Bill Cammack » celebrity

Sex Tapes Are Played Out

Bill Cammack — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:12:52 +0000

There seems to be some confusion amongst some of the members of the female community about the value of making and attempting to distribute a sex tape “starring” yourselves.

I’m sorry to inform you that sex tapes are played out. Actually, to be more accurate.. I’m happy to inform you, but you’ll be sorry to REALIZE that sex tapes are played out and you’re going to have to find another way to attempt to become famous or intenet-famous or whatever you’re trying to do.

The Originals

The reason why sex tapes were a hot item back in the day is because they WEREN’T. SUPPOSED. TO. BE. RELEASED.

The thing was that some chick shot a video with some dude for fun, and by hook or crook, that video somehow made its way to bootleg DVDs and online downloads. The whole buzz of it was a) “Does it exist at all?”, and b) “Where can we get it?”.

When the rumors first went around, the chicks denied that they existed until the first people started seeing them and telling their friends about them. Once the stills & video clips went up on the net, they had no choice but to own up to the fact that yes, that’s them in the tapes and yes, they’re that type of chick to videotape having sex with someone.

Second Wave

The next phase in sex tape evolution was the gals who decided to cash in by deliberately making and attempting to distribute sex tapes while following the initial model of acting like they didn’t want them to be released.

This got over as well as the first wave did because people still didn’t believe girls would do this to themselves. If the tape existed, it HAD to be the guy’s fault and the girl was being victimized, which is what people actually tune in to watch.

Had those tapes been released in a normal fashion, they would have sat on the shelves getting dusty because nobody actually cares whether a gal has sex or not. Did anyone think any of these chicks were virgins before they saw the tapes? Nope.

So the whole point to celebrity sex tapes is victimization. Someone (usually the female) got taken advantage of. That’s what people tune in for.. to be the fly on the wall while some guy’s sneakily videotaping a girl with a hidden camera or if the camera’s visible, he told her that nobody would ever see the tape, and now it’s available for sale to the public.

That was Then. This is Now.

This brings us to the present day… Somehow, some women view sex tapes as a viable vehicle by which they can attain… fame?.. notoriety?.. celebrity status?

I find this completely amazing as well as stupid.

What’s even worse is when you can’t even pull this stunt off without dragging your father’s celebrity name through the mud. I mean, it’s just the height of disrespect and ungratefulness.

EVEN. ACTUAL. PORNO. CHICKS. DON’T. USE. THEIR. REAL. NAMES!!! :/

So first of all, the victimization that everyone tunes in to watch “sex tapes” for doesn’t exist because you decided to make the tape and announced the tape before it was even released.

Second (which is actually FIRST), nobody even would have watched the tape if you hadn’t been your father’s daughter. If you would have changed your name like REAL porno chicks do, nobody would ever have heard of or seen your video.

Third, if you already have deep connections in the film industry, what’s the point of doing Z-Movie pornos? If you can get acting roles just based off of your last name and your father’s juice, what are you getting out of having someone point a camera at you while you’re “having sex”, which I have to put in quotes, because I’ve seen one of the scenes and it was crazy WACK!

Fourth, if you *MUST* make a sex tape, at least go all out and hire a makeup artist to smooth out your skin tone and hide all those ghastly spots on your ass.

Fifth, if you’ve just “had a passion to do porn”, why not just do it? O_o .. Why not just be the next nondescript ***** sucking **** and leave the family name out of things entirely?

Save It For David

Unfortunately, due to the “Famous guy’s daughter gets boned on publicly-distributed DVD” aspect of this situation, of course the tape is going to sell, sell, sell. Hopefully, this won’t give more young ladies the idea that if they make a sex tape, they might be able to parlay that into money, status or fame.

The fact of the matter is that sex tapes are played out. The fad is over. All that’s left are girls that choose to **** on tape and those that choose not to. It’s not cool. It’s not cute. It’s not edgy. It’s expected, predictable and boring… Especially if the video reveals that you have just about the sensuality and moves of a RealDoll, except the doll has a better body.

The sex tape fad actually reminds me of the girls dancing with girls in the bar fad. *yawn*

Remember all those girls that used to try to get props from the guys by dancing together and hoping that dudes would think they were lesbians? Remember how they used to get over at first? Welp.. they ran that trick into the ground and now y’all look like what you are, chicks trying to get attention from dudes. Nobody’s falling for that anymore and they’re not falling for “sex tapes” either, so hang it up.

Personal Brand? No Crossover

Bill Cammack — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:12:37 +0000

I just read this article by Sarah Lacy where she describes part of her journey into becoming a brand and then attempting to leverage her new positions. The pivotal paragraph for me was:

Sarah: That take-on-the-world morning, I was having coffee with Steven Levy, then of Newsweek, now of Wired, who challenged this whole idea of whether this “Sarah Lacy” brand was actually translating into things that mattered, like book sales, money, something real and tangible, or whether it was a just smokescreen of hype. And I granted his point. I’ve long been dubious of Internet celebrity’s staying power. It seems the Internet famous hit that moment where they’re on the Today Show, and just about to close a deal with ABC or HBO or pick the big money, you’ve-made-it acronym, but it never really materializes.

I’ve watched this happen several times since I entered the scene in 2006. Internet Celebrities attempting to take their game to the next level. The first, and most obvious example from the paragraph above being Amanda Congdon, formerly of Rocketboom fame, who went on to do Amanda Across America and then a derivative show for ABC where they attempted to emulate Rocketboom, but severely overproduced Amanda, stomping the life and fun out of the personality that she had brought to the Rocketboom anchor chair AND forcing 30-second pre-roll advertisements that had lots of people clicking off the site before they ever got to Amanda’s performance.

Another example would be Lisa Donavan (LisaNova), who went from YouTube to MADtv and then back to the internet. Then, there’s Ze Frank, who made up his own brand of show and viewer interaction, soared to immense popularity, deliberately quit his show after a calendar year and last I noticed, was on the lecture circuit.

So the question is whether the Personal Brand you’re creating “is actually translating into things that matter”. I touched upon this in August, 2008, in Conversion of “Cred”, but Sarah sums up my own personal experience here:

Sarah: But when it comes to stats, the synergy and the cross promotion hasn’t been as easy as it would seem on paper. I’ve been pretty aggressive about linking between things, and if you follow me here or on Twitter, you get a pretty clear day-to-day account of my life. Yet, I’m stunned by how many people read this blog, but never go to TechTicker. Or how many people watch TechTicker, but have no idea I write a BusinessWeek column. Or how many people follow me on Twitter, but still think I’m on staff for BusinessWeek full-time. Or– I swear to God– the number of people who know me from any of those platforms and say, “You wrote a book?” If my life were a reality show, you could insert a montage of all the times I’ve said “my book” in the last year and it would be a mini-series in length. Whenever I get recognized and someone asks if I’m Sarah Lacy, I smile and say yes, but then coyly ask how they know me. Because I’ve learned it’s different every time, and it’s never all-of-the-above.

What I’ve found is that people in general tend to cherry-pick when it comes to content on the net. There *is* no overall “Let me see what Bill Cammack is doing now”. Instead, it’s actually “Let me see what Bill Cammack is offering me that I’m interested in at this particular point in time”. Actually, it has nothing to do with ME in particular. It’s just that I happen to be talking about or showing them something they came to the table already interested in.

This is the reason why when it comes to your Personal Brand, there’s no crossover. People in general are interested in ONE aspect of your character or personality. Without something drawing them to feel like they want to get to know more about YOU as a person, they will NEVER find out about the other elements of your Personal Brand.

I believe it was Hermann Mazard that replied to one of my Twitter posts about Personal Branding with something to the effect of “Doesn’t defining yourself as a brand limit you?”. The answer to that question is whether or not YOU are limited as a person, personality or character. The reason I mention this is that Sarah Lacy is saying she’s a brand with multiple branches or elements. If you’re only willing to “advertise” one element of your brand, then “yes… It is limiting”. Otherwise, your brand is actually a COMBINATION of the different skills and qualities you’re bringing to the table. The only limit to your personal brand is YOU… and the amount of “YOU” that you’re willing to publicize.

However, as Sarah points out, there’s a difference between broadcasting several elements of your Personal Brand and each viewer or reader receiving all the elements you’re publicizing.

This became obvious to me rather suddenly, as I was hanging out at some party last year, in what I refer to as “mixed company” (people that don’t know each other, but know me). Someone that I hang out with every chance I get and that I also know reads my DatingGenius dating advice column was visibly and audibly stunned when this other person he had just met mentioned that I was an Emmy Award-Winning video editor. So, this guy that I’ve been hanging out with for MONTHS already and has been reading one category of my blog never ventured into any of my OTHER categories or looked at my sidebar, where it’s clearly marked, what I do, and what I’m into. :D

That’s when it REALLY clicked for me that people cherry-pick. Personally, I’m the opposite way. Once I determine that I’m interested in one aspect of a person, I E-Stalk them until I feel I have a full grasp of who they’re expressing themselves to the internet to be. I Google them and look for them on Facebook, Twitter and other social sites. What I’ve found when it comes to what people absorb or take away from the media I float out onto the internet is the exact same thing that Sarah states. They know me for ONE THING, and not the combination of things that I project/express.

Having said that, :D Before this particular article, my only awareness of Sarah Lacy was that Twitter blew up one day, talkin’ ’bout some chick interviewed the Facebook dude and asked him a bunch of questions that put him on the spot. This was accompanied by videos and other commentary. So I knew what Sarah looked like, I saw the video of her interviewing Zuckerberg, and I saw one or two other videos on the net of her speaking about that incident, and that was the extent of my “knowledge” about her. Essentially, had I met her in person, I would have fallen into the “oh, You wrote a book?” category of people.

I think that part of the reason for this is that this is a search-based culture, which is why Google’s doing so well. People want to know about what they want to know about when they want to know about it. They search for specific things, serially, and really aren’t interested in HOW they got the information or from whom. So if someone searches “Dating Women NYC” and hits my site, they’re not concerned about WHO IT IS that gave them this informaton. They’re concerned with the information itself.

This is why there’s no crossover. People can come to my site looking for dating advice and not care about social media posts, or care about social media and not production & post-production or care about text blogging but not videoblogging…. It’s actually even more specific than that. They can show up here looking for one particular topic and then not delve into ANY of my other posts on the exact same topic! :D

I think that what this amounts to is “You can’t take it with you”. I had this discussion with Tyme White back in March, 2008. The question was, essentially, “If there’s a hostess (Eye Candy) of a show, and the show fails, does that become a negative mark on her resume?”. Tyme said “yes”, because the actress would be associated with a failure. I said “no”, because it’s clear to people that the Eye Candy has NOTHING to do with the actual content or production of the show. She’s merely reading a script, so that’s the extent of her culpability. As long as she looks good and can read as if she graduated from college, she’ll thrive regardless of a history of failed shows that she hosted.

Similarly, in response to Hermann’s question and Sarah’s personal observations, I believe that people cultivate several simultaneous and completely separate brands, under the “umbrella” of *A* Personal Brand. This is why a personal brand is not limiting… because you can make as many of them as you want. It’s also why you can’t cross-monetize. People that love one aspect of your umbrella of brands don’t give a damn about any of the other aspects.

IME, people that like my dating blog don’t care about my social media blog. People that like my social media blog don’t care about my videos. People that like my videos don’t care about my bike. People that like my cycle stuff don’t care about my video editing content. People that like my video editing content don’t care that I hang out with a bunch of chicks all the time. People that like my photo sets don’t care about what I do to get money…..

So, ultimately, it comes down to how “sticky” your fans are. There’s no guarantee that you can say to your dating blog fans “Hey! Check out this social media post I made! :D ” and that they’ll actually look at it. ‘Matter of fact, there’s no guarantee that you have ANY ability to persuade ANY of your viewers or readers towards doing anything at all. Sarah pointed this out, and I think her point is valid & documented:

Sarah: I’ve written before that one of the advantages of the Internet– the relatively low barrier to click on something– is an advantage for building brands and gaining distribution online, but it’s also a disadvantage. People flock to you as a side-show, but don’t actually want to invest real dollars to support whatever you are doing. Honestly, how many of Tila Tequila’s million MySpace friends buy her CDs? There’s a currency in mild watching-a-train-wreck-fascination and even hate online, that doesn’t exist in the offline world in the same way. And, to date, it hasn’t translated.

I think the ‘side show’ analogy is perfect. People will come to see the bearded lady IN THE CARNIVAL, but if she releases a CD of Barry Manilow covers, nobody cares. They were fans of hers as a FREAK, not fans of hers as a talent that they wanted to hear/see more from. As soon as you take the freak out of the carnival, you hear the crickets at her performances.

Another issue is that you can’t discount the effects of the fishbowl / echo chamber. A lot of the internet fame that’s generated amongst “geeks” can’t be duplicated amongst “real people”. Let’s say you’re a reporter who talks about gadgets or tech stuff. As soon as you’re placed in front of an audience who doesn’t care about that, you’re finished.

On top of that, there are a lot of people that “follow” other people on the net because of that person’s access to information, as opposed to them actually thinking that this person has any “sticky” personal value. This is another reason why crossovers don’t tend to work out. People weren’t paying attention to that person because of their actual personality. They were looking at their physical appearance or leeching off of the fact that that person would get information about tech gadgets before other people. If you remove them from the genre or niche that they’re internet-famous in, they have no star power at all.

So, the song remains the same when it comes to MSM. You’re not going ANYWHERE unless you have some form of talent or personality trait that people outside of the fishbowl are going to appreciate and latch onto you for.

Meanwhile, there’s no cross-monetizing Personal Branding elements under your umbrella. You have separate audiences for each of your niches. The amount of TIME that you dedicate to maintaining your internet presence will determine how many of your branches you can cultivate simultaneously.

This year, 2009, is going to be all about Personal Branding and positioning. It doesn’t help you to have 5,000 Twitter followers if you can’t get a job from ANY of them. It doesn’t help you to host a tech gadget show if your aspiration is to be an actual actor/actress. It doesn’t help you to create social media destination sites if nobody wants to socialize with YOU, or, more importantly, with EACH OTHER.

The game’s going to change this year. Live Broadcasting & Character Development are going to be the route to developing Passionate Viewers and consequently “sticky” Popularity / “Cred”. Just like rap music, internet video has gotten to the point where ANYBODY can get on the mic. The only way you’re going to successfully cross over and gain traction outside of the fishbowl / echo chamber is by demonstrating UNIVERSAL value.

As opposed to the sum total of your branding efforts, your position & success in 2010 is going to depend on the branch(es) of your Personal Brand that you invest your time cultivating and demonstrating to people that you’re a viable, universal talent that can make it to AND THRIVE IN “The Big Show”.

~Bill Cammack

Social Media Category: billcammack.com/category/social-media
Subscribe to SM!: feeds.feedburner.com/BillCammackSocialMedia

The Broderick / Parker Situation

Bill Cammack — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:04:22 +0000

Star Magazine is reporting that Matthew Broderick allegedly “cheated on” Sarah Jessica Parker.

Apparently, Broderick doesn’t read DatingGenius. :D If he did, he’d know “How To Cheat Properly” as well as pointing the chick he was allegedly messing with to the “Guide To Dating The ‘Internet Famous’”. Granted, I only posted the guide YESTERDAY, but still.

Let’s look at Broderick’s alleged violations, shall we? :D

Star Magazine:“After meeting in a bar, Matthew began text messaging the 25-year-old youth counselor, says the woman’s pal. Soon after, the insider claims, they began seeing each other and things got passionate quickly when they met at the Manhattan townhouse of a showbiz friend.”

There are like 92 violations in that one paragraph.

“After meeting in a bar”?… WHAT? :D The Internet-Famous (and in Broderick’s case, the ACTUALLY FAMOUS) do *NOT* “meet chicks in bars”. This is an ESPECIALLY BAD IDEA when you’re famously known to be involved with someone else that’s famous. This is like quadruple-paparazzi-bonus. The only way you would have more witnesses is if you met a chick in Police Headquarters.

“… began text messaging…” Oh no. :( This is 2008. You can deny phone conversations all you want, but once you start texting, it’s a WRAP! Don’t you watch any of the 80,000 “figure out who the criminal is” shows they have on television these days? As soon as the tabloids suspect who you’re dating, they’re going to bribe some minimum-wage worker at the telephone company for a record of her texts and then you’re done. Kaput.

“… 25-year-old…” Heeeeere we GO!!! :D Now… If you just HAVE TO kick it to a chick in public places AND text her to boot… AT LEAST make sure she’s OLDER and not YOUNGER than you are! People love to hate on dudes that can pull younger chicks. HATE! :D This is why you need to kick it with older chicks, because you won’t be suspected of “taking advantage” of them and you won’t get those stupid questions chicks always ask, like “what do you have in common with someone her age?”… As if you NEED anything to be “in common” other than she turns you on, and she’s down for whatever you have in mind! :D

“… says the woman’s pal…” UH-OHHHHHH! See… This is one of the reasons Charlie Sheen shelled out all those ducats for chicks. DISCRETION! :D If you’re paying for chicks, you don’t have to worry about them blabbing to their homegirls who blab to the tabloids. All you have to worry about in THAT situation is if they’ve already wire-tapped the phones you’re using to order chicks that cost thousands of dollars per session to import them from NYC to Washington, DC.

“… when they met at the Manhattan townhouse of a showbiz friend…” Ugh. :( Now I know tip #9 is “Enlist the help of others”, but this isn’t what I meant. Star Magazine also claims Broderick was seen showing up at the chick’s apartment building for “late-night visits”. I’m thinking now that I should have added another tip, which is:

12) Don’t be where you’re OBVIOUSLY not supposed to be

If you just HAVE TO meet a chick in the middle of the night, make sure it’s somewhere that you can explain it away… like your agent’s office. Maybe the 24-hour gym, with the explanation that you weren’t able to sleep and working out always does the trick for you. Maybe your storage facility in New Jersey……. ANYWHERE, except showing up late-night to a residential area and entering an apartment building where the chick you’re supposedly not kicking it to is known to live.

Well… Hopefully, Broderick still has some Ferris Bueller skillz left over, and he’ll be able to get out of this squeaky-clean. If not… it looks like he’ll have enough free time to read DatingGenius, like he’s supposed to! :D

DatingGenius

Celebrity Crush, Part 2

Bill Cammack — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:43:35 +0000

In response to Got a Crush on a Celebrityâ€¦, Derek writes:

So it’s an uphill climb. Understood. But, there are guys out there that KNOW (think) that they are MORE than enough to take the challenge (think Pros vs Joes).

What kinda advice would the DG give to those guys? Would could a guy do once he’s left his life, moved to the city of his desire?

I’ll met enough people to understand your initial answer all too well (think “astronaunts”). A type-A personality guy (definitely NOT me) wouldn’t let something like reality stand in the way. They are the same guys that blow horns and give cat calls to pick up women (see my last video posting – I don’t know how to link it here).

Actually, this is something else I’ve never thought about because up until recently, all the stars were in LA/Hollywood. Unless you lived out there, AND were running in their circles, there was ZERO percent chance that you’d meet a star anyway, unless she came to your local mall to sign autographs or was doing a show in your town.

In the case of doing a show, you’re done. She’s there for business, and you’re not getting near her. If she’s there for a book signing or whatever celebrities do to meet their fans, you’re not going to have but about a minute near her so your best bet is to come in the door looking jiggy-fresh, slide her your number and tell her to call you… outside of the earshot of cockblocking assistants and managers, of course.

Anyway, at this point, now that there are internet celebrities, they’re way more accessible to average joes, because none of this is being done in studios under locked-down conditions. Consider YouTube, for instance, you have some of the most REGULAR chicks that are STARS on YouTube. They probably work as cashiers in the local Wal-Mart, even.

As far as actually getting on, there’s no specific formula to that, because as predictable as chicks are, they all get off on different things. Some chicks like bad boys, some chicks like nice guys… Play the wrong style and you lose. :) The only advantage you have in these situations is if the chick puts a lot of information online about things that she likes. That way, you can play it off like you’re interested in the same things and gain rapport.

So it’s not really different from the basic formula…

Gather information, then Fake It, Till You Make It! :D

Got a Crush on a Celebrity…

Bill Cammack — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:35:41 +0000

Reader Derek writes:

There are people out in the public eye that grabs your attention.

Using the “Dating Genius” tried and proven methods, how can someone make any good of this? Generically and academically speaking, mind you.

Actually, this is a very good question, Derek.

Becoming enamored with public figures happens to people all day, every day. That’s why the tabloids make so much money. Everyone’s interested in what their favorite celebrities are doing and saying as well as whom they’re currently dating.

There are two ‘problems’ with this. The first one is that you’re not getting the full experience of a person by watching their show. The second is that you usually don’t have any local access to the person in question, so you never get to experience what they’re really like.

Because of this, what people ‘fall in love’ with is only 1% of the actual person at best… unless they’re doing a personal videoblog where they’re authentically telling you about themselves, their lives, what they think and feel.

For example… I have a friend that’s very PHYSICALLY attractive… very beautiful, but her personality is so *CRASS* that I can’t imagine anyone wanting to date her for who she is as a person. Guys put up with her shenanigans because she’s an easy lay. Other than that, she doesn’t have any wins… None of them are actually “WITH” her. You could take that chick and make her the host of a television show or internet show, and guys would be ‘falling in love’ with her too, but that’s because she’d be reading a script and her true personality wouldn’t be revealed at all by what she’s saying.

There’s actually a third ‘problem’ with celebrity crushes… You’re not the only one.

Depending on your level of taste in women, there could be easily 100, 1,000 or 1,000,000 guys that ‘fell in love’ with her for the exact same reasons that you did, so even if she’s available and you have local access to her, it’s gonna be an uphill climb to get on.

DatingGenius

Bill Cammack » celebrity

Sex Tapes Are Played Out

The Originals

Second Wave

That was Then. This is Now.

Save It For David

Related Posts

Personal Brand? No Crossover

Related Posts

The Broderick / Parker Situation

Related Posts

Celebrity Crush, Part 2

Related Posts

Got a Crush on a Celebrity…

Related Posts