I admire your passion, but here are my thoughts:
You said:
>Corporations are set up to make a profit. They have a legal
>responsibility to work toward this. They also enjoy many legal
>privileges, that individuals do not, designed to help them in this
>respect. In my opinion, profit making and doing good for people/the
>world are often at odds with one another. It's often way easier to
>make money if you don't have to invest in not harming the environment
>or improving the working conditions in your business.
I am still not sure how that makes them intrinsically bad for the
vlogosphere. Anyway, to set up an us versus them mentality isn't going to
help anyone.
You said:
>I think how we got on to this discussion is that I had a problem with
>Wired highlighting Popcast, which happens to be a for-profit
>company. I don't have a problem with them being a for-profit
>company. My problem was that they haven't done anything and they got
>written about whereas there was no mention of the Archive or Ourmedia
>or FireANT or Mefeedia. All of which have done great things that we
>all use and on top of that they've done them for free.
I am admittedly lame for not yet blogging/vlogging (I am getting there), and
I am not as knowlegeable about a lot of vlogging-related software and
services as others on this list, but I agree, it seemed very strange to me
that Popcast -- which I hadn't heard of in my, albeit limited, experience --
was spotlighted when more established systems were not. It seems unfair to
me too.
You said:
>Then Clint
>went on about how I seem to expect corporations to things for free.
>
>So here's the deal. I do expect that from corporations. Hell yeah.
>They get the privilege of making a profit - often at our (the people
>of the world) detriment. It's payback. They don't do enough of it.
>Some corporations are starting to get a clue or get on the clue train
>as Charles said there (Markus says this to me a lot). They are
>starting to see that it makes sense to be a good global citizen and
>that often means taking care of people - not because it will make
>them money but because they are in the unique position of being able
>to do it.
Here, I disagree. First, I believe that most companies "do things for free"
for the tax writeoffs and/or good PR. Less so to be good global citizen;
more so to look like a good global citizen
But, more importantly, making a profit is not a privilege. Many businesses
fold and struggle and lose money. Some do turn profit, but who knows what
will happen next quarter. You seem to make profit sound like an automtic
part of the process.
Think of shareholders like web site visitors. If you don't give people what
they want (in the case of the shareholders it is money) they won't suport
you. If no one supports you, perhaps your server costs or other overhead
(free time, for instance) won't make it worth your while. So you stop.
If business shuts down, it is more than just the collapse of a faceless
corporation. Everyone loses their jobs from CEO to janitor. But it goes
further: the vending machine company and/or cafeteria company is affected,
the trash service, snow service, anyone providing daycare for the employees,
any local stores former employees shopped at, etc. all will take a hit. Look
at what happened when GM closed its plant in Flint in Michael Moore's "Roger
and Me".
The good service a big business provides is its existence. This is the often
overlooked reason why we cannot cut our dependence on foreign oil. Sure a
cheaper, greener car would be great, but if we cut off our oil use, we could
literally collapse the economies of some developing nations. We are all
connected.
Honestly, I love your passion,
-David
>From: Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Money Changers, out! (was: reality check?)
>Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:12:22 -0500
>
>On Jul 16, 2005, at 2:24 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote:
> > Not to point fingers at anyone in specific, but if this group wants to
> > influence how "corprations" see and use videoblogging, it would help
> > if you didn't start out with the assumption that you have a monopoly
> > on ethics.
>
>On Jul 16, 2005, at 9:35 AM, David Yirchott wrote:
> > I agree with Dierdre, I don't understand the prejudice against
> > corporations/people seeking financial gain.
>
>Boy has this thread gotten onto a whole different track! It seems to
>have merged with the discussion about yesterday's Wired article.
>Here's my take:
>Corporations are set up to make a profit. They have a legal
>responsibility to work toward this. They also enjoy many legal
>privileges, that individuals do not, designed to help them in this
>respect. In my opinion, profit making and doing good for people/the
>world are often at odds with one another. It's often way easier to
>make money if you don't have to invest in not harming the environment
>or improving the working conditions in your business. Is every
>corporation run this way? No, of course not. Are many run this
>way? You bet your ass they are.
>
>On Jul 16, 2005, at 12:31 AM, Charles HOPE wrote:
> > Old style business has less than
> > two decades of life left. Look for the Cluetrain Label(tm). Ask for
> > it by name.
>
>I think how we got on to this discussion is that I had a problem with
>Wired highlighting Popcast, which happens to be a for-profit
>company. I don't have a problem with them being a for-profit
>company. My problem was that they haven't done anything and they got
>written about whereas there was no mention of the Archive or Ourmedia
>or FireANT or Mefeedia. All of which have done great things that we
>all use and on top of that they've done them for free. Then Clint
>went on about how I seem to expect corporations to things for free.
>
>So here's the deal. I do expect that from corporations. Hell yeah.
>They get the privilege of making a profit - often at our (the people
>of the world) detriment. It's payback. They don't do enough of it.
>Some corporations are starting to get a clue or get on the clue train
>as Charles said there (Markus says this to me a lot). They are
>starting to see that it makes sense to be a good global citizen and
>that often means taking care of people - not because it will make
>them money but because they are in the unique position of being able
>to do it.
>
>I think we are at a very important point in this whole process where
>we have the opportunity to influence the conversation. I say let's
>create a world where people count for something. I say let
>corporations make money but not at our expense. Let them earn it.
>
>Damn I need to go make a video about all of this.
>
>-Verdi
>http://michaelverdi.com
>http://freevlog.org
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
