Rupert Howe: "And I can't agree with the `It's terrible for the industry!' people. It will be *good* for the profile of web video, not bad. ...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness."
Hi Rupert: Just a few thoughts... There is a difference between manufacturing controversies, and playing off organic substance that happens to be controversial. The former has proven disastrous time and again, in part, because an audience knows when it's being manipulated -- played cheaply (and consequently react in the negative, sooner or later). Moreover, CREATING controversy for the sake of attention is no less a tactic used by countless street walkers -- and look how well THEY are respected from an industry standpoint. This begs the question: how do we in web media (collectively) wish to have the public and advertisers perceive our work? As credible and substantive, offering content unavailable elsewhere? Or as attention whores who will stoop to depths to attract eyes, with antics better suited for mud wrestling and porn wanna-bes rather than garnering profitability? 911 jokes... Mother Teresa jabs... (Chris Hardwick:) "I have a finger in my ass." "I am so looking forward to mouth herpes." Idiots pull pants down... And the hits just kept on comin, and coming and coming some more! "...controversy drives box office success, mass media interest and general awareness." Yet this year's Streamys did none of that, not even close! Instead the program showed a stellar way-ta-sustain the stereotype that web debauchery knows no bounds; nothing being off-limits. It showed potential advertisers and sponsors they are right to remain cautious of web-visual media. The event demonstrate how to alienate potential viewers with real spending power, for the sake of eye balls that mean diddlie to a balance sheet. The image this latest Streamy conveyed is unsustainable and weak, juvenile and short-sighted; pathetically misguided and woefully out-of-touch. Clearly devoid of seriousness, cutting-edge practicality, forward looking confidence or fostering broader mainstream financial patronage. It was an utter joke, and dragged all of us down with every awkward attempt at being slick -- rather than aiming for legitimacy! "...Good for the profile of web video, not bad." Hmmm, yeah, well you are certainly entitled to opinion. But considering mainstream media ignored the event, and independent web commentary has been widely negative. Your take isn't supported by the evidence. The inescapable truth is that the 2010 Streamys were total amateur night -- technical glitches notwithstanding. Now if the production's intent was to show industry immaturity, and a complete disregard for the BUSINESS side of the web video business? Then your perspective has a foothold, but not otherwise. Bottom-line, disrespect the audience and we'll get disrespected! That is; all the way to the bank where our accounts languish, because we're too cool to collectively admit error and do better. Best Regards, Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org
