Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
very sweet! rox is a powerhouse for sure! as usual we have a fundamental divide, which is that no matter what we do, things cost money. right now, its very difficult to raise money from companies unless they feel they are going to get a return for their money. clearly, they thought they were going to get a bang for their buck in LA with celebrities involved,etc. based on last year's event, they should have since it's expected that a 2nd yr event is usually an improvement upon the first. the types of successful events i see being organized right now, like my friend Brian Zisk who does the MusicTech summit, are ones with good sponsors and panels, etc. Brian is doing one in 2 weeks called The Future of Money in SF. I think as far as online video goes, I can't offer a sponsor right now any quick or easy or flashy answers, since the road to happy destiny in our case is a slow and trudging one of just doing one episode at a time, like ROX has been doing and all of us here. We can offer everyone an enteraining community event where we recognize each other's achievements and talents, dress up and have a hell of a party. But that's what I've been saying since 2006. I just want to wear a hot dress LOL and hand someone a trophy On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jim Turner jtur...@onebyonemedia.comwrote: These types of things have been started on less. I know of whole companies started with a single Tweet. Call them the IROX Awards. Jim On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv wrote: :) And both in the right spirit, bringing the right attitude, more social level, without the nastiness of tone the money issues. On 16 Apr 2010, at 00:26, Roxanne Darling wrote: LOL! Irina brings the drama and fun factor and I sure as hell can organize. On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv rupert%40twittervlog.tv wrote: I thought earlier today that Irina should have been organising the Streamys. Now I realise that Irina Rox is the dream team. Someone should tell them. On 15 Apr 2010, at 23:57, Roxanne Darling wrote: Irina: agreed on the dubious pay for play and it feels good to be recognized for hard work. Rupert: agree that having more women involve might have helped and tech should have been the given. Quirk: People are rightfully pissed. Yeah. Mark: Disrespecting the audience is a clear problem, I agree. If you are going to make it R-rated, it's your choice, though you better pre- announce that. As a group, internet video has so much potential. But many of those who are inspired to take the lead on these things also seem to have serious issues with maturity and basic event promotion competence. I produced a podcamp here in 2008 - over 400 attended live and thousands more via livestream. There were no streakers or swear words and wow what a great time we had! Aunties were blogging by the end of the 2 days and our tag hit #1 on Twitter and Flickr - from a big crowd of newbies. We did no traditional marketing or advertising - all via social networks and WOM. So I know this can all be done using the tools we love and sharing the ideas we know are relevant and in demand. I detached from being part of the in crowd years ago, both because of the geographical isolation in Hawaii (I just can't drop in to the LA and NYC meetings and those crowds seem to forget there are others who don't show up in the F2F events) as well as not fitting in one of the mainstream categories. Surely our 4+ years, 760 episodes, nearly 3 M views, and literally saving a few lives has a place somewhere? :-) Often a big fail can open things up for enlightenment. I'm putting my vote in that direction. Now, onto brighter and happier thoughts! Love, Rox On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Irina irina...@gmail.comirinaski% 40gmail.comirinaski %40gmail.com wrote: chance's story showed that charging nominees for participation is a dubious undertaking -- since without nominees there would be no industry and no award show in the first place. second of all, making anyone feel left out (since this is the web, which is pretty much an all-inclusive type of environment) with special entrances and seating is another weird idea. work on getting sponsors to pay for things so people dont have to. thats what sponsors are for. ergo, free food and liquor if i can help it. trust me, people brought their friends and kids to the vloggies and the winnies too. because its fun. and because it feels good to be recognized for hard work. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv rupert%40twittervlog.tv rupert% 40twittervlog.tvrupert% 40twittervlog.tv wrote: I'm also
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
Irina: agreed on the dubious pay for play and it feels good to be recognized for hard work. Rupert: agree that having more women involve might have helped and tech should have been the given. Quirk: People are rightfully pissed. Yeah. Mark: Disrespecting the audience is a clear problem, I agree. If you are going to make it R-rated, it's your choice, though you better pre-announce that. As a group, internet video has so much potential. But many of those who are inspired to take the lead on these things also seem to have serious issues with maturity and basic event promotion competence. I produced a podcamp here in 2008 - over 400 attended live and thousands more via livestream. There were no streakers or swear words and wow what a great time we had! Aunties were blogging by the end of the 2 days and our tag hit #1 on Twitter and Flickr - from a big crowd of newbies. We did no traditional marketing or advertising - all via social networks and WOM. So I know this can all be done using the tools we love and sharing the ideas we know are relevant and in demand. I detached from being part of the in crowd years ago, both because of the geographical isolation in Hawaii (I just can't drop in to the LA and NYC meetings and those crowds seem to forget there are others who don't show up in the F2F events) as well as not fitting in one of the mainstream categories. Surely our 4+ years, 760 episodes, nearly 3 M views, and literally saving a few lives has a place somewhere? :-) Often a big fail can open things up for enlightenment. I'm putting my vote in that direction. Now, onto brighter and happier thoughts! Love, Rox On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Irina irina...@gmail.com wrote: chance's story showed that charging nominees for participation is a dubious undertaking -- since without nominees there would be no industry and no award show in the first place. second of all, making anyone feel left out (since this is the web, which is pretty much an all-inclusive type of environment) with special entrances and seating is another weird idea. work on getting sponsors to pay for things so people dont have to. thats what sponsors are for. ergo, free food and liquor if i can help it. trust me, people brought their friends and kids to the vloggies and the winnies too. because its fun. and because it feels good to be recognized for hard work. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tvrupert%40twittervlog.tv wrote: I'm also glad that it wasn't like the Oscars. LA NY people consolidating their power. And Chance's personal story is depressing, but really... the whole thing reads like a Greek tragedy. Pride before the fall. I mean, he *really* thought he was going to the Oscars?? And brought all his friends and colleagues... and their children?! WTF. And I can't agree with the It's terrible for the industry! people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. I've seen enough intentionally controversial and offensive theatre in London and Edinburgh to know that controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Even if the show itself is a train wreck. So - it might be bad for the reputation of Tubefilter and the producers and the chances of getting sponsors for next year's awards - but not bad for web TV. More people will hear about web shows now - in the knowledge that there was a big Awards ceremony for them. In everything I've read, everyone's giving them a pass on the tech problems and castigating them for the tone. Come on. They should be more ashamed of the tech problems than the poor taste. I mean, they were obviously *trying* to be 'edgy'. They got what they wanted, like ego-crazed geek frat boys. The whole thing reeks of not enough women in charge. What a surprise. But surely the one thing that should have been *flawless* is the technical delivery. It's not that hard to get sound right. You just have to hire a live event sound engineer who knows what they're doing - and a live broadcast mixer director engineer who know what they're doing (I mean, it's LA, for God's sake). And do rehearsals and sound checks. And if you can't do proper rehearsals in the venue, don't use the venue. If they were expecting 750,000 viewers, it should have been ALL about the flawless live streaming of the content and perfect sound, surely - not about ohmygosh the Orpheum Theatre and the self-satisfied LA types in the room? And above all, given that it's about web video, it should have been short. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 12 Apr 2010, at 23:17, elbowsofdeath wrote: So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', although it may be easy to overstate this
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
I thought earlier today that Irina should have been organising the Streamys. Now I realise that Irina Rox is the dream team. Someone should tell them. On 15 Apr 2010, at 23:57, Roxanne Darling wrote: Irina: agreed on the dubious pay for play and it feels good to be recognized for hard work. Rupert: agree that having more women involve might have helped and tech should have been the given. Quirk: People are rightfully pissed. Yeah. Mark: Disrespecting the audience is a clear problem, I agree. If you are going to make it R-rated, it's your choice, though you better pre- announce that. As a group, internet video has so much potential. But many of those who are inspired to take the lead on these things also seem to have serious issues with maturity and basic event promotion competence. I produced a podcamp here in 2008 - over 400 attended live and thousands more via livestream. There were no streakers or swear words and wow what a great time we had! Aunties were blogging by the end of the 2 days and our tag hit #1 on Twitter and Flickr - from a big crowd of newbies. We did no traditional marketing or advertising - all via social networks and WOM. So I know this can all be done using the tools we love and sharing the ideas we know are relevant and in demand. I detached from being part of the in crowd years ago, both because of the geographical isolation in Hawaii (I just can't drop in to the LA and NYC meetings and those crowds seem to forget there are others who don't show up in the F2F events) as well as not fitting in one of the mainstream categories. Surely our 4+ years, 760 episodes, nearly 3 M views, and literally saving a few lives has a place somewhere? :-) Often a big fail can open things up for enlightenment. I'm putting my vote in that direction. Now, onto brighter and happier thoughts! Love, Rox On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Irina irina...@gmail.com wrote: chance's story showed that charging nominees for participation is a dubious undertaking -- since without nominees there would be no industry and no award show in the first place. second of all, making anyone feel left out (since this is the web, which is pretty much an all-inclusive type of environment) with special entrances and seating is another weird idea. work on getting sponsors to pay for things so people dont have to. thats what sponsors are for. ergo, free food and liquor if i can help it. trust me, people brought their friends and kids to the vloggies and the winnies too. because its fun. and because it feels good to be recognized for hard work. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tvrupert%40twittervlog.tv wrote: I'm also glad that it wasn't like the Oscars. LA NY people consolidating their power. And Chance's personal story is depressing, but really... the whole thing reads like a Greek tragedy. Pride before the fall. I mean, he *really* thought he was going to the Oscars?? And brought all his friends and colleagues... and their children?! WTF. And I can't agree with the It's terrible for the industry! people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. I've seen enough intentionally controversial and offensive theatre in London and Edinburgh to know that controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Even if the show itself is a train wreck. So - it might be bad for the reputation of Tubefilter and the producers and the chances of getting sponsors for next year's awards - but not bad for web TV. More people will hear about web shows now - in the knowledge that there was a big Awards ceremony for them. In everything I've read, everyone's giving them a pass on the tech problems and castigating them for the tone. Come on. They should be more ashamed of the tech problems than the poor taste. I mean, they were obviously *trying* to be 'edgy'. They got what they wanted, like ego-crazed geek frat boys. The whole thing reeks of not enough women in charge. What a surprise. But surely the one thing that should have been *flawless* is the technical delivery. It's not that hard to get sound right. You just have to hire a live event sound engineer who knows what they're doing - and a live broadcast mixer director engineer who know what they're doing (I mean, it's LA, for God's sake). And do rehearsals and sound checks. And if you can't do proper rehearsals in the venue, don't use the venue. If they were expecting 750,000 viewers, it should have been ALL about the flawless live streaming of the content and perfect sound, surely - not about ohmygosh the Orpheum Theatre and the self-satisfied LA types in the room? And above all, given that it's about web video, it should have been short. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 12 Apr 2010, at 23:17, elbowsofdeath wrote:
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
LOL! Irina brings the drama and fun factor and I sure as hell can organize. On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv wrote: I thought earlier today that Irina should have been organising the Streamys. Now I realise that Irina Rox is the dream team. Someone should tell them. On 15 Apr 2010, at 23:57, Roxanne Darling wrote: Irina: agreed on the dubious pay for play and it feels good to be recognized for hard work. Rupert: agree that having more women involve might have helped and tech should have been the given. Quirk: People are rightfully pissed. Yeah. Mark: Disrespecting the audience is a clear problem, I agree. If you are going to make it R-rated, it's your choice, though you better pre- announce that. As a group, internet video has so much potential. But many of those who are inspired to take the lead on these things also seem to have serious issues with maturity and basic event promotion competence. I produced a podcamp here in 2008 - over 400 attended live and thousands more via livestream. There were no streakers or swear words and wow what a great time we had! Aunties were blogging by the end of the 2 days and our tag hit #1 on Twitter and Flickr - from a big crowd of newbies. We did no traditional marketing or advertising - all via social networks and WOM. So I know this can all be done using the tools we love and sharing the ideas we know are relevant and in demand. I detached from being part of the in crowd years ago, both because of the geographical isolation in Hawaii (I just can't drop in to the LA and NYC meetings and those crowds seem to forget there are others who don't show up in the F2F events) as well as not fitting in one of the mainstream categories. Surely our 4+ years, 760 episodes, nearly 3 M views, and literally saving a few lives has a place somewhere? :-) Often a big fail can open things up for enlightenment. I'm putting my vote in that direction. Now, onto brighter and happier thoughts! Love, Rox On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Irina irina...@gmail.comirinaski%40gmail.com wrote: chance's story showed that charging nominees for participation is a dubious undertaking -- since without nominees there would be no industry and no award show in the first place. second of all, making anyone feel left out (since this is the web, which is pretty much an all-inclusive type of environment) with special entrances and seating is another weird idea. work on getting sponsors to pay for things so people dont have to. thats what sponsors are for. ergo, free food and liquor if i can help it. trust me, people brought their friends and kids to the vloggies and the winnies too. because its fun. and because it feels good to be recognized for hard work. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv rupert%40twittervlog.tvrupert% 40twittervlog.tv wrote: I'm also glad that it wasn't like the Oscars. LA NY people consolidating their power. And Chance's personal story is depressing, but really... the whole thing reads like a Greek tragedy. Pride before the fall. I mean, he *really* thought he was going to the Oscars?? And brought all his friends and colleagues... and their children?! WTF. And I can't agree with the It's terrible for the industry! people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. I've seen enough intentionally controversial and offensive theatre in London and Edinburgh to know that controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Even if the show itself is a train wreck. So - it might be bad for the reputation of Tubefilter and the producers and the chances of getting sponsors for next year's awards - but not bad for web TV. More people will hear about web shows now - in the knowledge that there was a big Awards ceremony for them. In everything I've read, everyone's giving them a pass on the tech problems and castigating them for the tone. Come on. They should be more ashamed of the tech problems than the poor taste. I mean, they were obviously *trying* to be 'edgy'. They got what they wanted, like ego-crazed geek frat boys. The whole thing reeks of not enough women in charge. What a surprise. But surely the one thing that should have been *flawless* is the technical delivery. It's not that hard to get sound right. You just have to hire a live event sound engineer who knows what they're doing - and a live broadcast mixer director engineer who know what they're doing (I mean, it's LA, for God's sake). And do rehearsals and sound checks. And if you can't do proper rehearsals in the venue, don't use the venue. If they were expecting 750,000 viewers, it should have been ALL about the flawless live streaming of the content and
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
:) And both in the right spirit, bringing the right attitude, more social level, without the nastiness of tone the money issues. On 16 Apr 2010, at 00:26, Roxanne Darling wrote: LOL! Irina brings the drama and fun factor and I sure as hell can organize. On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv wrote: I thought earlier today that Irina should have been organising the Streamys. Now I realise that Irina Rox is the dream team. Someone should tell them. On 15 Apr 2010, at 23:57, Roxanne Darling wrote: Irina: agreed on the dubious pay for play and it feels good to be recognized for hard work. Rupert: agree that having more women involve might have helped and tech should have been the given. Quirk: People are rightfully pissed. Yeah. Mark: Disrespecting the audience is a clear problem, I agree. If you are going to make it R-rated, it's your choice, though you better pre- announce that. As a group, internet video has so much potential. But many of those who are inspired to take the lead on these things also seem to have serious issues with maturity and basic event promotion competence. I produced a podcamp here in 2008 - over 400 attended live and thousands more via livestream. There were no streakers or swear words and wow what a great time we had! Aunties were blogging by the end of the 2 days and our tag hit #1 on Twitter and Flickr - from a big crowd of newbies. We did no traditional marketing or advertising - all via social networks and WOM. So I know this can all be done using the tools we love and sharing the ideas we know are relevant and in demand. I detached from being part of the in crowd years ago, both because of the geographical isolation in Hawaii (I just can't drop in to the LA and NYC meetings and those crowds seem to forget there are others who don't show up in the F2F events) as well as not fitting in one of the mainstream categories. Surely our 4+ years, 760 episodes, nearly 3 M views, and literally saving a few lives has a place somewhere? :-) Often a big fail can open things up for enlightenment. I'm putting my vote in that direction. Now, onto brighter and happier thoughts! Love, Rox On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Irina irina...@gmail.comirinaski %40gmail.com wrote: chance's story showed that charging nominees for participation is a dubious undertaking -- since without nominees there would be no industry and no award show in the first place. second of all, making anyone feel left out (since this is the web, which is pretty much an all-inclusive type of environment) with special entrances and seating is another weird idea. work on getting sponsors to pay for things so people dont have to. thats what sponsors are for. ergo, free food and liquor if i can help it. trust me, people brought their friends and kids to the vloggies and the winnies too. because its fun. and because it feels good to be recognized for hard work. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv rupert%40twittervlog.tvrupert% 40twittervlog.tv wrote: I'm also glad that it wasn't like the Oscars. LA NY people consolidating their power. And Chance's personal story is depressing, but really... the whole thing reads like a Greek tragedy. Pride before the fall. I mean, he *really* thought he was going to the Oscars?? And brought all his friends and colleagues... and their children?! WTF. And I can't agree with the It's terrible for the industry! people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. I've seen enough intentionally controversial and offensive theatre in London and Edinburgh to know that controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Even if the show itself is a train wreck. So - it might be bad for the reputation of Tubefilter and the producers and the chances of getting sponsors for next year's awards - but not bad for web TV. More people will hear about web shows now - in the knowledge that there was a big Awards ceremony for them. In everything I've read, everyone's giving them a pass on the tech problems and castigating them for the tone. Come on. They should be more ashamed of the tech problems than the poor taste. I mean, they were obviously *trying* to be 'edgy'. They got what they wanted, like ego-crazed geek frat boys. The whole thing reeks of not enough women in charge. What a surprise. But surely the one thing that should have been *flawless* is the technical delivery. It's not that hard to get sound right. You just have to hire a live event sound engineer who knows what they're doing - and a live broadcast mixer director engineer who know what they're doing (I mean, it's LA, for God's sake). And do rehearsals and sound checks. And if you can't do proper rehearsals in the venue, don't use the venue. If they were expecting
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
These types of things have been started on less. I know of whole companies started with a single Tweet. Call them the IROX Awards. Jim On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv wrote: :) And both in the right spirit, bringing the right attitude, more social level, without the nastiness of tone the money issues. On 16 Apr 2010, at 00:26, Roxanne Darling wrote: LOL! Irina brings the drama and fun factor and I sure as hell can organize. On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tvrupert%40twittervlog.tv wrote: I thought earlier today that Irina should have been organising the Streamys. Now I realise that Irina Rox is the dream team. Someone should tell them. On 15 Apr 2010, at 23:57, Roxanne Darling wrote: Irina: agreed on the dubious pay for play and it feels good to be recognized for hard work. Rupert: agree that having more women involve might have helped and tech should have been the given. Quirk: People are rightfully pissed. Yeah. Mark: Disrespecting the audience is a clear problem, I agree. If you are going to make it R-rated, it's your choice, though you better pre- announce that. As a group, internet video has so much potential. But many of those who are inspired to take the lead on these things also seem to have serious issues with maturity and basic event promotion competence. I produced a podcamp here in 2008 - over 400 attended live and thousands more via livestream. There were no streakers or swear words and wow what a great time we had! Aunties were blogging by the end of the 2 days and our tag hit #1 on Twitter and Flickr - from a big crowd of newbies. We did no traditional marketing or advertising - all via social networks and WOM. So I know this can all be done using the tools we love and sharing the ideas we know are relevant and in demand. I detached from being part of the in crowd years ago, both because of the geographical isolation in Hawaii (I just can't drop in to the LA and NYC meetings and those crowds seem to forget there are others who don't show up in the F2F events) as well as not fitting in one of the mainstream categories. Surely our 4+ years, 760 episodes, nearly 3 M views, and literally saving a few lives has a place somewhere? :-) Often a big fail can open things up for enlightenment. I'm putting my vote in that direction. Now, onto brighter and happier thoughts! Love, Rox On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Irina irina...@gmail.comirinaski%40gmail.comirinaski %40gmail.com wrote: chance's story showed that charging nominees for participation is a dubious undertaking -- since without nominees there would be no industry and no award show in the first place. second of all, making anyone feel left out (since this is the web, which is pretty much an all-inclusive type of environment) with special entrances and seating is another weird idea. work on getting sponsors to pay for things so people dont have to. thats what sponsors are for. ergo, free food and liquor if i can help it. trust me, people brought their friends and kids to the vloggies and the winnies too. because its fun. and because it feels good to be recognized for hard work. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv rupert%40twittervlog.tv rupert% 40twittervlog.tvrupert% 40twittervlog.tv wrote: I'm also glad that it wasn't like the Oscars. LA NY people consolidating their power. And Chance's personal story is depressing, but really... the whole thing reads like a Greek tragedy. Pride before the fall. I mean, he *really* thought he was going to the Oscars?? And brought all his friends and colleagues... and their children?! WTF. And I can't agree with the It's terrible for the industry! people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. I've seen enough intentionally controversial and offensive theatre in London and Edinburgh to know that controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Even if the show itself is a train wreck. So - it might be bad for the reputation of Tubefilter and the producers and the chances of getting sponsors for next year's awards - but not bad for web TV. More people will hear about web shows now - in the knowledge that there was a big Awards ceremony for them. In everything I've read, everyone's giving them a pass on the tech problems and castigating them for the tone. Come on. They should be more ashamed of the tech problems than the poor taste. I mean, they were obviously *trying* to be 'edgy'. They got what they wanted, like ego-crazed geek frat boys. The whole thing reeks of not enough women in charge. What a surprise. But surely the one thing that should have been
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
I'm also glad that it wasn't like the Oscars. LA NY people consolidating their power. And Chance's personal story is depressing, but really... the whole thing reads like a Greek tragedy. Pride before the fall. I mean, he *really* thought he was going to the Oscars?? And brought all his friends and colleagues... and their children?! WTF. And I can't agree with the It's terrible for the industry! people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. I've seen enough intentionally controversial and offensive theatre in London and Edinburgh to know that controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Even if the show itself is a train wreck. So - it might be bad for the reputation of Tubefilter and the producers and the chances of getting sponsors for next year's awards - but not bad for web TV. More people will hear about web shows now - in the knowledge that there was a big Awards ceremony for them. In everything I've read, everyone's giving them a pass on the tech problems and castigating them for the tone. Come on. They should be more ashamed of the tech problems than the poor taste. I mean, they were obviously *trying* to be 'edgy'. They got what they wanted, like ego-crazed geek frat boys. The whole thing reeks of not enough women in charge. What a surprise. But surely the one thing that should have been *flawless* is the technical delivery. It's not that hard to get sound right. You just have to hire a live event sound engineer who knows what they're doing - and a live broadcast mixer director engineer who know what they're doing (I mean, it's LA, for God's sake). And do rehearsals and sound checks. And if you can't do proper rehearsals in the venue, don't use the venue. If they were expecting 750,000 viewers, it should have been ALL about the flawless live streaming of the content and perfect sound, surely - not about ohmygosh the Orpheum Theatre and the self-satisfied LA types in the room? And above all, given that it's about web video, it should have been short. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 12 Apr 2010, at 23:17, elbowsofdeath wrote: So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', although it may be easy to overstate this point. It certainly didnt help, but the 'industry' has enough other problems too, although anything that harms potential sponsorship by appearing to confirm potential sponsors worst fears (eg uncontrolled juvenile amateurish smut tarnishing their brands) sounds bad to me. Unfortunately there is a part of me that is wildly entertained and amused by the streamyfail, considering it to be some kind of justice on a certain level. This isnt fair, as no doubt lots of blameless hard working people have been hurt by the streamyfail, but I suppose its a natural consequence of my disdain for the way some of the more visible parts of the 'industry' went, shoddy emulation of the existing media. What better way to symbolise two worlds colliding, and so much wasted potential, than to have a slick awards show humbled by technical glitches and naked people. Cheers Steve Elbows [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: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
Rupert Howe: And I can't agree with the `It's terrible for the industry!' people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Hi Rupert: Just a few thoughts... There is a difference between manufacturing controversies, and playing off organic substance that happens to be controversial. The former has proven disastrous time and again, in part, because an audience knows when it's being manipulated -- played cheaply (and consequently react in the negative, sooner or later). Moreover, CREATING controversy for the sake of attention is no less a tactic used by countless street walkers -- and look how well THEY are respected from an industry standpoint. This begs the question: how do we in web media (collectively) wish to have the public and advertisers perceive our work? As credible and substantive, offering content unavailable elsewhere? Or as attention whores who will stoop to depths to attract eyes, with antics better suited for mud wrestling and porn wanna-bes rather than garnering profitability? 911 jokes... Mother Teresa jabs... (Chris Hardwick:) I have a finger in my ass. I am so looking forward to mouth herpes. Idiots pull pants down... And the hits just kept on comin, and coming and coming some more! ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Yet this year's Streamys did none of that, not even close! Instead the program showed a stellar way-ta-sustain the stereotype that web debauchery knows no bounds; nothing being off-limits. It showed potential advertisers and sponsors they are right to remain cautious of web-visual media. The event demonstrate how to alienate potential viewers with real spending power, for the sake of eye balls that mean diddlie to a balance sheet. The image this latest Streamy conveyed is unsustainable and weak, juvenile and short-sighted; pathetically misguided and woefully out-of-touch. Clearly devoid of seriousness, cutting-edge practicality, forward looking confidence or fostering broader mainstream financial patronage. It was an utter joke, and dragged all of us down with every awkward attempt at being slick -- rather than aiming for legitimacy! ...Good for the profile of web video, not bad. Hmmm, yeah, well you are certainly entitled to opinion. But considering mainstream media ignored the event, and independent web commentary has been widely negative. Your take isn't supported by the evidence. The inescapable truth is that the 2010 Streamys were total amateur night -- technical glitches notwithstanding. Now if the production's intent was to show industry immaturity, and a complete disregard for the BUSINESS side of the web video business? Then your perspective has a foothold, but not otherwise. Bottom-line, disrespect the audience and we'll get disrespected! That is; all the way to the bank where our accounts languish, because we're too cool to collectively admit error and do better. Best Regards, Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
what will help web video is better web video. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Mark Villaseñor videoblogyahoogr...@tailtrex.tv wrote: Rupert Howe: And I can't agree with the `It's terrible for the industry!' people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Hi Rupert: Just a few thoughts... There is a difference between manufacturing controversies, and playing off organic substance that happens to be controversial. The former has proven disastrous time and again, in part, because an audience knows when it's being manipulated -- played cheaply (and consequently react in the negative, sooner or later). Moreover, CREATING controversy for the sake of attention is no less a tactic used by countless street walkers -- and look how well THEY are respected from an industry standpoint. This begs the question: how do we in web media (collectively) wish to have the public and advertisers perceive our work? As credible and substantive, offering content unavailable elsewhere? Or as attention whores who will stoop to depths to attract eyes, with antics better suited for mud wrestling and porn wanna-bes rather than garnering profitability? 911 jokes... Mother Teresa jabs... (Chris Hardwick:) I have a finger in my ass. I am so looking forward to mouth herpes. Idiots pull pants down... And the hits just kept on comin, and coming and coming some more! ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Yet this year's Streamys did none of that, not even close! Instead the program showed a stellar way-ta-sustain the stereotype that web debauchery knows no bounds; nothing being off-limits. It showed potential advertisers and sponsors they are right to remain cautious of web-visual media. The event demonstrate how to alienate potential viewers with real spending power, for the sake of eye balls that mean diddlie to a balance sheet. The image this latest Streamy conveyed is unsustainable and weak, juvenile and short-sighted; pathetically misguided and woefully out-of-touch. Clearly devoid of seriousness, cutting-edge practicality, forward looking confidence or fostering broader mainstream financial patronage. It was an utter joke, and dragged all of us down with every awkward attempt at being slick -- rather than aiming for legitimacy! ...Good for the profile of web video, not bad. Hmmm, yeah, well you are certainly entitled to opinion. But considering mainstream media ignored the event, and independent web commentary has been widely negative. Your take isn't supported by the evidence. The inescapable truth is that the 2010 Streamys were total amateur night -- technical glitches notwithstanding. Now if the production's intent was to show industry immaturity, and a complete disregard for the BUSINESS side of the web video business? Then your perspective has a foothold, but not otherwise. Bottom-line, disrespect the audience and we'll get disrespected! That is; all the way to the bank where our accounts languish, because we're too cool to collectively admit error and do better. Best Regards, Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
Yes. An awards show sucked. Who knew. The meat of the matter is that it showed the Hollywoodyist of the Hollywoodys, not the best web video. It was about commercial success and not creativity. They showed people that web video is about selling to the highest bidder, getting sponsors, brand integration, and not changing the TV paradigm. From all of the documentation and promotion I've seen this was their main purpose, and in that way they were successful. I'm an IAWTV member and voted for the streamys, tried to shift the focus ever so slightly toward creativity and away from mindless tv wannabe bullshit. I'm hoping to get a group email from the top brass asking what can be done to evolve the organization. If they don't make some big changes, I don't see the point of their existence. Sent via dynamic wireless technology device -Original Message- From: Michael Sullivan sullele...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:33:31 To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster what will help web video is better web video. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Mark Villaseñor videoblogyahoogr...@tailtrex.tv wrote: Rupert Howe: And I can't agree with the `It's terrible for the industry!' people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Hi Rupert: Just a few thoughts... There is a difference between manufacturing controversies, and playing off organic substance that happens to be controversial. The former has proven disastrous time and again, in part, because an audience knows when it's being manipulated -- played cheaply (and consequently react in the negative, sooner or later). Moreover, CREATING controversy for the sake of attention is no less a tactic used by countless street walkers -- and look how well THEY are respected from an industry standpoint. This begs the question: how do we in web media (collectively) wish to have the public and advertisers perceive our work? As credible and substantive, offering content unavailable elsewhere? Or as attention whores who will stoop to depths to attract eyes, with antics better suited for mud wrestling and porn wanna-bes rather than garnering profitability? 911 jokes... Mother Teresa jabs... (Chris Hardwick:) I have a finger in my ass. I am so looking forward to mouth herpes. Idiots pull pants down... And the hits just kept on comin, and coming and coming some more! ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Yet this year's Streamys did none of that, not even close! Instead the program showed a stellar way-ta-sustain the stereotype that web debauchery knows no bounds; nothing being off-limits. It showed potential advertisers and sponsors they are right to remain cautious of web-visual media. The event demonstrate how to alienate potential viewers with real spending power, for the sake of eye balls that mean diddlie to a balance sheet. The image this latest Streamy conveyed is unsustainable and weak, juvenile and short-sighted; pathetically misguided and woefully out-of-touch. Clearly devoid of seriousness, cutting-edge practicality, forward looking confidence or fostering broader mainstream financial patronage. It was an utter joke, and dragged all of us down with every awkward attempt at being slick -- rather than aiming for legitimacy! ...Good for the profile of web video, not bad. Hmmm, yeah, well you are certainly entitled to opinion. But considering mainstream media ignored the event, and independent web commentary has been widely negative. Your take isn't supported by the evidence. The inescapable truth is that the 2010 Streamys were total amateur night -- technical glitches notwithstanding. Now if the production's intent was to show industry immaturity, and a complete disregard for the BUSINESS side of the web video business? Then your perspective has a foothold, but not otherwise. Bottom-line, disrespect the audience and we'll get disrespected! That is; all the way to the bank where our accounts languish, because we're too cool to collectively admit error and do better. Best Regards, Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links 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: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
Michael Sullivan: what will help web video is better web video. Hey Michael: I wholeheartedly agree, especially with respect to content! Yet while content is king I think it also behooves both Vlogger and Web Video Producer alike, as well as those wearing both hats, to consider issues that potentially influence viewership. And such was the subtext within my last post. As for me, speaking personally... I'll take solid content over slick production values with no substance, and I tend to think most viewers are there too. After all; with literally hundreds of traditional television venues to chose from, and millions of websites vying for viewer attention? If what we provide isn't grabbing attention consistently, then we're toast by the kick of a mouse. And once gone we may never get that lost viewer back again. Whereas too much of the latter, is bad for us all. Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
yep. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Quirk qu...@wreckandsalvage.com wrote: Yes. An awards show sucked. Who knew. The meat of the matter is that it showed the Hollywoodyist of the Hollywoodys, not the best web video. It was about commercial success and not creativity. They showed people that web video is about selling to the highest bidder, getting sponsors, brand integration, and not changing the TV paradigm. From all of the documentation and promotion I've seen this was their main purpose, and in that way they were successful. I'm an IAWTV member and voted for the streamys, tried to shift the focus ever so slightly toward creativity and away from mindless tv wannabe bullshit. I'm hoping to get a group email from the top brass asking what can be done to evolve the organization. If they don't make some big changes, I don't see the point of their existence. Sent via dynamic wireless technology device -Original Message- From: Michael Sullivan sullele...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:33:31 To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster what will help web video is better web video. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Mark Villaseñor videoblogyahoogr...@tailtrex.tv wrote: Rupert Howe: And I can't agree with the `It's terrible for the industry!' people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Hi Rupert: Just a few thoughts... There is a difference between manufacturing controversies, and playing off organic substance that happens to be controversial. The former has proven disastrous time and again, in part, because an audience knows when it's being manipulated -- played cheaply (and consequently react in the negative, sooner or later). Moreover, CREATING controversy for the sake of attention is no less a tactic used by countless street walkers -- and look how well THEY are respected from an industry standpoint. This begs the question: how do we in web media (collectively) wish to have the public and advertisers perceive our work? As credible and substantive, offering content unavailable elsewhere? Or as attention whores who will stoop to depths to attract eyes, with antics better suited for mud wrestling and porn wanna-bes rather than garnering profitability? 911 jokes... Mother Teresa jabs... (Chris Hardwick:) I have a finger in my ass. I am so looking forward to mouth herpes. Idiots pull pants down... And the hits just kept on comin, and coming and coming some more! ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Yet this year's Streamys did none of that, not even close! Instead the program showed a stellar way-ta-sustain the stereotype that web debauchery knows no bounds; nothing being off-limits. It showed potential advertisers and sponsors they are right to remain cautious of web-visual media. The event demonstrate how to alienate potential viewers with real spending power, for the sake of eye balls that mean diddlie to a balance sheet. The image this latest Streamy conveyed is unsustainable and weak, juvenile and short-sighted; pathetically misguided and woefully out-of-touch. Clearly devoid of seriousness, cutting-edge practicality, forward looking confidence or fostering broader mainstream financial patronage. It was an utter joke, and dragged all of us down with every awkward attempt at being slick -- rather than aiming for legitimacy! ...Good for the profile of web video, not bad. Hmmm, yeah, well you are certainly entitled to opinion. But considering mainstream media ignored the event, and independent web commentary has been widely negative. Your take isn't supported by the evidence. The inescapable truth is that the 2010 Streamys were total amateur night -- technical glitches notwithstanding. Now if the production's intent was to show industry immaturity, and a complete disregard for the BUSINESS side of the web video business? Then your perspective has a foothold, but not otherwise. Bottom-line, disrespect the audience and we'll get disrespected! That is; all the way to the bank where our accounts languish, because we're too cool to collectively admit error and do better. Best Regards, Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
chance's story showed that charging nominees for participation is a dubious undertaking -- since without nominees there would be no industry and no award show in the first place. second of all, making anyone feel left out (since this is the web, which is pretty much an all-inclusive type of environment) with special entrances and seating is another weird idea. work on getting sponsors to pay for things so people dont have to. thats what sponsors are for. ergo, free food and liquor if i can help it. trust me, people brought their friends and kids to the vloggies and the winnies too. because its fun. and because it feels good to be recognized for hard work. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv wrote: I'm also glad that it wasn't like the Oscars. LA NY people consolidating their power. And Chance's personal story is depressing, but really... the whole thing reads like a Greek tragedy. Pride before the fall. I mean, he *really* thought he was going to the Oscars?? And brought all his friends and colleagues... and their children?! WTF. And I can't agree with the It's terrible for the industry! people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. I've seen enough intentionally controversial and offensive theatre in London and Edinburgh to know that controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness. Even if the show itself is a train wreck. So - it might be bad for the reputation of Tubefilter and the producers and the chances of getting sponsors for next year's awards - but not bad for web TV. More people will hear about web shows now - in the knowledge that there was a big Awards ceremony for them. In everything I've read, everyone's giving them a pass on the tech problems and castigating them for the tone. Come on. They should be more ashamed of the tech problems than the poor taste. I mean, they were obviously *trying* to be 'edgy'. They got what they wanted, like ego-crazed geek frat boys. The whole thing reeks of not enough women in charge. What a surprise. But surely the one thing that should have been *flawless* is the technical delivery. It's not that hard to get sound right. You just have to hire a live event sound engineer who knows what they're doing - and a live broadcast mixer director engineer who know what they're doing (I mean, it's LA, for God's sake). And do rehearsals and sound checks. And if you can't do proper rehearsals in the venue, don't use the venue. If they were expecting 750,000 viewers, it should have been ALL about the flawless live streaming of the content and perfect sound, surely - not about ohmygosh the Orpheum Theatre and the self-satisfied LA types in the room? And above all, given that it's about web video, it should have been short. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 12 Apr 2010, at 23:17, elbowsofdeath wrote: So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', although it may be easy to overstate this point. It certainly didnt help, but the 'industry' has enough other problems too, although anything that harms potential sponsorship by appearing to confirm potential sponsors worst fears (eg uncontrolled juvenile amateurish smut tarnishing their brands) sounds bad to me. Unfortunately there is a part of me that is wildly entertained and amused by the streamyfail, considering it to be some kind of justice on a certain level. This isnt fair, as no doubt lots of blameless hard working people have been hurt by the streamyfail, but I suppose its a natural consequence of my disdain for the way some of the more visible parts of the 'industry' went, shoddy emulation of the existing media. What better way to symbolise two worlds colliding, and so much wasted potential, than to have a slick awards show humbled by technical glitches and naked people. Cheers Steve Elbows [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Streamy disaster
So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', although it may be easy to overstate this point. It certainly didnt help, but the 'industry' has enough other problems too, although anything that harms potential sponsorship by appearing to confirm potential sponsors worst fears (eg uncontrolled juvenile amateurish smut tarnishing their brands) sounds bad to me. Unfortunately there is a part of me that is wildly entertained and amused by the streamyfail, considering it to be some kind of justice on a certain level. This isnt fair, as no doubt lots of blameless hard working people have been hurt by the streamyfail, but I suppose its a natural consequence of my disdain for the way some of the more visible parts of the 'industry' went, shoddy emulation of the existing media. What better way to symbolise two worlds colliding, and so much wasted potential, than to have a slick awards show humbled by technical glitches and naked people. Cheers Steve Elbows
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
didnt follow it. where's a good source of this coverage? On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:17 PM, elbowsofdeath st...@dvmachine.com wrote: So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', although it may be easy to overstate this point. It certainly didnt help, but the 'industry' has enough other problems too, although anything that harms potential sponsorship by appearing to confirm potential sponsors worst fears (eg uncontrolled juvenile amateurish smut tarnishing their brands) sounds bad to me. Unfortunately there is a part of me that is wildly entertained and amused by the streamyfail, considering it to be some kind of justice on a certain level. This isnt fair, as no doubt lots of blameless hard working people have been hurt by the streamyfail, but I suppose its a natural consequence of my disdain for the way some of the more visible parts of the 'industry' went, shoddy emulation of the existing media. What better way to symbolise two worlds colliding, and so much wasted potential, than to have a slick awards show humbled by technical glitches and naked people. Cheers Steve Elbows [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: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
Horrible Turn: http://horribleturn.tumblr.com/post/516621948/a-horrible-turn-at-the-streamy-awards http://horribleturn.tumblr.com/post/516621948/a-horrible-turn-at-the-streamy-awardsBarrett Garese: http://www.barrettgarese.com/post/516372282/season-one-episode-17 NewTeeVee: http://newteevee.com/2010/04/12/the-streamy-awards-a-producers-apology-and-its-three-fails/ On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Michael Sullivan sullele...@gmail.comwrote: didnt follow it. where's a good source of this coverage? On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:17 PM, elbowsofdeath st...@dvmachine.com wrote: So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', although it may be easy to overstate this point. It certainly didnt help, but the 'industry' has enough other problems too, although anything that harms potential sponsorship by appearing to confirm potential sponsors worst fears (eg uncontrolled juvenile amateurish smut tarnishing their brands) sounds bad to me. Unfortunately there is a part of me that is wildly entertained and amused by the streamyfail, considering it to be some kind of justice on a certain level. This isnt fair, as no doubt lots of blameless hard working people have been hurt by the streamyfail, but I suppose its a natural consequence of my disdain for the way some of the more visible parts of the 'industry' went, shoddy emulation of the existing media. What better way to symbolise two worlds colliding, and so much wasted potential, than to have a slick awards show humbled by technical glitches and naked people. Cheers Steve Elbows [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
I don't know the details of the reviews you've read, but I'll take unconventional amateurs and streaking over red carpets and self-gratulatory pomp any day. It's important that we recognize great work and support our colleagues, but let's dodge the temptation to emulate the Oscars and Emmys too much. Cheers - Rob Powering Independence www.DynamoPlayer.com On Apr 12, 2010, at 6:17 PM, elbowsofdeath st...@dvmachine.com wrote: So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', although it may be easy to overstate this point. It certainly didnt help, but the 'industry' has enough other problems too, although anything that harms potential sponsorship by appearing to confirm potential sponsors worst fears (eg uncontrolled juvenile amateurish smut tarnishing their brands) sounds bad to me. Unfortunately there is a part of me that is wildly entertained and amused by the streamyfail, considering it to be some kind of justice on a certain level. This isnt fair, as no doubt lots of blameless hard working people have been hurt by the streamyfail, but I suppose its a natural consequence of my disdain for the way some of the more visible parts of the 'industry' went, shoddy emulation of the existing media. What better way to symbolise two worlds colliding, and so much wasted potential, than to have a slick awards show humbled by technical glitches and naked people. Cheers Steve Elbows [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster
Just read Chance's recounting: http://horribleturn.tumblr.com/post/516621948/a-horrible-turn-at-the-streamy-awards Youch. Disastrous shows I can laugh off, but it's much worse with the backstory. Powering Independence www.DynamoPlayer.com On Apr 12, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Adam Quirk qu...@wreckandsalvage.com wrote: Horrible Turn: http://horribleturn.tumblr.com/post/516621948/a-horrible-turn-at-the-streamy-awards http://horribleturn.tumblr.com/post/516621948/a-horrible-turn-at-the-streamy-awardsBarrett Garese: http://www.barrettgarese.com/post/516372282/season-one-episode-17 NewTeeVee: http://newteevee.com/2010/04/12/the-streamy-awards-a-producers-apology-and-its-three-fails/ On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Michael Sullivan sullele...@gmail.comwrote: didnt follow it. where's a good source of this coverage? On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:17 PM, elbowsofdeath st...@dvmachine.com wrote: So I hear the Streamy's this year were a disaster in several key ways and have gotten all the wrong sort of attention as a result. There is some concern that it has damaged the image of the 'industry', although it may be easy to overstate this point. It certainly didnt help, but the 'industry' has enough other problems too, although anything that harms potential sponsorship by appearing to confirm potential sponsors worst fears (eg uncontrolled juvenile amateurish smut tarnishing their brands) sounds bad to me. Unfortunately there is a part of me that is wildly entertained and amused by the streamyfail, considering it to be some kind of justice on a certain level. This isnt fair, as no doubt lots of blameless hard working people have been hurt by the streamyfail, but I suppose its a natural consequence of my disdain for the way some of the more visible parts of the 'industry' went, shoddy emulation of the existing media. What better way to symbolise two worlds colliding, and so much wasted potential, than to have a slick awards show humbled by technical glitches and naked people. Cheers Steve Elbows [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
