Comments on: Why Are You Doing A Live Show?

By: Talkin’ LOUD, and Sayin’ NOTHIN’! (sayin’ nothin’) | Bill Cammack

Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:27:39 +0000

[...] run your mouth. Don’t try to do shows you don’t know how to edit. Don’t try to do live shows unless it’s time-sensitive information and you’re sure that people actually care about [...]

By: Bill Cammack’s Live Streaming Tips | Bill Cammack

Bill Cammack’s Live Streaming Tips | Bill Cammack — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:33:26 +0000

[...] wants to get into the act”. I already asked the question “Why are you doing a live show?” back in June, 2008, when there seemed to be an epidemic of people creating garbage live channels [...]

By: Bill Cammack

Bill Cammack — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:43:28 +0000

Hey Jonny. :)

Clearly, you’re right. Sometimes, it’s just FUN to go live. I have a fun, live clip right above the video in this post with you and Rana in it.

However….

How much money did you spend streaming those people live on Qik? …… That’s right… NONE! Not a DIME! You did it for FREE.

What I’m talking about is companies that actually spend money to stream live video instead of just doing pre-recorded videos. The News isn’t live. How come we have to wait until 12 pm or 6 pm or 11 pm for the news? :) Why spend money to stream something live, when it’s unnecessary? Tape it. Edit it. Release it when it’s done.

I’d love to see statistics showing the difference between the viewers that watch the archive and the viewers that watch it live, but DON’T watch the archive. That’s the only location where there’s a benefit.

On top of that, if you were streaming in Qik, that means you might have had your chat open, and people could text questions to you and affect your coverage of the reenactment. That’s value added right there.

Not having to edit is a fine thing, I’m sure… as long as one’s content doesn’t bore people to death.

By: jonny goldstein

jonny goldstein — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:26:51 +0000

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the shout out. You are a great Par-tay participator.

Yeah, for me I love getting the interaction going.

But sometimes, it’s just fun to go live. Msybe that’s not good enough, but here’s my example:

Like on Good Friday, I saw these people reenacting the crucifixion of Jesus and there was just something priceless about streaming it live on Qik, even though I don’t think anyone text chatted me live as I did it.

I think a final reason for going live may not be a very good one—-If you shoot it live, you don’t have to edit! That can get old for your audience, but for the creator, it’s kind of a labor saver.

By: Bill Cammack

Bill Cammack — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:12:41 +0000

@taxiplasm: Absolutely. There’s ZERO value to a show’s “live-ness” outside of audience participation or at least being able to deliver something for people to watch that they need to learn about AS IT’S HAPPENING.

Restaurant Reviews? No need to be live.
Interviews? No need to be live.
Film Critiques? No need to be live.

Anything that could be consumed at a later date or time without any loss of value to the viewer doesn’t need to be live.

And… If a company does bother to create a live show, the number of viewers that they GAIN, compared to the viewers that would have watched the archive anyway, are the only ROI they receive. It’s my guess that there are MANY, MANY more people that watch shows on the internet asynchronously than will tune in at a certain time to watch the same content live. Especially when they know there isn’t much chance of their comments in the chat room having ANY effect whatsoever on the outcome of the show.