Yes. An awards show sucked. Who knew. The meat of the matter is that it showed the Hollywoodyist of the Hollywoodys, not the best web video. It was about commercial success and not creativity.
They showed people that web video is about selling to the highest bidder, getting sponsors, brand integration, and not changing the TV paradigm. From all of the documentation and promotion I've seen this was their main purpose, and in that way they were successful. I'm an IAWTV member and voted for the streamys, tried to shift the focus ever so slightly toward creativity and away from mindless tv wannabe bullshit. I'm hoping to get a group email from the top brass asking what can be done to evolve the organization. If they don't make some big changes, I don't see the point of their existence. Sent via dynamic wireless technology device -----Original Message----- From: Michael Sullivan <sullele...@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:33:31 To: <videoblogging@yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Streamy disaster what will help web video is better web video. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Mark Villaseñor < videoblogyahoogr...@tailtrex.tv> wrote: > > > 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 > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
