Angry Commercial Blogging
I’m angry right now, which is something I should never do. Angry blogging. Drunk blogging. Sick blogging. They’re all things that everyone should avoid. But, I’m still angry and I want to vent.
There is SO much talk about advertising, commercialization and monetization of websites. Not only do Jason Kottke’s fans think that they have a say whether he puts ads on his weblog (kottke.org), the important people in the videoblogging world have their say about things:
They insist that the money changes the content and act as if advertising were a BAD thing. I just want to go on the record saying that advertising is a GOOD thing. If it weren’t for the advertising dollars that we make, I wouldn’t be able to be a full time writer. I would be trying to cram my writing into my free time after I got home from eight hours at work. I would be producing a lot LESS art if it wasn’t for advertising.
I just want to go on the record as saying that advertising is important.
To quote James Hetfield, of Metallica,
“Did we sellout? Hell Yeah! We sellout every concert we perform!”
Just in case you thought I was creating ART and this isn’t a commercial site, I’m here to tell you that this IS a commercial website and I AM creating art. They aren’t mutually exclusive. Insisting that they are just limits them both.
hey there i don’t think advertising is inherently bad. if it works for you and allows your work/art to survive, i’m all for that. i think there are a lot of different ways to go about it and you’ve made it work for you and i think that’s great. what i mean to express in my videos about it, is that it’s something i’m not interested in with my own content. though i have produced videoblogs for people for money. by people i mean companies, political campaigns things like that. and i don’t think those are bad things. they happen to be organizations that felt good about working with. and i think that’s a better way to think about it. i can’t speak for michael verdi, but for me if you’ve found it working for you, more power to ya. also, part of what verdi’s video was about was simply pointing out the differences between a “videoblog” (his definition of that) and an “advertisement” (also his definition as compared to vlogging). not placing judgement on either, just pointing out what he thinks distinguishes the two from one another.
Comment by ryanne — 4/7/2006 @ 8:18 pm
Nothing to get worked up over. It’s a large gray mush that people are trying to define.
Comment by bottomunion — 4/8/2006 @ 4:49 pm
hi Laura,
i think that money does change the context. just as picking up a camera and recording your bacon and eggs changes your breakfast. just as watching friends on television is different from watching friends on the computer.
for some, pointing out that a difference exists can be seen as an attack. for others, it is a recognition that these differences do exist – however subtle.
i have ads on loadedpun. do i think that it changes the context of the same posts made on a site without ads? you bet. do i think that’s a bad thing? not necessarily. just different.
i agree with Verd when he says he’s noticed a rapid shift from communication to monetization models in vlogs. there really has been. as a result, the context of videoblogging has changed. in the same way that it happened with blogging. first came personal diaries, then came blog-zines. now companies have their own blogs. i see the same thing happening with videoblogs.
whether or not that’s a bad thing is up to the individual.
for me, vlogging started out like a happy baby, cooing and wondering at the world. now it’s an adolescent, struggling with it’s identity. what kind of adult it will grow to be, we have yet to see.
Comment by Anne Walk — 4/9/2006 @ 9:23 pm