do you know anybody who  
> watches anything on a computer?  Other than the odd bored moment  
> surfing old TV shows on Youtube?  My friends and family will watch my  
> videoblog, mostly because I've forced them to by subscribing them via  
> email, but they won't then go on to watch any of the vlogs I link to,  
> or click on the URLs of people who comment.
> 
> Computers are full of distractions, and are quite hard things to use  
> if you want to concentrate on or relax to motion picture  
> entertainment.  The TV / Couch combo works.  I firmly believe it's  
> just a matter of someone bringing internet video to the couch.  Until  
> then, forget it.
> 
> Rupert
> http://twittervlog.tv/
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/

I think that's a valid point. Put the online content in front of their
faces instead of trying to drag them to the original location
(computer) of the online content.  Make it as seamless as possible for
them to flip from their reruns of struck MSM shows to fresh new
content of internet shows they've never seen before and now have hours
and hours to catch up on! ;)

--
Bill Cammack
http://CammackMediaGroup.com

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Heath]

I have just realized a fasinating behavior on threads in this 
groupno it does not apply to all threads, but just about any thread 
that gets people going, there is a commen rhythem and pace to how it 
plays out. This thread itself is a perfect example of that rhythem.  
I'm curious if anyone else has noticed or seen this also?  Fasinating, 
it really is fasinating...

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Jason McCabe Calacanis]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking of Jason, he's most known for: 

Oh boy... I probably shouldn't even respond to something so libelous.
However, this is so false I've got to correct it.


> 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the  
> identical knock off- Engagdget

False. 

I didn't steal the idea because the idea was Peter Rojas'. Nick Denton
back Peter's idea first in the form of Gizmodo, we (the weblogs, Inc
team) backed it second in the form of Engadget. 

For background, I offered Peter Rojas equity in Weblogs, Inc. and he
gladly left his ~$1,200 a month job with Nick Denton at Gizmodo. Nick
Denton promised Peter equity and never gave it him, we did. We
invested our own money into Engadget which quickly--thanks to Peter
and his team--grew to 3x the size of the incumbent Gizmodo. 

We sold Weblogs, Inc. (and without getting into exact details) Peter
became a millionaire over night. 


> 2. Not paying employees fair wages.

False. 

What are you basing this on? We paid hundreds of folks at Weblogs,
Inc. per month well over six figures for years. We paid the best rates
in the blogging business (better than or as good as Denton depending
on the time). When AOL bought Weblogs, Inc. we hired around 20-30
folks full-time. 
  

> 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news  
> broke)

False. 

How could we steal her if she left? She was a free agent and looking
for work. AOL really wanted to hire her so we made her an offer (a
very nice large offer). She took another large offer from ABC's. 

Are people not allowed to make offers? Would you rather talented folks
not get offers when they've achieved success? After working for you
should Amanda never work again? I'm confused. 


> 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape

False. 

We offered the top posters from digg pay for work they had previously
not been paid for. We paid ~40 of them to work on Netscape/Propeller
doing things like putting in high-quality stories, taking our false
stories and spam, and cleaning up the mess that is social news
sometimes. It was a really good idea and Propeller is the second
largest social news site in the world.


> 2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting  
> fired from AOL

False.

Jon Miller the CEO of AOL was fired and I left in solidarity within 24
hours. That's how I do I'm loyal. I started working with a fairly
well known venture capital firm with ten days of that. 

Netscape was being shutdown when folks at AOL asked me what I'd do
with it. I said I would build an editorialized version of digg where
the news was fact-checked. We did, it worked. The only reason they
moved it to it's own domain--from what I've been told--is that it is
more valuable with a new name (i.e. in terms of a sale) and that
redirecting Netscape's audience to AOL.com is highly profitable
because AOL.COM is the most profitable part of the empire (and social
news sites have a harder time making money). 

> 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one  
> likes.

The 1.5 million uniques who've come in the last 30 days (our fifth
month) might disagree with you. :-)

In terms of Veronica you can be sure she has a much better deal than
the one she had at CNET. You can also be sure she has much more
resources behind her than ever.

Good luck with that second show.

all the best j

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Eric Rice]

One current project I haven't talked too much about has to do with
delivering audio and video content to set-top boxes, not those novelty
ones like slingboxes and such, but more of the XBOX, Playstation and
Wii (two of which have Opera-based browsing with Flash support, two
have hard drives and such). The audience is there. It's hard, but the
audience is there. Will we collectively be willing to do the hard work
to get the audience, or do we want the half-assed tech ethic of 'slap
that crap together and pray'.

That said, I believe certain content has advantages over others. Do a
show about gaming, sex, cars or any of the 'religious' topics, and it
will help. I'd love to know what the Escapist's video 'Zero
Punctuation' gets as far as traffic because it's so painfully funny.
Want to make money and get a huge audience? Do a Justin Timberlake
fancast. There's a reason that MuggleCast and others are hits. Ironic,
really.

I also will support (but not like) the idea that hot chicks and TV
training help. Look at some of the big shows. Then flip a coin. Of
course there will be exceptions, and we can deconstruct all day, but
when we do that, we're not quite normal, are we? When Amanda and
Rocketboom split, you could almost scientifically see the gaps in how
the content (and her) were perceived based on closeness to the
epicenter (we were s smart and intellectual on this list, and in
the distant blogosphere it was 'uh, what?' and in the mass space (USA
Today blog comments) it was flat out retarded.

I'm still waiting for good hi-definition content come out of this
spacem, because I, like many fat bloated americans, enjoy sitting on
my ass in front of my home theater (this goes totally against the
indiepunkish ethos of 'well I don't owwn a television', etc) and
having my ears tantalized in 7.1 surround sound.

There are three types of content I adore-- Video, video and sometimes
video. Sometimes it's on YouTube, sometimes it's buried in a forum
someplace, and other times, it comes from a TV studio or DVD (my god I
love Entourage, don't you?).

We are the Content Creation Class-- we're kinda different than
everyone else (read: consumers). But damn, how does your audio podcast
compete with the non-interface of turning on satellite radio in the
car? Apples to Oranges, and our risk for elitism just *hates* that
kind of reality. :)

ER




--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  > On 13 Nov 2007, at 11:38, Bill Cammack wrote:
>  > I wondered how to drag all of those people, aimlessly streaming  
> past me, into viewing an online show.
> 
> ---
> 
> Set top box.  That's the only way you'll get people watching online  
> shows.  I don't know if you use the term 'set top box' in the US.  I  
> just mean a box that plugs into your TV.  One that'd allow people to  
> watch ordinary network shows on their widescreen tv and also surf  
> internet TV.
> 
> People will not watch shows on a computer.  Do you know anybody who  
> watches anything on a computer?  Other than the odd bored moment  
> surfing old TV shows on Youtube?  My friends and family will watch my  
> videoblog, mostly because I've forced them to by subscribing them via  
> email, but they won't then go on to watch any of the vlogs I link to,  
> or click on the URLs of people who comment.
> 
> Computers are full of distractions, and are quite hard things to use  
> if you want to concentrate on or relax to motion picture  
> entertainment.  The TV / Couch combo works.  I firmly believe it's  
> just a matter of someone bringing internet video to the couch.  Until  
> then, forget it.
> 
> Rupert
> http://twittervlog.tv/
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Rupert Howe]

OK, take it outside now please... 

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking of Jason, he's most known for:
> 
> 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the  
> identical knock off- Engagdget
> 2. Not paying employees fair wages.
> 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news  
> broke)
> 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape
> 2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting  
> fired from AOL
> 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one  
> likes.
> 
> Not just based on these few examples which have been extremely  
> destructive to the world, but also based on his regular,  
> stereotypical activity of attacking people instead of their work, I  
> just want to throw out that Jason's only means of being popular is  
> exactly this: taking and causing conflict.
> 
> Look no further than Ann Coulter. It works great for her. If they  
> can't do it based on their own good ideas and they cant do it while  
> collaborating with others, at least they can do it by shitting all  
> over everyone.
> 
> Usually a good post has a lot of conversation but doesn't cause  
> others to speak out so negatively at the author. This is likely the  
> reason why there have been SO MANY bad reactions to Jason's post:  
> When one lives their life so selfishly while attacking and being  
> brutal, its destructive to everyone around because it causes damage  
> and rubs off on the rest off.
> 
> My original answer to the original thread was likely not considered.  
> The best way to grow your audience is not by spamming everyone. Its  
> by improving your show. At this point Jason, you really shouldn't be  
> asking any other questions until you get that one worked out. You got  
> Veronica, she's great. You should be paying Veronica more, you need  
> to invest in some better equipment and get some production help. How  
> can you improve the show?
> 
> We ask ourselves this question every single day and it continues to  
> receive the most concern out of every thing we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Eric Rice]

Besides, how ever did we get along with major blockbuster motion
pictures and indie films? How did college radio kick ass in the abyss
of Clear Channel.

Do numbers actually matter?

ER

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So what we should really be asking is, "How do I get on TV?"
> 
> BRB...loading pistol.
> 
> I agree with most of this though.  When I started doing this a few years
> ago, that question would have sounded like the antithesis of what
everyone
> was trying to accomplish, trying to break into a walled garden.  Now it
> sounds more like a utilitarian question, like "How do I get my
enclosures to
> show up in iTunes?"  That said, the television world has a lot to
lose by
> letting the huddled masses in under their tent.  I doubt the TV+Netvideo
> marriage going to happen as soon as people think.
> 
> AQ
> 
> On Nov 13, 2007 11:22 AM, Eric Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > One current project I haven't talked too much about has to do with
> > delivering audio and video content to set-top boxes, not those novelty
> > ones like slingboxes and such, but more of the XBOX, Playstation and
> > Wii (two of which have Opera-based browsing with Flash support, two
> > have hard drives and such). The audience is there. It's hard, but the
> > audience is there. Will we collectively be willing to do the hard work
> > to get the audience, or do we want the half-assed tech ethic of 'slap
> > that crap together and pray'.
> >
> > That said, I believe certain content has advantages over others. Do a
> > show about gaming, sex, cars or any of the 'religious' topics, and it
> > will help. I'd love to know what the Escapist's video 'Zero
> > Punctuation' gets as far as traffic because it's so painfully funny.
> > Want to make money and get a huge audience? Do a Justin Timberlake
> > fancast. There's a reason that MuggleCast and others are hits. Ironic,
> > really.
> >
> > I also will support (but not like) the idea that hot chicks and TV
> > training help. Look at some of the big shows. Then flip a coin. Of
> > course there will be exceptions, and we can deconstruct all day, but
> > when we do that, we're not quite normal, are we? When Amanda and
> > Rocketboom split, you could almost scientifically see the gaps in how
> > the content (and her) were perceived based on closeness to the
> > epicenter (we were s smart and intellectual on this list, and in
> > the distant blogosphere it was 'uh, what?' and in the mass space (USA
> > Today blog comments) it was flat out retarded.
> >
> > I'm still waiting for good hi-definition content come out of this
> > spacem, because I, like many fat bloated americans, enjoy sitting on
> > my ass in front of my home theater (this goes totally against the
> > indiepunkish ethos of 'well I don't owwn a television', etc) and
> > having my ears tantalized in 7.1 surround sound.
> >
> > There are three types of content I adore-- Video, video and sometimes
> > video. Sometimes it's on YouTube, sometimes it's buried in a forum
> > someplace, and other times, it comes from a TV studio or DVD (my god I
> > love Entourage, don't you?).
> >
> > We are the Content Creation Class-- we're kinda different than
> > everyone else (read: consumers). But damn, how does your audio podcast
> > compete with the non-interface of turning on satellite radio in the
> > car? Apples to Oranges, and our risk for elitism just *hates* that
> > kind of reality. :)
> >
> > ER
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert  wrote:
> > >
> > >  > On 13 Nov 2007, at 11:38, Bill Cammack wrote:
> > >  > I wondered how to drag all of those people, aimlessly streaming
> > > past me, into viewing an online show.
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Set top box.  That's the only way you'll get people watching online
> > > shows.  I don't know if you use the term 'set top box' in the US.  I
> > > just mean a box that plugs into your TV.  One that'd allow people to
> > > watch ordinary network shows on their widescreen tv and also surf
> > > internet TV.
> > >
> > > People will not watch shows on a computer.  Do you know anybody who
> > > watches anything on a computer?  Other than the odd bored moment
> > > surfing old TV shows on Youtube?  My friends and family will
watch my
> > > videoblog, mostly because I've forced them to by subscribing
them via
> > > email, but they won't then go on to watch any of the vlogs I
link to,
> > > or click on the URLs of people who comment.
> > >
> > > Computers are full of distractions, and are quite hard things to use
> > > if you want to concentrate on or relax to motion picture
> > > entertainment.  The TV / Couch combo works.  I firmly believe it's
> > > just a matter of someone bringing internet video to the couch. 
Until
> > > then, forget it.
> > >
> > > Rupert
> > > http://twittervlog.tv/
> > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this 

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Rupert Howe]

I totally agree.  And whatever we think about TV content here, the
must-have gadget for rich Westerners is a huge flat & wide HD TV. 

And I think that, uh, 'indiepunk' content can be in HD.

I'd love my N93 to have HD resolution instead of 640x480.  I want to
shoot daily Twittervlog anarchy in HD.  The new Xactis have FULL HD -
1980x1020 with 1.5hrs on an 8Gig SD card, and they're not much bigger
than my N93.  If they had good built-in editor and wifi like the
N93/N95, I'd switch in a heartbeat.  There's definitely an audience
out there already with set top boxes like AppleTV, who want to watch
stuff that fills their massive screens and thumps on their massive
speakers.  (The stereo sound is already pretty good on my N93,
especially considering it's a phone).  I want to pump their asses full
of rough & ready videoblog madness, instead of condemning them to a
lifetime of slickly produced tech shows and lame staged comedy.

Let me know what happens with your set top box project.

Rupert
http://twittervlog.tv/
http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog
 
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> I'm still waiting for good hi-definition content come out of this
> spacem, because I, like many fat bloated americans, enjoy sitting on
> my ass in front of my home theater (this goes totally against the
> indiepunkish ethos of 'well I don't owwn a television', etc) and
> having my ears tantalized in 7.1 surround sound.
> 
> There are three types of content I adore-- Video, video and sometimes
> video. Sometimes it's on YouTube, sometimes it's buried in a forum
> someplace, and other times, it comes from a TV studio or DVD (my god I
> love Entourage, don't you?).
> 
> We are the Content Creation Class-- we're kinda different than
> everyone else (read: consumers). But damn, how does your audio podcast
> compete with the non-interface of turning on satellite radio in the
> car? Apples to Oranges, and our risk for elitism just *hates* that
> kind of reality. :)
> 
> ER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert  wrote:
> >
> >  > On 13 Nov 2007, at 11:38, Bill Cammack wrote:
> >  > I wondered how to drag all of those people, aimlessly streaming  
> > past me, into viewing an online show.
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > Set top box.  That's the only way you'll get people watching online  
> > shows.  I don't know if you use the term 'set top box' in the US.  I  
> > just mean a box that plugs into your TV.  One that'd allow people to  
> > watch ordinary network shows on their widescreen tv and also surf  
> > internet TV.
> > 
> > People will not watch shows on a computer.  Do you know anybody who  
> > watches anything on a computer?  Other than the odd bored moment  
> > surfing old TV shows on Youtube?  My friends and family will watch
my  
> > videoblog, mostly because I've forced them to by subscribing them
via  
> > email, but they won't then go on to watch any of the vlogs I link
to,  
> > or click on the URLs of people who comment.
> > 
> > Computers are full of distractions, and are quite hard things to use  
> > if you want to concentrate on or relax to motion picture  
> > entertainment.  The TV / Couch combo works.  I firmly believe it's  
> > just a matter of someone bringing internet video to the couch. 
Until  
> > then, forget it.
> > 
> > Rupert
> > http://twittervlog.tv/
> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Rupert Howe]

Looking into swirling tea leaves, I see the future of this
discussion... on a blog!

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am seeing the posts rolling in now about taking this off list as I  
> am just about to publish the below. I'd like to go ahead and publish  
> it, I think its relevant. It has to do with videoblogging, blogging,  
> history of the space and people who are involved:
> 
> On Nov 13, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Jason McCabe Calacanis wrote:
> 
> > Oh boy... I probably shouldn't even respond to something so libelous.
> > However, this is so false I've got to correct it.
> >
> > > 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the
> > > identical knock off- Engagdget
> >
> > False.
> >
> >
> 
> The point I was trying to make though, is that you didn't do anything  
> innovative or new, you just take one thing and clone it exactly the  
> same. This is fine Jason, Im just saying you do business by knocking- 
> off others. This is not interesting to me and I have found in my life  
> that people who do this are usually selfish at the expense of others.
> 
> > > 2. Not paying employees fair wages.
> >
> > False.
> >
> 
> 
> But you write: "better than or as good as Denton"
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > > 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news
> > > broke)
> >
> > False.
> >
> >
> > Are people not allowed to make offers? Would you rather talented folks
> > not get offers when they've achieved success? After working for you
> > should Amanda never work again? I'm confused.
> 
> Your confused because you don't seem to have any understanding of the  
> social element.  Its just really rude and not supportive, Jason. Its  
> selfish because you always think you have so much more to offer and  
> in that case you knew nothing at all about what was going on or who  
> we were. Imagine that the news broke that you and your wife were  
> having problems and then the next day, your business partner called  
> her up for a date. Yea, I know, this is not about love affairs, but  
> there is a social element involved and you have repeatedly shown  
> disrespect for others who are participating and trying to get along  
> in the same space.
> 
> 
> >
> > > 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape
> >
> > False.
> >
> 
> I beg to differ. After a long history of cloning other peoples idea,  
> I think its true that you not only tried to clone digg and failed  
> miserably, but also had the audacity to goto Digg to try to sway away  
> the top posters (for miserable salary no less). Again, you didn't  
> understand the social, but by this time, it was the online social you  
> didn't understand. What happened in the end? People revolted against  
> you for trying to "rip of digg" (these are not my words), the site  
> crashed and burned and now you are gone. Say what you will about  
> quitting, its a great self-defense. I know people who have a history  
> of saying they were fired when they quit and saying they quit when  
> they were fired. I guess its just a coincidence that the project you  
> had suggested turned to crap right at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> > > 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one
> > > likes.
> >
> > The 1.5 million unique who've come in the last 30 days (our fifth
> > month) might disagree with you. :-)
> >
> 
> Out of 1.5 million, where are the positive reviews? I have never seen  
> a single positive review of Mahalo. Ever. I know you must have a few  
> Jason, can you point us to a really good review of Mahalo by someone  
> who really understands the space? Just one good one - there must be one?
> 
> 
> > In terms of Veronica you can be sure she has a much better deal than
> > the one she had at CNET. You can also be sure she has much more
> > resources behind her than ever.
> >
> 
> Great. More salary than Nick Denton pays, and better salary than  
> CNET. Not exactly something to boast about. So why are you the one  
> here doing the work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Rupert Howe]

I'm amazed that you like it Patrick, as we all went to town about you
in April.  It was enough to make me unsubscribe, because I got so
caught up with it.
I don't get the enjoyment of it.

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Personally, this is the most exciting thing I've seen since the
> Wikipedia Storm of '07.
> 
> Heath, it's definitely a pattern I know and enjoy and Dennis, you may
> be right that it has very little to do with "Videoblogging" but it is
> very much "the videoblogging group." :)
> 
> I always found it interesting to have an inside perspective of this
> medium's moguls.  I doubt there's a Yahoo Group in which Rupert
> Murdoch contributes.
> 
> As a side note to Andrew, I have to stand up for Steve here as he's
> often the voice of reason in this group and in a past experience had
> stood up for me and Wikipedia's core content policies when it was the
> very unpopular thing to do. However there is something to be said for
> for being concise in discussions. I once heard from a wise source:
> Posts longer than 100 words are difficult to understand and are
> frequently either ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted.
> 
> darn...151 words...now 156...
> 
> On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 AM, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:
> >
> >  > So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didn't seem to be
> >
> >  > selling out in the
> >  > usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs
> >  > that Mr Baron was
> >  > seeking to achieve a different sort of power.
> >
> >  AH YES!!! Its all about power, mwahahahahaha! But what kind of
> >  Power did you say!? A DIFFERENT kind?? M I like the sound of
> >  this . . . . A NEW kind of Power! BETTER THAN MONEY!!!
> >
> >  Speaking of power Steve, I dare you to not respond to a single thread
> >  on this list. Ill bet you can't do it in under 5000 words.
> >
> >  Speaking of Jason, he's most known for:
> >
> >  1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the
> >  identical knock off- Engagdget
> >  2. Not paying employees fair wages.
> >  3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news
> >  broke)
> >  4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape
> >  2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting
> >  fired from AOL
> >  3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one
> >  likes.
> >
> >  Not just based on these few examples which have been extremely
> >  destructive to the world, but also based on his regular,
> >  stereotypical activity of attacking people instead of their work, I
> >  just want to throw out that Jason's only means of being popular is
> >  exactly this: taking and causing conflict.
> >
> >  Look no further than Ann Coulter. It works great for her. If they
> >  can't do it based on their own good ideas and they cant do it while
> >  collaborating with others, at least they can do it by shitting all
> >  over everyone.
> >
> >  Usually a good post has a lot of conversation but doesn't cause
> >  others to speak out so negatively at the author. This is likely the
> >  reason why there have been SO MANY bad reactions to Jason's post:
> >  When one lives their life so selfishly while attacking and being
> >  brutal, its destructive to everyone around because it causes damage
> >  and rubs off on the rest off.
> >
> >  My original answer to the original thread was likely not considered.
> >  The best way to grow your audience is not by spamming everyone. Its
> >  by improving your show. At this point Jason, you really shouldn't be
> >  asking any other questions until you get that one worked out. You got
> >  Veronica, she's great. You should be paying Veronica more, you need
> >  to invest in some better equipment and get some production help. How
> >  can you improve the show?
> >
> >  We ask ourselves this question every single day and it continues to
> >  receive the most concern out of every thing we do.
> >
> >
> >  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Steve Watkins]

That wikipedia debate appeared to kill what little goodwill and tolerance 
people showed 
towards me in the past. I was used to getting few replies to my posts, but 
since then I get 
virtually none, and my posts havent changed in length. I talk too much in the 
flesh too, its 
a part of me, Im stuck with it, wheras everyone in this group will eventually 
escape it when, 
one day, for whatever reasons, I dont post here anymore.

I dont think Im any sort of voice of reason. I have ideas about what a 
discussion should 
involve, what the boundaries & word count are, that do not appear to be the 
norm, which, 
along with various other social deformities, make me a general failure at being 
human, as 
my genital cobwebs will attest to.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Personally, this is the most exciting thing I've seen since the
> Wikipedia Storm of '07.
> 
> Heath, it's definitely a pattern I know and enjoy and Dennis, you may
> be right that it has very little to do with "Videoblogging" but it is
> very much "the videoblogging group." :)
> 
> I always found it interesting to have an inside perspective of this
> medium's moguls.  I doubt there's a Yahoo Group in which Rupert
> Murdoch contributes.
> 
> As a side note to Andrew, I have to stand up for Steve here as he's
> often the voice of reason in this group and in a past experience had
> stood up for me and Wikipedia's core content policies when it was the
> very unpopular thing to do. However there is something to be said for
> for being concise in discussions. I once heard from a wise source:
> Posts longer than 100 words are difficult to understand and are
> frequently either ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted.
> 
> darn...151 words...now 156...
> 
> On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 AM, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:
> >
> >  > So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didn't seem to be
> >
> >  > selling out in the
> >  > usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs
> >  > that Mr Baron was
> >  > seeking to achieve a different sort of power.
> >
> >  AH YES!!! Its all about power, mwahahahahaha! But what kind of
> >  Power did you say!? A DIFFERENT kind?? M I like the sound of
> >  this . . . . A NEW kind of Power! BETTER THAN MONEY!!!
> >
> >  Speaking of power Steve, I dare you to not respond to a single thread
> >  on this list. Ill bet you can't do it in under 5000 words.
> >
> >  Speaking of Jason, he's most known for:
> >
> >  1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the
> >  identical knock off- Engagdget
> >  2. Not paying employees fair wages.
> >  3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news
> >  broke)
> >  4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape
> >  2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting
> >  fired from AOL
> >  3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one
> >  likes.
> >
> >  Not just based on these few examples which have been extremely
> >  destructive to the world, but also based on his regular,
> >  stereotypical activity of attacking people instead of their work, I
> >  just want to throw out that Jason's only means of being popular is
> >  exactly this: taking and causing conflict.
> >
> >  Look no further than Ann Coulter. It works great for her. If they
> >  can't do it based on their own good ideas and they cant do it while
> >  collaborating with others, at least they can do it by shitting all
> >  over everyone.
> >
> >  Usually a good post has a lot of conversation but doesn't cause
> >  others to speak out so negatively at the author. This is likely the
> >  reason why there have been SO MANY bad reactions to Jason's post:
> >  When one lives their life so selfishly while attacking and being
> >  brutal, its destructive to everyone around because it causes damage
> >  and rubs off on the rest off.
> >
> >  My original answer to the original thread was likely not considered.
> >  The best way to grow your audience is not by spamming everyone. Its
> >  by improving your show. At this point Jason, you really shouldn't be
> >  asking any other questions until you get that one worked out. You got
> >  Veronica, she's great. You should be paying Veronica more, you need
> >  to invest in some better equipment and get some production help. How
> >  can you improve the show?
> >
> >  We ask ourselves this question every single day and it continues to
> >  receive the most concern out of every thing we do.
> >
> >
> >  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Steve Watkins]

Thanks Jay. Lets not indulge my occasional forays into self-hate and self-pity 
showers too 
much though eh, these are the times I probably should be ignored. Or this is an 
example 
of where I go wrong, always focus on the negative

Theres a lot of people here who are a help and inspiration to me. One day I 
hope to 
harness the flickers of positivity and possibility within me, and achieve 
something useful. 
Ive proven to myself that I can do this, in very small doses, this year, but 
have yet to learn 
how to sustain it.

Anyways, I shall now try to take my own advice and post something completely 
different. I 
still intend to join in with this navlopomo or whatever its called, even if Ive 
missed nearly 
half of it.

Returning vaguely to the original topic, it just occured to me that this thread 
is more like 
what a real human search engine could be like... Do a search and get back a 
dozen people 
arguing about suitable results :D

Cheers

Steve Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >  I dont think Im any sort of voice of reason. I have ideas about what a
> > discussion should  involve, what the boundaries & word count are, that do 
> > not appear 
to be the
> > norm, which, along with various other social deformities, make me a general 
> > failure at
> > being human, as my genital cobwebs will attest to.
> 
> steve, I hope you know we love you.
> any lack of response to your emails are probably more due to our lack
> of wordmanship.
> 
> As to the poetry in your last paragraph attests, you should make
> videos for evilvlog where all the superstars go.
> no boundaries or expectations.
> 
> jay
> 
> -- 
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> Video: http://ryanishungry.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
> RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Bill Cammack]

Interestingly enough, to both aspects of this conversation, A) Mahalo,
and B) formula...

Veronica posted today that Mahalo Daily was featured on iTunes today:



along with WallStrip, Daily Feed, Epic-Fu, Crave, Alive in Mexico,
Fuel TV, and NPR: Bryant Park Project.




--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Taylor"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Saying sex sells is only a small part of a longstanding and more
> > comprehensive theory in advertising that creating a somewhat realistic
> > aspirational arrival point for an audience is what sells. This is
why we
> > have women presenting on many of these shows that are good looking,
> but more
> > within reach for male audiences than a runway model would be. The
> idea that
> > these male viewers have somewhat of a "chance" keeps eyes on the
> screen, or
> > at least encourages the eyes to return to the screen. 
> 
> Interesting point.  That makes sense.  It also makes sense from a
> basic, yet admittedly stereotypical position of "models being models",
> and mostly nothing else.  If you hire a model that's TOO attractive,
> the viewer isn't going to internally BELIEVE that she actually knows
> (or cares) anything about the topic.  I know that's unfair, and that
> there are lots of really attractive women that are really intelligent
> and have great personalities at the same time.  However, it would be
> the same effect as "booth babes" at trade shows or "umbrella girls" @
> MotoGP races.  You might feed the booth babes a couple of lines about
> the product, but nobody believes they're anything more than hired
> guns, designed to "cheat" the viewer into paying attention in the
> direction of the product they're standing next to... while they're
> wearing spandex in the middle of winter. (not that *I*m complaining
> about THAT! :D)
> 
> I'm not talking about women that actually know something and are
> representatives of the company, but you'll notice that they tend to be
> dressed differently, and have a completely different presentation and
> presence.  They're expected to be knowledgeable and proficient,
> because they're the SUBSTANCE, the bridge between the gawkers coming
> by to see the booth babes, and them actually becoming aware of and
> interested in buying her company's product.
> 
> So, yes... Part of "the formula" is "go good-looking-female, but don't
> overdo it!" :D
> 
> > When looking across
> > the advertising spectrum and into more general interest brands
that run
> > across demographics, you see that this theory has manifested in more
> diverse
> > ways than the proliferation of sexuality. There's nothing overtly or
> > covertly sexual in Apple's marketing of the iPod, for example, but
> there is
> > something overtly sexy about how an iPod is marketed.
> > 
> > I personally think it's a bit silly to keep repeating the
> > girl-tells-us-about-tech model over and over, lazily avoiding the
> > development of new audiences. I'd love to get some research on this,
> but I
> > hypothesize that these types of shows (Webb Alert, Geekbrief, etc.
> > –Rocketboom is a bit different because there's more of a hipster
> demo going
> > on there) are being watched by the same slowly-growing crowd.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, as "the formula" keeps working, groups are going to
> keep *working* it.  LonelyBoy15 would have been a never-viewed
> failure.  I agree with you that it's laziness.  At this point in time,
> groups are struggling JUST to put a show together, forget about
> experimenting with new models! :)  They want to know what attractive
> girl they can get, how well she comes across on camera and how much
> 'cred' she has in whatever the field is in THAT order.  'Cred' is
> good for initial numbers, but not necessary if she can read what the
> ghost-writers feed her.
> 
> > I am looking forward to seeing who's going to be brave enough to
> throw away
> > or at least expand on the girl-on-a-screen model when it comes to tech
> > reporting on the web, creating a larger market than the present
niche by
> > providing aspirational arrival points for more than just males,
> primarily
> > 18-25, maybe 35. These shows have mastered a niche, but have are not
> > bringing other niches to the table as building blocks to a larger
> and more
> > general audience. 
> 
> Excellent point.  The target zone is getting younger, not older. 
> Shows are being made to appeal to the lowest common denominator, like
> MTV-watchers, viral video and email-joke-senders.  I had a meeting
> with a newspaper owner about bringing his paper online, and his inital
> response was "well... that might be good for the younger readers...".
>  I think that in general, people are seeing technology as being used
> increasingly by younger viewers/users and assuming that older internet
> users just fade away.
> 
> Using your "aspirational ar

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Smithie Boho]

Looks like another Hoale skiving off the backs of the
Hawaiian culture.. 
This "mahalo daily" looks as it has "staying power"

Smithie Boho 




  

Be a better pen pal. 
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

[videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[[chrisbrogan.com]]

> Speaking of which, Chris Brogan seems to have moved on from
pulvermedia, sincere good 
> luck to him despite all the unpleasant things I said about/to him at
the time. 
> 


Sure have, Steve. Thanks for helping keep me straight. Lord knows I
need it. I've enjoyed talking with you when we have. Even when you
were sharing venom. That which doesn't kill me, leaves scars? 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Jan McLaughlin]

I don't know Veronica from sunshine, but I'm guessing she's got a good rack.

You don't need much more than that and some low-cut, tight blouses and a
bevy of good writers and guests to make the numbers you describe.

Lots of writers out of work this week.

Jan
[Who's kinda sorry for the flip if true response]

On 11/11/07, Jason McCabe Calacanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This might not be the right place to ask those questions.  Most (not
> > all) of the producers here are working organically and personally
> > with much smaller audiences and are creating uncommercial content.
>
> Got it.
>
> Thought that discussions about distribution channels might be in the
> mandate since I've seen them here before, but if not please do delete!
>
> > But here's my two cents: You want regular six figure viewing figures,
> > I'd say the only guaranteed way to do it from a standing start is to
> > get featured on Youtube every time.  I would imagine, given your
>
> YouTube has come up a lot so I guess we should talk to them about
> distribution. I agree about the value of those viewers and the
> horrible behavior. In some ways I guess it's like getting on the front
> page of digg: you get some traffic but you also get abusive comments
> from the kiddie/anonymous coward contingent.
>
> > My feeling is that to get any value or meaningful response from your
> > viewers, you need to build audience and loyalty organically.  All the
> > social network/social media groups you've set up are a good start.
>
> Agreed. We're getting a great response from Ning
> (http://mahalodaily.ning.com), Facebook (600 or so memebers), and
> Twitter.
>
> > But they're not a quick fix.  Or a road to instant viewer riches.
>
> Agreed again. I think they are good at creating a space for your
> existing users to get together.
>
> > I advise you to look at EpicFu (formerly Jetset) - Zadi and Steve
> > have done it about as right as possible, I think.  They've been
> > developing their show and their fans for a long time, and are now
> > getting 1m views per week.  They cover a lot of ground, screen on
> > multiple networks as well as their own site and work very hard at
> > it.  They have their own social network, which is integral to their
> > show.  Seems to work well for them.
>
> Will do... those guys certainly know what they're doing and have been
> at it for a long time.
>
> > I also advise you not pay any attention to my advice.  I'm a
> > videoblogger.  I'm happy with a two or three figure audience, not
> > six.  I want to keep personal contact with my viewers.  I have
> > nothing to sell and no intention of making it my business.  None of
> > my opinions are based on any experience of building a promotional
> > show with a big audience.  Good luck with it.
>
> Actually, I think your advice is sage... focus on the organic and
> stick to your knitting. The goals of our podcast and a personal podcat
> are certainly different, but the passion is the same.
>
> LinkedIn has like a dozen answers including a VERY funny one from Leo
> from TWiT.
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/answers?viewQuestion=&questionID=128692&askerID=24171
>
> best j
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
http://wburg.tv
aim=janofsound
air=862.571.5334
skype=janmclaughlin


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Tim Street]

I  can't argue with Jan.

You might also try starting a video podcast and create some promos for it and 
post them everywhere you can.
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-Original Message-
From: "Jan McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:34:48 
To:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day 
(quickly)?


I don't know Veronica from sunshine, but I'm guessing she's got a good rack.
 
 You don't need much more than that and some low-cut, tight blouses and a
 bevy of good writers and guests to make the numbers you describe.
 
 Lots of writers out of work this week.
 
 Jan
 [Who's kinda sorry for the flip if true response]
 
 On 11/11/07, Jason McCabe Calacanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<mailto:jason%40calacanis.com> com> wrote:
 >
 > --- In videoblogging@ <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> 
 > yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > > This might not be the right place to ask those questions. Most (not
 > > all) of the producers here are working organically and personally
 > > with much smaller audiences and are creating uncommercial content.
 >
 > Got it.
 >
 > Thought that discussions about distribution channels might be in the
 > mandate since I've seen them here before, but if not please do delete!
 >
 > > But here's my two cents: You want regular six figure viewing figures,
 > > I'd say the only guaranteed way to do it from a standing start is to
 > > get featured on Youtube every time. I would imagine, given your
 >
 > YouTube has come up a lot so I guess we should talk to them about
 > distribution. I agree about the value of those viewers and the
 > horrible behavior. In some ways I guess it's like getting on the front
 > page of digg: you get some traffic but you also get abusive comments
 > from the kiddie/anonymous coward contingent.
 >
 > > My feeling is that to get any value or meaningful response from your
 > > viewers, you need to build audience and loyalty organically. All the
 > > social network/social media groups you've set up are a good start.
 >
 > Agreed. We're getting a great response from Ning
 > (http://mahalodaily. <http://mahalodaily.ning.com> ning.com), Facebook (600 
 > or so memebers), and
 > Twitter.
 >
 > > But they're not a quick fix. Or a road to instant viewer riches.
 >
 > Agreed again. I think they are good at creating a space for your
 > existing users to get together.
 >
 > > I advise you to look at EpicFu (formerly Jetset) - Zadi and Steve
 > > have done it about as right as possible, I think. They've been
 > > developing their show and their fans for a long time, and are now
 > > getting 1m views per week. They cover a lot of ground, screen on
 > > multiple networks as well as their own site and work very hard at
 > > it. They have their own social network, which is integral to their
 > > show. Seems to work well for them.
 >
 > Will do... those guys certainly know what they're doing and have been
 > at it for a long time.
 >
 > > I also advise you not pay any attention to my advice. I'm a
 > > videoblogger. I'm happy with a two or three figure audience, not
 > > six. I want to keep personal contact with my viewers. I have
 > > nothing to sell and no intention of making it my business. None of
 > > my opinions are based on any experience of building a promotional
 > > show with a big audience. Good luck with it.
 >
 > Actually, I think your advice is sage... focus on the organic and
 > stick to your knitting. The goals of our podcast and a personal podcat
 > are certainly different, but the passion is the same.
 >
 > LinkedIn has like a dozen answers including a VERY funny one from Leo
 > from TWiT.
 >
 > http://www.linkedin 
 > <http://www.linkedin.com/answers?viewQuestion=&questionID=128692&askerID=24171>
 >  .com/answers?viewQuestion=&questionID=128692&askerID=24171
 >
 > best j
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > Yahoo! Groups Links
 >
 >
 >
 >
 
 -- 
 The Faux Press - better than real
 http://feeds. <http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist> 
feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
 http://fauxpress. <http://fauxpress.blogspot.com> blogspot.com
 http://wburg. <http://wburg.tv> tv
 aim=janofsound
 air=862.571.5334
 skype=janmclaughlin
 
 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 
   

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[John Coffey]

I'm with you Richard. I suggest Jason have lunch with
Andrew Baron and relive the worst TWIT ever.
JCH
--- Richard Bluestein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> I'm going to puke.
> 
> 


Jimmy CraicHead TVVideo Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Craic and Cocktails 
www.jchtv.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[John Coffey]

Jason, don't you know this was a self promotion by Jason? He knows all to well 
what it takes to get 125k views per day. To quote Charles Barkley, he's 
"playing you like a cheap guitar"
  jjc

danielmcvicar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  Hi Jason
Your view level is pretty good, your show looks very good.

If you want more views, put it across the board on multiple servers and hosts. 
You'd be 
surprised at how many you can get at Daily Motion.

You may also experiment with short sweet and sexy promos. Across the board.

Sex is what attracts attention the most, the hook is something that you have an 
instinct 
for. 

Then, as a daily show, you are a service, liek Rocketboom, more than a brand 
like French 
Maid TV. Your audience will find a certain comfort in watching the videos daily.

What I enjoyed with The Late Nite Mash experiment was a surprise to me...coming 
from 
audience counting media. It was the collaboration that I found online and in 
the 
community.

All the best with your show.

Daniel

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jason McCabe Calacanis" <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We launched Mahalo Daily with Veronica Belmont last week as some of
> you might know. You can find the show at http://daily.mahalo.com and
> on iTunes. We're hosting it at Blip.Tv (for now) but considering some
> other options since folks have been pinging us. 
> 
> I'm looking for some advice on what we can do--other than make the
> best show we can--to grow the view to 100k+ a day quickly. 
> 
> We did over 120k views in the first week (about 12-37k views for each
> of the first four shows) which is much more than I thought we would.
> We've got our iTunes page running and we're syndicating the videos to
> YouTube and Facebook. We've also started a Facebook, Ning, Flickr, and
> Twitter groups/accounts to compliment the program. They are getting
> nice pickup. 
> 
> On a business level, I'm wondering if there is anyone out there who
> can bring in 100-250k views a day for show, perhaps in exchange for
> exclusive hosting rights/advertising rights or something (i.e. Yahoo,
> AOL, YouTube, etc). 
> 
> Anyone have an distribution tips?
> Has anyone done deals like this? 
> 
> Mahalo for any help... 
> 
> best J
> 
> i blogged about this here:
> http://www.calacanis.com/2007/11/11/congrats-to-tyler-and-veronica-on-an-
amazing-first-week-for-mahalo/
>



 


Jimmy CraicHead TVVideo Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Craic and Cocktails 
www.jchtv.com
 __
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Brian Richardson - WhatTheCast?]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 9:52 am, danielmcvicar wrote:
> OK, here's a summary of my advice.  Jason, show us your tits.

Yeah, lots of people will hit you if you show your chest without warning 
...

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to bleach that mental image from my mind 
:-o
--
Brian Richardson
  - http://whatthecast.com
  - http://siliconchef.com
  - http://dragoncontv.com
  - http://www.3chip.com

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Jeffrey Taylor]

You've successfully launched and sold several media properties, Mr.
Calacanis. You've also got a company, Mahalo, that has a marketing budget.
In my opinion, folks in your league should pay for advice instead of getting
it for free. It's not like you're a Rocketboom or a Epic--FU/Jetset,
starting from the ground up on a shoestring, in the community with the rest
of us, and including us in the conversation by asking one or some of us join
you at Mahalo on a contractural or full-time basis to help you gain
subscribers. You are a not a regular participant on this list, and I've seen
nothing of value come from you since I've been subscribed. While it doesn't
break any rules for you to come ask this question, I find it rather
insulting for you to do so without offering a gig or valuable advice to one
or some of the people in this community.

At best, you're getting free consulting that devalues the hard-earned
expertise of people here. At worst, you're using this medium as a gimmick to
start conversation about Mahalo Daily. Both are pretty gross.

And here's my question to the group:

When does community-based advice to peers end and when does free consulting
to professionals begin? Or, in other words, when do we start devaluing our
own experience and expertise by giving it away gratis to people who could
afford to pay for it?  This is my biggest question as social media rises and
communities help more and more with building of companies.

On 12/11/2007, bordercollieaustralianshepherd <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   Jason
>
> Wow ... I just caught up with the whole thread ... damn you! Damn You
> Jason ... LOL
>
> Well I stand by my ideas, but must give you a big nod for self
> promoting in such a sly way ...
>
> Of all of the crap I threw your way ... and having learned this AIN"T
> your first BBQ ... I would work the "Thank You" angle.
>
> Thanks for letting me play
>
> Dave
>
>  
>



-- 
Jeffrey Taylor
Mobile: +33625497654
Fax: +33177722734
Skype: thejeffreytaylor
Googlechat/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Andrew Baron]

In the long run, I think you will get to the same end quicker by  
asking a different question: What can you do to make the show better?

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Mike Meiser]

Jan, you're burtal. Mean. Brutal... but thanks for saying it. Someone had to.

Just so you know... it's not always true btw... and it'll get
better... after it gets worse.

It'll probably have to become a complete cliche before we evolve
beyond it. Then again, it's already a cheap cliche.

Excuse me, I'm going to go hire a hit chick now and start a popular videoblog.

Writers who!?

-Mike

On 11/11/07, Jan McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know Veronica from sunshine, but I'm guessing she's got a good rack.
>
> You don't need much more than that and some low-cut, tight blouses and a
> bevy of good writers and guests to make the numbers you describe.
>
> Lots of writers out of work this week.
>
> Jan
> [Who's kinda sorry for the flip if true response]
>
> On 11/11/07, Jason McCabe Calacanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This might not be the right place to ask those questions.  Most (not
> > > all) of the producers here are working organically and personally
> > > with much smaller audiences and are creating uncommercial content.
> >
> > Got it.
> >
> > Thought that discussions about distribution channels might be in the
> > mandate since I've seen them here before, but if not please do delete!
> >
> > > But here's my two cents: You want regular six figure viewing figures,
> > > I'd say the only guaranteed way to do it from a standing start is to
> > > get featured on Youtube every time.  I would imagine, given your
> >
> > YouTube has come up a lot so I guess we should talk to them about
> > distribution. I agree about the value of those viewers and the
> > horrible behavior. In some ways I guess it's like getting on the front
> > page of digg: you get some traffic but you also get abusive comments
> > from the kiddie/anonymous coward contingent.
> >
> > > My feeling is that to get any value or meaningful response from your
> > > viewers, you need to build audience and loyalty organically.  All the
> > > social network/social media groups you've set up are a good start.
> >
> > Agreed. We're getting a great response from Ning
> > (http://mahalodaily.ning.com), Facebook (600 or so memebers), and
> > Twitter.
> >
> > > But they're not a quick fix.  Or a road to instant viewer riches.
> >
> > Agreed again. I think they are good at creating a space for your
> > existing users to get together.
> >
> > > I advise you to look at EpicFu (formerly Jetset) - Zadi and Steve
> > > have done it about as right as possible, I think.  They've been
> > > developing their show and their fans for a long time, and are now
> > > getting 1m views per week.  They cover a lot of ground, screen on
> > > multiple networks as well as their own site and work very hard at
> > > it.  They have their own social network, which is integral to their
> > > show.  Seems to work well for them.
> >
> > Will do... those guys certainly know what they're doing and have been
> > at it for a long time.
> >
> > > I also advise you not pay any attention to my advice.  I'm a
> > > videoblogger.  I'm happy with a two or three figure audience, not
> > > six.  I want to keep personal contact with my viewers.  I have
> > > nothing to sell and no intention of making it my business.  None of
> > > my opinions are based on any experience of building a promotional
> > > show with a big audience.  Good luck with it.
> >
> > Actually, I think your advice is sage... focus on the organic and
> > stick to your knitting. The goals of our podcast and a personal podcat
> > are certainly different, but the passion is the same.
> >
> > LinkedIn has like a dozen answers including a VERY funny one from Leo
> > from TWiT.
> >
> > http://www.linkedin.com/answers?viewQuestion=&questionID=128692&askerID=24171
> >
> > best j
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> The Faux Press - better than real
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS
> http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> http://wburg.tv
> aim=janofsound
> air=862.571.5334
> skype=janmclaughlin
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Mike Meiser]

I disagrey respectfully with Tim Street.

Promos my butt. Let the content speak for itself.  Don't push promos
everywhere, syndicate the content everywhere.  Making promos for 3
minute shows is backwards.

Instead just put the whole thing on youtube... yeah you'll never make
a dime through youtube, but screw it... use them like they use you.
Brand yourstuff like crazy. Build your brand.  This is exactly what
shows like Ask A Nija and Wallstrip have done. Don't give youtube
users cheap seconds... that would be treating youtube exactly the way
all those lifestyle mags, newspapers, regional news affiliates and the
rest treat the online world... he's some "show clips" from the NBC...
wait... nope we don't want them on Youtube anymore... come to our
site.  It's B.S.   Give them the whole show, make it ontime... make it
a great experience... and just let them know who it's coming from,
brand well.  Then just hope when push comes to shove you've developed
enough of a core following that they'll follow you to itunes, your
domain, or subscribe to your RSS feed with a real open network
aggregator like fireant, democracy, mefeedia, or dare I say iTunes..
though quite frankly itunes sucks for video.

-Mike

On 11/11/07, Tim Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I  can't argue with Jan.
>
> You might also try starting a video podcast and create some promos for it and 
> post them everywhere you can.
> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Jan McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:34:48
> To:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day 
> (quickly)?
>
>
> I don't know Veronica from sunshine, but I'm guessing she's got a good rack.
>
>  You don't need much more than that and some low-cut, tight blouses and a
>  bevy of good writers and guests to make the numbers you describe.
>
>  Lots of writers out of work this week.
>
>  Jan
>  [Who's kinda sorry for the flip if true response]
>
>  On 11/11/07, Jason McCabe Calacanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> <mailto:jason%40calacanis.com> com> wrote:
>  >
>  > --- In videoblogging@ <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> 
> yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > > This might not be the right place to ask those questions. Most (not
>  > > all) of the producers here are working organically and personally
>  > > with much smaller audiences and are creating uncommercial content.
>  >
>  > Got it.
>  >
>  > Thought that discussions about distribution channels might be in the
>  > mandate since I've seen them here before, but if not please do delete!
>  >
>  > > But here's my two cents: You want regular six figure viewing figures,
>  > > I'd say the only guaranteed way to do it from a standing start is to
>  > > get featured on Youtube every time. I would imagine, given your
>  >
>  > YouTube has come up a lot so I guess we should talk to them about
>  > distribution. I agree about the value of those viewers and the
>  > horrible behavior. In some ways I guess it's like getting on the front
>  > page of digg: you get some traffic but you also get abusive comments
>  > from the kiddie/anonymous coward contingent.
>  >
>  > > My feeling is that to get any value or meaningful response from your
>  > > viewers, you need to build audience and loyalty organically. All the
>  > > social network/social media groups you've set up are a good start.
>  >
>  > Agreed. We're getting a great response from Ning
>  > (http://mahalodaily. <http://mahalodaily.ning.com> ning.com), Facebook 
> (600 or so memebers), and
>  > Twitter.
>  >
>  > > But they're not a quick fix. Or a road to instant viewer riches.
>  >
>  > Agreed again. I think they are good at creating a space for your
>  > existing users to get together.
>  >
>  > > I advise you to look at EpicFu (formerly Jetset) - Zadi and Steve
>  > > have done it about as right as possible, I think. They've been
>  > > developing their show and their fans for a long time, and are now
>  > > getting 1m views per week. They cover a lot of ground, screen on
>  > > multiple networks as well as their own site and work very hard at
>  > > it. They have their own social network, which is integral to their
>  > > show. Seems to work well for them.
>  >
>  > Will do... those guys certainly know what they're doing and have been
>  > at it for 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Mike Meiser]

Ok, that was funny John and Richard. I'll give you that. There is some
inherent irony in even participating in this thread...  I don't know
how i got so sucked in... it's not all bad though is it?

We're not doing jason any real favors... not giving away any
subversive keys to skip having to learn... the points all come down to
the fact that the show has got to be honest, personal and they've got
to work for it. What's so damn wrong with that kind of advice?

I can say this... jason is not ABC... and I can pretty much guarentee
Mahalo won't be some cheesey *ss version of CNET's other video
podcasts. I'm pretty much sure that Jason's efforts will be positive
for videoblogging the way they've been positive for blogging.  In fact
I still read many of the blogs on his old network.

We can either push this change away, live in the past and have no say
in the future... or we can embrace the change and have a hand in
shapping a better future.

-Mike

On 11/12/07, John Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm with you Richard. I suggest Jason have lunch with
> Andrew Baron and relive the worst TWIT ever.
> JCH
> --- Richard Bluestein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm going to puke.
> >
> >
>
>
> Jimmy CraicHead TVVideo Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Craic and Cocktails 
> www.jchtv.com
>
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Mike Meiser]

And don't listen to Daniel McVicar. :)

Sorry daniel.  Sex sells is B.S.   If you want a genuine audience...
an audience of makers, participators and creators... like maholo
fundamentally needs to survive... you're downplay the overt sexiness
of Veronica, and up-play her obvious street cred.  Veronica should go
all out and be the geek and gaming girl she was born to be... not put
on the tight fitting shirt and dumb herself down.

This is much like the youtube issue earlier.  Youtube courts a lot of
non-genuine traffic... people there for the crowd and spectacle...
people who leave assinine comments and wouldn't watch your show if it
wasn't the most popular video of the day.

This is VERY often seen amongst many top youtube people. 500,000 hits
on one video 11,000 on the next.

In the racing world you're only as good as your last race... in the
youtube world your only really as big as your least viewed video. That
is more reflective of your real audience.

In order for maholo to survive it must tap into that culture of
creators, makers, participators... communicators.

-Mike

On 11/12/07, danielmcvicar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Jason
> Your view level is pretty good, your show looks very good.
>
> If you want more views, put it across the board on multiple servers and 
> hosts.  You'd be
> surprised at how many you can get at Daily Motion.
>
> You may also experiment with short sweet and sexy promos.   Across the board.
>
> Sex is what attracts attention the most, the hook is something that you have 
> an instinct
> for.
>
> Then, as a daily show, you are a service, liek Rocketboom, more than a brand 
> like French
> Maid TV.  Your audience will find a certain comfort in watching the videos 
> daily.
>
> What I enjoyed with The Late Nite Mash experiment was a surprise to 
> me...coming from
> audience counting media.  It was the collaboration that I found online and in 
> the
> community.
>
> All the best with your show.
>
> Daniel
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jason McCabe Calacanis" <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > We launched Mahalo Daily with Veronica Belmont last week as some of
> > you might know. You can find the show at http://daily.mahalo.com and
> > on iTunes. We're hosting it at Blip.Tv (for now) but considering some
> > other options since folks have been pinging us.
> >
> > I'm looking for some advice on what we can do--other than make the
> > best show we can--to grow the view to 100k+ a day quickly.
> >
> > We did over 120k views in the first week (about 12-37k views for each
> > of the first four shows) which is much more than I thought we would.
> > We've got our iTunes page running and we're syndicating the videos to
> > YouTube and Facebook. We've also started a Facebook, Ning, Flickr, and
> > Twitter groups/accounts to compliment the program. They are getting
> > nice pickup.
> >
> > On a business level, I'm wondering if there is anyone out there who
> > can bring in 100-250k views a day for show, perhaps in exchange for
> > exclusive hosting rights/advertising rights or something (i.e. Yahoo,
> > AOL, YouTube, etc).
> >
> > Anyone have an distribution tips?
> > Has anyone done deals like this?
> >
> > Mahalo for any help...
> >
> > best J
> >
> > i blogged about this here:
> > http://www.calacanis.com/2007/11/11/congrats-to-tyler-and-veronica-on-an-
> amazing-first-week-for-mahalo/
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Robyn Tippins]

One technique might be to sponsor the coolest videoblog awards ever... ;)

-- 
Robyn Tippins

Community Manager, MyBlogLog - Yahoo!
Sleepyblogger.com | Gamingandtech.com

On Nov 12, 2007 7:55 PM, Mike Meiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   And don't listen to Daniel McVicar. :)
>
> Sorry daniel. Sex sells is B.S. If you want a genuine audience...
> an audience of makers, participators and creators... like maholo
> fundamentally needs to survive... you're downplay the overt sexiness
> of Veronica, and up-play her obvious street cred. Veronica should go
> all out and be the geek and gaming girl she was born to be... not put
> on the tight fitting shirt and dumb herself down.
>
> This is much like the youtube issue earlier. Youtube courts a lot of
> non-genuine traffic... people there for the crowd and spectacle...
> people who leave assinine comments and wouldn't watch your show if it
> wasn't the most popular video of the day.
>
> This is VERY often seen amongst many top youtube people. 500,000 hits
> on one video 11,000 on the next.
>
> In the racing world you're only as good as your last race... in the
> youtube world your only really as big as your least viewed video. That
> is more reflective of your real audience.
>
> In order for maholo to survive it must tap into that culture of
> creators, makers, participators... communicators.
>
> -Mike
>
> On 11/12/07, danielmcvicar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Jason
> > Your view level is pretty good, your show looks very good.
> >
> > If you want more views, put it across the board on multiple servers and
> hosts. You'd be
> > surprised at how many you can get at Daily Motion.
> >
> > You may also experiment with short sweet and sexy promos. Across the
> board.
> >
> > Sex is what attracts attention the most, the hook is something that you
> have an instinct
> > for.
> >
> > Then, as a daily show, you are a service, liek Rocketboom, more than a
> brand like French
> > Maid TV. Your audience will find a certain comfort in watching the
> videos daily.
> >
> > What I enjoyed with The Late Nite Mash experiment was a surprise to
> me...coming from
> > audience counting media. It was the collaboration that I found online
> and in the
> > community.
> >
> > All the best with your show.
> >
> > Daniel
>
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> "Jason McCabe Calacanis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > We launched Mahalo Daily with Veronica Belmont last week as some of
> > > you might know. You can find the show at http://daily.mahalo.com and
> > > on iTunes. We're hosting it at Blip.Tv (for now) but considering some
> > > other options since folks have been pinging us.
> > >
> > > I'm looking for some advice on what we can do--other than make the
> > > best show we can--to grow the view to 100k+ a day quickly.
> > >
> > > We did over 120k views in the first week (about 12-37k views for each
> > > of the first four shows) which is much more than I thought we would.
> > > We've got our iTunes page running and we're syndicating the videos to
> > > YouTube and Facebook. We've also started a Facebook, Ning, Flickr, and
> > > Twitter groups/accounts to compliment the program. They are getting
> > > nice pickup.
> > >
> > > On a business level, I'm wondering if there is anyone out there who
> > > can bring in 100-250k views a day for show, perhaps in exchange for
> > > exclusive hosting rights/advertising rights or something (i.e. Yahoo,
> > > AOL, YouTube, etc).
> > >
> > > Anyone have an distribution tips?
> > > Has anyone done deals like this?
> > >
> > > Mahalo for any help...
> > >
> > > best J
> > >
> > > i blogged about this here:
> > >
> http://www.calacanis.com/2007/11/11/congrats-to-tyler-and-veronica-on-an-
> > amazing-first-week-for-mahalo/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Mike Meiser]

The problem is not that Clacanis should be paying for such advice. The
problem is this industry is so little estabished that there's no one
he can call to pay for such advice. Where's the "new media
consultants" section in the yellow pages.. or even online.

Most people who could be consultants aren't because they're doing
it... most people who say they're consultants are therefor full of
sh*t or they'd be doing it.

The very fact that jason is here... is I think proof enough of his
genuiness. After all if I wanted to get something done and I had
several million dollars the last thing I'd be doing is sitting around
with all of you... I'd go find myself an expert and hire them.

Time is money, sex sells, and you can't buy good advice.

Now go hire Lan Bui. He's wise. Wit, especially sharp wit is really
the cornerstone of all that is righteous in this world.

Why... because this space is so full of B.S. and irony.

Peace,

P.S. this will be my final comment ... no more for me on this subject
for a while... it's a fun thread though.

-Mike

On 11/12/07, Jeffrey Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You've successfully launched and sold several media properties, Mr.
> Calacanis. You've also got a company, Mahalo, that has a marketing budget.
> In my opinion, folks in your league should pay for advice instead of getting
> it for free. It's not like you're a Rocketboom or a Epic--FU/Jetset,
> starting from the ground up on a shoestring, in the community with the rest
> of us, and including us in the conversation by asking one or some of us join
> you at Mahalo on a contractural or full-time basis to help you gain
> subscribers. You are a not a regular participant on this list, and I've seen
> nothing of value come from you since I've been subscribed. While it doesn't
> break any rules for you to come ask this question, I find it rather
> insulting for you to do so without offering a gig or valuable advice to one
> or some of the people in this community.
>
> At best, you're getting free consulting that devalues the hard-earned
> expertise of people here. At worst, you're using this medium as a gimmick to
> start conversation about Mahalo Daily. Both are pretty gross.
>
> And here's my question to the group:
>
> When does community-based advice to peers end and when does free consulting
> to professionals begin? Or, in other words, when do we start devaluing our
> own experience and expertise by giving it away gratis to people who could
> afford to pay for it?  This is my biggest question as social media rises and
> communities help more and more with building of companies.
>
> On 12/11/2007, bordercollieaustralianshepherd <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >   Jason
> >
> > Wow ... I just caught up with the whole thread ... damn you! Damn You
> > Jason ... LOL
> >
> > Well I stand by my ideas, but must give you a big nod for self
> > promoting in such a sly way ...
> >
> > Of all of the crap I threw your way ... and having learned this AIN"T
> > your first BBQ ... I would work the "Thank You" angle.
> >
> > Thanks for letting me play
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jeffrey Taylor
> Mobile: +33625497654
> Fax: +33177722734
> Skype: thejeffreytaylor
> Googlechat/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Mike Meiser]

No, I think we're pretty much on the same page bill.

In fact I think you've clarified the point.

I should say that diversity is the key.  Even though youtube doesn't
for example deliver loyal audiences it does provide for the visibility
to attract loyal audiences.  Neither one end of the spectrum or the
other is good. Reaching a diverse audience is good, because you need
to be visible enough for your core audience to find you.

In the same way sex sells.  If that's all you have in this space
you've got sh*t.  Why... because increasingly a host is going to have
to have a more and more shrewd personality... be more of a geek. Have
more knowlege of the subject matter.

This is not a knock at all, but when Amanda started working at
rocketboom she new nothing about online culture. She was however a
quick learner. She didn't have much street cred though, nor did she
need it.  Veronica on the other hand has tremendously geeky interests
and cred. She's not just a pretty face.

This is the trend... more cred, more shrewdness, more substance, more
passion for the subject matter. Ultimately that will rule out over the
whole pretty face routine.

I mean, look at Leo Laporte. ;)

But that's another tangent... the tech curmudgeon, the non-threatening
host that makes everything safe for all the non-geeks... but that's a
whole nother' email.

It goes with the maturity of the space.

I didn't finish that last email the way i had intended either.

Sex is definitely not everything in this space, but of course a little
sexiness never hurt anyone's numbers.

-Mike


On 11/12/07, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > And don't listen to Daniel McVicar. :)
> >
> > Sorry daniel.  Sex sells is B.S.   If you want a genuine audience...
> > an audience of makers, participators and creators... like maholo
> > fundamentally needs to survive... you're downplay the overt sexiness
> > of Veronica, and up-play her obvious street cred.  Veronica should go
> > all out and be the geek and gaming girl she was born to be... not put
> > on the tight fitting shirt and dumb herself down.
>
> I agree, and disagree. :)
>
> First of all, *obviously* sex sells.  It always has, and it always
> will.  In LIFE.  Not just in video blogs. :)
>
> Maybe we should make a list of the 'top' video blogs with female leads
> and the 'top' video blogs with male leads.
>
> The part where I agree with you is that you need for the chick to have
> a personality, AND either be able to come up with cool dialogue
> herself or have the ability to deliver what the ghost-writers make up
> for her.
>
> Dan's not saying for anyone to "act like a bimbo" or "dumb anything
> down".  The fact remains that if you remove chicks as the hosts on
> your shows, your views are going to plummet.
>
> In an ideal world, you can put anyone that looks like anything in
> front of a camera and have people tune in on a regular basis.  Until
> then, attractive women will always be more in demand and receive more
> attention than unattractive women or guys in general.
>
> Please feel free to prove me wrong. :)  If you can, I'll admit that
> you've changed my mind, publicly, in this same forum where I'm making
> these assertions. :D
>
> --
> Bill Cammack
> http://CammackMediaGroup.com
>
>
>
> > This is much like the youtube issue earlier.  Youtube courts a lot of
> > non-genuine traffic... people there for the crowd and spectacle...
> > people who leave assinine comments and wouldn't watch your show if it
> > wasn't the most popular video of the day.
> >
> > This is VERY often seen amongst many top youtube people. 500,000 hits
> > on one video 11,000 on the next.
> >
> > In the racing world you're only as good as your last race... in the
> > youtube world your only really as big as your least viewed video. That
> > is more reflective of your real audience.
> >
> > In order for maholo to survive it must tap into that culture of
> > creators, makers, participators... communicators.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > On 11/12/07, danielmcvicar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi Jason
> > > Your view level is pretty good, your show looks very good.
> > >
> > > If you want more views, put it across the board on multiple
> servers and hosts.  You'd be
> > > surprised at how many you can get at Daily Motion.
> > >
> > > You may also experiment with short sweet and sexy promos.   Across
> the board.
> > >
> > > Sex is what attracts attention the most, the hook is something
> that you have an instinct
> > > for.
> > >
> > > Then, as a daily show, you are a service, liek Rocketboom, more
> than a brand like French
> > > Maid TV.  Your audience will find a certain comfort in watching
> the videos daily.
> > >
> > > What I enjoyed with The Late Nite Mash experiment was a surprise
> to me...coming from
> > > audience counting media.  It was the collaboration that I found
> online and in the
> > > community.
> > >
> > > All th

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Irina]

yep robyn jason was the first person i thought of since he had justhired my
friend
veronica around the time i decided to go thru with the winnies

i emailed him but did not get a response

On Nov 12, 2007 8:01 PM, Robyn Tippins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   One technique might be to sponsor the coolest videoblog awards ever...
> ;)
>
> --
> Robyn Tippins
>
> Community Manager, MyBlogLog - Yahoo!
> Sleepyblogger.com | Gamingandtech.com
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2007 7:55 PM, Mike Meiser <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > And don't listen to Daniel McVicar. :)
> >
> > Sorry daniel. Sex sells is B.S. If you want a genuine audience...
> > an audience of makers, participators and creators... like maholo
> > fundamentally needs to survive... you're downplay the overt sexiness
> > of Veronica, and up-play her obvious street cred. Veronica should go
> > all out and be the geek and gaming girl she was born to be... not put
> > on the tight fitting shirt and dumb herself down.
> >
> > This is much like the youtube issue earlier. Youtube courts a lot of
> > non-genuine traffic... people there for the crowd and spectacle...
> > people who leave assinine comments and wouldn't watch your show if it
> > wasn't the most popular video of the day.
> >
> > This is VERY often seen amongst many top youtube people. 500,000 hits
> > on one video 11,000 on the next.
> >
> > In the racing world you're only as good as your last race... in the
> > youtube world your only really as big as your least viewed video. That
> > is more reflective of your real audience.
> >
> > In order for maholo to survive it must tap into that culture of
> > creators, makers, participators... communicators.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > On 11/12/07, danielmcvicar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Jason
> > > Your view level is pretty good, your show looks very good.
> > >
> > > If you want more views, put it across the board on multiple servers
> and
> > hosts. You'd be
> > > surprised at how many you can get at Daily Motion.
> > >
> > > You may also experiment with short sweet and sexy promos. Across the
> > board.
> > >
> > > Sex is what attracts attention the most, the hook is something that
> you
> > have an instinct
> > > for.
> > >
> > > Then, as a daily show, you are a service, liek Rocketboom, more than a
> > brand like French
> > > Maid TV. Your audience will find a certain comfort in watching the
> > videos daily.
> > >
> > > What I enjoyed with The Late Nite Mash experiment was a surprise to
> > me...coming from
> > > audience counting media. It was the collaboration that I found online
> > and in the
> > > community.
> > >
> > > All the best with your show.
> > >
> > > Daniel
> >
> > >
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
> > > ,
>
> > "Jason McCabe Calacanis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We launched Mahalo Daily with Veronica Belmont last week as some of
> > > > you might know. You can find the show at http://daily.mahalo.com and
> > > > on iTunes. We're hosting it at Blip.Tv (for now) but considering
> some
> > > > other options since folks have been pinging us.
> > > >
> > > > I'm looking for some advice on what we can do--other than make the
> > > > best show we can--to grow the view to 100k+ a day quickly.
> > > >
> > > > We did over 120k views in the first week (about 12-37k views for
> each
> > > > of the first four shows) which is much more than I thought we would.
> > > > We've got our iTunes page running and we're syndicating the videos
> to
> > > > YouTube and Facebook. We've also started a Facebook, Ning, Flickr,
> and
> > > > Twitter groups/accounts to compliment the program. They are getting
> > > > nice pickup.
> > > >
> > > > On a business level, I'm wondering if there is anyone out there who
> > > > can bring in 100-250k views a day for show, perhaps in exchange for
> > > > exclusive hosting rights/advertising rights or something (i.e.
> Yahoo,
> > > > AOL, YouTube, etc).
> > > >
> > > > Anyone have an distribution tips?
> > > > Has anyone done deals like this?
> > > >
> > > > Mahalo for any help...
> > > >
> > > > best J
> > > >
> > > > i blogged about this here:
> > > >
> >
> http://www.calacanis.com/2007/11/11/congrats-to-tyler-and-veronica-on-an-
> > > amazing-first-week-for-mahalo/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>



-- 
http://geekentertainment.tv


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Jeffrey Taylor]

Saying sex sells is only a small part of a longstanding and more
comprehensive theory in advertising that creating a somewhat realistic
aspirational arrival point for an audience is what sells. This is why we
have women presenting on many of these shows that are good looking, but more
within reach for male audiences than a runway model would be. The idea that
these male viewers have somewhat of a "chance" keeps eyes on the screen, or
at least encourages the eyes to return to the screen. When looking across
the advertising spectrum and into more general interest brands that run
across demographics, you see that this theory has manifested in more diverse
ways than the proliferation of sexuality. There's nothing overtly or
covertly sexual in Apple's marketing of the iPod, for example, but there is
something overtly sexy about how an iPod is marketed.

I personally think it's a bit silly to keep repeating the
girl-tells-us-about-tech model over and over, lazily avoiding the
development of new audiences. I'd love to get some research on this, but I
hypothesize that these types of shows (Webb Alert, Geekbrief, etc.
–Rocketboom is a bit different because there's more of a hipster demo going
on there) are being watched by the same slowly-growing crowd.

I am looking forward to seeing who's going to be brave enough to throw away
or at least expand on the girl-on-a-screen model when it comes to tech
reporting on the web, creating a larger market than the present niche by
providing aspirational arrival points for more than just males, primarily
18-25, maybe 35. These shows have mastered a niche, but have are not
bringing other niches to the table as building blocks to a larger and more
general audience. Entities that appeal to women, especially young women, and
the heavy-spending and freetime-rich baby boomers as they retire at
increasing rates will do the best. Repeating the same model just because
it's been successful before will not do that.

And for Jason – I get your response and agree with much of what you say. But
I think you also get that creating a context in which achieving what you
outlined in your response can live by explain exactly what you did in
response to me is very important, albeit easily forgotten tedious at times.



On 13/11/2007, danielmcvicar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Mike
> I was flip, but sex is what does sell, in advertising, etc.
> However, once it is sold, what are you bringign. Not just sex, but a
> service. You must
> give some nutrition with dessert, and once you bring people into the
> community, listen,
> get involved, and ultimately lead.
>
> This is a good discussion
> D
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> "Mike Meiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > And don't listen to Daniel McVicar. :)
> >
> > Sorry daniel. Sex sells is B.S. If you want a genuine audience...
> > an audience of makers, participators and creators... like maholo
> > fundamentally needs to survive... you're downplay the overt sexiness
> > of Veronica, and up-play her obvious street cred. Veronica should go
> > all out and be the geek and gaming girl she was born to be... not put
> > on the tight fitting shirt and dumb herself down.
> >
> > This is much like the youtube issue earlier. Youtube courts a lot of
> > non-genuine traffic... people there for the crowd and spectacle...
> > people who leave assinine comments and wouldn't watch your show if it
> > wasn't the most popular video of the day.
> >
> > This is VERY often seen amongst many top youtube people. 500,000 hits
> > on one video 11,000 on the next.
> >
> > In the racing world you're only as good as your last race... in the
> > youtube world your only really as big as your least viewed video. That
> > is more reflective of your real audience.
> >
> > In order for maholo to survive it must tap into that culture of
> > creators, makers, participators... communicators.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > On 11/12/07, danielmcvicar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi Jason
> > > Your view level is pretty good, your show looks very good.
> > >
> > > If you want more views, put it across the board on multiple servers
> and hosts. You'd
> be
> > > surprised at how many you can get at Daily Motion.
> > >
> > > You may also experiment with short sweet and sexy promos. Across the
> board.
> > >
> > > Sex is what attracts attention the most, the hook is something that
> you have an
> instinct
> > > for.
> > >
> > > Then, as a daily show, you are a service, liek Rocketboom, more than a
> brand like
> French
> > > Maid TV. Your audience will find a certain comfort in watching the
> videos daily.
> > >
> > > What I enjoyed with The Late Nite Mash experiment was a surprise to
> me...coming
> from
> > > audience counting media. It was the collaboration that I found online
> and in the
> > > community.
> > >
> > > All the best with your show.
> > >
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> "Jason McCabe Calacanis"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We la

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Jan McLaughlin]

As usual, Mr. Taylor, you bring up the proper questions.

Who in this space deals with Boomer women? Nobody. Yet.

We Boomer chicks got time and money and talent ripe for pickin'. Automakers
begin to get *that point.

Katie Couric and "The View" type hosts don't suck me and my generation in.

What will?

Not tits, that's for sure :)

My point about tits is that audiences have to evolve (thanks for using the
word, Meiser) in order to appreciate how vulnerable they are to manipulation
based on the breast and get beyond it. Getting beyond the animal impulse is
a good thing and will set you free. Unfortunately, being free is devalued
these days.

I envision a Boomer community based around teaching / learning / sharing all
the creative digital tools of the trade (audio / video) whereby the Boomers
can get their strut on creatively and support one another in the process.

Using tits to sell is like shooting fish in a barrel; where's the challenge
in it?

Off to work.

Jan

On 11/13/07, Jeffrey Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Saying sex sells is only a small part of a longstanding and more
> comprehensive theory in advertising that creating a somewhat realistic
> aspirational arrival point for an audience is what sells. This is why we
> have women presenting on many of these shows that are good looking, but
> more
> within reach for male audiences than a runway model would be. The idea
> that
> these male viewers have somewhat of a "chance" keeps eyes on the screen,
> or
> at least encourages the eyes to return to the screen. When looking across
> the advertising spectrum and into more general interest brands that run
> across demographics, you see that this theory has manifested in more
> diverse
> ways than the proliferation of sexuality. There's nothing overtly or
> covertly sexual in Apple's marketing of the iPod, for example, but there
> is
> something overtly sexy about how an iPod is marketed.
>
> I personally think it's a bit silly to keep repeating the
> girl-tells-us-about-tech model over and over, lazily avoiding the
> development of new audiences. I'd love to get some research on this, but I
> hypothesize that these types of shows (Webb Alert, Geekbrief, etc.
> –Rocketboom is a bit different because there's more of a hipster demo
> going
> on there) are being watched by the same slowly-growing crowd.
>
> I am looking forward to seeing who's going to be brave enough to throw
> away
> or at least expand on the girl-on-a-screen model when it comes to tech
> reporting on the web, creating a larger market than the present niche by
> providing aspirational arrival points for more than just males, primarily
> 18-25, maybe 35. These shows have mastered a niche, but have are not
> bringing other niches to the table as building blocks to a larger and more
> general audience. Entities that appeal to women, especially young women,
> and
> the heavy-spending and freetime-rich baby boomers as they retire at
> increasing rates will do the best. Repeating the same model just because
> it's been successful before will not do that.
>
> And for Jason – I get your response and agree with much of what you say.
> But
> I think you also get that creating a context in which achieving what you
> outlined in your response can live by explain exactly what you did in
> response to me is very important, albeit easily forgotten tedious at
> times.
>
>
>
> On 13/11/2007, danielmcvicar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Mike
> > I was flip, but sex is what does sell, in advertising, etc.
> > However, once it is sold, what are you bringign. Not just sex, but a
> > service. You must
> > give some nutrition with dessert, and once you bring people into the
> > community, listen,
> > get involved, and ultimately lead.
> >
> > This is a good discussion
> > D
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> > "Mike Meiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > And don't listen to Daniel McVicar. :)
> > >
> > > Sorry daniel. Sex sells is B.S. If you want a genuine audience...
> > > an audience of makers, participators and creators... like maholo
> > > fundamentally needs to survive... you're downplay the overt sexiness
> > > of Veronica, and up-play her obvious street cred. Veronica should go
> > > all out and be the geek and gaming girl she was born to be... not put
> > > on the tight fitting shirt and dumb herself down.
> > >
> > > This is much like the youtube issue earlier. Youtube courts a lot of
> > > non-genuine traffic... people there for the crowd and spectacle...
> > > people who leave assinine comments and wouldn't watch your show if it
> > > wasn't the most popular video of the day.
> > >
> > > This is VERY often seen amongst many top youtube people. 500,000 hits
> > > on one video 11,000 on the next.
> > >
> > > In the racing world you're only as good as your last race... in the
> > > youtube world your only really as big as your least viewed video. That
> > > is more reflective of your real audience.
> > >
> > > In o

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Andrew Baron]

On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:

>  So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didn't seem to be  
> selling out in the
> usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs  
> that Mr Baron was
> seeking to achieve a different sort of power.

AH YES!!! Its all about power, mwahahahahaha! But what kind of  
Power did you say!? A DIFFERENT kind?? M I like the sound of  
this . . . . A NEW kind of Power! BETTER THAN MONEY!!!

Speaking of power Steve, I dare you to not respond to a single thread  
on this list. Ill bet you can't do it in under 5000 words.

Speaking of Jason, he's most known for:

1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the  
identical knock off- Engagdget
2. Not paying employees fair wages.
3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news  
broke)
4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape
2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting  
fired from AOL
3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one  
likes.

Not just based on these few examples which have been extremely  
destructive to the world, but also based on his regular,  
stereotypical activity of attacking people instead of their work, I  
just want to throw out that Jason's only means of being popular is  
exactly this: taking and causing conflict.

Look no further than Ann Coulter. It works great for her. If they  
can't do it based on their own good ideas and they cant do it while  
collaborating with others, at least they can do it by shitting all  
over everyone.

Usually a good post has a lot of conversation but doesn't cause  
others to speak out so negatively at the author. This is likely the  
reason why there have been SO MANY bad reactions to Jason's post:  
When one lives their life so selfishly while attacking and being  
brutal, its destructive to everyone around because it causes damage  
and rubs off on the rest off.

My original answer to the original thread was likely not considered.  
The best way to grow your audience is not by spamming everyone. Its  
by improving your show. At this point Jason, you really shouldn't be  
asking any other questions until you get that one worked out. You got  
Veronica, she's great. You should be paying Veronica more, you need  
to invest in some better equipment and get some production help. How  
can you improve the show?

We ask ourselves this question every single day and it continues to  
receive the most concern out of every thing we do.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Andrew Baron]

BTW, Rocketboom is in it's 4th year now and for awhile I felt as  
though I was falling behind do to getting stuck in the lawsuit with  
Amanda (just ended 2 months ago), and not being able to get a network  
up and running like the other shows did such as Adam Curry's,  
Diggnation and Frederator.

But now that that's all over and Rocketboom is 100% free, in  
retrospect, Im so glad that it didn't happen because these networks  
are doing it all wrong, I think. I would of likely been doing the  
same thing that they are doing too.

Most people who know me know I haven't slept or vacationed in years  
because I keep running to get to the next step. We haven't relented,  
but we are no longer racing against the environment.

Rocketboom is not a Web 2.0 business, its a media business and media  
will be around for a long time. WIth this in mind, and whereas the  
other networks have only one breadwinner and a lot of draggers, we  
have decided to go at our own pace in order to make sure that show #2  
is just as important if not more important than #1.

On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:

> Whats really so bad about twit 57 anyway? I tried to listen to twit  
> once and couldnt take it,
> but I just watched the video version of twit 57 all the way  
> through. Sure, there were some
> moments where too many people talking at once wasnt good, but I  
> found the show
> interesting. Unless the video version is edited, I didnt spot any  
> legendary row, just a mildly
> spirited discussion, which was fairly revealing and thus interesting.
>
> And the Murdoch comments were nothing compared to the brief moment  
> at the end of
> 2006 and start of 2007 where a few 'would be media moguls' stated  
> their aspirations in
> even more ott fashion, only for those plans to wither away without  
> much fanfare or
> explanation.
>
> I got rather passionate about such things at the time, disgusted by  
> the idea that a new
> breed of gatekeepers were trying to bring themselves into  
> existence, because that seemed
> like it would destroy some of the things that make blogging and  
> vlogging have such
> potential. So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didnt seem  
> to be selling out in the
> usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs  
> that Mr Baron was
> seeking to achieve a different sort of power.
>
> In a strange way Im sort of sad that nothing much has happened, I  
> was looking forward to
> seeing what would occur. I imagine to witness the emergence of a  
> potential mogul of the
> new media world, we need a far more ruthless character with an iron  
> will, and a plan that
> is more detail than dream, to give it a go. None of the a-
> list/controvertial/opinionated/whatever characters, or your  
> confrontations, live up to the
> hype.
>
> Perhaps the new media dominator must also have a good sense of  
> timing, and will wait till
> things grow, and a lot of people do the hard work, before making  
> their move.
>
> 2007, not what was expected, and as I said before I think the  
> wobbly economy could
> make 2008 a year of shattered dreams, for those who couldnt keep  
> their dreams to a
> realistic size. Long live the sustainable ones, with their feet on  
> the ground!
>
> Regarding Mahalo and promotion, I would like to know stuff about  
> promotion options that
> are well beyond the reach of the individual or those with more  
> modest funding etc. Do you
> ever consider advertising in traditional mass media? I know that  
> back in 2005 or whenever
> the year was that some bvloggers got a lot of mainstream press,  
> some were surprised
> how little difference a story in the NYT or wherever, would make to  
> their stats. And here in
> the UK Ive not seen anything like the number of TV adverts for  
> dotcoms as I did during
> the original bubble. But Im also not convinced that web-only  
> promotion works on a huge
> scale all that often, seems very hit & miss, and I even wonder  
> whether the notion of mass
> marketing will stand the test of time. What if everybody is on the  
> race to the bottom, the
> only way is down, etc? Still taht would probably fit well with the  
> needs of plnet earth, the
> end of 'god is growth' and a return to saner scales in all things?
>
> Cheers
>
> Steve Elbows
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jason McCabe Calacanis"  
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, John Coffey  
>  wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm with you Richard. I suggest Jason have lunch with
> > > Andrew Baron and relive the worst TWIT ever.
> >
> > I think you're referring to Rupert Murdoch?!? ;-)
> >
> > TWiT 57 is legendary now... Leo talks about "not pulling a 57" or  
> "let's not 57 this one.."
> in
> > the pre-interview. Very funny.
> >
> > j
> >
>
>
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Rupert]

 > On 13 Nov 2007, at 11:38, Bill Cammack wrote:
 > I wondered how to drag all of those people, aimlessly streaming  
past me, into viewing an online show.

---

Set top box.  That's the only way you'll get people watching online  
shows.  I don't know if you use the term 'set top box' in the US.  I  
just mean a box that plugs into your TV.  One that'd allow people to  
watch ordinary network shows on their widescreen tv and also surf  
internet TV.

People will not watch shows on a computer.  Do you know anybody who  
watches anything on a computer?  Other than the odd bored moment  
surfing old TV shows on Youtube?  My friends and family will watch my  
videoblog, mostly because I've forced them to by subscribing them via  
email, but they won't then go on to watch any of the vlogs I link to,  
or click on the URLs of people who comment.

Computers are full of distractions, and are quite hard things to use  
if you want to concentrate on or relax to motion picture  
entertainment.  The TV / Couch combo works.  I firmly believe it's  
just a matter of someone bringing internet video to the couch.  Until  
then, forget it.

Rupert
http://twittervlog.tv/
http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Kary Rogers]

On Nov 13, 2007 7:34 AM, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>People will not watch shows on a computer. Do you know anybody who
> watches anything on a computer?
>




Personally, I don't watch shows on a computer (except for online-only shows,
then it's Miro), I prefer sitting on my couch and staring at the TV.  It's
how I grew up and it's a hard habit to change.  I imagine that's the case
for many of us.  But I have several younger, college-aged friends and they
often watch TV shows on their computer at NBC's or ABC's website.  This is
likely because they don't have a DVR but either way, I think the younger
generation is more apt to feel comfortable doing this.

-- 
Kary Rogers
http://goodcommitment.tv


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

I watched last week's HEROS on a computer and last night's HEROS on a  
TiVO.

Tim

Tim Street
Creator/Executive Producer
French Maid TV
The Viral Video of “How To’s” by French Maids
http://frenchmaidtv.com
Subscribe for FREE at: http://www.frenchmaidtv.com/itunes

MY BLOG: http://1timstreet.blogspot.com/






On Nov 13, 2007, at 6:29 AM, Kary Rogers wrote:

> On Nov 13, 2007 7:34 AM, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > People will not watch shows on a computer. Do you know anybody who
> > watches anything on a computer?
> >
>
> Personally, I don't watch shows on a computer (except for online- 
> only shows,
> then it's Miro), I prefer sitting on my couch and staring at the  
> TV. It's
> how I grew up and it's a hard habit to change. I imagine that's the  
> case
> for many of us. But I have several younger, college-aged friends  
> and they
> often watch TV shows on their computer at NBC's or ABC's website.  
> This is
> likely because they don't have a DVR but either way, I think the  
> younger
> generation is more apt to feel comfortable doing this.
>
> -- 
> Kary Rogers
> http://goodcommitment.tv
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[John Coffey]

Wow, Andrew comes out bitch slapping! Let's book this
on Jerry Springer!

> Speaking of Jason, he's most known for:
> 
> 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to
> make the  
> identical knock off- Engagdget
> 2. Not paying employees fair wages.
> 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one
> day after news  
> broke)
> 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for
> Netscape
> 2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone
> and then getting  
> fired from AOL
> 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering
> badly and no one  
> likes.
> 
> Not just based on these few examples which have been
> extremely  
> destructive to the world, but also based on his
> regular,  
> stereotypical activity of attacking people instead
> of their work, I  
> just want to throw out that Jason's only means of
> being popular is  
> exactly this: taking and causing conflict.
> 
> Look no further than Ann Coulter. It works great for
> her. If they  
> can't do it based on their own good ideas and they
> cant do it while  
> collaborating with others, at least they can do it
> by shitting all  
> over everyone.
> 
> Usually a good post has a lot of conversation but
> doesn't cause  
> others to speak out so negatively at the author.
> This is likely the  
> reason why there have been SO MANY bad reactions to
> Jason's post:  
> When one lives their life so selfishly while
> attacking and being  
> brutal, its destructive to everyone around because
> it causes damage  
> and rubs off on the rest off.
> 
> My original answer to the original thread was likely
> not considered.  
> The best way to grow your audience is not by
> spamming everyone. Its  
> by improving your show. At this point Jason, you
> really shouldn't be  
> asking any other questions until you get that one
> worked out. You got  
> Veronica, she's great. You should be paying Veronica
> more, you need  
> to invest in some better equipment and get some
> production help. How  
> can you improve the show?
> 
> We ask ourselves this question every single day and
> it continues to  
> receive the most concern out of every thing we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> 
> 


Jimmy CraicHead TVVideo Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Craic and Cocktails 
www.jchtv.com


  

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Richard Amirault]

- Original Message - 
From: "Rupert"
(snip)
> People will not watch shows on a computer.  Do you know anybody who
> watches anything on a computer?
(snip)

Yes .. ME .. I watch most of my TV on my computer.  I have a TV tuner for my 
computer.

Richard Amirault
Boston, MA, USA
http://n1jdu.org
http://bostonfandom.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Andrew Baron]

Ive cross posted some more on this topic:

"Why Mahalo is Fundementally Flawed"
http://dembot.com/post/19305296


On Nov 13, 2007, at 10:10 AM, John Coffey wrote:

> Wow, Andrew comes out bitch slapping! Let's book this
> on Jerry Springer!
>
> > Speaking of Jason, he's most known for:
> >
> > 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to
> > make the
> > identical knock off- Engagdget
> > 2. Not paying employees fair wages.
> > 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one
> > day after news
> > broke)
> > 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for
> > Netscape
> > 2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone
> > and then getting
> > fired from AOL
> > 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering
> > badly and no one
> > likes.
> >
> > Not just based on these few examples which have been
> > extremely
> > destructive to the world, but also based on his
> > regular,
> > stereotypical activity of attacking people instead
> > of their work, I
> > just want to throw out that Jason's only means of
> > being popular is
> > exactly this: taking and causing conflict.
> >
> > Look no further than Ann Coulter.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Dennis Poulette]

Hi. Sorry to say this, but I can’t see how this conversation belongs on the
list now. It’s got little to do with videoblogging.

 

   _  

From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jason McCabe Calacanis
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:51 AM
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day
(quickly)?

 

--- In HYPERLINK
"mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com"[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking of Jason, he's most known for: 

Oh boy... I probably shouldn't even respond to something so libelous.
However, this is so false I've got to correct it.

> 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the 
> identical knock off- Engagdget

False. 

I didn't steal the idea because the idea was Peter Rojas'. Nick Denton
back Peter's idea first in the form of Gizmodo, we (the weblogs, Inc
team) backed it second in the form of Engadget. 

For background, I offered Peter Rojas equity in Weblogs, Inc. and he
gladly left his ~$1,200 a month job with Nick Denton at Gizmodo. Nick
Denton promised Peter equity and never gave it him, we did. We
invested our own money into Engadget which quickly--thanks to Peter
and his team--grew to 3x the size of the incumbent Gizmodo. 

We sold Weblogs, Inc. (and without getting into exact details) Peter
became a millionaire over night. 

> 2. Not paying employees fair wages.

False. 

What are you basing this on? We paid hundreds of folks at Weblogs,
Inc. per month well over six figures for years. We paid the best rates
in the blogging business (better than or as good as Denton depending
on the time). When AOL bought Weblogs, Inc. we hired around 20-30
folks full-time. 


> 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news 
> broke)

False. 

How could we steal her if she left? She was a free agent and looking
for work. AOL really wanted to hire her so we made her an offer (a
very nice large offer). She took another large offer from ABC's. 

Are people not allowed to make offers? Would you rather talented folks
not get offers when they've achieved success? After working for you
should Amanda never work again? I'm confused. 

> 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape

False. 

We offered the top posters from digg pay for work they had previously
not been paid for. We paid ~40 of them to work on Netscape/Propeller
doing things like putting in high-quality stories, taking our false
stories and spam, and cleaning up the mess that is social news
sometimes. It was a really good idea and Propeller is the second
largest social news site in the world.

> 2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting 
> fired from AOL

False.

Jon Miller the CEO of AOL was fired and I left in solidarity within 24
hours. That's how I do I'm loyal. I started working with a fairly
well known venture capital firm with ten days of that. 

Netscape was being shutdown when folks at AOL asked me what I'd do
with it. I said I would build an editorialized version of digg where
the news was fact-checked. We did, it worked. The only reason they
moved it to it's own domain--from what I've been told--is that it is
more valuable with a new name (i.e. in terms of a sale) and that
redirecting Netscape's audience to AOL.com is highly profitable
because AOL.COM is the most profitable part of the empire (and social
news sites have a harder time making money). 

> 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one 
> likes.

The 1.5 million uniques who've come in the last 30 days (our fifth
month) might disagree with you. :-)

In terms of Veronica you can be sure she has a much better deal than
the one she had at CNET. You can also be sure she has much more
resources behind her than ever.

Good luck with that second show.

all the best j

 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1128 - Release Date: 11/13/2007
11:09 AM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1128 - Release Date: 11/13/2007
11:09 AM
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage]

So what we should really be asking is, "How do I get on TV?"

BRB...loading pistol.

I agree with most of this though.  When I started doing this a few years
ago, that question would have sounded like the antithesis of what everyone
was trying to accomplish, trying to break into a walled garden.  Now it
sounds more like a utilitarian question, like "How do I get my enclosures to
show up in iTunes?"  That said, the television world has a lot to lose by
letting the huddled masses in under their tent.  I doubt the TV+Netvideo
marriage going to happen as soon as people think.

AQ

On Nov 13, 2007 11:22 AM, Eric Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> One current project I haven't talked too much about has to do with
> delivering audio and video content to set-top boxes, not those novelty
> ones like slingboxes and such, but more of the XBOX, Playstation and
> Wii (two of which have Opera-based browsing with Flash support, two
> have hard drives and such). The audience is there. It's hard, but the
> audience is there. Will we collectively be willing to do the hard work
> to get the audience, or do we want the half-assed tech ethic of 'slap
> that crap together and pray'.
>
> That said, I believe certain content has advantages over others. Do a
> show about gaming, sex, cars or any of the 'religious' topics, and it
> will help. I'd love to know what the Escapist's video 'Zero
> Punctuation' gets as far as traffic because it's so painfully funny.
> Want to make money and get a huge audience? Do a Justin Timberlake
> fancast. There's a reason that MuggleCast and others are hits. Ironic,
> really.
>
> I also will support (but not like) the idea that hot chicks and TV
> training help. Look at some of the big shows. Then flip a coin. Of
> course there will be exceptions, and we can deconstruct all day, but
> when we do that, we're not quite normal, are we? When Amanda and
> Rocketboom split, you could almost scientifically see the gaps in how
> the content (and her) were perceived based on closeness to the
> epicenter (we were s smart and intellectual on this list, and in
> the distant blogosphere it was 'uh, what?' and in the mass space (USA
> Today blog comments) it was flat out retarded.
>
> I'm still waiting for good hi-definition content come out of this
> spacem, because I, like many fat bloated americans, enjoy sitting on
> my ass in front of my home theater (this goes totally against the
> indiepunkish ethos of 'well I don't owwn a television', etc) and
> having my ears tantalized in 7.1 surround sound.
>
> There are three types of content I adore-- Video, video and sometimes
> video. Sometimes it's on YouTube, sometimes it's buried in a forum
> someplace, and other times, it comes from a TV studio or DVD (my god I
> love Entourage, don't you?).
>
> We are the Content Creation Class-- we're kinda different than
> everyone else (read: consumers). But damn, how does your audio podcast
> compete with the non-interface of turning on satellite radio in the
> car? Apples to Oranges, and our risk for elitism just *hates* that
> kind of reality. :)
>
> ER
>
>
>
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  > On 13 Nov 2007, at 11:38, Bill Cammack wrote:
> >  > I wondered how to drag all of those people, aimlessly streaming
> > past me, into viewing an online show.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Set top box.  That's the only way you'll get people watching online
> > shows.  I don't know if you use the term 'set top box' in the US.  I
> > just mean a box that plugs into your TV.  One that'd allow people to
> > watch ordinary network shows on their widescreen tv and also surf
> > internet TV.
> >
> > People will not watch shows on a computer.  Do you know anybody who
> > watches anything on a computer?  Other than the odd bored moment
> > surfing old TV shows on Youtube?  My friends and family will watch my
> > videoblog, mostly because I've forced them to by subscribing them via
> > email, but they won't then go on to watch any of the vlogs I link to,
> > or click on the URLs of people who comment.
> >
> > Computers are full of distractions, and are quite hard things to use
> > if you want to concentrate on or relax to motion picture
> > entertainment.  The TV / Couch combo works.  I firmly believe it's
> > just a matter of someone bringing internet video to the couch.  Until
> > then, forget it.
> >
> > Rupert
> > http://twittervlog.tv/
> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
Adam Quirk
Wreck & Salvage
551.208.4644
Brooklyn, NY
http://wreckandsalvage.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Andrew Baron]

I am seeing the posts rolling in now about taking this off list as I  
am just about to publish the below. I'd like to go ahead and publish  
it, I think its relevant. It has to do with videoblogging, blogging,  
history of the space and people who are involved:

On Nov 13, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Jason McCabe Calacanis wrote:

> Oh boy... I probably shouldn't even respond to something so libelous.
> However, this is so false I've got to correct it.
>
> > 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the
> > identical knock off- Engagdget
>
> False.
>
>

The point I was trying to make though, is that you didn't do anything  
innovative or new, you just take one thing and clone it exactly the  
same. This is fine Jason, Im just saying you do business by knocking- 
off others. This is not interesting to me and I have found in my life  
that people who do this are usually selfish at the expense of others.

> > 2. Not paying employees fair wages.
>
> False.
>


But you write: "better than or as good as Denton"

I rest my case.


>
>
>
> > 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news
> > broke)
>
> False.
>
>
> Are people not allowed to make offers? Would you rather talented folks
> not get offers when they've achieved success? After working for you
> should Amanda never work again? I'm confused.

Your confused because you don't seem to have any understanding of the  
social element.  Its just really rude and not supportive, Jason. Its  
selfish because you always think you have so much more to offer and  
in that case you knew nothing at all about what was going on or who  
we were. Imagine that the news broke that you and your wife were  
having problems and then the next day, your business partner called  
her up for a date. Yea, I know, this is not about love affairs, but  
there is a social element involved and you have repeatedly shown  
disrespect for others who are participating and trying to get along  
in the same space.


>
> > 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape
>
> False.
>

I beg to differ. After a long history of cloning other peoples idea,  
I think its true that you not only tried to clone digg and failed  
miserably, but also had the audacity to goto Digg to try to sway away  
the top posters (for miserable salary no less). Again, you didn't  
understand the social, but by this time, it was the online social you  
didn't understand. What happened in the end? People revolted against  
you for trying to "rip of digg" (these are not my words), the site  
crashed and burned and now you are gone. Say what you will about  
quitting, its a great self-defense. I know people who have a history  
of saying they were fired when they quit and saying they quit when  
they were fired. I guess its just a coincidence that the project you  
had suggested turned to crap right at the same time.



> > 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one
> > likes.
>
> The 1.5 million unique who've come in the last 30 days (our fifth
> month) might disagree with you. :-)
>

Out of 1.5 million, where are the positive reviews? I have never seen  
a single positive review of Mahalo. Ever. I know you must have a few  
Jason, can you point us to a really good review of Mahalo by someone  
who really understands the space? Just one good one - there must be one?


> In terms of Veronica you can be sure she has a much better deal than
> the one she had at CNET. You can also be sure she has much more
> resources behind her than ever.
>

Great. More salary than Nick Denton pays, and better salary than  
CNET. Not exactly something to boast about. So why are you the one  
here doing the work?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[John Coffey]

Jason. do I read this correctly? Somebody left a
$1,200 job for you? I'm hoping this wasn't a full time
job because that is so poverty level. Bring him up to
say $1,400 per month?

--- Jason McCabe Calacanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Baron
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Speaking of Jason, he's most known for: 
> 
> Oh boy... I probably shouldn't even respond to
> something so libelous.
> However, this is so false I've got to correct it.
> 
> 
> > 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo
> to make the  
> > identical knock off- Engagdget
> 
> False. 
> 
> I didn't steal the idea because the idea was Peter
> Rojas'. Nick Denton
> back Peter's idea first in the form of Gizmodo, we
> (the weblogs, Inc
> team) backed it second in the form of Engadget. 
> 
> For background, I offered Peter Rojas equity in
> Weblogs, Inc. and he
> gladly left his ~$1,200 a month job with Nick Denton
> at Gizmodo. Nick
> Denton promised Peter equity and never gave it him,
> we did. We
> invested our own money into Engadget which
> quickly--thanks to Peter
> and his team--grew to 3x the size of the incumbent
> Gizmodo. 
> 
> We sold Weblogs, Inc. (and without getting into
> exact details) Peter
> became a millionaire over night. 
> 
> 
> > 2. Not paying employees fair wages.
> 
> False. 
> 
> What are you basing this on? We paid hundreds of
> folks at Weblogs,
> Inc. per month well over six figures for years. We
> paid the best rates
> in the blogging business (better than or as good as
> Denton depending
> on the time). When AOL bought Weblogs, Inc. we hired
> around 20-30
> folks full-time. 
>   
> 
> > 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only
> one day after news  
> > broke)
> 
> False. 
> 
> How could we steal her if she left? She was a free
> agent and looking
> for work. AOL really wanted to hire her so we made
> her an offer (a
> very nice large offer). She took another large offer
> from ABC's. 
> 
> Are people not allowed to make offers? Would you
> rather talented folks
> not get offers when they've achieved success? After
> working for you
> should Amanda never work again? I'm confused. 
> 
> 
> > 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for
> Netscape
> 
> False. 
> 
> We offered the top posters from digg pay for work
> they had previously
> not been paid for. We paid ~40 of them to work on
> Netscape/Propeller
> doing things like putting in high-quality stories,
> taking our false
> stories and spam, and cleaning up the mess that is
> social news
> sometimes. It was a really good idea and Propeller
> is the second
> largest social news site in the world.
> 
> 
> > 2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone
> and then getting  
> > fired from AOL
> 
> False.
> 
> Jon Miller the CEO of AOL was fired and I left in
> solidarity within 24
> hours. That's how I do I'm loyal. I started
> working with a fairly
> well known venture capital firm with ten days of
> that. 
> 
> Netscape was being shutdown when folks at AOL asked
> me what I'd do
> with it. I said I would build an editorialized
> version of digg where
> the news was fact-checked. We did, it worked. The
> only reason they
> moved it to it's own domain--from what I've been
> told--is that it is
> more valuable with a new name (i.e. in terms of a
> sale) and that
> redirecting Netscape's audience to AOL.com is highly
> profitable
> because AOL.COM is the most profitable part of the
> empire (and social
> news sites have a harder time making money). 
> 
> > 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is
> suffering badly and no one  
> > likes.
> 
> The 1.5 million uniques who've come in the last 30
> days (our fifth
> month) might disagree with you. :-)
> 
> In terms of Veronica you can be sure she has a much
> better deal than
> the one she had at CNET. You can also be sure she
> has much more
> resources behind her than ever.
> 
> Good luck with that second show.
> 
> all the best j
> 
> 


Jimmy CraicHead TVVideo Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Craic and Cocktails 
www.jchtv.com


  

Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you 
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

It's funny.

I was just saying to myself the other day how well this group has  
been getting along and how we have really been sharing ideas.

Now it's back to this tit for tat stuff.

Oh well, conflict does build interest and this public display of  
venom is entertaining.

I just hope it does some good for the industry. In the past these  
public feuds have derailed people from concentrating on their  
creative endeavors and it's just waisted energy.

Speaking of "Feuds" and people from this group.

NewTeeVee is going to have a Live Family Feud style gameshow tomorrow  
night with a few people you may have heard of.

http://live.newteevee.com/gameshow



Tim

Tim Street
Creator/Executive Producer
French Maid TV
The Viral Video of “How To’s” by French Maids
http://frenchmaidtv.com
Subscribe for FREE at: http://www.frenchmaidtv.com/itunes

MY BLOG: http://1timstreet.blogspot.com/






On Nov 13, 2007, at 7:50 AM, Jason McCabe Calacanis wrote:

> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Speaking of Jason, he's most known for:
>
> Oh boy... I probably shouldn't even respond to something so libelous.
> However, this is so false I've got to correct it.
>
> > 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the
> > identical knock off- Engagdget
>
> False.
>
> I didn't steal the idea because the idea was Peter Rojas'. Nick Denton
> back Peter's idea first in the form of Gizmodo, we (the weblogs, Inc
> team) backed it second in the form of Engadget.
>
> For background, I offered Peter Rojas equity in Weblogs, Inc. and he
> gladly left his ~$1,200 a month job with Nick Denton at Gizmodo. Nick
> Denton promised Peter equity and never gave it him, we did. We
> invested our own money into Engadget which quickly--thanks to Peter
> and his team--grew to 3x the size of the incumbent Gizmodo.
>
> We sold Weblogs, Inc. (and without getting into exact details) Peter
> became a millionaire over night.
>
> > 2. Not paying employees fair wages.
>
> False.
>
> What are you basing this on? We paid hundreds of folks at Weblogs,
> Inc. per month well over six figures for years. We paid the best rates
> in the blogging business (better than or as good as Denton depending
> on the time). When AOL bought Weblogs, Inc. we hired around 20-30
> folks full-time.
>
>
> > 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news
> > broke)
>
> False.
>
> How could we steal her if she left? She was a free agent and looking
> for work. AOL really wanted to hire her so we made her an offer (a
> very nice large offer). She took another large offer from ABC's.
>
> Are people not allowed to make offers? Would you rather talented folks
> not get offers when they've achieved success? After working for you
> should Amanda never work again? I'm confused.
>
> > 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape
>
> False.
>
> We offered the top posters from digg pay for work they had previously
> not been paid for. We paid ~40 of them to work on Netscape/Propeller
> doing things like putting in high-quality stories, taking our false
> stories and spam, and cleaning up the mess that is social news
> sometimes. It was a really good idea and Propeller is the second
> largest social news site in the world.
>
> > 2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting
> > fired from AOL
>
> False.
>
> Jon Miller the CEO of AOL was fired and I left in solidarity within 24
> hours. That's how I do I'm loyal. I started working with a fairly
> well known venture capital firm with ten days of that.
>
> Netscape was being shutdown when folks at AOL asked me what I'd do
> with it. I said I would build an editorialized version of digg where
> the news was fact-checked. We did, it worked. The only reason they
> moved it to it's own domain--from what I've been told--is that it is
> more valuable with a new name (i.e. in terms of a sale) and that
> redirecting Netscape's audience to AOL.com is highly profitable
> because AOL.COM is the most profitable part of the empire (and social
> news sites have a harder time making money).
>
> > 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one
> > likes.
>
> The 1.5 million uniques who've come in the last 30 days (our fifth
> month) might disagree with you. :-)
>
> In terms of Veronica you can be sure she has a much better deal than
> the one she had at CNET. You can also be sure she has much more
> resources behind her than ever.
>
> Good luck with that second show.
>
> all the best j
>
>
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Roxanne Darling]

In the good news bad news department:

Good news: this thread has brought out some discussion

Bad news: it ends up being about personal/business disagreements.

In the FWIW Department:

Beach Walks with Rox has a 60% male 40% female audience, over 95% of
whom have completed some college. Our peeps are a curious mix of young
techie guys and older retired couples. Many tell us they watch at home
with the family as well as at work to chill out - even whole teams
watch and discuss the daily topics sometime. We have beautiful
scenery, thoughtful topics (environment, Hawaiiana,  relationships,
music, occasional tech, travel), and the most common response we get
is that people feel better (clearer, less stressed, "head on square")
after watching. We even have an adorable (if not "sexy") black lab,
Lexi!

We are confused why our audience hasn't grown bigger faster. Some
things just don't make sense yet - as there is so much disruption
going on. There is not a formula on the planet that is guaranteed to
work.  IMO, you gots to enjoy the process as at the end of the day,
that's what you got.

Aloha,

Rox


-- 
Roxanne Darling
"o ke kai" means "of the sea" in hawaiian
808-384-5554
Video --> http://www.beachwalks.tv
Company -- > http://www.barefeetstudios.com
http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling

On Nov 13, 2007 6:51 AM, Eric Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Besides, how ever did we get along with major blockbuster motion
>  pictures and indie films? How did college radio kick ass in the abyss
>  of Clear Channel.
>
>  Do numbers actually matter?
>
>  ER
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage"
>
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > So what we should really be asking is, "How do I get on TV?"
>  >
>  > BRB...loading pistol.
>  >
>  > I agree with most of this though. When I started doing this a few years
>  > ago, that question would have sounded like the antithesis of what
>  everyone
>  > was trying to accomplish, trying to break into a walled garden. Now it
>  > sounds more like a utilitarian question, like "How do I get my
>  enclosures to
>  > show up in iTunes?" That said, the television world has a lot to
>  lose by
>  > letting the huddled masses in under their tent. I doubt the TV+Netvideo
>  > marriage going to happen as soon as people think.
>  >
>  > AQ
>  >
>
>  > On Nov 13, 2007 11:22 AM, Eric Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > > One current project I haven't talked too much about has to do with
>  > > delivering audio and video content to set-top boxes, not those novelty
>  > > ones like slingboxes and such, but more of the XBOX, Playstation and
>  > > Wii (two of which have Opera-based browsing with Flash support, two
>  > > have hard drives and such). The audience is there. It's hard, but the
>  > > audience is there. Will we collectively be willing to do the hard work
>  > > to get the audience, or do we want the half-assed tech ethic of 'slap
>  > > that crap together and pray'.
>  > >
>  > > That said, I believe certain content has advantages over others. Do a
>  > > show about gaming, sex, cars or any of the 'religious' topics, and it
>  > > will help. I'd love to know what the Escapist's video 'Zero
>  > > Punctuation' gets as far as traffic because it's so painfully funny.
>  > > Want to make money and get a huge audience? Do a Justin Timberlake
>  > > fancast. There's a reason that MuggleCast and others are hits. Ironic,
>  > > really.
>  > >
>  > > I also will support (but not like) the idea that hot chicks and TV
>  > > training help. Look at some of the big shows. Then flip a coin. Of
>  > > course there will be exceptions, and we can deconstruct all day, but
>  > > when we do that, we're not quite normal, are we? When Amanda and
>  > > Rocketboom split, you could almost scientifically see the gaps in how
>  > > the content (and her) were perceived based on closeness to the
>  > > epicenter (we were s smart and intellectual on this list, and in
>  > > the distant blogosphere it was 'uh, what?' and in the mass space (USA
>  > > Today blog comments) it was flat out retarded.
>  > >
>  > > I'm still waiting for good hi-definition content come out of this
>  > > spacem, because I, like many fat bloated americans, enjoy sitting on
>  > > my ass in front of my home theater (this goes totally against the
>  > > indiepunkish ethos of 'well I don't owwn a television', etc) and
>  > > having my ears tantalized in 7.1 surround sound.
>  > >
>  > > There are three types of content I adore-- Video, video and sometimes
>  > > video. Sometimes it's on YouTube, sometimes it's buried in a forum
>  > > someplace, and other times, it comes from a TV studio or DVD (my god I
>  > > love Entourage, don't you?).
>  > >
>  > > We are the Content Creation Class-- we're kinda different than
>  > > everyone else (read: consumers). But damn, how does your audio podcast
>  > > compete with the non-interface of turning on satellite radio in the
>  > > car? 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Brook Hinton]

When I hear the phrase "the industry" I reach for my



Brook Hinton
film/video/audio art
www.brookhinton.com
studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Jay dedman]

On Nov 13, 2007 9:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's funny.
> I was just saying to myself the other day how well this group has
> been getting along and how we have really been sharing ideas.
> Now it's back to this tit for tat stuff.
> Oh well, conflict does build interest and this public display of
> venom is entertaining.

every four months or so we have a big blowup that ends up in a 100
message thread.
It seems to let us all revisit the themes we keep going deeper into.
Three years ago we were all just talking from what we hoped would
happen, now we've helped make it real.
we're all getting more experienced so I find the conversations more
and more interesting.

Jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Video: http://ryanishungry.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Personally, this is the most exciting thing I've seen since the
Wikipedia Storm of '07.

Heath, it's definitely a pattern I know and enjoy and Dennis, you may
be right that it has very little to do with "Videoblogging" but it is
very much "the videoblogging group." :)

I always found it interesting to have an inside perspective of this
medium's moguls.  I doubt there's a Yahoo Group in which Rupert
Murdoch contributes.

As a side note to Andrew, I have to stand up for Steve here as he's
often the voice of reason in this group and in a past experience had
stood up for me and Wikipedia's core content policies when it was the
very unpopular thing to do. However there is something to be said for
for being concise in discussions. I once heard from a wise source:
Posts longer than 100 words are difficult to understand and are
frequently either ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted.

darn...151 words...now 156...

On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 AM, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:
>
>  > So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didn't seem to be
>
>  > selling out in the
>  > usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs
>  > that Mr Baron was
>  > seeking to achieve a different sort of power.
>
>  AH YES!!! Its all about power, mwahahahahaha! But what kind of
>  Power did you say!? A DIFFERENT kind?? M I like the sound of
>  this . . . . A NEW kind of Power! BETTER THAN MONEY!!!
>
>  Speaking of power Steve, I dare you to not respond to a single thread
>  on this list. Ill bet you can't do it in under 5000 words.
>
>  Speaking of Jason, he's most known for:
>
>  1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the
>  identical knock off- Engagdget
>  2. Not paying employees fair wages.
>  3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news
>  broke)
>  4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape
>  2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting
>  fired from AOL
>  3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one
>  likes.
>
>  Not just based on these few examples which have been extremely
>  destructive to the world, but also based on his regular,
>  stereotypical activity of attacking people instead of their work, I
>  just want to throw out that Jason's only means of being popular is
>  exactly this: taking and causing conflict.
>
>  Look no further than Ann Coulter. It works great for her. If they
>  can't do it based on their own good ideas and they cant do it while
>  collaborating with others, at least they can do it by shitting all
>  over everyone.
>
>  Usually a good post has a lot of conversation but doesn't cause
>  others to speak out so negatively at the author. This is likely the
>  reason why there have been SO MANY bad reactions to Jason's post:
>  When one lives their life so selfishly while attacking and being
>  brutal, its destructive to everyone around because it causes damage
>  and rubs off on the rest off.
>
>  My original answer to the original thread was likely not considered.
>  The best way to grow your audience is not by spamming everyone. Its
>  by improving your show. At this point Jason, you really shouldn't be
>  asking any other questions until you get that one worked out. You got
>  Veronica, she's great. You should be paying Veronica more, you need
>  to invest in some better equipment and get some production help. How
>  can you improve the show?
>
>  We ask ourselves this question every single day and it continues to
>  receive the most concern out of every thing we do.
>
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Frank Carver]

Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 1:34:37 PM, Rupert wrote:
> People will not watch shows on a computer.  Do you know anybody who
> watches anything on a computer?

I think it might be useful to distinguish between watching on a
computer, and watching on-line. I hardly ever watch anything on-line.
There's something about the in-web-page experience that simply does
not work for me.

On the other hand, I watch quite a lot on my computer screen. There
are a several reasons for this; here are a few I can think of right
now:

* The rest of my family would prefer to watch other stuff on the TV in
the lounge. Likewise I am not at all interested in watching kids
shows, soap operas and medical dramas. So we agree to differ, and I
get the PC.

* The stuff I want to watch is not available on regular TV. No, it's
not *that* sort of stuff. Mostly what I am interested in is either
independent internet video or old TV from the 1960s onwards - I have
been having great fun watching *all* the available episodes of "Doctor
Who" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_who ), for example. I'm
currently part way through Tom Baker ... To show that I'm not a
complete cheapskate I did buy a boxed set of "The Tomorrow People" (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tomorrow_People )

* I have become mildly addicted to the extra "meta" information you
can get when watching something in a PC media player. I get twitchy if
I can't glance at a progress indicator to see how far through I am,
and love the ability to pause and look up on the web something which
occurs to me while watching.

For these sorts of reasons, I'm not especially interested in a set top
box. We don't even have cable, satellite, or digital TV, so we only
get the regular five channels.

-- 
Frank Carver   http://www.makevideo.org.uk

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Well, it was pretty awful and I too unsubscribed afterward.  ...but
there's just something about it that draws you in...  as I'm sure many
participants in this thread can attest to.

but boy is it nice to be on the sidelines.  which is why i'm going to
shut up now.

On Nov 13, 2007 1:51 PM, Rupert Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm amazed that you like it Patrick, as we all went to town about you
>  in April. It was enough to make me unsubscribe, because I got so
>  caught up with it.
>  I don't get the enjoyment of it.
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
>
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > Personally, this is the most exciting thing I've seen since the
>  > Wikipedia Storm of '07.
>  >
>  > Heath, it's definitely a pattern I know and enjoy and Dennis, you may
>  > be right that it has very little to do with "Videoblogging" but it is
>  > very much "the videoblogging group." :)
>  >
>  > I always found it interesting to have an inside perspective of this
>  > medium's moguls. I doubt there's a Yahoo Group in which Rupert
>  > Murdoch contributes.
>  >
>  > As a side note to Andrew, I have to stand up for Steve here as he's
>  > often the voice of reason in this group and in a past experience had
>  > stood up for me and Wikipedia's core content policies when it was the
>  > very unpopular thing to do. However there is something to be said for
>  > for being concise in discussions. I once heard from a wise source:
>  > Posts longer than 100 words are difficult to understand and are
>  > frequently either ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted.
>  >
>  > darn...151 words...now 156...
>  >
>
>  > On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 AM, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:
>  > >
>  > > > So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didn't seem to be
>  > >
>  > > > selling out in the
>  > > > usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs
>  > > > that Mr Baron was
>  > > > seeking to achieve a different sort of power.
>  > >
>  > > AH YES!!! Its all about power, mwahahahahaha! But what kind of
>  > > Power did you say!? A DIFFERENT kind?? M I like the sound of
>  > > this . . . . A NEW kind of Power! BETTER THAN MONEY!!!
>  > >
>  > > Speaking of power Steve, I dare you to not respond to a single thread
>  > > on this list. Ill bet you can't do it in under 5000 words.
>  > >
>  > > Speaking of Jason, he's most known for:
>  > >
>  > > 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the
>  > > identical knock off- Engagdget
>  > > 2. Not paying employees fair wages.
>  > > 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news
>  > > broke)
>  > > 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape
>  > > 2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting
>  > > fired from AOL
>  > > 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one
>  > > likes.
>  > >
>  > > Not just based on these few examples which have been extremely
>  > > destructive to the world, but also based on his regular,
>  > > stereotypical activity of attacking people instead of their work, I
>  > > just want to throw out that Jason's only means of being popular is
>  > > exactly this: taking and causing conflict.
>  > >
>  > > Look no further than Ann Coulter. It works great for her. If they
>  > > can't do it based on their own good ideas and they cant do it while
>  > > collaborating with others, at least they can do it by shitting all
>  > > over everyone.
>  > >
>  > > Usually a good post has a lot of conversation but doesn't cause
>  > > others to speak out so negatively at the author. This is likely the
>  > > reason why there have been SO MANY bad reactions to Jason's post:
>  > > When one lives their life so selfishly while attacking and being
>  > > brutal, its destructive to everyone around because it causes damage
>  > > and rubs off on the rest off.
>  > >
>  > > My original answer to the original thread was likely not considered.
>  > > The best way to grow your audience is not by spamming everyone. Its
>  > > by improving your show. At this point Jason, you really shouldn't be
>  > > asking any other questions until you get that one worked out. You got
>  > > Veronica, she's great. You should be paying Veronica more, you need
>  > > to invest in some better equipment and get some production help. How
>  > > can you improve the show?
>  > >
>  > > We ask ourselves this question every single day and it continues to
>  > > receive the most concern out of every thing we do.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>
>
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Jay dedman]

>  I dont think Im any sort of voice of reason. I have ideas about what a
> discussion should  involve, what the boundaries & word count are, that do not 
> appear to be the
> norm, which, along with various other social deformities, make me a general 
> failure at
> being human, as my genital cobwebs will attest to.

steve, I hope you know we love you.
any lack of response to your emails are probably more due to our lack
of wordmanship.

As to the poetry in your last paragraph attests, you should make
videos for evilvlog where all the superstars go.
no boundaries or expectations.

jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Video: http://ryanishungry.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Rupert]

I think a lot of people stopped posting so much for a while, and  
discussing things at length.  I'm sure there wasn't any backing away  
from you.


On 13 Nov 2007, at 19:09, Steve Watkins wrote:

That wikipedia debate appeared to kill what little goodwill and  
tolerance people showed
towards me in the past. I was used to getting few replies to my  
posts, but since then I get
virtually none, and my posts havent changed in length. I talk too  
much in the flesh too, its
a part of me, Im stuck with it, wheras everyone in this group will  
eventually escape it when,
one day, for whatever reasons, I dont post here anymore.

I dont think Im any sort of voice of reason. I have ideas about what  
a discussion should
involve, what the boundaries & word count are, that do not appear to  
be the norm, which,
along with various other social deformities, make me a general  
failure at being human, as
my genital cobwebs will attest to.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
 >
 > Personally, this is the most exciting thing I've seen since the
 > Wikipedia Storm of '07.
 >
 > Heath, it's definitely a pattern I know and enjoy and Dennis, you may
 > be right that it has very little to do with "Videoblogging" but it is
 > very much "the videoblogging group." :)
 >
 > I always found it interesting to have an inside perspective of this
 > medium's moguls. I doubt there's a Yahoo Group in which Rupert
 > Murdoch contributes.
 >
 > As a side note to Andrew, I have to stand up for Steve here as he's
 > often the voice of reason in this group and in a past experience had
 > stood up for me and Wikipedia's core content policies when it was the
 > very unpopular thing to do. However there is something to be said for
 > for being concise in discussions. I once heard from a wise source:
 > Posts longer than 100 words are difficult to understand and are
 > frequently either ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted.
 >
 > darn...151 words...now 156...
 >
 > On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 AM, Andrew Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:
 > >
 > > > So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didn't seem to be
 > >
 > > > selling out in the
 > > > usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs
 > > > that Mr Baron was
 > > > seeking to achieve a different sort of power.
 > >
 > > AH YES!!! Its all about power, mwahahahahaha! But what kind of
 > > Power did you say!? A DIFFERENT kind?? M I like the sound of
 > > this . . . . A NEW kind of Power! BETTER THAN MONEY!!!
 > >
 > > Speaking of power Steve, I dare you to not respond to a single  
thread
 > > on this list. Ill bet you can't do it in under 5000 words.
 > >
 > > Speaking of Jason, he's most known for:
 > >
 > > 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the
 > > identical knock off- Engagdget
 > > 2. Not paying employees fair wages.
 > > 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news
 > > broke)
 > > 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape
 > > 2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting
 > > fired from AOL
 > > 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no  
one
 > > likes.
 > >
 > > Not just based on these few examples which have been extremely
 > > destructive to the world, but also based on his regular,
 > > stereotypical activity of attacking people instead of their work, I
 > > just want to throw out that Jason's only means of being popular is
 > > exactly this: taking and causing conflict.
 > >
 > > Look no further than Ann Coulter. It works great for her. If they
 > > can't do it based on their own good ideas and they cant do it while
 > > collaborating with others, at least they can do it by shitting all
 > > over everyone.
 > >
 > > Usually a good post has a lot of conversation but doesn't cause
 > > others to speak out so negatively at the author. This is likely the
 > > reason why there have been SO MANY bad reactions to Jason's post:
 > > When one lives their life so selfishly while attacking and being
 > > brutal, its destructive to everyone around because it causes damage
 > > and rubs off on the rest off.
 > >
 > > My original answer to the original thread was likely not  
considered.
 > > The best way to grow your audience is not by spamming everyone. Its
 > > by improving your show. At this point Jason, you really  
shouldn't be
 > > asking any other questions until you get that one worked out.  
You got
 > > Veronica, she's great. You should be paying Veronica more, you need
 > > to invest in some better equipment and get some production help.  
How
 > > can you improve the show?
 > >
 > > We ask ourselves this question every single day and it continues to
 > > receive the most concern out of every thing we do.
 > >
 > >
 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 > >
 > >
 > >

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?

[Charles HOPE]

Rupert wrote:

> 
> People will not watch shows on a computer.  Do you know anybody who  
> watches anything on a computer?  Other than the odd bored moment  
> surfing old TV shows on Youtube? 
...
> I firmly believe it's  
> just a matter of someone bringing internet video to the couch. 



I watch all my DVDs and my video subscriptions using Miro on my computer and my 
couch! When plugged in to my Bose wave radio, the video and audio is much 
better than my old CRT TV.