Asynchronous Video Threading

I spent the day on Seesmic yesterday and had a 90-post conversation involving several of the members. I’ll say first of all that Seesmic has made TONS of improvements since Andrew Lipson gave me an invite 3 months ago. They’re always making improvements to their site, so this post may very well be outdated relatively soon. πŸ™‚

If you don’t know what Seesmic is, it’s basically like having a conversation with people on a bunch of stickies. In a way, it’s like Twitter, except it’s video and audio instead of text. You get to record a video which goes into the “public” timeline, and other people can watch it just about as soon as you post it. People who see your video can record their own video and make it a reply to your video if they so choose.

They relatively recently implemented threading as a one-dimensional, reverse chronological timeline. This was way better than no threading AT ALL πŸ˜€ but having held a several-hour-long conversation on it that was about actual intellectual concepts, not “what to name a dog” or “who’s going on a date tonight”, I got to experience the downsides of asynchronous video threading in Seesmic’s current format.

The reason I make a point of it being asynchronous is that it’s not a real-time conversation. It’s more like twitter or an email group than it is like Yahoo Live where several people speak to each other simultaneously, or even chat rooms, where everyone’s there at the same time and can jump in with their opinions if they feel like it.

Liz Burr made some excellent points that I hadn’t paid attention to as I was absorbing so many other things during a full day’s use of the app. Someone had made the point that because you record your own video and decide when to stop it, you get to say what you want in its entirety without being interrupted. Liz mentioned that since it’s asynchronous, you can be turned OFF at ANY point, or not listened to at all, as your screen name and icon are attached to your video in the thread. This means you have more of a chance of not.being.heard.at.all. if someone decides that what you have to say isn’t worth listening to based on your behaviors and what you had to say in previous videos. I “knew” this, but I hadn’t processed it until she mentioned it to me. I was already employing that behavior, for example, after listening to a post from someone that I determined was garbage, I would skip anything with their face on it after that.

At this point, I should mention how Seesmic is set up for people to become aware of people’s posts. It’s important to understand this to understand why one-dimensional threading is NOT optimal for an application like this. There’s a “public” timeline that catches everyone’s videos. This is world-wide, but you can set it to only pick up posts in your language. That’s still A LOT of people, and it’s not even open to the public yet. Your next option is a “friends” timeline. You get to choose to “follow” people, and only their videos will show up in this timeline. This is another way you can elect to bypass people whom you’ve determined have nothing valid or intelligent to say… don’t “follow” them. They’ll still show up if you’re looking at a thread that they’ve contributed videos to, but then you resort to visual parsing and skip them as usual.

These abilities to select people to follow and people to “allow to speak” by clicking on their videos and watching them all the way to the end absolutely alters each person’s perception of a thread they arrive to. Seesmic member Otir read a perfect analogy of the situation, telling the story of a bunch of blind people whom were all offered different sections of an elephant to feel and then to give their opinion of what an elephant is like. Each of them had their own perception of “an elephant”, and that perception colored what they had to say about elephants.

First of all, if you’re following certain people, their posts come up in your “friends” timeline. If you click on the member’s icon, you go straight to their opinion. That’s a good thing. However, you’re jumping in in the middle of the thread. You can click “conversation” and see the entire list of posts in that thread. This is where your personal bias comes into play. If you don’t have any respect for the people earlier in the timeline, you might skip their videos entirely, bypassing much of the context of the situation. If there are a whole lot of videos before the person you’re following, you might not be inclined to watch an hour’s worth of posts before you enjoy what you really came here to see… thus, bypassing much of the context of the situation. If you’ve determined that the person you’re following is more credible than others in the thread, you may be inclined to reply along the lines of that personal bias. This is where we get the blind people approaching the elephant from different sides and angles.

Another “problem” with this layout is that what you’re looking at is NOT actually linear other than chronologically. The posts are laid out by the TIME that they were posted to the site, but they are not differentiated by the TANGENT of the thread that that particular post followed. This leads to a circular, “telephone game” situation, because people show up to a thread hours after it started, read something a “friend” of theirs posted, which was dealt with hours ago, and respond to that person’s post without watching all of the surrounding material.

My thread was 90 posts long. Even if each person took only one minute to say what they had to say (and I’ve seen videos that were 5 minutes long, so if there’s a time limit on individual videos, it’s NOT shorter than that), that means that to absorb the entire thread, you’d have to sit there as long as a feature film. People aren’t going to wait that long to reply. As a matter of fact, people started showing up and making NEW threads asking for someone to summarize my thread because they didn’t want to go back and read it all. This is another way that posts get “lost in the sauce”. People show up and want to be involved, but don’t want to put in the work to go back and experience each post.

Another reason it becomes circular is let’s say you have three tangents in a thread. As the original thread participants scramble “left and right” (since it’s all appearing as a one-dimensional timeline) to deal with tangents, 20 posts down the line, someone reads something from a tangent that was already resolved, hits “reply” and now, your 21st post is actually a response to your 5th post. :/ Then, THEIR “friends” see what THEY posted and continue the previously resolved tangent, causing the original thread participants to scramble over there and put out THAT fire… AGAIN. :/ Meanwhile, the thread splinters more and more and is misinterpreted more and more but LOOKS like a single, chronologically-ordered discussion. The snowball rolls further downhill when someone shows up to post #60, which is really only three posts removed from post #5 and doesn’t want to read the rest of the material, so they assume that all 60 posts have been along the same tangent.

Like I said, this only comes into play if you’re trying to have an intelligent conversation. If you’re just socializing via video, you don’t need to worry about tangents and following thoughts and concepts. You just throw up a “me too” post and you’re good… you feel like you’re a part of the conversation, whether people are “following” you or not.

Jan McLaughlin mentioned an addition that I think would work very well in these situations… the ability for the originator to moderate their thread. I suppose the ability to assign mods would be useful as well. A couple of days ago, I left a 32-post thread of mine for a few hours and when I returned, it was around 60. Thinking that there was much interesting material to sift through, I clicked on it, only to realize that two people had started online dating in my thread. :/ Instead of taking their chances in the “public” timeline, the best way to try to get each other’s attention was to click “reply” so that it would show up in their “replies” folder (an alternative timeline to “public” or “friends”. The unfortunate side-effect of this was that as they kept “reply”ing to each other, their posts were being added to my thread.

It would be lovely to have a way to separate irrelevant posts from your thread. It would be lovely to be able to remove videos posted to your thread by people that just showed up to act dumb. Not *delete* them, just remove them from YOUR thread so that new people arriving after the fact wouldn’t bail on your 70-post thread because there are 30 posts worth of online dating inside it that’s completely indistinguishable from on-point conversation in a one-dimensional reverse chronological timeline.

Seesmic’s making tons of improvements, so I’m sure features are coming down the line that will facilitate intelligent conversation, such as GROUPS. The ability to have a discussion only amongst the people that *you* choose would be a major development. There’s no need to block others from reading it. Just stop them from diluting the content and making the originators waste time running around putting out fires. Like I said, they’ve progressed in leaps and bounds in the three months that I’ve been on the service.

Personally, I’m a fan of synchronous interaction, whether we’re talking live video or text chat. Even IRL, I enjoy holding arguments against 5 people at a time. πŸ˜€ The upside of asynchronous conversation is that you only have to make your point ONCE, and everyone hears it and we can all move forward and explore greater depths of the conversation. The downside is that you have to actually BE THERE at the time it’s happening to be a part of it. If you show up hours later, all you can do is watch the archive, if there is one.

The upside of asynchronous conversation is that you can join in on work breaks, when you get out of class, whenever it’s convenient for you, you can add something to an ongoing discussion. The downside is that depending on how much time has elapsed between the beginning of the conversation and your arrival, you might not be willing to put in the work to absorb the entirety of the conversation anyway.

Bill Cammack Ò€’ Cammack Media Group, LLC

Context / Locker-Room Conversation

So, DatingGenius ran into Bookstore-Chick last night… The one that inspired “Take her to the Book Store!” or book-store-technique. She reports that she’s still happily dating Bookstore-Guy, so that’s a good testimonial for the technique! DatingGenius is happy for them. πŸ˜€

As usual, which is why I gave Sorcha her propers for speaking her mind and sharing her opinion… It turns out that Bookstore-Chick *READ* the post, knowing DAMNED WELL that it was entirely about HER… DID *NOT* reply to the thread, positively or negatively, DID *NOT* make any other attempts to contact DatingGenius, probably WOULD NOT HAVE mentioned anything at all, if I had not brought it up, AND asked her if she had read it AND what she thought of it….. πŸ˜€

Not only did she read it, she had Bookstore-Guy read it as well. Same deal. Zero communication. I guess this is why they’re called BOOKSTORE guy and girl and not INTERNET guy and girl! πŸ˜€ Anyway… They’re not the point here…

So Bookstore-Chick shows up all late to the hangout. She also brought her ok-looking female friend with her.

NOTE: From the dim lighting in the spot, and being pretty well alcoholized by the time they showed up, her friend actually qualified as “cute”. However, DO NOT mention this to chicks off the bat. Make sure they know that you think they’re “ok”, or my personal favorite, “alright”.

Yo! You saw that chick? πŸ˜€
Yeah… She’s aiiite. :/

Do NOT let chicks get souped up on themselves off the bat. It’s a HORRIBLE bargaining position, and you’ll be working your way out from under that one for-EV*A*R.

This presented DatingGenius with a problem…. The problem of CONTEXT. Under normal circumstances, by that time of the night, DatingGenius is verbally fighting against 5 or 6 people, siting around a table trying to bash either him as an evil, despicable, dastardly, underhanded individual or bash his theories! >:D This is a progression, however. I don’t walk in the door kicking game. We meet and greet, have some boring fun, then it’s time to get down to the nitty-gritty! πŸ˜€ Bookstore-Chick had already been through this process… Actually, it was HER mentioning all HAPPILY that she was taken on a date to a BOOKSTORE that got the festivities jumping off that evening. With her friend (the “ok” one), I received the double-whammy.

First, when I asked Bookstore-Chick if she had read the post, she turns to her friend and says like three words, and her friend is like “OH… THIS IS THE GUY THAT WROTE THAT?” So I’m like “awwww here we GO!” hahahaha. Second, instead of making it there for meet & greet happy-time social hour, they show up during a heated debate about something like the irrelevance of a chick claiming lesbian status in the grand scheme of whether you’re going to get on or not, so The Kid was in full effect, all gears spinning, battle-mode. So, of course, with this new chick having ZERO IRL context of meeting DatingGenius BEFORE battle-mode, I get into an argument with this chick about bookstore technique.

Usually (and this was no exception), when someone arrives without context to one of my conversations, they make two fundamental errors. 1) They assume that the way I’m talking with the group is how I would tangibly represent myself in a situation of “kickin’ it” with a chick. 2) They assume that what I’m ADVISING for other people is what *I* use, myself. πŸ˜€

I try to let chicks understand that what they’ve been invited to is the proverbial “locker room”, as in “locker room conversation”, meaning the stuff that guys talk about and KEEP CHICKS FROM KNOWING ABOUT. They are receiving the *BENEFIT* of being treated like a guy and welcomed into the inner circle where we discuss IMPORTANT ish! πŸ˜€ Because they now have dual-citizenship of ACTUALLY being females, but being talked to AS IF they were males, in “the locker room”, they misunderstand my locker-room behavior as my kicking-it-to-a-viable-chick behavior. This is where you start hearing stuff like “I can’t believe you said that!” and “I’d NEVER date *YOU*! :(” blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah…..

Think about it like an actual football game. What happens in the locker room? The guys declare that they’re going to go out there and RIP the other team’s HEADS OFF!!! πŸ˜€ ….. Then… What happens when those same two teams EXIT the locker room and get on the field? … That’s right. They SHAKE HANDS! Have you ever seen a boxing-style staredown during the coin toss? Nope! Complete gentlemen. Then, what happens when you try to catch that pass high and away over the middle? CRAAAAAAAAAACK, the middle linebacker smashes you in the ribs! πŸ˜€

“The Game” is exactly the same way. You don’t bring your locker-room style out onto the field. In the locker room, we’re kickin’ INFRASTRUCTURE. It’s the “WHY?” behind what you ACTUALLY do when it’s Game ON! It’s the real deal. It’s not some bullshit Dr. Phil advice like “buy her some flowers” or “be nice to her”. It’s tactics, techniques and the underlying psychology behind WHY those tactics and techniques actually work. Are chick supposed to like it or be happy about it? No. πŸ˜€ They’re SUPPOSED to be mad about it because they don’t want to believe how easily they’re manipulated. It’s like how this stewardess-looking chick was on “The View” as the girlfriend of this so-called “greatest pickup artist” who looks and sounds like he doesn’t even LIKE WOMEN, and she’s talking about “none of his tactics worked on me… that’s what he liked about me! :D” ….. idiot. Look at YOU and Look at HIM. You.Got.Gamed. He schemed on getting you in the locker room, shook your hand and smiled in your face when you met him and then proceeded to SMASH YOU IN YOUR RIBS when you came floating across the middle after that high-and-away pass.

The second contextual issue with people jumping into these conversations all late is that the assumption is made that what I’m ADVISING for other people to do is what I HAVE TO DO, myself.

I don’t have to do *ANYTHING*. It’s a numbers game. There’s a percentage chance that any given chick will be into me off the bat. Even if that percentage is low, when you apply that percentage in a city that LITERALLY has over 1,000,000 (one million) chicks in it, all you have to do is SHOW UP to get on. You don’t even have to SAY anything! πŸ˜€ I’ve had chicks approach me that don’t.even.speak.English, and I’ve had to get people to translate what they were saying to me.

My advice is for people who are having PROBLEMS with getting chicks to do what they want them to do. I’d like to have more advice for the ladies as well, haha but as you can see, they’d rather LURK on internet boards than chime in and ask a brotha a question or three! πŸ˜€ Anyway, there’s no better tactic than “be the best person you can be, looks-wise and personality-wise”. Just by being better than other people, you automatically go to the head of the class and become a target. It’s the same thing that works for chicks. When that stunning girl walks in the room and everybody’s like :O she doesn’t have to SAY or DO anything. It’s a wrap as soon as she shows up. SOMEBODY in that room wants to give her what she wants…..

Bill Cammack
DatingGenius

re: Tricia Wang

re: Tricia Wang’s “Web 2.0 Vigilante”

Interesting points, Tricia.

First of all, I think the “fact” that Ryanne is white (she looks white, so I’ll assume she’s white) is less important here than you make it out to be. “Jim Crow” is about “you are black, so don’t interact with white chicks”. IMO, this situation would have gone the exact same way if the construction workers had all been white. I have no reason to assume that Ryanne would have let white guys slide, so there’s the immediate difference between “Jim Crow” and this situation.

I also have no reason to believe that she KNOWS anything about “black culture” in order to “ignore” it, as you called it. Ignoring it implies an understanding of the differences and then not applying that understanding to your judgement. Having said that, you’re absolutely right that there’s a different dynamic in minority neighborhoods where chicks are “holla’ed at” all day, every day, going to and from work, the store, the gym, wherever. I’m not saying this is a good thing. I agree with you that whatever was being said was probably in some form of social jest, whether positive or negative. As someone pointed out in the comments on the original post, we don’t get to hear what was actually said. We hear Ryanne’s account of what she heard, which was “woof woof” and “hey slim”. Depending on the context, those remarks could be an indication that they thought she was attractive or that they thought she was unattractive. Either way, she felt disrespected, and it’s clear on the tape that she’s affected and upset. I’m sure there are quite a few minority women that get game kicked to them all day, every day that are more sick of it than she is, and would like to do the same thing, if they thought it would do them any good.

The signal of future punishment was clear. Again, I think the construction guys being black isn’t as important as you make it out to be. If she had taped Italians in Bensonhurst, you wouldn’t have written this article at all.

As far as web 2.0 vigilantes, you bring up some good points. I hadn’t heard of gaettongnyeo before today. I think that’s a fine example of retribution getting out of hand. Did the girl deserve to be shamed? Of course. She let the dog “make a mess” on the subway, and then refused to clean it up as if it wasn’t her fault. According to reports, there were “elders” around, who told her to clean it up, and she STILL didn’t (major error #2). So they took her picture and she got embarrassed. That’s good for her. She won’t be pulling stunts like that in the future. πŸ™‚ However… There are at least two problems with the HollaBack technique… well… three, if you count the one you bring up at the end of your post.

Problem #1 is for the harasser, or in this case, the harassers. In the cases where guys do egregious stuff like they outline on the HollaBack sites, they’re getting what they deserve. I think there should definitely be some way that women can make themselves feel more safe or make habitual harassers known to others in the neighborhood so they can be aware. There are other situations where women didn’t like being called “baby” or being looked at from across he boulevard. I’m not sure that all the offenses warrant the same treatment/cagegorization. By posting these guys’ (I can say guys, because I didn’t see any pictures of lesbian harassers on those sites) faces to the net, they’re being seen as ‘guilty’ merely on the say-so of the poster. What happens now if someone’s boss’ wife goes on the site… or if their boss happens to be a woman and goes on the site herself and sees him and the description of whatever it is he’s supposed to have done? What if he gets fired because he tried to meet a chick he thought was attractive in the street, and thought he was kicking it to her in the expected fashion by calling her beautiful or asking if he can walk with her? What happens if this guy’s married and his wife sees what was posted about him and his relationship gets messed up? What happens in a group situation like in Ryanne’s video? What if one or more of the guys in the shot didn’t have jack to do with the harassment, but there they are on tape with everyone else? What happens if the boss sees this and decides to sanction everyone there, since there’s no telling who said what? You might be saying “So what? If extra stuff happens to them, that’s what they get for harassing!”… Well… “So what?” is Problem #2.

Problem #2 is for the woman taking the picture. What if the guy you take a picture of is on parole and wasn’t supposed to leave VA, but you take a picture of him in NYC? What if the guy doesn’t want his wife to see him on the net… or his boss to see him on the net? What if the guy just plain doesn’t like the fact that you took a picture of him and decides to do something about it?

Problem #3 is what Tricia states towards the end:

Sites like hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/ are passive in the documentation and function to empower the woman who posts a picture of her cat caller. The cat caller is never truly confronted for his behavior, therefore it’s not really effective in preventing harassment as there is no true confrontation.

This is true. The cat caller isn’t confronted at all. From the women’s own reports, most of the time there’s some yelling, or maybe someone gives someone the finger. Other than that, nothing happens. Sometimes, they say to the harasser that they’re going to put him on the net. Some of the pictures are from very far away or the back of some guy’s head or a picture of his car that’s parked somewhere… The sites are more for venting than anything else, and that’s very useful for women who don’t want to feel like they’re the only ones stuff like this happens to. The reason this is a problem is that the end may not justify the means if the taking of the picture makes a bad situation much worse than it originally was for the picture-taker. It certainly doesn’t justify the means if the camera’s confiscated by the harasser.

Anyway… Everybody knows women are going to be shouted at as they’re passing construction sites. It’s a pastime as much as having a beer or watching sports. That doesn’t mean Ryanne has to accept that for herself. The guys in the video, black, white, whatever, are not hanging out on crates in front of a closed storefront. They are working. This means they have a supervisor, and that supervisor has a supervisor and that supervisor has a supervisor. Somewhere along the line, there’s someone with the ability to impose sanctions on those guys for “misrepresenting” the construction company… even if the owner is the most sexist guy out of all of them. πŸ™‚ I think the workers have more of a responsibility to know that they could get in trouble for yelling either compliments or insults at a woman walking by the site more than Ryanne has a responsibility to understand minorities’ different style of being friendly or socializing.

HollaBack Girls

So I’m browsing the blip videos, and I see this one called “I holla’ed back”. Having no idea what that meant, I figured it referenced the popular song about Hollaback Girls. πŸ˜€ The whole point of that record was saying that she WASN’T a Hollaback Girl, so I was curious to know why the title of this video indicated that this person DID “holla back”. I won’t spoil the plot of the video… You can go watch it if you’re interested by clicking this link to the original post. I didn’t watch it from the post, I watched it from blip.tv, but you get the actual context in the post. Anyway… I didn’t see any of that background information when I watched the video. I went to her blog to check out the comments, and that’s where I found out what she was talking about in her title.

There’s a network of sites called “HollaBack…..”:

All Holla Backs are independent collectives, in support of the same international mission; they are in no way affiliated with one another unless otherwise noted.

The site that referenced the “I holla’ed back” video was HollaBackBOSTON. When I followed the link, I realized that she had taken the idea of the site to the next level, hahaha πŸ˜€ The idea of HollaBack sites is for women who feel they were harassed to be able to tell their friends and the world about it. Some of them bolster their complaints with snapshots from their cell-phone cameras. This was the next level, because this was an actual LIVE VIDEO of someone going back and confronting her harassers.

It’s really pretty interesting to read what these women have to say about their daily experiences. HollaBackBOSTON has archives going back to May 2006 (6 months). The video was taped in SF, so I figured it was sent to Boston because there was only one site like this. I was thinking… MAN! They could write about this for DAYS in NYC… That’s when I started looking for links and found the list of the rest of these sites, including HollaBackNEWYORKCITY! πŸ˜€ New York’s archives go back to October, 2005! πŸ™‚

This was interesting for a few reasons. One of them was that as I was heading back home from Art Bar a few nights ago, after one train completely ditched us at the platform and never stopped… I was in the middle of a subway car that had some overly-drunk guy on one end of it with a couple of guys and a girl with him, trying to keep him quiet and get him to sit down, and a couple of women sitting together at the other end of the car. This guy kept yelling drunk stuff at them, and he was really pretty belligerent. The women acted like they couldn’t hear him. As they were getting off the train, he screams at them “GOOD NIGHT, LADIES!!!” as if he had just been kicking it with them, hahahaha πŸ˜• Obviously, I had my camera on me, but it TOTALLY didn’t occur to me to tape him running his mouth, because A) I didn’t give a damn, and B) I didn’t find it interesting and couldn’t figure out who MIGHT think it was interesting. Now I know… hahahaha πŸ˜€

The other reason it was interesting was that I felt like this girl on the subway took a picture of me with her phone. πŸ™‚ I really didn’t think anything about it, because there are always Paparazzi… “those damned Paparazzi! :D” This is New York City, tourists and cameras all over the place. There’s always someone trying to take a picture of someone else.

Anyway, I find this stuff entertaining, because it’s the kind of thing that women never bring up in front of guys… they only tell other women. It’s interesting to see their perception of random guys trying to get sex from them, having just seen them for the first time in life a few seconds ago, or staring at their bodies or hissing at them or committing egregious indecent exposure or worse. I’m sure that from most of the guys’ sides of things, if they mentioned the situation at all, all they had to say was “Yo… there was this fine [chick] at the bus stop… MAN! You should have seeeeeen her ass! :D” and that was the end of the entire conversation.

Mexico City

Wasted Days…

I know where I should be, but I’m not there. I know where I want to be. I want to be in several places at the same time. I want to stay here and be there. Focus. Attention divided. As of yesterday, she’s in Mexico… Mexico City, to be exact. I don’t want to be in Mexico, but I do.

I wasn’t invited to Mexico, hahaha I wasn’t even THINKING about Mexico until I received her communication last night. Now I can’t stop thinking about Mexico. I see buildings that I’m not sure are there. I don’t even know what Mexico City looks like. I keep imagining that Denzel Washington movie where he’s avenging the kidnapped little girl. I’m suspicious of the people on the street that I’ve never seen with my own eyes, but I know she can take care of herself. I’d expect to see THEM in the hospital before HER! πŸ˜€

Meanwhile, I attempt to minimize posessions. Physical posessions, not relationship posessions. The more stuff you have, the more you’re bogged down. The more stuff you have, the lower the percentage becomes of that stuff you actually use. Perceived Necessity needs to become Efficient Reality. The less stuff I have, the faster I can move. The faster I can move, the more places I can be practically at the same time. The less stuff I have, the fewer places for my keys to hide.

I’m not going to make it to Mexico….. Even if I did, she’d be gone by then. Even if I did, I have no way of contacting her where she is. I’d be rolling the dice, taking my chances that I’d walk down the right street at the right time, and she’d recognize me out of context instead of saying “That Mexican guy over there looks just like Bill”. If I had the time, money and desire, I’d do it… just to see what happens… just to walk down random streets wondering if fate, destiny, chance, luck or good fortune would place me where I want to be… Just to see her reaction [or lack thereof! hahaha]. Just to FEEL my own reaction… being there… instead of here.

“There” changes. Mexico City’s only good to me because she’s in it. That’s not really fair, because I don’t know anything about Mexico City, but the point is that when she leaves, she takes my fascination with her.

Videoblogging Careers

Response to Penelope Trunk’s article on videoblogging as a career.

Penelope: I understand your point about your blog being about careers. As someone who was pointed to this page directly, having zero context for your statements, I read the title literally: “Thinking of video blogging? You should probably forget it.” and that’s what I responded to.

Had the title been “Thinking of video blogging _as_a_career_? You should probably forget it.”, I would have agreed with you along the “don’t quit your day job” lines. πŸ™‚ One of the most technically well-done videoblogs/shows that I’ve seen is Galacticast, and Rudy still has a day job. I can only think of two situations where an independent production company created a videoblog and got picked up and funded to the point that they can call that their career. I’m sure there are probably a couple more, but I’m not aware of them.

In the context of a career, the ‘problem’ with videoblogging is convincing someone that their money is well spent funding YOUR collection of videos on the internet. To do that, you would have to convince them that you had X viewership, and that the ROI is there from your viewers to justify them sponsoring you. I don’t think there’s enough data yet for anyone to speculate on which videoblogs are going to be financially viable. It’s all a gamble.

For instance, television is based on advertising. So many people own televisions. So many people subscribe to cable. So many people are known to watch X television show. Stations can use this to sell advertising space during their 30-minute or 60-minute shows to companies attempting to sell to the demographic that watches their show. That’s what the advertisers pay for. They pay to get their product in front of X eyes every Tuesday night @ 9pm.

Without concrete ideas about potential ROI, there’s no incentive for anyone to fund a videoblog, so the concept of videoblogging as a career is currently a longshot.

… currently πŸ˜€

Context

hmm…

Having just watched Beach Walk #192 again, I realize now that the audio skipped the first time I listened to it. I mean, I knew the audio was skipping (probably because of something taking processor cycles on my computer), but I didn’t figure I missed any of the point of Rox’s videoblog. I missed two words. I missed “with” and I missed “us”.

The difference that it makes is that it transforms the sentence “get something going” into “get something going with us“. πŸ™‚ The rest of the conversation in the blog was left vague, intentionally, so Rox could make her point without spilling any of her beans, so I carried my context with me as I watched the video.

My comments are the same, except I see the question more as a business issue, involving whomever “us” is, rather than a relationship issue.

I think context is important, and especially tough to decipher over the internet. There’s not a lot you can do other than TYPE LARGE and “use quotes” and smileys πŸ™‚ :/ πŸ™ to attempt to ‘flavor’ your conversation. People can take what they THOUGHT a communication was about and run with it, to the point of building complex scenarios on top of something that never existed in the first place. I mean… you sign off of AIM thinking you typed “I love you” to a chick, but you actually typed “I lose you”, and she goes around crying to anyone that will listen about how you’re dumping her! πŸ˜€ That is… until you call her on the phone later on, wondering if you can see her and she has a fit until she calms down enough to tell you what you did wrong to her and everyone finds out there was a one-letter misunderstanding.

I think people should strive to get to know each other so context becomes less of a factor because they have a good understanding of the other person’s way of being towards them.

The more you know…..