Seems like everything's been said that needs to be said, at least as far as the EPIC-FU / advertising topic goes. We appreciate all the clarification and support of the group.
As we said in our response video, Cheryl's core question about what is an ad and what isn't is a completely valid one. We all have an obligation to answer difficult questions. And those of us who ask the questions have an obligation to be responsible shepherds in the conversation that ensues. I think the extended nature of the conversation and some of the questions around the rest of the video led emotions to run high all around. We'd better make sure we all stick together through these times, because that is the only way we will ever really make a difference in the way media is created and consumed. That means no half-baked commentary that can be construed as an accusation or an attack. Some old school journalistic sensibilities need to pervade these discussions to prevent them from devolving into drama-fests. Our $.02 anyway... Happy holidays to all, Steve & Zadi --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Cheryl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steve, you are 100% correct. I meant to state that in my comments > section when I originally added that I contacted you, but somehow > omitted it, and for that I emphatically apologize. I want to point out > that I did make a correction and disclose that fact in my comments > yesterday - the comment is here: > http://www.hummingcrow.com/2007/12/21/new-media/#comment-8554 > > I also should let you know that my Spam Karma plugin entrapped YOUR > comment on my site linking from my comments section to your message > here on the videoblogging list. I just noticed it in the spam folder > two minutes ago and recovered it from spam. You posted your comment > before I posted my correction; however, because Spam Karma flagged it, > I did not see this comment prior to posting my correction. > > I'm not going to duplicate my correction here unless I receive a > request to do so - anyone who wants to see it can follow the link. > > I do reiterate that my intention was never to call your professional > integrity into question, nor to imply that you knew the full content > of what my blog post would be. > > Cheryl Colan > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Woolf" <swoolf@> wrote: > > > > Excuse me. > > > > Cheryl sent us an email letting us know she would be criticizing our > > content for being "bubble gum" content. We responded with examples of > > the important issues we try to bring up, the interests of our > > audience, and so forth. > > > > At no point did she ever ask us about sponsored links, how we make > > money, or whether we use product placement. She asked nothing about > > our business model, our motivation to commercialize the show, or ask > > anything else on which she could base her commentary about our > > perceived untrustworthiness. > > > > Cheryl did not reveal this fact in her comments, rather she made it > > appear that we were full informed that our professional integrity was > > going to be called into question. > > > > > > Steve Woolf > > > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Taylor" > > <thejeffreytaylor@> wrote: > > > > > > " If I were suspicious about how one is using advertising on their > show > > > and I had some questions about it, I would privately relay my > > > questions through an email to the right people and keep it there." > > > > > > > > > She did. Cheryl clearly states in the video that she e-mail Zadi and > > Steve > > > about it before recording. Cheryl made the vid knowing that Zadi and > > Steve > > > knew about it. > > > > > > And the video wasn't just about Epic-Fu. > > > > > > Open discussion is healthy. We all keep saying things behind > > people's backs, > > > and it's good to air the dirty laundry once in a while to keep the > > gossip > > > and rumors from taking over, and to also resolve conflicts en > masse and > > > perhaps even learn something in the process. This all has been a > > good thing, > > > and the way people have discussed has revealed more than the > discussion > > > itself. I've been pleasantly surprised by some, sorely disappointed in > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24/12/2007, terry.rendon <terry.rendon@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I asked the question on the Hummingcrow post "Am I the only who > > > > believes that most of the concerns brought up in this video should > > > > have been handled privately?" > > > > > > > > I have no problem with people giving criticism of others. It helps > > > > artists grow with when they get feedback, negative or positive. My > > > > problem with Cheryl's criticism, however, towards Epic Fu was > that it > > > > called into question their business practices. Another problem is at > > > > one point she calls Steve and Zadi "slick, carefully crafted," which > > > > in my perception made it personal. In those two areas it crossed the > > > > line for me. > > > > > > > > If I were suspicious about how one is using advertising on their > show > > > > and I had some questions about it, I would privately relay my > > > > questions through an email to the right people and keep it > there. Some > > > > would say I probably shouldn't even address it privately because > it's > > > > really not my business anyways. If you don't trust something on the > > > > internet I think the best thing is just not visit the site anymore. > > > > > > > > I know many new media people believe in total transparency. > However, I > > > > believe there has to be a limit. There's always going to someone who > > > > is not satisfied the way you do things (especially if you have large > > > > audience) and if you have constantly answer peoples concerns > that can > > > > turn extremely exhausting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jeffrey Taylor > > > Mobile: +33625497654 > > > Fax: +33177722734 > > > Skype: thejeffreytaylor > > > Googlechat/Jabber: thejeffreytaylor@ > > > http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > >
