It's like Diggnation and Epic Fu in a menage a trois with Wreck and  
Salvage.

I like your style.  If I watched tech shows, I'd watch this.  Although  
I do watch Epic Fu, when I'm watching things.  And GETV.  So I do  
watch tech shows.

I love the lofi look and attitude, but the lofi sound not so much -  
it's hard on the attention span.  i think you can get away with all  
sorts of visual craziness if the sound is clear, but you try people's  
patience if they're straining to make out what's being said in formal  
interviews.  in the phone segment,  i like the crap handheld mic  
thing, but maybe it could just be a prop, and you could really mic  
them separately?  the outside interview with Chris Sacca was cool for  
its slightly greasy video-light look, but maybe you could have had the  
handheld mic there instead of the camera mic picking up all the  
ambient noise, or used lapels to keep the informal nature of the  
chat?  As it is, it sounds like the scene is being lit by a  
flamethrower.

Your stats are Blip, and you said you're hosting with Blip to get them  
onside - are you not also putting it on YouTube and other sharing  
sites to get more views?




On 3-Apr-09, at 9:25 AM, Adam Quirk wrote:

> Video globbers,
> I just launched a new project that you folks may find mildly  
> interesting.
>
> It's called The Interwebs, a weekly show about the business of tech  
> and new
> media. We're going to try to make it 60% smart and 60% funny.
>
> Most pertinent to this list is our closing segment each week called  
> Vital
> Signs, in which my co-producer Nate and I openly discuss our  
> statistics,
> viewership, and finances; all the other ins and outs of producing a  
> show for
> the web. AOL keyword: transparency.
>
> This week Vital Signs starts at around the 7:04 mark:
> http://theinterwebs.tv/post/92264825/welcome-to-the-interwebs-0-24-this-week-nate
>
> Eat it all though if you have time, it's good food.
>
> Ok,
> AQ
>
> @quirk
> wreckandsalvage.com
> theinterwebs.tv
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to