Bill Cammack

Oh, Thank GOD for the future!!!!!! :D

It’s about to be ON and POPPIN!!! :D

According to MSNBC’s Article, a male birth control pill may be right around the corner! :D BOO-YAH! :D

Why is this a big deal? Because we all know that regardless of death and destruction, people STILL, to this day, in 2008 AD, don’t like to use condoms. I’m not just talking about the fellaz… It’s the chicks too. That’s a whole post by itself, but basically… By the time a chick’s throwin’ it at you, she thinks you’re special. This is because they like to add all this extra relationship stuff on top of the sex. So, while all YOU were thinking is “She’s hawt… She could get it”, she’s put a lot more thought into it, including feeling like you’re “clean” and that she wouldn’t mind having kids with you. This isn’t necessarily right off the bat, but if you tap it proppah one time for the people, be on the lookout for the relaxation of the condom requirements.

Anyway…

More importantly, condoms are “only” something like 97% effective. I know that seems like a high percentage, but you have to consider that number realistically, and not statistically. It’s not that every time you put on a condom, there’s only a 3% chance that it’s not going to hook you up. It’s that out of 100 times, 3 DUDES are DEFINITELY going to catch a bad one! :D The obvious problem with that is that if you have a steady chick and you hit it only once a week (?????) you TTL is 2 years, if you’re lucky. Basically, hit it 100 times, and you have 3 chances to end up with a kid.

This is because the numbers aren’t based on the failure of the material… It’s based on HUMAN ERROR. I figure the main error is not putting it on properly in the first place, so that you find out it rolled off during the act, hahahahaha = baby. The second error is not leaving space at the top. This means that all the way up until “the end”, the condom’s perfectly intact. When you do your thing, however, too much pressure is built up, and it breaks right where you need it NOT to break! hahahahaha = baby. So it’s not that out of every 100 condoms you buy, that three of them don’t work. It’s that in every 100 applications, there’s the prospect of incorrect application, et voila. :D

So anyway… This ultimately traumatic situation is about to be a thing of the past! :D With a male birth control pill, the intelligent guy will FINALLY be in control of his destiny! :D

We’re about to experience many conversations like this:

Her: I think I’m pregnant
Him: I think you’re…….. NOT! :D
Her: Remember a couple of weeks ago, when we XYZ?
Him: Barely… So what?
Her: I felt myself get pregnant
Him: Oh yeah? :/
Her: Yeah, so I took this test, and it’s positive. I’m pregnant.
Him: ……
Her: So I was thinking we should get married, and
Him: *PSYCH*!!! :D
Her: …
Him: I’ve been taking THESE! :D [producing male birth control pills]
Her: …
Him: Uh huh. So… You’d Betta Ca-Hall TyRone!!! (Call Him!)
Her: …
Him: Say… I know a producer on “Maury”. I could get you on next month.

Ahhhhhhhh, YES! :D FREEDOM!!! :D

Not that I give a damn how it works, IF it works, but if YOU want to read up on it, check out http://health.howstuffworks.com/male-bc-pill.htm.

There are lots of guys that have already dealt with this issue by getting vasectomies. I think a pill is a much better idea, as long as the effects aren’t neutralized by the consumption of vast amounts of alcohol. As long as you remember to take it, you’re cool. However, if you happen to meet a genetically superior chick that you actually want to have kids with, you can stop taking it and I assume your production returns to normal, eventually, hahaha.

This will be great for those guys that get into situations where they’re living with a chick or married to her or whatever, and according to her, there’s no reason for him to still be using condoms. The way she sees it, since they’re in a committed relationship, they don’t need it. This is especially true if she’s on the pill. However, there are chicks that forget to take the pill and chicks that “forget” to take the pill, so this is STILL a traumatic experience for the thinking man that isn’t interested in “starting a family” yet (or ever)(or with this particular chick)(or that already has enough kids for his liking)(or thinks this chick is crazy, so he’s not trying to have any genetically-crazy kids).

Yes, Yes! :D If they’re smart, the male birth control pill will cost a gazillion dollars, because it’ll be worth it for the peace of mind that it brings. :) A friend of mine, literally, EVERY SINGLE MONTH would tell me he was ‘afraid’ that his chick was pregnant. EVERY Month! :D The problem with this is that, basically, chicks can get pregnant on the opposite side of the month from when they miss their periods. So if you THINK you got her pregnant, either you’re a fool and you don’t have your girl’s period timed… or you know you spilled right around ovulation and you have a good 15 days to sweat about potentially being BROKE for the next 18 years.

So, the smart guy will avoid this when male birth control finally arrives on the shelves. It’s a brand new day, gentlemen! Thank God for technology! :D

DatingGenius

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. :D

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….. :D

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! :D 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? :D
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! :D 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. :D

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! :D 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!!! :D ….. 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! :D

“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. :D 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! :D 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! :D 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

Rick writes: (in response to Pretty Girls – Too Unapproachable?)

I don’t think you see a lot of that where I live in Los Angeles. There are a lot of attractive people here… maybe that’s why. Sadly that also means a lot of superficiality. Hence, rarely a 3rd or 4th date. Looks are important, don’t get me wrong, but substance makes a relationship.

You may be right about that, Rick.

I don’t know anything about LA, but I’ve heard it’s the toughest scene in the USA! :D A female friend of mine was out there for ~ 9 months and never got a date… Well… Then again, she’s not PRIME, hahaha so I really wouldn’t have expected people to choose her over the model-type waitress/acress chicks in LA. :)

Anyway, yes… In an environment where there are a lot of attractive people, it’s a completely different dynamic. It really doesn’t matter which one you hook up with, because they’re all hot. Now… Ease on down the road to Middle America and the “hot percentage” takes an incredible dive. :O If you don’t pull one of the few attractive girls in your small town, you may as well move! :D

I also agree with the massive attractiveness being a cause of superficiality…. for the guys as well as the girls. When you know you can pick up another chick the next time you walk out in the street, there’s no need to keep one chick or date her over and over. There’s also no reason to keep going out with her if she seems like she doesn’t want to have sex with you because it’s faster to meet a different chick that actually wants to get with you than it is to change the current girl’s mind about getting with the program.

From the females’ point of view, there are so many guys throwing goods and services at them that there’s no need to settle on ONE, unless she’s sure that this is the guy she wants to spend a lot of time with. They used to have a dating show on, and I forget the name of it, something like “Single in New York”, where they followed these girls on date after date on the same day. One time, the cameras caught when one of them got out of a car, being dropped off late by one date, and when she hit the street, her other date was standing there waiting for her, hahaha. She had to hustle upstairs, change, freshen up and go out with the next guy, ASAP.

Also, people seem to go to Los Angeles to “make it big”. I’m sure it becomes in image thing as far as whom you’re dating. Guys in that situation have no choice but to hit on the hottest girls they could find in order to increase or maintain their prestige. No time for the hot girls to get lonely in THAT environment! :D

DatingGenius

A reader sent in a question regarding guys getting money from girls for sex in the same way that girls get money from guys for sex……

————-

The thing about being a ho… male or female… is that you have to understand what you’re going to get and what you’re not going to get. You can get people to spend their time with you and spend their money on you, but you’re not going to be respected AT.ALL.

People that are for sale are worth the amount of money that they’re selling for. Not only that… They’re not selling anything different from the next ho, so there’s no loyalty involved or care or love or anything like that. If hoes are in it for the business, then fine, it works for them. If they’re in it thinking they’re having real relationships, they’re going to be in for a rude awakening when they get replaced by a better or cheaper ho. :)

Having said that…

In order for a male ho (called a gigolo) to match the abilities of a female ho (called a ho), you’d have to associate with women on the monetary level of the men that the hoes are dealing with. You can’t “get pizaid” off of a chick that’s working fries in the fast food establishment. It doesn’t work the same way with girls that it does with guys. A GUY could work fries ’till payday, cash his check and blow his entire savings on one night with a girl then eat cereal with water for the next two weeks, with beans for dinner. :/ Girls have things to do with their money… such as SHOP and EAT. A guy can only count on getting A PERCENTAGE of a girl’s money, while the girl can count on getting ALL of a guy’s money. :D Therefore, you have to associate with VERY well-off women if you want to score the perks that females score off of even minimum-wage-earning male ‘tricks’ (guys that pay for sex).

In general, it’s very tough for guys to get paid for having sex with girls. This is why you see so many brothels containing women for sale to men, and you don’t see ANY brothels containing men for sale to women. NONE! I think they tried it a couple of times in Amsterdam or something, but they went bankrupt. :D

The other problem is that women are actually into personalities, while men are into bodies. You’ll notice that men have Playboy Magazine and women have Harlequin Romances. You can’t REALLY be a player without having MANY skills to bring to the table. If you’re attractive and stupid, you can’t win. If you’re unattractive and smart, you can’t win! :D Meanwhile, the girls just have to look good, and they’ll have guys falling all over themselves to take them out and buy them stuff in the hopes of getting on.

What should you have done differently? ….. Hang out @ the country club instead of the mall. :D

DatingGenius

In response to The Lab Episode 01: Swingers, Randolfe wrote:

It was well edited and entertaining.

Thank you. :)

Ultimately, I think you fell into the trap of allowing the film to pull you down to it’s (their) level.

This statement assumes a couple of things. A) It assumes that I’m not “down to their level” already. B) It assumes that whatever I say in a video has anything to do with my actual personality. C) It assumes that “their level” is below someone else’s level. I see why you feel that way based on your statements below.

“IF” I were fifty years younger and female in gender (‘if’ is a famously BIG word), I don’t think I’d be interested in getting to know you better and/or dating you.

This is an interesting statement because I realized after I read this line that in all of my calculations about set design and show concept and DVD selection and graphics and music and decisions on commentary and editing….. that I gave *ZERO* thought to A) whether females would watch my show or not, B) whether they’d want to date me, or C) whether anything I said might increase or decrease my chances of getting a rap.

The reason I can’t be concerned with that is that it’s tough enough to get topics that I want to talk about and make it all happen without adding in the filter of “I can’t use this clip or say this or that because some chick might not want to hook up with me”. :D

I agree with you that if my goal were to present myself as a candidate for marriage, talking about not only manipulating women, but in fact manipulating guys into having abilities beyond their natural capacity to “pull chicks” would be just about THE LAST thing I’d want to do. :D

As a matter of fact, if you watch the video again, you’ll notice that I call guys out for their bullshitting, lying behavior. They don’t ACTUALLY own yachts and expensive apartments. They just SAY they do because that’s what they think women want to hear in order to give them some. They’re hoping they can hit it before she figures out that they don’t have any of that stuff. That’s why Mikey got caught in a lie. Instead of just coming at her straight up, that he liked how she looked and wanted whatever he wanted from her, he went the typical route and tried to talk himself up and got busted. The problem with that technique is that so many guys use it that it’s effectiveness is diluted. You may as well walk up to her and say “I’m about to lie to you so I can try to get laid”. :)

Anyway… Having thought about what you said, and appreciating your comments, for sure… I STILL can’t be concerned with whether some chick wants to hook up with me or not because she doesn’t like something I said in a video. hehehe Something about that just makes me laugh. :D

Actually… Your suggestion that I tailor what I say on the show to present myself in the best light as a suitor is merely a different technique of manipulation. That would be as bad, ethically, as the behavior I just finished discussing. :)

This “game” single males (of all orientations) play demeans the really important dynamic in sexual-social relationships by reducing them to the level of a sport like fox-hunting and/or archery practice.

Yes. You are right about that. However, that doesn’t make “the game” any less of a reality for very many guys. Some guys chase chicks just for sport… just because they can. Other guys try to develop skills because they CAN’T pick up girls to save their lives. It’s because of Mikey’s lack of confidence in himself that he decides to lie about his job and what he owns and what he plans to buy. It’s because he doesn’t believe this girl will like him for who he actually is. For some guys, having some sort of tactics are just plain necessary, or they’ll never get on in their entire lives.

I had a parting of ways with a friend of mine over just this very issue. For some odd reason, he wasn’t getting any interest from girls that he liked. I mean, he was really in a bad way about it. Once he started learning how “the game” works, his first reaction was JOY that now, he could pull girls that used to NOT give him the time of day. Eventually, he rejected “the game” for the very reasons you mention. What he wanted was a girl that he liked that also liked him. You can’t get that by lying to her, because she likes who it is that you told her you are, and she doesn’t know a damned thing about YOU at all. She likes what you told her… It’s not that she likes YOU. What he learned for himself was that he was better off going the honest route and throwing his hat in the ring, win or lose, without manipulating the ladies into giving him what he wants. Unfortunately, once he “converted”, I represented the dark side of the force to him, so we didn’t hang out after that. I respect his decision and wish him all the best.. but that path doesn’t work for everyone.

I agree with you though that “the game” has a desensitizing effect on guys. Women become expendable when you can get another one five minutes from now or by turning the next corner. The more effective you get in “the game”, the less each individual “success” matters at all. It’s merely repetition and reinforcement that the same stimulus creates the same response in many different women. *YAWN* For guys that can get on without gaming chicks, I recommend that you don’t get involved in the sport of it all.

You’re a bright perceptive guy. Focus on more serious and deeper stuff. Leave films like this one to the loners and losers who inevitably end up living them :-).

Thanks. :) However, you’re projecting _your_ value system onto *me*. I’m sure there are serious as well as deep topics that I’ll get into eventually… however… hahahaha it’s NOT going to be in Episode 02! :D If you disliked Episode 01, you’re going to HATE Episode 02! hahahaha

Please take all this as a compliment not as criticism.

I appreciate your comments as well as your being up front about how you felt about the episode instead of just saying something generically nice. I really hadn’t noticed that I honestly didn’t consider AT ALL what chicks might think about my “Swingers” commentary. I’m glad about not caring about that, but I can’t take all the credit for it. Not that I would ever compare a single-episode-show to Rocketboom, but look at the statistics. They had something like 8% of their viewers as females. There’s a low percentage of females in the Yahoo Videoblogging Group. Even out of the females that are apparent, the vast majority of them are in some form of relationship or are for whatever reasons completely undateable. From Friday to right now, approximately 48 hours, I have a reported total from blip.tv of 116 views. Even if all of those were unique visitors (which they aren’t), there are two chances that one of them would be a “dateable” female… SLIM… and NONE…..

….. and Slim left town! hahahahaha :D

I thought the ending credits were the best part :-).

Again, thanks. After all I went through to get Episode 01 “in the can” and then back out of the can, I had to give myself proper credit for doing EVERYTHING. It’s out of my system now, and I’ll be using “regular” credits from now on. :D

Thanks for the note, Randolfe. :)

A lot of people video blog just because they feel like it. What IS a video blog? or a videoblog or a vlog or…. don’t ask! :D There are as many definitions for a video blog as there are _names_ for video blogs. Some people consider any video that’s placed on the internet eligible for the title “video blog”. Most simply, Steve Garfield would say “A video blog is video on a blog”. :D So expand your idea of what a blog is to include a video… ANY video, and there you have it.

Does that make someone that has a blog with videos on it a videoblogger? Again, don’t ask! There’s the issue of what kind of videos are on the blog. Is it video of kids falling off of skateboards? A cat playing with a ball of string? A scripted, weekly comedy show? Citizen journalism from the streets? Someone sitting alone in their room talking to their iSight as if it were a real person they were having a conversation with? Is it made by individuals? Is it made by companies that were formed and funded with the sole object of delivering video content on the internet? is it made by a television studio as an afterthought or addition to their actual television shows? Do all of those count equally as “video blogs”, assuming they meet the base qualification of being “video on a blog”?

What about production values? Does the audio have to be good? Does the video have to be steady? Does the editing (if there is any) have to be decent? Does the video have to show something about you or your environment? Does it have to mean something to anyone? Who’s watching it? Friends? Family? People you don’t know that live in other cities, states or countries? What’s your responsibility to your viewers? Do you make videos with the viewer in mind or only yourself, and if they don’t want to watch, they can “change the channel” by clicking on a different link?

See what I mean? :) Don’t ask. Let’s just assume that there’s something called a video blog, and lets assume that it’s “video on a blog” like Steve said.

Now, lets assume that someone has this video blog and they want to make some money from it. They have a few options. They could get sponsored by some group, in which case they are paid to put their show on regardless of how many views/hits/clicks/whatever they get. They could sell advertising themselves and include the ad in their actual video. They could have advertising on their web page and not on the video at all. They could place their video on a hosting site that features revenue-sharing.

If you post video to a revenue-sharing host, the basic deal is that the host makes arrangements with advertisers to pay them to place ads on their site or on their videos. The “sharing” part comes in when the host offers content creators (the people actually uploading the videos) a percentage of the money that the host gets from the advertisers which happened to be generated by a video that that creator uploaded. There are wikis on the technical aspects of this, including “cost per impression” (cpi), “cost per action” (cpa) and “cost per click” (cpc). You might get paid if the advertiser’s ad is seen. You might only get paid if the ad is clicked on by whomever views your video. You _might_ only get paid if someone clicks through AND buys something from the advertiser. Even then, “getting paid” depends on you getting enough credits to get over a certain amount of currency, say $20, because it doesn’t make sense for companies to send out individual checks for 15 cents each to thousands of people.

Once you’ve decided on a host, you need to decide (assuming you GET to decide) how ads are run on your videos. There are several options for this, the basic ones being pre-roll, post-roll and mid-roll.

Pre-roll means that the advertisement comes on before your video plays. You will hope that this video is really short, because people are going to tune out if they decide they aren’t willing to wait through advertisements they didn’t ask to see when they clicked on your video. Then again, that might not matter if you get paid just for showing their ad. Since it’s in the front of the video, the viewer already saw it, so you get paid, right? Well… maybe. It depends on what the host considers a “view”. If “view” means that someone started your video, then you’re good. If “view” means someone COMPLETED your video, and they tuned out because of your pre-roll ad, you lose. :)

Post-roll means the ad comes on after your video has played all the way through. The risk there is that the viewer won’t watch all the way through. Once they get to the end, either you get paid when the ad shows up, or you get paid if they click through or you get paid if they click through and buy something.

Mid-roll means the advertisement comes on while your video is still playing. Mid-roll can be absolutely ridiculous, depending on how it’s implemented. I saw a mid-roll ad that took up the whole screen of the video AND replaced the audio like a regular commercial that comes on television. When the ad came back, the video had been running the whole time, and whatever was said during the time was completely lost. It happened to be on an interview show where the accomplishements of the interviewee were being listed. That kind of mid-roll doesn’t work, because they just throw the ad in anywhere. If you don’t care about your content, however, it doesn’t matter. If you weren’t telling a story anyway, and it doesn’t matter to you when sections of your piece are obscured, then it’s fine. As an editor, I can tell you that A LOT OF ATTENTION is paid to where we go to commercial, how many times we go to commercial, how we go to commercial and how we come back to the program from commercial. Throwing up full-video-sized advertisements just anywhere is completely horrible and ruins immersion.

There are other forms of advertising while your video’s being played. There might be visual advertisements that don’t take up the whole screen and don’t obscure audio at all. There might be ads that don’t run on your video but next to your video the whole time it’s playing. These ads might be animated or change every few seconds. I find these types of ads REALLY annoying, because the motion pulls your eye from the video content and ruins immersion. Once again, this choice is good for people that don’t really care if someone’s watching their video or not. If they’re using the video to get your eyes on their advertisements… mission accomplished.

Personally, I’m a sponsorship fan. There’s too much business involved with monetizing video for it to be worth ANY of my time to deal with it. The more time you spend trying to advertise your videos, the less time you spend MAKING those videos. :) I’d rather leave it to the hosting site, set it and forget it. Also, unless you know A LOT of kids that fall off of A LOT of skateboards, you’re not going to be creating consistent viral video…. well… unless you’re one of these video thieves that steal other people’s content and re-post it… but that’s another issue entirely.

Bill Cammack | New York City | Freelance Video Editor | alum.mit.edu/www/billcammack