|
Interesting thread.
Something that drives me crazy about this group is that there is some serious confusion about what is and is not spam.
When someone posts about a vlog they are proud of, some people tend to think that it is spam. I actually apologized for spamming the group when I posted a piece that I was proud of (thanks for the feedback for all of you that viewed and reviewed it). I think that is a problem.
I found nothing seriously distatasteful about the VLOGGERS UNITE thread from Jason, the original poster, and in his mea culpa, he brought up some issues that are important to me. Namely the fact that RSS is some kind of tool to get exposure. It is not a tool for exposure. It is simple distribution; it is shipping, more or less.
I notice that most of the people who responded with angst in this thread have pretty good name recognition within this community. I am not attacking anyone, but I think that those of you who are established Vloggers don't really see the problems for getting exposure for a new Vlog. You all created this, and have deep (or not so deep) relationships with the other members of the community. People go to your Vlogs to learn. Your vlogs show up at the top of mefeedia, and have huge interconnected distribution channels because of that.
There are now almost 7000 feeds at mefeedia. When I started Vlogging in December '05 there were 3000. How many were there when you started Vlogging?
Exposure for vlogs is a problem, and it gets bigger everyday. Those problems are compounded when, in a group about video blogging, asking for people to check out your vlog is spam.
As far as the VLOGGERS UNITE thread, I don't have a problem with it, and don't see it as spam, any more than I see this entire list as spam. I like this group, and have learned tons from it, but there is very little of what I got that I actually ask for. I appreciate the 'spam' on this list. It is some of the finest spam on the internet.
I am not going to join that group, but I don't mind deleting one more of my 230 videoblogging messages in my inbox.
I don't know what to do about the exposure problem, so this is kind of a meta piece, with probably little to no value, but I felt as if I should chime in and speak my mind.
Oh yea, we just signed the paperwork for our new dog training studio, boutique and art gallery. <snark>I will be posting video soon, and if it is good enough I will 'spam' the group with the info, mainly in the hopes that local vlogging hero Josh Leo will watch it and come out and vlog about it. Then maybe all of you will get a chance to see our new place. </snark>
Got to run. Time for a new coat of paint and to hang some sweet signage.
Later,
Ron Watson
Pawsitive Vybe Canines 12 E Bridge St Suite G Rockford, MI 49341 301.524.6670
On Mar 31, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Michael Meiser wrote: I just find one thing funny. That posting your posts to a yahoo group
is the fastest way to get your pages listed.
Quite frankly the fastest way to get your pages listed is through
your RSS feed. Specifically if you use feedburner as that no only
indexes your feed and pings all the relevant websites, but also
includes mediaRSS info which is sent straight to yahoo.
Furthermore building an audience of subscribers through actually
offering value not spam is the best possible way to build a long term
repeat audience... focus on promoting subscriptions not just
individual posts. Visitors to your site come and go, subscribers
stick around.
When I heard about this proposed yahoo group I simply heard the term
spam group. By all means though if you want to spam yourself and
others who would spam you go right a head. A giant echo chamber...
people yelling at each other... check out my feed, no check out my
feed. Everyone shouting noone listening. I think it'd be funny. Just
don't do it here.
And btw, for future reference, people don't like being "experimented
with" that definitely does not make it OK. In fact it may offend
people worse than just being clueless, because it's condescending too.
-Mike
mmeiser.com/blog
On Mar 31, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Stephanie Bryant"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think you know anything about Internet marketing. If you did,
>> you would know the difference between a discussion group and an
>> audience for spam.
>
> I think thats a very important point that helps explain this groups
> stance on what are not acceptable ways to do business here. Of course
> there is no single groupview on this or any other issue, but certaint
> kinds of marketing are definately one of the things that gets some
> vocal peoples backs up here.
>
> I personally dislike marketing in general, but I have a passionate
> hate for really vulgar marketing & sales techniques, adverts etc. Now
> it seems to be that these days there are a lot of companies that are
> doing the modern style of sleek seductive advertising, and internet
> savvy/more ethical/less vulgar type stuff. And this stuff is bound to
> be a bit more palatable to a wider range of people and the blogosphere
> than the other sort of marketing, the sort that gives marketing a bad
> name, and that I have ranted about in the past.
>
> If Im not mistaken this latest vulgar marketeer has tried an ebay
> auction of pixels on his site, and the marketing used on the ebay
> auction page for that item is just a classic example of the kind of
> marketing that will get you a lot of heat from people. It makes some
> people hopping mad, I will speculate as to some of the reasons why:
>
> 1) A relentless hard sell. If the product is worth it, why the need
> for hard sell?
>
> 2) The hideously outdated and tacky use of a few specific font
> attributes. Clearly there must be a long tradition of dodgy marketeers
> selling other would-be marketeers stupid guides that say that using
> red sentences and ALL CAPITALS at specific moments, then throw in some
> blue sentences, along with a relentless style of bullshit, will just
> melt those potential customers minds and the dollars will come a
> flowing. NO! It looks bad enough on backpage classified adverts, on
> the internet it just looks like laughable parpings of the truly
> desperate.
>
> 3) The term 'viral marketing' is used. It wouldnt be called viral if
> it was a nice thing. Does that make the person behind viral marketing
> campaign a virus? If so then is an angry response a yahoo groups best
> innoculation against such a virus?
>
> Oh well I dont know why Im bothering with this rant, experience so far
> is that the people who indulge in such stuff never seem to understand
> why some people get so upset with it and them. They dont see anything
> wrong with it, which is understandable as humans need to
> self-rationalise their own behaviour. So its percieved that we who
> moan are the problem, that we must be a minority, so its worth setting
> up another group where the majority will live happily with the viral
> marketing slugs and be happy to be crudely manipulated by them using
> the power of red fonts and half-understood pseudo-marketing
> techniques.
>
> Nah, anyway I think the biggest brainwrong is the assumption that its
> only a minority who hate this sort of marketing. I happen to think
> that most people are against hard selling because if something is
> worth buying, why the need to push it so. And its totally natural that
> humans hate the idea of being manipulated by anybody else. So whilst
> they may still sometimes fall for sophisticated advertising or subtle
> uses of emotions in adverts (or even not so subtle uses of eg sex to
> sell), they will not have pleasant thoughts about stuff that is not
> subtle, is pushy or invasive etc.
>
> A bizarre test of this opinion of mine that the majority hate such
> things, would be wrestling. A wrestler with the gimic of doing that
> sort of marketing/selling, would be an instant heel, plenty of cheap
> heat from the crowd, and some people would pay good money to see
> another person pretend to beat him up. And it wasnt loud-mouthed
> opinionated gits like me who decided the masses should think that way.
>
> If anybody has any ideas about how video could be used to fight viral
> marketing and other such stains on human civilisation, I would be
> ready to reactivate unquack.com for just such a purpose.
>
> Steve of Elbows
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
