slamboard

This is the first American Presidential Election where YouTube is a relevant platform for discussion. That intrigued me at first, then I saw that the two people who were using it most effectively both hold their comments for moderation. After taking a moment to think about it, I realized that this was a step that both campaigns had to take. I personally had no interest in reading through the comments knowing that it was going to me a bunch of cheerleading.

Today, I noticed two things when comparing the YouTube channels of Obama and Clinton. Obama’s videos are more relevant in searches than Hillary’s. Obama has a LOT more comments.

I think the people who are responsible for approving comments for the two channels are using slightly different criteria. I do not have the time to delve deeply into the substantive differences of the comments. If anybody else wants to offer their opinion I would greatly appreciate it.

I filter for spam, but I don’t hold real comments for moderation at this time

My title is an absolutely true statement. It is also almost completely beside the point with regard to the accusation made via a YouTube video by some greasy guy.

I didn’t really want to watch the video, but I did anyway. It is pretty unconvincing. Political opponents will have to take very private joy from this. Nobody could look good associating themselves with the ploy. The MSM is so far not touching his story with a ten foot pole. I think it is possible that the perpetrators of this are apolitical people who did it for attention and money. Larry Sinclair is going to get money, at least $10,000 from a website that is piggy backing on the story with a publicity stunt.

So some recently created YouTube videos now have a banner ad that is translucent and comes up across the bottom 15-20% of the video after it begins to play. I saw the same thing on a Revver video, except theirs has a close button, and a text link going out to the advertiser. The Revver video also had a screen with three contextual ads at the end of the video.

Here is an embed of the video that I viewed on Revver this morning. The first ad is actually determined in part by my location on the planet.

I am curious as to whether YouTube will be adding advertising to older videos that may have been embedded by bloggers before this advertising model was initiated.

Back to Revver, I remembered that I had actually uploaded a video to Revver some time ago, I checked and it does have ads at the end now. I am not sure how the revenue sharing works for this. I will update this post if I see any money in the future

Edit: While checking my Revver account to see if i had ever made any money, I noted that I had dozens of messages on my dashboard. One of them was an announcement of the new advertising features. It was sent to me back in October of 2007, so this post is not news to anyone who was paying attention.

This needs to be seen.

I am posting this because of it’s implications about how big business is in control of how news is reported. I don’t want to be alarmist about the story that FOX killed at the behest of Monsanto. I have a degree in agriculture and I was part of a big discussion about the use of hormone injections in the dairy industry in one of my classes. My professor was very much in favor of the practice. This was during the period of time in which it was unclear which way the Canadian government agency was going to swing on this issue. The use of low levels of antibiotics in feed for animals that are raised for meat production is, in my mind, a much greater human risk and it is a practice that is widespread.

Canada prohibits the use of rbST because of its adverse health effects on cows, not humans.

I found an article that is a year and a half old expressing doubts as to whether YouTube can ever make money. A few points seem almost prophetic, and they were right about how much users would object to any major changes that would have to take place in order to turn the thing into a cash cow. I have to confess that I haven’t been paying close attention to all the little changes on YouTube. I saw a video title that seemed to indicate that a high profile user was upset about some kind of profit motivated change and I can’t figure out what that change was…

Ok, I did a little research “YouTube Becomes MoneyTube: Removes Non-partner Clips” is the gripe. Some people point to actions taken by YouTube as being commercially motivated. I think they decided to remove clips that their ‘Partners’ created before they became partners. I can understand YouTubes motivations and I can understand the users reactions.

A drawn out writers strike may become a catalyst for the implosion of American network television. Television is driven by advertisement and it is filled with as much advertisement as people can stomach. Once viewers tune out the ad money will dry up followed by a accelerated deterioration in program quality. I think this will happen. I also think that much like what happened with AM radio, television will not disappear. What will happen is that it will become something else. I don’t watch television and I haven’t for about 3 years. There are a few guilty pleasures that I view on YouTube now and then but I am mostly unaware of what is on television now.

This is a good example of what NOT to buy this Christmas. I am posting from a PC with no speakers, so I don’t even know how bad this gadget sounds. If you want to add some seasonal music to your home or workplace, why not put together a YouTube playlist of music that actually sounds nice?

Here is a really pleasant bit of music that I found, two instrumentalists going through some variations of Greensleeves. This is actually the perfect music for December since some people will hear it and think of the Christmas carol that appropriated the melody and others will simply hear some really old music.

Pirelli made this short film. Is this an advertisement or entertainment?

I do not know how or where it is being distributed, aside from YouTube. Going to great lengths to entertain people with a film that is primarily about product placement might be a growing trend. Hollywood allowed product placement in feature films to become so ubiquitous that movie goers actually find it obvious and insulting. This ten minute action movie might be viewed by people who view it as a sort of gift from the tire company.

My title is probably not a question that business executives ask themselves very frequently.

I was inspired to use this title for two reasons. I figured that I might get some accidental search engine traffic (not that ethical, probably something that Jesus would not do). The main inspiration for the title is this succinct and well produced short educational video that introduces the topic of business ethics. It is presented by Jesuits.

These naked bodies belong to human beings who have been paid to participate in an advertising campaign for Vaseline. Earliest year, I saw this video of a blogger expressing great disappointment that an advertising marketplace had paid a woman $1000 to write their company name on her forehead. I don’t know how he is reacting to the visually stunning achievement that is serving to promote petroleum jelly. The fundamental difference is artistic merit. When something commissioned as an advertisement transcends its purpose and truly feeds the human soul, that cannot be denied. If you think about it, many of the most revered works of art were commissioned to promote the Christian Church. Only a very closed mind can deny beauty because they take offense to an underlying message. The marker writing on the head thing wasn’t beautiful.