Have you ever emailed Gary Vaynerchuk? We exchange a fair amount of emails and every time I email him, I get this auto-responder back:
Hey, here’s a link that will explain everything!
It turns out that link has never explained anything and I asked him to remove me from his diss-list, but I just kept getting them.
So back in June, I decided to take matters into my own hands to resolve the issue and came up with a method that works quite nicely. So I thought would share my experiences here with others who may suffer from the same problem.
For a good way to manage your email with Gary V., just create a filter in your mail program to let Gary know how you would feel about seeing his auto emails (I say “would” as in past-tense because soon you wont be seeing them any more).
Below, you can see I have used Apple Mail to set up a complex filter that engages in a series of consecutive causal events. First and foremost the email must be clearly distinguished from other emails that may cary the same identity. I immediately noticed a pattern in the subject line: “Thanks for the email click the link”.
Once the offensive, cold and brute email was identified, I called up another action to get the email immediately into the trash before considering another step. If all else fails, at least I have the peace of mind to know that the terrible and brash circumstance is now over.
While most people would probably not prefer this next step, I chose to hear the sound of a blow, just so I know.
Then I set up my mail filter to return an email back to Gary which I consider to be somewhat of a good samaritan type of measure so that Gary can truely understand the significance of his email auto-responder.
Kenyatta on the other hand has gone totally nuts:
Gary, if you’re watching this…. from yatta on Vimeo.
Gary’s Out Of Office Reply from Rex Sorgatz on Vimeo.
Yo Gary V, if you’re watching this video…from Drew O.
In giving an overview of festivities last week at the San Diego Comic-con, Joshua Cohen over at Tilzy.TV pointed out the good news that Dr. Horrible has scheduled a sequel. Still trying to get to the bottom of the history of the people behind this (I’m kinda out of the loop here because this is coming out of a Hollywood traditon), I’ve found most people know Josh Whedon of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I saw this once before and have to say it was really cheesy but I think that’s why people like it so much?
Anyway, even without knowing all of this, the other day I sent out a tweet asking people to tweet me back with their favorite new shows and several people responded with Dr. Horrible. I went right over to check it out and it was REALLY AWESOME, a rare gem in the ruff.
After just 5 seconds including the introduction, and by the time I saw the main character laughing, it was clear that this group was on to something that would really work and I think it did.
When I was reading Josh’s Tilzy.TV post, I found he articulated an historical moment:
“Marshall Herskovitz’s Quaterlife was supposed to be the internet’s first blockbuster, but then people watched the show and things didn’t exactly go as planned. Now, thanks to Whedon’s talent, connections, financial resources, and obsessive fan base, it looks like Dr. Horrible will claim the title. Those same attributes will also lead to more hits from Whedon and inspire Old Hollywood elites in similar positions to give the web a serious look.”
(*noticing also that Techcrunch is reporting today that Dr. Horrible is the first group on Hulu to allow international embeds. Ive written several times before about how much it hurts everyone to be so nationalistic).
I found a story on Webpronews today about a couple of sites that are being sued for copyright infringement by way of embedding. Just like we all expect free air to breathe, we take it as a fundamental right of the web, based on the technical definition of what the web is, to be able to use the technology to create links. Embedding is the same as linking. If I provide a link to illegal content, like an awesome Beatles song that anyone can listen to for free right here, its up to the host server at the link’s destination to remove that content (in this case, YouTube), not mine. I am not hosting it. Im just pointing to it. If they remove it, it will render my link instantly useless. The same goes for embedding. The moment YouTube removes the video, this embed will become empty:
Look ma, a new report is circulating which suggests there is good money to be made in online video. The conclusion is that CPM’s for video are high. For the noobs, CPM means cost per thousand – how much money an advertiser pays for every 1000 views, for instance. According to the report the average $’s range from $40 per thousand on pro long-form content, to $20 for short-form pro content, down to $17 for UGC.
Thus, if you have a million views per week, and sell ads for a $20CPM, for instance, that’s $20k per week and about $1,000,000 per year.
If you can then grow your audience size to 2M per week, without a lot of additional resources, thats obviously twice as much, or $2M/year for that one set of views.
These CPM’s are similar to what is sold on TV in the U.S. A $25 CPM for a TV show is okay. The only problem of course is the amount of money it takes to produce a TV show cuts into the profit margins when compared.
The original epiphany that I had personally when I thought of Rocketboom, was exactly this simple formula. If TV shows are getting a CPM worth $25 then a lot of online video will be greater than $25 because the advertising can be targeted, searched, tracked and played on demand.
A production that costs almost nothing to make, reaching hundreds of thousands or millions of people can thus lead to a massive profit margin. Accordingly, TV Week refers to web tv as a silver lining.
Venturebeat has the scoop.
Why do Video networks fail again? My original post on Podtech from almost exactly a year ago on why it didnt seem as though Podtech would be making it:
In short, they first came out of the stables thinking that building a studio ad network would be a no brainer and spent over $7M building out shows and an ad sales department. Not only were they too soon and up against too much compeition on the ad sales side, they didnt have anyone in the network who could identify what good content was.
Remember when it used to cost $25,000 for a 3-5 page html website for your business? And now it costs about $25? The same thing is happening in video editing.
Even as recently as five years ago, most people without extraordinary resources or time could not be involved in video due to the expensive processing speeds, software and other hardware required to get started. Of course that’s all changed and the barrier to entry is really low.
After editing almost all of the first year of Rocketboom myself, I knew that editing was the first creative job I had to get out of. For me personally, it wasn’t what I was meant to do. I still do do it from time to time but it takes me a really long time and it’s pretty draining. I still use iMovie when I can. [Aside: Blush]
One thing that is important to know about creative artists is that the time they spend “on” or in creative mode, can easily lead to twice the exhaustion of most other work which is typically linear and not “mentally intense”. Editing is a very creative job and requires allot of focus for a long period of time, especially due to the complexity of options and the amount of steps it takes to try an option at every moment.
What I immediately found a few years ago was that most editors who were fast with Final Cut and had a few years of work experience were asking $250/hour but would settle for $150/hour because they were “inbetween gigs”. This is really another world and we’ve never been able to pay those rates. I knew it would take most editors 3 to 4 hours at least, that would be over $1000 a day, sometimes $2000 or more on complicated episodes.
After working with over literally dozens of editors now, having tried to work with dozens more, it’s extremely difficult to find a creative editor. Pretty much anyone can do the edit, but not very many people can be really creative.
Nevertheless, there are so many people now that edit because it’s accessible to have an editing system (i.e. a laptop and final cut pro) that the drop in pay for editors has gone way done. Way down. Editors are still out there charging $250/hr but they are competing with editors who will work for $25/hr [NY/LA]
This is bitter and sweet. Of course it really sucks for the professional editors who have spent their lifetimes editing because their value has gone down. While some pro editors enjoy earnings well beyond any figures I’ve mentioned here, there are only just a few of them in work.
On the other hand it’s sweet because this means that more people have access to the medium to utilize it for all kinds of positive purposes and essentially there are more people working with video in the world.
So being a master at Final Cut Pro is allot like being a master at programming in HTML. That’s really great that you can do it, but not all that outstanding or rare. The editors who are the most creative and always pushing the boundaries may earn the highest value.
With regards to video startups, opportunities for editors to become a part of the company are becoming more and more common where the incentive is based more on stock options than actual project royalties or work-for-hire fees only.
Interesting consequences of a growing and changing new media work force.
That is, more blogging about video to come. I’ve been so busy writing for Rocketboom, and also microblogging with Twitter and Friendfeed, blogging has taken the brunt. Unfortunately, from where I left off long ago, the independent spirit of the independent online video medium is losing it’s way. The environment has changed drastically over the last couple of years. The word “vlog” is as dead as doornail. Most independents are not making it with $. Madison avenue is in turmoil. So many people who try to create content are not creating a spark in audiences. International work is almost ignored in the US. Some of greatest content on YouTube will never be seen, the indie networks are not offering enough for most of the artists and work force they employ and awesome new content offerings are far and few between.
I’ve stood by no less guilty, silent. In many ways, tethered. No more, I have so much to say, I’m going to get it all out here. I’ll do my best to remain focused on the important topics, give you my critical opinion, and I’m going to try my best to be much more prolific.
As I have recently said, Rocketboom just got over our biggest hump ever. We have had an amazing time experimenting with adverting and alternative methods of generating revenue and as of a couple of weeks ago, we engaged in an incredibly awesome relationship that assures our sustainability and gives us a chance to grow. I’m SO READY to get the details of this news out to you and start talking about it because I believe its an unprecedented deal for a business like Rocketboom and stands to open up a lot of discussion.
Until then and after, I have plenty to elaborate on here with the above statements and plenty more… this weblog to be revived, coming now to a feed near you.
I have almost exactly half the followers on FF as I do on Twitter too.
For people who still only use Twitter and may feel overwhelmed or too exhausted to try a new platform, yesterday I left a Tweet with a good “introductory” example (just one) of how the experience can be much richer on FF:
Imagine that instead of your announcement being a single Tweet, like the one above with nothing else attached to it, your announcement can take this form on the page: