We’ve recently begun offering subscriptions for Alive in Baghdad. We’re hoping this will help solve our economic issues. Please consider becoming an ongoing sponsor of Alive in Baghdad!
Please consider becoming a paying subscriber, right now we are offering these easy subscription options via PayPal:
Give $5 per month to keep Alive in Baghdad running!
Give $10 per month to keep Alive in Baghdad running!
So I’m an inconsistent and unreliable blogger, unlike my friend Jeff Jarvis and many other blog-tastic bloggers out there. But I’m trying to get better.
A few days ago NewTeevee blogged about this interesting study commissioned by Akamai. It found that one of the biggest headaches for viewers of video on the web are the inexorable waiting times for buffering and adequate playback of video.
Isn’t this something we learned by the end of the 90s? Does anyone really like watching awful Windows Media and Realplayer streaming video? Perhaps this is part of the reason Big Media is having so much trouble getting a leg up in the new video world.
That, or maybe we’re too focused on “Videoblogging” and not enough on production and distribution. The name is not the thing, the thing is the thing. Are all people who utilize RSS, WordPress, etc to distribute video on the web necessarily Videobloggers? Particularly if Videoblogging comes to mean a specific genre of content being produced and distributed on the web? For example, what, exactly, is the difference between a Magazine, a Newspaper, and a Periodical?
Produce interesting, innovative, and professional content on the web. That will change the world of web video and bring a larger audience probably more than making the video less painful to view!
In fact, despite the predominance of YouTube in the mainstream discourse concerning Video on the Net, the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that approximately 60% of adults watch video online, and 62% preferred videos with “professional quality.”
Now then, this is an important realization for independent video producers, and one that is necessary if we truly want to revolutionize the face of modern media and make a living producing content ourselves. Video cameras and other devices that record video are becoming nearly ubiquitous in Western society, particularly the urban United States.
However, recording quality is not. Despite the ease and affordability of things like the Pure Digital FlipVideo camera, or Sanyo’s Xacti series, or many others, without having quality audio, thinking about whether you have adequate light, and most importantly, how to be sure your video tells an interesting story, you’ll be up a creek. And in terms of the new Sanyo Xacti’s cost, we can outfit two of our correspondents with cameras, mics, and some tapes for the same.
Luckily, for similar prices or less you can purchase miniDV camcorders on Ebay with mic inputs and possibly even find a mic included in prices similar to these new mpeg4 cameras!
All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t sacrifice quality for accessibility or hip gadgetry, and it now seems that our audience agrees.
Jeff Jarvis recently raised some very interesting questions about the future of “networked journalism” and “sustainability/profitability.” If you’re reading this blog you probably already know about our first and second ventures.
The first warning I’ll make is that, if you don’t know me, I’m an unrequited idealist. Which is not to say I’m an optimist, and certainly not much of an economist. However, I will say this. There is a difference between profitability and sustainability. At least in the short term. In the short term, you don’t have to be in the black to be sustainable, as long as you’re not in the red.
Now I’m an idealist, but I’m also a cynic. I doubt the problem with Jeff’s entrepreneurial students is the lack of pressure to earn so much as the lack of “something to lose.” Why has Alive in Baghdad been immensely successful and survived on a shoestring budget, while producing high-quality documentary shorts every week for a year, yet it is far from profitable? And why can’t CNN do it?
I would argue it is a non-quantifiable combination of idealism, desire, patience, practice, and nothing to lose. I would also argue that this is part of why our Mexico project is not moving as fast as we’d like. I also have an easier time understanding the cultural nuances of the Middle East, I’m still getting my Mexican education.
Now Jeff, understandably, thinks capitalism might be the answer, as does this commenter, and this one.
I just think that most people in the privileged world aren’t thinking about the human problem, nor do they think the poor and un/under/less-privileged, in America or Africa, can take care of themselves. We’re producing Alive in Baghdad for a lot of reasons, one of which is because we can, and another of which is because we have to.
Of course, because we can, is the part of the why that depends on sustainability. We’re working on ad models and ideas about licensing material, as well as parallel funding opportunities, but more about that later. Let’s just say that while things are rough now, we have good ideas on the table. We have to be sustainable, because we want to continue, and we want to keep helping people around the world who have historically not had access to the international media. We want to take RSS, ADSL, and CCD and CMOS chips and do something revolutionary with them. Web 2.0 is not a revolution, it is a tool, one of many, which can either be used for profit and individual benefit, or for mutual understanding and the collective progress of humanity.
Last but not least, I mentioned the word “Actionable” in the subject line. What I mean by that is another thing that flies in the face of the idea that “innovation” is only possible with profitability. Yet another reason that Alive in Baghdad exists is that, despite all the reasons not to do it, and the risks and lack of apparent profitability, there was an opportunity and I acted.
I personally believe that there will be more innovation if there is more action, which is why I’m an idealist. But I’m American, and I know Americans, which is why I think its unlikely there will be much more action in the future, and also what keeps me from being an optimist.
OK, really lastly: Without profits, there would be no such thing as journalism. Excuse me???
Jeff, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t profitability a post-mid-20th century ideal of journalism?
Last Friday our partner project with Next New Networks premiered on Veracifier.com. Alive in Baghdad, Uncut will feature previous Alive in Baghdad episodes, but with a new twist. A new episode of Alive in Baghdad Uncut will appear each Friday on Veracifier.
I’ll be doing a commentary under the episodes, providing new insight, explaining why we felt the subject was important, or providing interesting additional facts that didn’t make it into the cut. In some cases I’ll actually bring the viewers up to date on further events that have impacted the people interviewed in the story.
I’d also like to send a special shout out to Emil Rensing of Next New, for the gracious “office warming” present he sent along.
Last but not least, we’ll be back in New York late this week, so anyone out there who might want to get a drink should drop us a line!
Comments