27 total posts
Not Suited For Video
I just don't think the show is suited for video. Even TWIT has stopped offering video lately due to a variety of reasons. ESPN and MSNBC have a couple of hours in the morning devoted to a camera focused on the talk show host. It just seems boring.
I totally disagree
anything worth listening to is worth watching as far as I'm concerned. Facial expressions are great to watch, and these three, particularly Molly, seem very animated.
TWiT doesn't use video when the participants are all over the world, and not in one place.
Think Jim Rome
Jim Rome has a large radio audience, but his tv career has not been that big. Some content just does not translate well to video. This is my humble opinion, but if I got paid for my opinions I would be very rich.
(NT) I have no idea who Jim Rome is
With the correct layout it can work
Think Larry King Live, with Tom doing the LArry King bit, and Molly and Veronica on the right.
Now add 2 additional Left And right tripod Mounted camera's so you can switch camera angles and you would have a very interesting layout.
Also with Video you can paste stills from websites or pictures of story's being discussed and it would be a GREAT podcast for video.
BUT !!! This requires a lot of work and time. I doubt Cnet will want to loose someone for as long as such a task would take. Also you need time to compile it all, so the cideo podcast would come later than the Audio, and that's the beauty of audio, its quick and easy. You can get it out fast. So would I be willing to wait for the video version ???
Video on the other hand captures the fire ... (many years ago as scribe wrote the sermons of John Wesley, and sought permission to do so for george whitfield, whitfeild said "only if you can capture the FIRE) Wesley was a quiet man and whitfeild was thunder and lightning. so thats what I mean by capture the fire. I am sure mollys rant's (i mean that in a nice way) would look great under Video. The fire and passion for anything look great when the animation and expression of the person can be captured.
If it was properly done, I would wwatch the video, but only if I could download it off itunes, If I have to go to cnet and view it in the flash player .. no
Long video segments break up too badly with my slow NZ Broadband (ha ha ha .. calling any NZ internet service broadband is a joke) So unless Itunes can download it for me, so I can watch it when I am ready, I think I'll be sticking to audio.
It could work really well, but I would need to see commitment from Cnet for it. Besides they would have to compete with Ziff Davis and Digital Life TV. And they wont (is that enoiugh like fighting talk, or do I need to lay it on thicker ???)
Good Idea, but I won't be holding my breath.
If you ever holiday in NZ, I'll set up and film a session for you. I know just the venue
What if they shot it casually?
In a similar fashion to the 1up.com video podcast. I think that is a great casual way to give information that may seem a little boring in a fixed camera format. It would also give Veronica some creative footage to work with. No offense, but the fixed camera reviews found on cnet are short for a reason. They are boring!
The 1up show format is cheesy, but allows the people involved to show their creativity and let their personalitis show through, while reviewing products and giving out info. This could work for BOL perfectly given that Tom and Molly both have product review articles and such. Plus, imagine the cracked out episodes they could turn out if given complete control.
Yes, it has the potential for being boring, but.....
Aren't we the alpha geeks? Why not experiment with differing video formats or video presentations? Why does it have to be simply a video of the audio show? CNET has a potential source of revenue here with the quality and popularity of BOL. I would (gasp) pay a subscription fee to a video of Tomollica doing a Tech TV type of video. Think about it.
Subscription would not work for video. I don't think any video podcast could move to a subscription model. Podcasting, if you want to monetize it, has to use an advertising model.
There is even stories lately about Howard Stern's listeners not subscribing to XM. Only 1-2 million attributeed to his show.
You are probably right
I guess that the old subscription model is going by the wayside now and advertising ala "Earthlink Guy" is the future of monetizing a podcast whether it is audio or video. I also agree with another poster who said that we have to be able to download the videos and take them with us. There are still issues with being able to play CNET's videos in their player as it is.
Here are Video Podcasts that I think are entertaining
Diggnation - 2 guys talking digg.com news
Simply Youth Ministry - 4 people around a table
I think they're both good examples of the fact that podcasts are 99% personality and 1% content.
BOL & TMV would totally rock as a video podcast. Just change the camera angle to make it more personable.
Just my 2 cents
BTW - I'm gonna tip toe into the world of video podcasting very shortly.....MMMMMmmmmmwwwwooooohahahaha
Ugh Hated diggnation
Diggnation had its moments, but most of the time it just stank. How much of those two ego's can one man take.
But I too am playing with a video podcast, I kept getting ask so much o servicing tips, that I have started to include these in our audio podcast, and then decided it would be easier if we showed how rather than told how, so we are working on how to film it.
All I am waiting for now is my green screen ... So I can be totally immerssed in my work .. ha ha
you are in the minority.
I think Diggnation is so successful because of the video.
I choose audio
When given a choice between audio and video, I always choose audio. I rarely have time to sit down and watch a video podcast. I listen to podcasts mostly when I'm at the gym working out.
I like the audio
I listen to BOL on my 5G iPod in my car and if it went video I'd not have time to watch.
BOL is great audio content... lets leave it that way.
I like de audio too.....
I listen to it on my T3 (yeah, it?s a short commute to my office). Maybe a weekly video podcast and keep the audio daily.
Just because video would not work for some you
the rest of us should not get it? that doesn't make any sense.
It Does Make Sense
It makes sense if you consider that none of us has any real say as to what CNET does. If the market can bear something, than there the need will be filled.
(NT) what you just said makes no sense
Typo On My Part
Well, I have no say on how CNET works, so I might as well stop commenting on what they should do. If they decide it is worth the cost to do something, then they will. CNET did have a reason to start BOL.
It gives Cnet a personality, a good one
and the more likable the podcasters and personalities are, the more likely we are going to frequent the site...and often.
Video podcasting puts a face on those personalities, which is even better.
As long as BOTH formats are available
If it goes video, my fear is that it will eventually only be in that format. I don't have a video Ipod...sniff...poor me.
Exactly right.... Audio content has some advantages to video
I own an iPod Nano. I am not going to buy the Video iPod.
If I want to watch a Video podcast I will do so when seated at a computer.... not while I am driving down the road.
I WANT BOL to remain available in audio-only simply because I want to "time shift" my audio listening.
I want the content, not the glitz. True, I do watch the BUzz Report now and again.... but I listen to BOL every single business day while I may watch the BUzz Report once a month or so.
If Cranky Geeks can do it, the BOL Three can!
If the Cranky Greeks (http://crankygeeks.com), led by John C. Dvorak can pull it off the BOL Three could make a smash. Its easy, rearrange the studio a bit, throw in a camera and do both. At least on the video version we'd see what that Earthlink guy looks like.
The nice folks at crankygeeks invited me to come on the show tomorrow.
Tom is a Crankygeek!!
I mean I admire Tom and I love Molly and Veronica, but who I really want to see is the Earthlink guy