yep. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Quirk <qu...@wreckandsalvage.com> wrote:
> 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 > > > > -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
