Jan, I wasn't clear about the winnings. I took the lazy route and wrote $10k rather than adding the zeros. The winners in both Naughty and Nice categories will get $10,000.
Would it be more appealing if we removed the whole wish granting aspect and just made it about who could produce the best/funniest/most amazing video? I do also agree that having people pay to submit is probably not the best revenue model, but it was discussed before I began working with the company and much of the team consider it a done deal already. The benefit is that we're trying to encourage higher quality submissions, and having to shell out the $5 means a person has to have some confidence that their submission stands a chance at winning. Thanks for the comments. (And apologies about the laziness typing numbers and URLs.) Nox On 12/15/06, Jan / The Faux Press <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am not inspired by the concept in the least. > > Pay $5 in order to maybe get $10? I don't think so. > > Robin Hood works if Met Life is the sponsor. If Met Life is the sponsor, > then folks don't have to pay to enter. > > Glenda the Good Witch would work as wish-granting icon, but she's > copyrighted. > > Year-round-Santa? Perpetual Santa? > > Good luck, though, I support the idea of making wishes come true > wholeeartedly > > $10 wishes will be difficult to come by. Hot dogs & sodas for me and two > friends, please. > > Jan > > P.S. Were you to type in the whole http address one could just click it in > the email. http://www.robinhoodfund.com - like so. > > On 12/14/06, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<BillCammack%40alum.mit.edu>> > wrote: > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Nox Dineen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I recently started working at an Internet startup that is looking to > > create > > > a video website based around the concept of people submitting wishes > in > > > video format, and then granting the wishes with the most votes on a > > weekly > > > or monthly basis. The site is at www.robinhoodfund.com (although we're > > > considering moving away from the Robin Hood theme), and quite frankly > I > > hate > > > it. It's ugly, user hostile and doesn't exactly prompt immediate > action. > > > > I agree that "Robin Hood" is a poor choice for something like this. :D > The > > idea is a good one, > > but "Robin Hood" implies strongarming funds from one person in order to > > give them to > > another person. The question then is "who's getting strongarmed?" and > "why > > do they > > 'deserve' to lose out so someone else can benefit?" > > > > Tell whomever thought that up to watch the movie again and pick a > > different hero. :D > > > > -- > > Bill C. > > http://ems.blip.tv > > > > > > > > -- > The Faux Press - better than real > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > -- Nox 2.0 (blog) -- http://www.noxdineen.com Nox TV (vlog) -- http://www.noxdineen.com/vlog/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
