Well this whole thread I've been wondering what the blowback is going to be on my free speech, Steve.
I'd like to solicit some sponsorship. I've been trying to do it for a long time. I would be an excellent spokesperson for somebody's product. I'm good with the media, I'm articulate and friendly, not too terribly bad looking. I don't have problems speaking in favor of products that I believe in. I don't have a problem with others doing so. I don't have problems with corporations. I do however have a problem with corporations controlling society - writing laws, exploiting people, and creating problems for society without accountability or responsibility. Limited liability is good, leveraging power and freedom to dominate is bad. I speak out online pretty strongly about these things, but I don't speak out about them in public in my backyard the way I should. The reason is that I'm afraid of the repercussions on my business at home. We might have a lot of free speech, but that speech can be very costly. People lose their jobs for what they do on their off time these days. I could lose clients for speaking my mind. We've got all this freedom, and yet are so trapped in our day to day, trying to get by, we can't afford to step out of line. It's a real juxtaposition. The Land of the Free, but we can't do that. It might hurt us. I think that the vast majority of people on this planet are in a precarious situation. It's one of the things driving our economy. Listen to Alan Greenspan, he'll tell you. Of course it'll be couched in language like 'Flexible Labor markets' and 'Churning' instead of 'Fearing the loss of your job' and being 'unable to support your family', but it's right there, and it's lauded as if it's an asset. It's crazy, but it's real. People that are in a precarious situation are easy to exploit. They shut up, keep their heads down and take care of themselves and their family. It's a real bummer, man. It's great way to make cheap labor, a cowed and apathetic citizenry and to assume control without having to fight. That's my problem, I guess. I don't like to see people exploited and I don't want to be exploited myself. I want to be able to stand up for my community and help protect my family, neighbors and friends and I'd like them to do the same for me. I want to be in control of my life and have a decent opportunity for a happy and healthy future, but I don't see those things happening for many people given the kind of corporate sponsored public policy that we've been existing under for the last couple of decades. Much of this problem can be laid directly at the corporate media's feet. I don't see many people taking on the establishment. I see a lot of excuses, apathy and rationalization that is packaged as 'realism' that does nothing but exacerbate the problem. It's hard to risk speaking freely when nobody has your back. Yea, we have historic levels of free speech, and unlike before, we actually have the right to be heard, given this internet thing, but we also have a system that demands conformity and is extremely unstable for most of us. If I had more BALLS. I'd be talking about this on camera. Everybody here knows I have the opportunity to do so these days, but I'm too scared to do it. One of the reasons that I talk about this here is because I think there is power in this group. There is power and understanding. I believe there are people here who will watch your back and have the capability to do it. blah, blah blah... I could go on all day... Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog http://pawsitivevybe.com On Dec 28, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > Advertisers normally like safety. This makes certain kinds of > content risky to them, and so > if content only gets made to suit them, it has a seriously limiting > effect. We now live in an > era where if you dont seek ad revenue, then you have the > possibility to make stuff that is > free from this limitation, and still have more than a few people > see it. This has not thus far > lead to a huge quantity of radical alternative stuff emerging, so > advertising is far from the > only factor. There are tons of reasons why the masses could be > considered to be asleep, > and why there are not all that many people making compelling > content to wake them up. > > I suggest that in places such as the USA and the UK, we are at a > peak of free speech. The > barriers to speaking your mind are the lowest they will ever be, > but its not much of a > threat because it occurs at a timer where there arent so many free > ears and free minds to > do anything with the free speech. > > If circumstances change, then free speech may become a threat and > will be crushed using > all the laws being passed this decade. But for now we are doped up > on consumption, so its > easier to ignore than crush. > > If people are having a nice dream, why would they want to be woken > up? When the > nightmare arrives, they will be desperately seeking a saviour to > wake them. I dread to > think what & who they will end up listening to, hopefully some > people will be talking a lot > of sense and wont get eliminated. Maybe the net will be a tool that > sometimes helps > humanity make the right decisions in a difficult era, maybe it will > end up a mess of > competing propaganda, time will tell. > > Better Bad News seems to cover several of the themes at hand, > including being a show > that isnt 'safe', being political, being very worried about the > future, and in the latest video > mentioning Scoble, in relation to Obama and the S-1959 bill which > is seen as a an anti- > thought crimes on the net thang! Anyway that particular bill is > probably worthy of its own > conversation. > > http://www.betterbadnews.com/ > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Sinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was > > misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional > TV biz: > > > > 1) Ratings are king. > > 2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to > advertisers. > > > > Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the > audience is > > going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to > > advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding > > what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the > end of > > the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide > what to > > watch that influences these decisions.) > > > > The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with > > audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if > > they think there will be an audience or not. > > > > Regards, > > -Frank > > > > http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <billcammack@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <k9disc@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting.... > > > > > > > > Frank, > > > > > > > > I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate > > media a > > > > bit here. > > > > > > > > There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television > market with > > > > the one shot nature of the movies. > > > > > > > > They are entirely different markets with entirely different > sales > > > > models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the > > > > movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by > > corporations. > > > > Of course this is starting to change a bit with product > placement > > and > > > > such, but it's still quite true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea > that > > the > > > > viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate > > > > advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. > That's > > why > > > > we have more and more commercials and less and less content. > > > > > > I agree. It's not possible for the viewer to be the consumer in > the > > > televison model. The viewer gives ZERO dollars *directly* towards > > > video production. > > > > > > The viewer has the money that the Advertisers are hoping to > get. You > > > get that money by serving them advertisements that hopefully > imprint > > > in their minds what they need to buy or eat or where they need > to go > > > for vacation. You can't serve an "advertisement channel", because > > > nobody would watch it, so you have to make content to get the > people > > > to sit there and watch your advertisements. > > > > > > The content is made by a production team. The production team gets > > > its money from the channel or whatever it's broadcasting on. To > sell > > > a show, you need to make a pilot for use as Proof of Concept > and also > > > to run by focus groups. You play your pilot for viewers, but, > again, > > > they don't give the production team any money towards the > creation of > > > their show, AND even though their responses are recorded and paid > > > attention to, they don't have any actual SAY over what happens > with > > > the show. > > > > > > So that leaves the channel or network as the provider of the > funds for > > > the show. Plus they have to pay for their real estate, > electricity, > > > lights, equipment, staff.... Where does this money come from? > > > Advertisers. While you're pitching shows to stations, they're > > > "pitching" advertising time to advertisers based on the > demographic > > > that they feel are going to tune in to your show. Of course, there > > > are other income sources for the networks, AND for the production > > > teams (like the team could also do corporate video work to keep > the > > > lights on), but I'm talking about the specific flow of money > affecting > > > decision-making around shows. > > > > > > Except for stuff like viewer donations to PBS, the viewer has ZERO > > > monetary involvement with the creation of shows, AND there is > nowhere > > > you can go as a viewer to vote for the next show you'd like to > see. > > > Viewers are not consulted when a new show is coming on. All of a > > > sudden, marketing teams start "selling you" the show. You see > stuff > > > on the internet. They use commercial space on popular shows to > > > publicize the upcoming shows. The buzz is created BY the marketing > > > teams because THEY'RE the ones that know a show is coming on. > Even if > > > the buzz appears to come from the viewers, it was created by > marketers. > > > > > > So, like Jan and Ron are saying, the viewer is the huntED, not the > > > huntER. While it's true that a mass exodus by viewers can make > a show > > > go down the tubes, that's because the station won't be able to > sell > > > advertising space on that show for more $$,$$$ than some other > show, > > > and it would be bad business to leave it running. > > > > > > The viewers pay for cable subscriptions, for instance, which is > spread > > > out amongst ALL the channels they get and ALL the shows on all > those > > > channels. Advertisers pay SPECIFICALLY to advertise on a certain > > > channel or a certain block of shows or a certain show. The cable > > > company gets the viewers' money REGARDLESS of whether they watch a > > > particular show, so they can't be the ones who "get what they > want" in > > > this scenario. > > > > > > The goal for the advertisers is to get their money back by > having the > > > viewers remember their products and/or services and buy them. > So, as > > > far as shows, the advertisers pay to have customers (the > viewers) in a > > > particular demographic delivered to them. The viewers pay > > > subscription fees, which cover ALL of their television > entertainment. > > > Even if you pay for HBO, for instance, you get The Sopranos and Oz > > > and everything else on that network. There is no sole > subscription to > > > "The Sopranos", so it's not possible that the viewers have ANY say > > > whatsoever in how it's made, except for not showing up. > > > > > > The viewers aren't the Romans in the stands, making decisions. > > > They're the victims in the pit. Run out of victims, and there's no > > show. > > > > > > -- > > > Bill Cammack > > > CammackMediaGroup.com > > > > > > > > > > In the movies, the movie is the product being sold, and the > viewers > > > > are, to a large degree the customers. > > > > > > > > The movies are not based on the repetitive 'subscriber' based > model, > > > > which means a movie can be totally shitty viewing experience but > > > > still be profitable due to a great marketing campaign from it's > > > > corporate media parent companies. > > > > > > > > "It's the greatest movie EVER!" can be heard on all the News > Corps > > > > media properties, and if it's sold right, a big fat stinking > turd of > > > > a flick can recoup it's money. > > > > > > > > I believe that there is far less advertiser control over the > movie > > > > business than the TV business because of the divergent business > > models. > > > > > > > > TV on the other hand is all but entirely controlled by the > > > > advertisers. With TV there is a relationship. Customers, > corporate > > > > sponsors, pay to interact with the corporate media's product, > the > > > > audience. They pay for a captive audience. > > > > > > > > It's not the viewers that force the shutting down of a > program, it's > > > > the corporate advertisers getting cold feet and abandoning it. > > > > Remember, viewers are the product being sold when it comes to a > > heavy > > > > advertising based market like TV. > > > > > > > > Listening to your audience is important, and new media allows > for > > > > that dialogue to take place, but as the show scales up, there > is a > > > > high degree of probability that your customers, those paying > your > > > > bills, are going to take issue with your product, the > viewers, and > > > > that dialogue becomes a nasty triangle of interests. > > > > > > > > So, I guess I kind of agree with your point, but I think that > your > > > > point falls short of being totally valid when you look at the > > > > different segments of the corporate media. > > > > > > > > Corporations sponsor TV and own the Movies. > > > > > > > > I am one who thinks that the corporate media creates reality, > and > > > > we're just along for the ride. Sure there are some of us who > buck > > the > > > > system and don't buy into it, but we're few. Corporations > dominate > > > > our society: they sponsor our information, they sponsor our > schools, > > > > they sponsor our politicians, they sponsor our legislation, they > > > > sponsor our sports teams, they sponsor our community > functions, and > > > > if they're not sponsoring it, they own or control it: the > internet, > > > > our personal information, our communications systems, mass > > transit, etc. > > > > > > > > I don't think that audiences, media consumers, actually control > > > > anything that happens within that power structure. Audiences are > > > > manipulated through saturation, cutting edge psychological > science, > > > > limited competition and sheer volume. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > Ron Watson > > > > http://k9disc.blip.tv > > > > http://k9disc.com > > > > http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog > > > > http://pawsitivevybe.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
